Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for an 15 additional seconds.

Mr. DODD. My point is this: Raising children in this country in affordable, decent circumstances is about as basic as it gets. Eight million Americans can benefit from this amendment. This is a good investment for our country. With a $750 billion tax break for 43,000 people, I think we ought to be able to do something for 8 million working families with young children. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD. It is refundable, and covers those who stay at home as well.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will not take 2 minutes. As my colleague notes, this amendment would make the child care tax credit refundable--that's one of its strongest points. My friend from Texas said we adopted a similar provision in the tax proposal offered by the Republicans a year or so ago. That's not true. It was not refundable and would not have benefited lower-income families. There is a significant difference. Refundability is important because as it stands now the tax break we are talking about is not terribly meaningful for families earning less than $20-$25,000. Refundability is the only way to help people in that income level. I mentioned earlier that I was listening to a woman today who was saying how happy she was that she found child care for one of her two children for $100 a week. That is $5,200 a year. She makes, according to her, about $25,000 or $30,000 a year. That is a quarter of her gross income going to care for one child. Without refundability, the current tax credit really doesn't mean much to her. It is simply inequitable to deny her a tax credit that families at higher incomes with the same type of child care expenses enjoy. If we can find the time, as we have for a day and a half, to debate a bill that would assist 43,000 or 44,000 people, can't we carve out a place in a $750 billion tax break for 8 million working people in this country who are trying to raise their children under very difficult circumstances. That is the purpose of the amendment. I suspect it does suffer a potential point of order. We will make our motion at the time. But I hope my colleagues will be supportive.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I would like to also thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for their assistance on this issue which has been of particular concern in my state. In fact, I worked to develop legislation last year, S. 976, the Compassionate Care Act, cosponsored by Senator Lieberman, that recognizes the critical need for adequate training in restraint use and alternatives to their use. The Compassionate Care Act was passed by the Senate unanimously last year as part of the reauthorization of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) legislation and it is my hope that the House of Representatives will soon act on this important legislation. Meanwhile, however, it would appear to me that there are nationally based consumer organizations that could make an important contribution to the development of model training and education programs that could effectively serve to lessen the inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman, Senator Spector, and the Ranking member, Senator Harkin, for accepting an amendment I have proposed to S. 2553, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies appropriation bill for fiscal year 2001. This amendment provides an additional $800,000 for the Technology and Media Services section of the Department of Education appropriation. The funds allocated to Technology and Media Services are crucially important because they are used to make competitive awards to support the development, demonstration, and use of technology and education media activities of value to children with disabilities. In that regard, the National Theatre of the Deaf (NTD) has a long and worthy history as an organization dedicated to helping deaf and hard- of-hearing children and adults achieve their fullest potential. In 1967, the NTD was created with the assistance of the Department of Education to support educational and artistic programs for the deaf community. With strong and enduring support from the Congress, the NTD has developed an innovative training program and seasonal workshop series to foster the growth of a unique form of theater. Presented in both American Sign Language and spoken English, NTD performance have expanded the boundaries of theatrical expression and made an original contribution to professional theater while simultaneously building bridges between the hearing and non-hearing communities. The NTD has repeatedly won recognition for it's work over the last 33 years, including a Tony Award. The NTD has touched over 3.5 million people through local, national and international live performances, and millions more through televised specials. As a result of the massive success of the NTD , more than 40 similar Theaters of the Deaf have sprung up worldwide. Unfortunately, in fiscal year 2000, the NTD was not funded by the Department of Education, an unintended consequence of modifications made by Congress to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1997. I have no reason to believe that the Congress is any less supportive of the National Theater of the Deaf today than it has been for the last 33 years. It is the intent of the amendment that I offer today to provide the Department of Education with sufficient means to fund an additional competitive grant from the Special Education Technology and Media Services program. Once again, I am grateful to the Chairman and Ranking Member for accepting this amendment and, I think I speak for our colleagues in thanking them for their continued support for the deaf and hard-of- hearing community in our country.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to express my regret that I was unable to support the Labor/HHS Appropriation bill that was passed by the Senate today. I was initially prepared to offer my support when we began debate on this legislation, however the addition of a number of troubling amendments during consideration of this bill compels me to oppose this bill. Before I discuss the provisions that caused me to vote against the legislation, I would like to recognize Senators Specter and Harkin as well as the rest of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, for their efforts to increase our nation's investments in a number of critical programs that serve our nation's children and families. First, this legislation includes an increase of $817 million for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, bringing total funding for this program to $2 billion and allowing an additional 220,000 children to be served. In my opinion, this new investment in child care represents a significant victory for American families and it is my sincere hope that this provision is retained in conference. I am also pleased that this legislation provides $4.9 billion for the Head Start program, as the President had requested. This funding represents a funding increase of $1 billion over FY 2000. I also commend Senators Specter and Harkin for providing a $2.7 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health, the largest increase in history. This increase, coupled with a $2 billion increase last year, put Congress on the path toward the goal of doubling our nation's investment in the search for medical breakthroughs over the next five years. I also applaud the Appropriations Committee's bipartisan education funding increase of $4.6 billion, including a record $1.3 billion increase for special education, as well as increases for Title I grants to schools, teacher technology training, Impact Aid, Reading Excellence, vocational education, school counseling, Pell grants, and other student financial aid programs. Mr. President, I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes an initiative I worked to advance last year that will serve to protect individuals with mental illnesses from the inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint. I first became aware of the problem surrounding the misuse of seclusion and restraints in 1998 when the Hartford Courant published a five-part investigative series outlining the tragic practice. This series documented 142 deaths over the last decade nationally that were determined to be directly attributable to the inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion. Additionally, the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis estimates that between 50 and 150 restraint-related deaths occur each year nationally, with more than 26 percent of those deaths occurring in children. This initiative will ensure that physical restraints are no longer used for discipline or for the convenience of mental health facility staff by extending to the mental health population a standard that has been shown to be effective in reducing the use of restraints and seclusion in nursing homes. Further, this legislation will require that all restraint and seclusion related deaths be reported to an appropriate oversight agency. In addition, this legislation would require adequate staffing levels and appropriate training for staff of facilities that serve the mentally ill. These safeguards will hopefully prevent further harm to individuals who may be unable to protect themselves from abuse by those entrusted with their care. Yet, while I recommend the overall increase in education funding, I am concerned about the elimination of funds for critical programs. For instance, the bill ends the bipartisan commitment to reduce class size that has now been funded for two years. S. 2553 transfers the class size funds to Title VI, which eliminates any guarantee that the funds will be used for this purpose, greatly diluting targeting to high poverty schools, and severely weakening accountability for how money is spent. I am also concerned that this bill fails to guarantee funds for the critical area of school modernization. Instead, it increases the Title VI program by $1.3 billion, adding renovation and construction of school facilities as an allowable use of funds. I am pleased that the bill acknowledges the need for federal assistance in helping states and schools with their school modernization needs; however, this block grant approach fails to guarantee that funds will be used for school modernization, and fails to target funds to schools with the greatest needs. I also believe this bill does not go far enough to fund Title I--an important program that provides supplemental programs to enable educationally disadvantaged children. This bill would only increase last year's $8 billion appropriation by $400 million. It is estimated that it would take $24 billion to fully fund this program. Another area of this bill that is of some concern to me is the investment in after-school programs. The bill's funding level for 21st Century Community Learning Centers is $400 million below the President's request denying 1.6 million children access to before- and after-school programs in safe, drug-free environments. I am disappointed that my amendment to increase spending on this crucial area to $1 billion was not adopted. It is time our funding reflects the importance that parents place on this national priority. With 5 million children home alone each week, after-school programs must not be an afterthought. I am also very troubled that this legislation now includes a patients bill of rights proposal that offers only the illusion of patient protections. This amendment fails to cover all Americans with private health insurance and fails to offer patients a true right to seek legal redress when they are harmed by an HMO's refusal to provide care. I am also disappointed that the majority refused to support an amendment offered by Senator Dorgan which would have required that any patient protection legislation passed by the Senate cover all 191 million privately insured Americans. Lastly, I am disappointed that this legislation would delay a proposed ergonomics standard to protect workers from work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Each year more than 600,000 workers suffer serious injuries, such as back injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome and tendinitis as a result of ergonomic hazards. The proposed ergonomics rule promulgated by OSHA can go a long way toward keeping our workers productive and our businesses profitable. I hope that common sense will prevail in conference, and that this and other counter-productive measures will be remedied.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this past week, culminating on Saturday, June 24th, the 2000 Paralympic Trials for track and field were held on the campus of Connecticut College in New London, Connecticut. Almost 150 athletes competed in a dozen events including the 100 meter race, 10,000 meter race, shot put, long jump and high jump. Seventy-one athletes earned the right to represent the United States at the 2000 Sydney Paralympic Games, which will be held October 18th-29th. The Paralympic movement is relatively young, but in recent years it has grown rapidly. In 1948, Sir Ludwig Guttmann staged the first International Wheelchair Games to coincide with the 1948 London Olympic Games. These first Games focused on World War II veterans with spinal cord-related injuries. Later, other disability groups established international sports organizations which arranged various competitions. As time went by, multi-disability competitions developed. These events were brought together for the first time under the banner of the Paralympic Games in 1960 in Rome. Since then, the games have grown in success and popularity. Always held in tandem with the Olympic Games, the Paralympic athletes move into the Olympic village shortly after the Olympic athletes move out and many times compete at the same venues as their Olympic counterparts. From Seoul to Barcelona and most recently in Atlanta, the Paralympic Games have blossomed into a major international sporting event. This year's Games in Sydney will continue the momentum generated over the last decade. In fact, more athletes will compete at the Sydney 2000 Summer Paralympics (4,000 athletes from 125 nations) than in the 1972 Munich Olympics. To those who competed last week in Connecticut, I think I speak for all of our colleagues in applauding their efforts. Like all athletes, they remind us of the timely and timeless virtues that sports teach us--virtues like self-reliance, discipline, cooperation, and modesty in victory as well as defeat. In striving to do their best, they inspire others to do their best, as well--be they disabled or not. To those who will represent the United States in Sydney, we wish them luck. And we are confident that they will do our nation proud. I ask that the names of these athletes be printed in the Record. Athletes Nominated to the 2000 Paralympic Athletics Team Rodney Anderson, Daniel Andrews, Ken Bair, Bob Balk, Lisa Banta, Jennifer Barrett, Cheri Beccerra, Thomas Becke, Trent Blair, Cheri Blauwet, John Brewer, Ted Bridis, Shawn Brown, Jeremy Burleson, Bert Burns, Lynne K. Carlton, Joesph Christmas, Wiley Clark, Ed Cockrell, Shea Cowart, Keith Davis, Ross Davis, Troy Davis, Gabriel Diaz DeLeon, Barton Dodson, Jean Driscoll, Rob Evans, Mark Fenn, Brian Frasure, Jessica Galli, Roderick Green, Deborah Hearn, Jacob Heilveil, Doug Heir, Scott Hollonbeck, and Larry Hughes. Tony Iniguez, Val Jacobson, Eric Kaiser, Michael Keohane, Dave Larson, Jeff Lauterbach, Cheryl Leitner, Joseph LeMar, Arthur Lewis, Kenneth Marshall, Vince Martin, Pan McGonigle, Asya Miller, Royal Mitchell, Nancy Moloff, Edward Munro, Lindsay Nielsen, Paul Nitz, Albert Reed, Freeman Register, John Register, Ian Rice, Rich Ruffalo, Payam Saadat, William Schneider, Marlon Shirley, Judy Siegle, Matthew Smith, Amie Stanton, Laura Terry, Tony Volpentesf, Lynn Wachtell, Chris Waddell, Tim Willis, and Dana Zimmerman.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to address this amendment, but first I want to speak to another issue. I know people are meeting on the conference report on the emergency supplemental. One of the provisions being considered is whether to add the Nethercutt language in the House supplemental. I care deeply about a lot of provisions in the supplemental, including the Colombian aid package, but I want to let my colleagues know I will use whatever parliamentary procedure is available to me if that language comes over on the emergency supplemental. I know we all want to get out of here in the next few days. I care about the bill, but I also care about that language. I think it is wrong for it to be included in the bill. I want people to know I am serious about this. I will use whatever procedures are available to me when it comes to the supplemental if the Nethercutt language is included. I am going to meet with members of the conference shortly and express that view there as well. I strongly support what Senator Daschle is proposing in his amendment on genetic discrimination. The world received wonderful news this past week that the genetic code had been deciphered. This discovery is breathtaking in scope, and I suspect over the next 50 years we are going to see it change the nature of medicine in this country. So it is really a remarkable occurrence, one that has been heralded, and properly so, for giving us the ability to understand ourselves better. I applaud the remarkable work done by the NIH and Celera. Why is it important to offer this amendment today in the context of this bill? As we have seen with all the advances in technology, generally--and it has been a remarkable decade in that sense, with the Internet and communications technology--there is a great unease in the country about how much information people have about us as individuals. We pride ourselves, I suppose, on the notion that we protect privacy in this country. It goes back to the founding days of our Republic. The right of privacy is as deeply rooted in the American conscience as almost any other principle I can think of. Yet, there is this uneasy sense that with the explosion of technology, too many people have too much information about us that they ought not to have--at least without our permission. The idea that people can peer into our financial records and our medicine cabinets and that information can be disseminated to broad audiences, violating our sense of privacy, is of great concern. And the genome breakthrough raises similar issues. Let me share with you one anecdote. Last year I visited Yale University to hear about some of the genetics research that is being conducted there. One of the studies is attempting to determine the likelihood of certain women developing breast cancer by studying twin girls. They are getting to the point where they can determine almost at the birth, the possibility of individuals contracting breast cancer as adults. It is incredible information to have. Imagine parents of a newborn baby knowing, because of the genetic makeup of that child, that the baby has a possibility of contracting breast cancer. All of a sudden, diets change and lifestyles change. Prevention measures can be taken. These are the kinds of things the deciphering of the genome is going to be able to do for us. It is wonderful to be able to have that kind of information. But imagine just that the information Yale Medical School is uncovering becomes available, as that child gets older, to an employer or to an insurance company--not information that the person has contracted the disease--but just that they might possibly do so. Just that predisposition for a certain illnesses can have a devastating impact on whether than individual gets insurance or keeps their job. This amendment says that when it comes to that information--the propensity for acquiring these problems--we ought to be able to protect people in their jobs and in their ability to receive or get health insurance. This need not be a partisan issue. Senator Domenici and I, 3 years ago, introduced legislation similar to this bill. We thought it was critical to bring up and address both insurance and employment discrimination. Two years ago, many colleagues joined our colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, who also offered strong legislation protecting patients from genetic discrimination in insurance. We have an opportunity today, with the breakthroughs announced on Monday of this week, to really say as a body--Republicans and Democrats across the board--this is an area where we are going to, early on, establish some ground rules when it comes to the use of genetic information. I see that time has expired in terms of my few minutes. I want our colleagues to know how important this amendment is, and I urge them to support it when the vote occurs.

Mr. DODD. I urge people to read the bill. Unfortunately, a lot of people do not read the legislation. But if you read this legislation, section 808 imposes a prohibition on financing U.S. assistance. One part of this says no more sanctions. Then it says no more sanctions, except--``Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this law, the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, and medical devices to the government of a country''--as of June 1, 2000. These are the countries that have been termed by the Secretary of State to be ``terrorist states.'' Those are the very countries. The only countries that we have sanctions against are those countries. The very countries we say we have sanctions against are these countries. If you are on the list on June 1, 2000, none of this law applies. Second, it says on financial assistance that you can't have any Government support for Libya, Iran, North Korea, and Sudan. And then, on private financing, it says no financing on the part of the U.S. Government, any State or local government, private person, or entity--including, I suspect, even foreign financing. This says if sanctions are coming off, then we eliminate all means of financing it--both public and private--and we continue with the same list that was in effect June 1, 2000, which lists only countries on whom we have unilateral sanctions. This is a bill that needs more work. The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee bill is vastly superior to this. It is a bipartisan bill that colleagues cosponsored, and it deserves the consideration of this body. For those reasons, I will strenuously object to the sanctions being included as part of a supplemental.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will my colleague yield?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, Today the Senate passed, and sent to the President for signature, the most significant campaign finance reform in the last 2 decades--the so-called section 527 reform. Clearly, our campaign finance system is in need of further comprehensive reform. The McCain-Feingold legislation, I believe, is still the most comprehensive and necessary reform that we could pass in the 106th Congress. In the meantime, however, we must also strengthen the abilities of the agency charged with enforcing the laws on the books today--and that is the Federal Election Commission. For that reason, I am today introducing legislation to improve the enforcement capabilities of the Federal Election Commission. Created in the wake of the Watergate scandal, the primary purpose of the Federal Election Commission is to ensure the integrity of federal elections by overseeing federal election disclosure requirements and enforcing the federal campaign finance laws. Regardless of the views of my colleagues with regard to the need for campaign finance reform, it cannot be argued that Congress intended that this enforcement agency be nothing more than a paper tiger. And yet, that is precisely what many view it to be. The legislation I am introducing today is intended to put some teeth into this enforcement body. As a long time supporter of comprehensive campaign finance reform, I am not suggesting that my proposal is in any way a substitute for the McCain-Feingold bill or any other comprehensive reform. But sadly, it is clear that a minority in this body will once again prevent a majority of both houses of Congress from enacting meaningful reform this year. As has been the case for the last several congresses, the 106th Congress will likely come to a close without enacting comprehensive campaign finance reform. In light of that reality, it is all the more important that we ensure that the campaign finance laws that are currently on the books are vigorously enforced. And that requires an agency that is fully armed with all the enforcement tools we can give it. The legislation I am proposing today would give the Federal Election Commission the tools it needs to ensure compliance with the law. Specifically, this legislation would give the Commission the authority to conduct random audits and investigations to ensure voluntary compliance with the act. The potential of a random audit is a well- recognized deterrent to potential violators and an authority given to many federal enforcement agencies. Secondly, this legislation would grant the Commission the authority to seek injunctive relief in the event that certain statutory conditions are met, including: that there is a substantial likelihood that a violation of the act is occurring or about to occur; that the failure to act expeditiously will result in irreparable harm; that expeditious action will not cause undue harm or prejudice; and that the best interest of the public would be served by the issuance of an injunction. Finally, this legislation would increase the penalties for knowing and willful violations of the act from $10,000 to $15,000 or an amount equal to 300 percent. In order to ensure that the Commission has sufficient resources to carry out its statutory responsibilities, my legislation provides for an authorization of appropriations for FY 2001 at the full amount requested by the Commission, or nearly $41 million. Enhanced enforcement authority is not a substitute for comprehensive reform. But passage of this legislation should be something every member of this body can support. Not to do so only confirms the critics' views that this agency is a toothless tiger. I urge my colleagues to give serious consideration to this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise with Senator Hatch, Senator Feingold, Senator Kennedy, Senator DeWine, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Kohl to introduce a bill to resolve a rare but serious problem for some American families. I want to tell you a story about a young man named Mathieu, a resident of Connecticut. Mathieu's family--his mother, his father, and his sister--have all become naturalized U.S. citizens. But Mathieu has not been allowed to become a citizen because he's a 23-year-old low- functioning autistic man who cannot meet a very technical requirement of the naturalization process, namely that he be able to swear an oath of loyalty to the United States. His naturalization request has been in limbo since November of 1996 because Mathieu could not understand some of the questions he was asked by the INS agent processing his application for citizenship. All of the other members of Mathieu's family have become U.S. citizens. Now Mathieu's mother lives with the fear that when she dies her most vulnerable child could be removed from the country and sent to a nation that he hardly knows, and where he has no family and no friends. Mathieu's mother--again, an American citizen--wants what every American wants--she wants to know that her child will be treated fairly by her government even when she's no longer capable of taking care of him herself. Mathieu's life is here. His friends and caregivers are here. His family is here. Mathieu's place is here and but for his disability, he would be allowed to stay here where he belongs. He would be allowed to become a citizen and his mother's fears would be relieved. Mr. President, this is a problem that a compassionate nation can fix. This is a problem that we have the power to solve. Under current law, a very small subgroup of people with severe mental disabilities cannot become citizens because they lack the capacity to take the oath of renunciation and allegiance. Since the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not contain explicit statutory authority for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to waive the oath, people with brain injuries and other mental disabilities are routinely denied citizenship--even when the rest of their families are already U.S. citizens. Congress has previously recognized the injustice of denying citizenship to individuals based on their disabilities and has attempted to resolve the problem. In fact, in 1991 Congress created a procedure for expedited administration of the oath for applicants who have special circumstances, including disabilities, that prevent them from personally appearing at a scheduled ceremony. And in 1994, Congress exempted certain applicants with disabilities who are unable to learn from taking the English and civics tests. Unfortunately, these efforts have not effectively addressed the problem of individuals who are unable to take the oath because of mental incapacity, leaving the oath as the only barrier to citizenship for such individuals. The legislation we introduce today would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to give the INS the discretion to waive the oath of allegiance for certain individuals who lack the mental capacity to comprehend the oath. Waiving the oath is really a technical amendment. There is no indication that Congress ever intended to split up families or cast doubt on the futures of family members not able to utter the oath by virtue of a mental disability. Waiving the oath does not defeat the purpose of Naturalization or the oath requirement. Individuals with disabilities who receive oath waivers would still have to fulfill the other requirements of naturalization, including good moral character and residency. Remember the main purpose of the oath requirement is to prevent the naturalization of people who are hostile to the government of the United States, or the principles of the Constitution. People with severe disabilities who lack the capacity to understand the oath cannot form the intent to act against the government. Waiving the oath poses no danger and manifests America's best, most compassionate characteristics. Let me conclude by saying that this is not a problem that faces millions of people--or even many thousands of people, but it is an important issue for the few families that are affected. Mr. President the United States should not force the break up of families. This bill will right an injustice and I urge its passage.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to advise our colleagues and their staff, and their constituents visiting Washington, of an educational exhibit in the Russell Rotunda next week. The exhibit will include examples of colorful murals used by the volunteer group, Maria's Children, a Moscow-based arts rehabilitation center, as arts therapy and training for Russian orphans with learning difficulties. This therapy has produced encouraging results. Maria's Children is a Moscow-based foundation, with U.S.-based Board members and volunteers, established to help children in Russian orphanages recognize their creative potential, thereby developing their talents and self-esteem so as to improve their chances of successful integration into Russian society. Created in 1993 by Maria Yeliseyeva, a local Moscow artist, and her friends, the project quickly found that through art, these orphans could come to express themselves in ways they had not known before, improving both their social and psychological development. Through a combination of arts therapy and exposure to normal family life, Maria's Children have literally given these children a second chance. The program has expanded over time and has started a summer art camp for orphans and is associated with Dr. Patch Adams annual clown tours of Moscow. The art work of the children has been featured in several Moscow exhibits and is helping to change Russian attitudes and views of what orphans are capable of achieving. The exhibit will show in the Russell Rotunda from July 3-7. From there, it will move to the Russian Cultural Centre, here in Washington, and will be on display from July 8-21. The exhibit will also show across the United States throughout the summer, appearing in New York City at the National Art Club from July 28-August 6; at the Edina Southdale Court in Minneapolis from August 11-19; and at the Bumbershoot Festival in Seattle from September 1-4. I invite our colleagues and their staff to visit this exhibit and learn about the important work that is being done by Maria and her colleagues to improve the opportunities for orphans in Russia.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise with Senator Hatch, Senator Feingold, Senator Kennedy, Senator DeWine, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Kohl to introduce a bill to resolve a rare but serious problem for some American families. I want to tell you a story about a young man named Mathieu, a resident of Connecticut. Mathieu's family--his mother, his father, and his sister--have all become naturalized U.S. citizens. But Mathieu has not been allowed to become a citizen because he's a 23-year-old low- functioning autistic man who cannot meet a very technical requirement of the naturalization process, namely that he be able to swear an oath of loyalty to the United States. His naturalization request has been in limbo since November of 1996 because Mathieu could not understand some of the questions he was asked by the INS agent processing his application for citizenship. All of the other members of Mathieu's family have become U.S. citizens. Now Mathieu's mother lives with the fear that when she dies her most vulnerable child could be removed from the country and sent to a nation that he hardly knows, and where he has no family and no friends. Mathieu's mother--again, an American citizen--wants what every American wants--she wants to know that her child will be treated fairly by her government even when she's no longer capable of taking care of him herself. Mathieu's life is here. His friends and caregivers are here. His family is here. Mathieu's place is here and but for his disability, he would be allowed to stay here where he belongs. He would be allowed to become a citizen and his mother's fears would be relieved. Mr. President, this is a problem that a compassionate nation can fix. This is a problem that we have the power to solve. Under current law, a very small subgroup of people with severe mental disabilities cannot become citizens because they lack the capacity to take the oath of renunciation and allegiance. Since the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not contain explicit statutory authority for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to waive the oath, people with brain injuries and other mental disabilities are routinely denied citizenship--even when the rest of their families are already U.S. citizens. Congress has previously recognized the injustice of denying citizenship to individuals based on their disabilities and has attempted to resolve the problem. In fact, in 1991 Congress created a procedure for expedited administration of the oath for applicants who have special circumstances, including disabilities, that prevent them from personally appearing at a scheduled ceremony. And in 1994, Congress exempted certain applicants with disabilities who are unable to learn from taking the English and civics tests. Unfortunately, these efforts have not effectively addressed the problem of individuals who are unable to take the oath because of mental incapacity, leaving the oath as the only barrier to citizenship for such individuals. The legislation we introduce today would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to give the INS the discretion to waive the oath of allegiance for certain individuals who lack the mental capacity to comprehend the oath. Waiving the oath is really a technical amendment. There is no indication that Congress ever intended to split up families or cast doubt on the futures of family members not able to utter the oath by virtue of a mental disability. Waiving the oath does not defeat the purpose of Naturalization or the oath requirement. Individuals with disabilities who receive oath waivers would still have to fulfill the other requirements of naturalization, including good moral character and residency. Remember the main purpose of the oath requirement is to prevent the naturalization of people who are hostile to the government of the United States, or the principles of the Constitution. People with severe disabilities who lack the capacity to understand the oath cannot form the intent to act against the government. Waiving the oath poses no danger and manifests America's best, most compassionate characteristics. Let me conclude by saying that this is not a problem that faces millions of people--or even many thousands of people, but it is an important issue for the few families that are affected. Mr. President the United States should not force the break up of families. This bill will right an injustice and I urge its passage.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this week the Committee on Rules and Administration held an oversight hearing on the Smithsonian Institution and received testimony from the new Secretary, Lawrence M. Small. Although he has only served in this capacity for a short 6 months, it is already clear that Secretary Small's vision for the Smithsonian will have a lasting impact on this uniquely American institution. Secretary Small envisions the Smithsonian as ``. . . the most extensive provider, anywhere in the world, of authoritative experiences that connect the American people to their history and to their cultural and scientific heritage.'' In other words, the Smithsonian documents who and what we are as Americans. And not surprisingly, over 90 percent of all visitors to the Smithsonian come from the United States. Who are these visitors and what makes the Smithsonian such a draw? They are families who come to see the relics of our history, such as the Wright brothers' flyer or the Star Spangled Banner which moved Francis Scott Key to pen our national anthem. They are school children who are learning about the ancient inhabitants of this land, whether dinosaurs or insects. They are young parents retracing the pilgrimage to our nation's Capitol that they made as children. They are new immigrants and Americans of all ages who come to see the treasures that are housed in America's attic. There are nearly 141 million objects in the Smithsonian's collections, fewer than 2 million of which can be displayed at any given time in the 16 museums that make up the Smithsonian. On average, there are nearly 39 million visitors a year to the Smithsonian's museums and the national zoo. The fact is, 3 of the most visited museums in the world are right here on the mall. They are the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum, the Natural History Museum and the Museum of American History. And yet even with those amazing numbers, Secretary Small advised the Rules Committee this week that he believes the Smithsonian can do even better in making the Smithsonian accessible to the public, both in terms of the quality and quantity of the exhibits and the condition of the physical space. But all of this popularity comes at a price, and that price is the physical wear and tear on the Smithsonian's buildings and exhibits. The buildings of the Smithsonian are in and of themselves historic monuments and landmarks within our nation's capital. The Smithsonian Castle, a fixture on the mall since the cornerstone was laid in 1847, receives nearly 2 million visitors a year, even though it houses no museum. The oldest building, the Patent Office Building, houses the National Portrait Gallery and the National Museum of American Art. Construction of this Washington landmark was begun in 1836 and was the third great public building constructed in Washington, following the Capitol and The White House. The National Museum of Natural History, home to the Hope Diamond and the Smithsonian elephant, opened its doors in 1910. This year, nearly 1.3 million visitors toured this museum in the month of April alone. The popularity of these grand and historic buildings is taking its toll, and they are quite simply in need of significant renovation and repair. Secretary Small is committed to preserving not only the aging buildings of the Smithsonian, but to upgrading the exhibits as well to ensure that they provide a continuing educational experience. He is in the process of developing a 10-year plan to facilitate the necessary restorations and renovation. These buildings are part of the historic fabric of this capital city, and it would be very short-sighted of Congress not to provide for their adequate maintenance and repair. I commend Secretary Small for his vision in this regard and believe that Congress should act on his recommendations when they are received. An op-ed piece by Secretary Small appeared in Monday's Washington Post in which he described his vision of the Smithsonian and the need to preserve these historic landmarks. I urge my colleagues to acquaint themselves with the needs of this great American institution as it faces the opportunities and challenges of the 21st century. I ask unanimous consent that the article by Secretary Small be included in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very briefly, this is an amendment on the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program. Before getting to the substance of this amendment, I want to take a minute to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania and my colleague from Iowa for the work they have done on this bill in a number of areas--and in the are of child care in particular. Last year, when I offered an amendment to increase the funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania reluctantly opposed that amendment. In so doing, he said he would make every effort to raise the level up in this year's appropriation, which he did. I am very pleased with the level of funding that he has provided for child care. So, while I am offering an amendment on afterschool, which is related in some ways to child care, I want to express my gratitude to the chairman of the subcommittee for his commitment to this issue and to our nation's families and children. As a result of the efforts of the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Iowa and their colleagues on the committee, 220,000 children will have access to affordable childcare next year who would not have had the increase in funding not been provided by the Senator from Pennsylvania. Second, I commend Senator Kennedy for his amendment on teacher quality. I am sorry it had a point of order raised against it. Similar motions have been made other Democratic education amendments--against Senator Bingaman's amendment on accountability, Senator Murray's amendment on class size, and Senator Wellstone's on title I. I cannot let the moment pass without expressing my deep regrets that these amendments were necessary because the Elementary and Secondary Education Act has still not been considered. As many of you know, we only deal with that bill once every 6 years. I know we are in a rush to get everything done, but once every 6 years to focus on the elementary and secondary education needs of 2.5 million children and their parents is not a great amount of time. I am sorry I am offering this amendment on the Labor-HHS bill. I would have liked to have considered this issue on the ESEA reauthorization. But, I know we are not going to have a chance to get back to the authorizing bill, so I am left with no alternative but to offer this amendment on afterschool programs on this bill. I express my apologies to my colleagues for doing so. If my colleagues care about afterschool programs, as most Americans do, this may be our only chance to do something about it. The committee did increase funding for afterschool programs in this bill. They have raised that amount from $453 million up to $600 million. There has been an increase. It is interesting to note, we appropriated only $1 million in 1997 for afterschool programs. The demand has been so great by school districts across the country to fill this need that we have watched this program grow tremendously. I will show my colleagues why. People ask: Why do we need more afterschool funding? The answer is not difficult to understand. In fact, parents across the country will tell you this without looking at statistics. You can go to any community in America, and around 3 o'clock in the afternoon, you will find people who work will try to find that 5, 10, 15 minutes to get to a phone if they do not have one at their own workstation, to call home to find out whether or not their child has gotten home and is safe. This is a huge concern for parents. Do my colleagues remember the old bumper sticker which said: ``It is 11 p.m. Do you know where your child is?'' Mr. President, the fact is that 11 p.m. is not the problem, the hours right after the school day ends are the problem. The statistics on this chart come from our major police organizations. They show that the peak period for serious violent crimes is between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. That is the problem time. Percent of robbery incidents for children under age 18: The peak period is 3 p.m., 4 p.m., 5 p.m., up to around 8 o'clock in the evening. Percent of aggravated assault incidents for children under 18: The peak period is about 4 o'clock in the afternoon. The first chart show when children are the perpetrators of crime. The second chart shows when children are at risk of being victims of crime. The peak period is 3 to 4 o'clock in the afternoon. As I said, parents know about this and care about it. Let me show you to what extent they care about it. Through the 21st Century program, we are now offering 310 afterschool programs around the country. Yet the demand for these programs is much higher--in FY 2000, 2,252 schools applied for grants to provide afterschool services through this program. That demand is coming from the parents through the schools. And, frankly, we're not coming even close to meeting that demand with an increase in funding of $147 million. Increasing funding to $1 billion, as this amendment would do, would allow us to triple the number of children serviced to 2.5 million. Before he even says anything, I can tell you the chairman is not going to argue with me about whether or not we need to do this. The chairman is going to say: Where are the resources going to come from? We are up against a wall on this. It is a very difficult situation. If I want to find an offset for my amendment, I have to raid health care or child care. With these budget caps we have forced competition between programs that are serving the same families. I know we have budget caps, but, like most Americans, I believe if people care enough about this, we will find a way to deal with it. We always manage to on other issues. This certainly qualifies as a crisis, if not a natural disaster where the winds and fires have devastated areas, it is close to something of a natural disaster when we have the violent crimes, the victimization of children, the fear that parents have about who is watching their kids, and what are they doing when they are home alone. I will share with my colleagues, aside from the crime elements, what happens to kids when they are home alone. Drug abuse, alcohol, cigarettes all begin with these age groups when kids are unsupervised. Parents, as I said earlier, are not unmindful of this. Eighty-five percent of the most recent study of voters think ``afterschool programs are a necessity. More than a third of the voters believe the single biggest threat to their children today is being unsupervised after. Voters rank afterschool programs, along with parent involvement and reducing class size, as the most effective means of improving academic performance. Two months ago, I attended an event at the White House to release a report by a group called Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. It is a coalition of over 700 police chiefs and prosecutors across the country. Many of the individuals are conservative Republicans. These police chiefs said: If you are going to address the issue of juvenile crime and the victimization of children, you have to focus on the issue of after school. The parents get it; the police officers get it. The question is whether or not we are going to find some means to do something about it, to support a program that can serve 2.5 million children of the 5 million who are home alone in the afterschool hours. I mentioned earlier--and I will repeat it again today--that we spend less than one-half of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget on elementary and secondary education. I suspect that could be a great trivia question. I suspect most Americans think that as a percentage of our Federal budget that we would spend something more than less than one-half of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget on the 50 million children who attend public schools. Out of the 55 million children who go to school every day in this country, 50 million of them go to a public school. Five million children go to private, parochial schools. Less than one-half of 1 percent of our budget goes to serve 50 million children. I suspect not one of us has been home in our states, regardless of the audience, where we do not find some way to talk about education in our remarks. We do so because I think all of us in this Chamber--regardless of party or political ideology--understand deeply how important education is to the well-being of our Nation and the need to improve the quality of our public schools. Shutting down failed schools may provide some quick satisfaction, but too often those kids in a rural school--in Nebraska or Connecticut--or an urban school--in Los Angeles or Chicago or Philadelphia--have no alternative if you shut down the school. There are not a lot of schools around where they can all of a sudden go the next day or the next week. And these are the very children we most need to help. We have to do a better job in trying to help these underserved kids, the ones who come from single-parent families, or where two parents are working because they have to put food on the table. Contributing only 7 cents out of the entire education dollar in the country, does not make the federal government a very good partner. Our local communities are strapped, our States are struggling to try to do a better job on class size, teacher quality, accountability, and afterschool programs. We are not measuring up, in my view, to the level of partnership that we ought to provide. I am not suggesting we ought to assume all of the responsibility for education. That would be ridiculous. But right now we only contribute 7 cents on the dollar--$15 billion out of about $190 billion--that is spent nationwide on elementary and secondary education. Again, here we are at the dawn of the 21st century. It is so obvious, it is so self-evident, that if we have hopes of succeeding as a people in this century, we must meet the educational needs of our children. This is about as fundamental as it gets. This is the hub of the wheel. People always say kids represent 25 percent of the population but they are 100 percent of our future. We are the ones who will set the ground rules on whether or not they are going to have the chance to succeed and prosper in the years ahead.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield to my colleague.