Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, before I get into the substance of the amendment, I hope it may be possible we can reduce the time on this debate. I know there are other matters to be considered. We have 2 hours, but this may not take that much time. It is not a terribly complicated proposal. I think a lot of our colleagues may already be aware of the substance of it. Let me begin these brief remarks by, first of all, expressing my disappointment, in a sense, that I have to offer an amendment that my good friend from Florida strongly disagrees with, Senator Connie Mack. He is in his last few months in this body. He is one of my best friends in the Senate. It may be hard for some people who do not follow this institution carefully to understand that two people of different political persuasions, from different parts of the country, can be good friends, but we are. As I feel strongly about this amendment, he feels strongly about it. I would prefer that he were my ally. He will not be. I presume he might wish I were his ally. So it will be somewhat of a disappointment for me to be offering something about which my good friend so strongly disagrees, as he prepares to leave this body and to which he has made such a significant contribution during his tenure. I will miss him very much in the coming years. I do not offer this amendment with any great pleasure. I do think it is the right amendment. I want him to know that I do not do so with any sense of personal animus in the slightest as I offer it. There are others who disagree as well. Last Friday, I spoke at some length about why I believe the amendment that was originally proposed by another good friend, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, and I, which we offered some time ago to establish a bipartisan commission to review United States policy towards Cuba, why we believe it is in our national interest. The amendment I have just offered, as the Warner amendment, would provide for the appointment of a bipartisan commission to review U.S. policy with respect to Cuba and to make recommendations on how to bring that policy into the 21st century. I regret that because Senator Warner is the manager of the underlying bill he has had to withdraw his support for this amendment. While certainly Senator Warner is fully capable of speaking for himself, I believe Senator Warner still thinks that the proposal I am making today is a good idea, even if he must disagree with the vehicle to which it is sought to be attached. Very briefly, the commission would be composed of 12 members, chosen by the following: six by the President of the United States, six by the Congress; equally divided between the legislative and executive branches. There would be four members chosen by the House and Senate Republicans leaders and two by the Democratic leaders. Senator Warner and I had originally crafted this legislation to ensure that the commission would have a balanced and diverse membership, not bipartisan in the sense of two parties because this issue ought not be divided by party. In fact, it is not divided by party. There are people who sit on this side of the aisle in the Senate who will disagree with this amendment. There are Members on the other side who will agree with this amendment. This country is not divided along strictly partisan lines--Democrats and Republicans--as it reviews Cuban policy. But what we are seeking with the commission is to have a diversity of opinion, not a diversity of party necessarily, although that may occur anyway. So the idea was to have members who would be selected from various fields of expertise--including human rights, religious, public health, military, business, agriculture, the Cuban American community, and also the agricultural community where there is such strong interest. Creating that kind of diversity is what we seek in a commission. It would make recommendations to us which we may or may not follow. They are recommendations. Other commissions in the past have been appointed that have made recommendations which Congress has sought to follow and in other cases Congress has totally ignored. So a commission is really an opportunity to see if we can get this out of the partisan politics which have dominated this debate for far too long and to make some solid long-term recommendations on how we might begin to prepare for an intelligent, soft landing, to use the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski some years ago when he provided the necessity of us beginning to think to arrange for a relationship with the island of Cuba in a post-Castro period. The commissioners would have 225 days from the date of enactment to undertake their review and report their findings. The original Warner amendment provided for 180 days. Some have said: Why do this now? We are only a few months away from a new administration. Why not let a new administration take on this responsibility? I argue that, in fact, this is exactly the right time to be doing it, with an administration that is leaving, in a sense, to be able to provide for a new administration some ideas and thoughts on how we might proceed. So whether it is a Bush administration or a Gore administration that is sworn into office on January 20 of the coming year, this commission would report back in the late spring of next year, and the new administration could have the benefit of some solid thinking rather than waiting for a new administration with all of the problems associated with that in terms of how they begin their efforts. The idea of establishing a commission is not a new idea. It is not even originally my idea. The establishment of a commission was first proposed by our colleague from Virginia almost 2 years ago in a letter to President Clinton. Who supported the idea of the Warner commission at that time? Senator Warner was encouraged to propose such an idea in 1998 by a very distinguished group of foreign policy experts. Let me list some of the individuals who urged that such a commission be created: former Secretaries of State Lawrence Eagleburger, George Shultz, and Henry Kissinger; former Majority Leader Howard Baker; former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci; former Secretaries of Agriculture John Block and Clayton Yeutter; former Ambassadors Timothy Towell and J. William Middendorf; former Under Secretary of State William Rogers; former Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America and Distinguished Career Ambassador Harry Shalaudeman; and another distinguished former colleagues of ours, Malcolm Wallop. The United States Catholic Conference has also gone on record in support of the establishment of such a committee. In fact, I ask unanimous consent that the letters that accompanied these recommendations be printed in the Record. One of the letters is dated September 30, 1998, signed by Howard Baker, Frank Carlucci, Henry Kissinger, Bill Rogers, Harry Shalaudeman, and Malcolm Wallop, who called for this commission 2 years ago. And there are other letters that were sent from our Senate colleagues to President Clinton. Senators signing the letters are Senators Grams, Bond, Jeffords, Hagel, Lugar, Enzi, John Chafee, Specter, Gordon Smith, Thomas, Boxer, Bob Kerrey, Bumpers, Jack Reed, Santorum, Moynihan, Kempthorne, Roberts, Leahy, Cochran, Domenici, and Murray--hardly a partisan group of Senators.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, next Tuesday morning I will offer an amendment that is not a radical idea, not something that ought to evoke much debate or dissension but the kind of proposal that might even carry by a voice vote under normal circumstances. Because of the nature of the subject matter, it has become controversial, and I regret that. It was my hope that the Senate would vote today on the Dodd amendment, which is currently pending to the Defense authorization bill. Unfortunately, that vote was put off until next week. Having said that, I want to take a few minutes to discuss this proposal and explain why I believe it makes sense to go forward to establish a bipartisan commission to review U.S.-Cuban policy. The amendment I will be offering provides for the establishment of a bipartisan 12-member commission to review United States policy with regard to Cuba and to make recommendations for the changes that might be necessary to bring that policy into the 21st century. On Wednesday of this week, the President of South Korea, Kim Dae- jung, and the North Korean leader, Kim Chong-il, signed a broad agreement to work for peace and unity on the Korean peninsula. Needless to say, the level of hostility that has existed between these two governments for more than half of a century has been extremely high. These two countries fought a bloody and costly war in which hundreds of thousands of Koreans lost their lives. More than 35,000 of our own fellow service men and women in this country lost their lives as well. Yet these two leaders have been able to bring themselves to meet and discuss the future of their peoples and the possibility of reunification at some point down the road. The Clinton administration, to its credit, has announced that, as a result of these efforts, it will soon lift economic sanctions against North Korea, paving the way for American companies to trade and invest and for American citizens to travel. I support the administration's decision and applaud them for moving forward in such an expeditious manner to complement the efforts of the North and South Korean leaders. Similarly, despite the fact that more than 50,000 American men and women in uniform lost their lives during the Vietnam conflict, the United States and Vietnam have full diplomatic and trade relations today. In large measure, this is due to our colleagues and veterans, Senators McCain, Kerrey, and others in this Chamber. Even though we have a number of serious disagreements with the People's Republic of China, we are not imposing unilateral economic sanctions against that country; quite the opposite. I predict that the Senate of the United States, very shortly, will follow the House of Representatives and vote to support permanent normal trade relations with China, which will pave the way for China to join the World Trade Organization. My point is this: Across the globe, we are seeing efforts to normalize relations, to reconcile old grievances--the Middle East, the Korean peninsula, the Balkans, Northern Ireland. There isn't a place I can think of where people are not trying to resolve the differences that have existed for far too long. The question I will pose by offering the amendment on Tuesday is: Isn't it about time we at least think about doing the same in our own hemisphere, when it comes to a nation that is 90 miles off our shore, less distance than from here to Hagerstown, MD, or Richmond, VA? The reaction to my amendment would suggest that there is still strong resistance to doing in our own hemisphere what we are promoting elsewhere around the globe. The amendment I will offer would simply establish a 12-member commission to review U.S. policy, to make recommendations on how it might be changed or if it ought to be changed. I am not even suggesting that the commission would come back with changes. In fact, they may come back with quite the opposite result. This proposal is not new or revolutionary. The Senate has authorized establishment of commissions to review many subjects--the Central America Commission, the Kissinger Commission, Social Security, Terrorist Threats, and many other subject matters. Our colleague from Virginia, Senator John Warner, first proposed this idea of a bipartisan commission on the subject of Cuba in a letter to President Clinton more than 1 and a half years ago. One quarter of the Senate joined him in urging the President to take the politics out of United States-Cuba policy and to look to the wisdom of some of our best and brightest foreign policy experts to make recommendations on what we should do with respect to this issue. I personally urged Secretary Albright to recommend that the President move forward with this proposal. Regrettably, she believed that the timing was not right for doing so. I was saddened by that decision. I disagreed with the Secretary then, and I believe that a year and a half later the arguments are even more compelling for establishing such a commission today. We are about to change administrations. What better time to use the interval between the current one and the next one to take a fresh look at Cuba-related issues and be ready to make recommendations in the spring of the coming year as to what makes sense with regard to Cuban- U.S. relations? We recently entered a new millennium. Yet U.S.-Cuban policy is still locked in the old shibboleth of the last one. It is a policy that is 40 years old. We have seen changes in South Africa. The Soviet Union doesn't exist any longer. Eastern European countries have managed to find reform and democracy. We now welcome Yasir Arafat to the White House, and the prospects of peace in the Middle East have never loomed more large. We are watching reconciliation on the Korean peninsula. The Balkans are trying to resolve their difficulties. Northern Ireland is, hopefully, putting to bed years of hostility. Can we not at least find the opportunity to get this issue of Cuba-United States relations out of politics and have a bipartisan commission make recommendations from which we might consider some different ways of approaching what has been a 40-year-old policy? I should have said at the very outset of my remarks--and I apologize for not doing so because it needs to be said--that I carry, nor does anyone who supports this commission, any grief for Fidel Castro or the dictatorship in Cuba. The conditions these people have to live in are deplorable--the hardships, the denial of human rights, the economic deprivation. I hold great respect for the Cuban exile community in this country. They have come to be great Americans and have contributed significantly to the economic well-being of our country. They have made contributions as public servants and as patriots--men and women in uniform. But too often this issue has been dominated by how we deal with one individual. There are 11 million people living 90 miles off our shores. We need to think about the post-Castro period as well. How can we create a softer landing? How can we try to at least frame issues that will allow for a transition there and avoid the potential conflict in civil strife that could occur on the island of Cuba? I hope that the Cuban American Foundation will support the idea of a bipartisan commission--a commission that would incorporate and include people of different points of view to try to come up with some common ground on which they could recommend to a new administration and to this Congress or the next Congress. This proposal is not some radical or fringe idea. It is strongly supported by the mainstream of our foreign policy establishment. People such as Dr. Henry Kissinger and Bill Rodgers support this effort. I appreciate their willingness to say so. I suspect they would be willing to serve as commissioners if they were asked to. In light of the systemic changes that have transformed the globe over the last 40 years, I believe a fundamental rethinking of the U.S.-Cuban policy is in order. In fact, such a rethinking is long overdue and it is very much in our national interest to do it at this juncture. The pending amendment that we offered on Tuesday deals with the problem by broaching anything relating to Cuba in an election year or any year for that matter. The sad reality is that the only way we are going to get this dispassionate review of our current policy and sensible recommendations with respect to how that policy should change is by bringing together a commission of respected outside experts to advise the executive and the legislative branches on future policy options. I said a moment ago that some 11 million people live less than 100 miles from our shores. We owe it to the American people to seriously analyze the consequences to the United States of a major civil upheaval on the island of Cuba and to devise a policy that minimizes the possibility of such an event occurring. Does anyone believe for one moment that a sea of humanity would not stream from the island toward U.S. shores if civil conflict erupts there? Two years have passed since Pope John Paul II made a historic visit to Cuba that called upon that country to open up to the world and for the world to open up to Cuba. Even after such an unprecedented event, the centerpiece of our policy remains the same--an embargo which seeks to restrict trade, travel, and a low flow of information to Cuba and thereby strangle Cuba economically. This hard-line stance continues to hold sway in Washington today in large measure because successive administrations have been hamstrung by domestic political considerations and have been fearful of provoking the ire of those who are obsessed with the island of Cuba and its personification in the person of Fidel Castro. We have just entered a new millennium. Surely it is time to break with the policy that is largely centered on the fate of one individual and replace it with one that is more future oriented--one that focuses on the other 11 million individuals who also reside on the island of Cuba, and on the millions of Cuban-Americans. Many of them believe we ought to think differently today. They do not speak out on the issue but would welcome the opportunity to see a commission created which would give us a chance to look at other policy options. The time has come to have a reasoned conversation regarding Cuba and U.S. policy, and about the effectiveness of our policy. I think the establishment of a bipartisan commission would be the starting point for just such a conversation and just such a debate. Hopefully, the end point of that conversation would be the development of a national consensus around a new Cuba policy--one that is compatible with America's values and beliefs, one that truly serves our own national interests. I hope my colleagues will agree with this analysis. If so, I urge them to support this amendment when it is voted on next Tuesday. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, a number of weeks ago, the distinguished minority leader, Senator Daschle, and others thought it might be worthwhile on a daily basis to remind our colleagues of the human tragedy that occurs every day in this country as a result of gun violence. We all remember very vividly the astounding events that occurred in Littleton, CO, at Columbine High School when we watched some 13 people lose their lives in that tragedy. It is hard to believe that that could occur; 13 people gunned down in a high school. Yet as the Democratic leader and others have pointed out, regrettably, every single day in this country we suffer the same results as we did at Columbine High School--not in one setting, thank God. Across the country, on average, 12 or 13 people die every day in the United States as a result of gun violence. I am not going to stand here and suggest to you there is a simple piece of legislation that is going to resolve the issue. There are a lot of reasons we see this continued violence in our country. But certainly, responsible, thoughtful gun control legislation could make a significant contribution. We have already seen that in States and jurisdictions that require waiting periods, require some notification ahead of time as to who would be the purchaser of these weapons. There was a decision made a number of weeks ago that it might be worthwhile to make the case--and we talk in abstractions so often here--and to start talking about those people who lost their lives a year ago on this very day, June 16, 1999. On that date, we didn't have the average of 12 or 13; we lost 3 people in the United States on June 16. There was one in Chicago, one in St. Paul, and one in Newark, NJ. That was a day on which the numbers were way down from what the average death toll is. I also point out that the names we have only come from the 100 largest cities in the United States. Cities with populations of less than 12,000 are not included in these numbers. In those 100 cities, on June 16 last year, it was a far better day than most. Every one of the victims was a unique human being. Many other gun violence victims in other cities on that day didn't necessarily die, but some did in smaller towns. In the name of all of those who have died across the Nation a year ago today, and those who, regrettably, will lose their lives today in too many places across our country, I want to read the following names listed by the Conference of Mayors who were killed by gunfire 1 year ago in our country: Manuel Marcano, 18, Chicago; Antoine Watson, 19, of St. Paul, MN; an unidentified female in Newark, NJ. I know all Americans regret the loss of those lives. I hope that someday the national average will be something such as that, or even less, as a result of sensible, thoughtful proposals we might make to reduce the level of violence in our country.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend our colleague from the State of Washington. This is kind of a ``Washington hour.'' We not only have my colleague who just spoke, but the Presiding Officer from the State of Washington. I commend her for her thoughtful comments. While I represent the State of Connecticut that is 3,000 miles away, we, too, believe it is in our interest to see that the wonderful wilderness areas and wild salmon of the Pacific Northwest be preserved and saved. I commend her for her efforts. She is not only representing her State well, she is representing my State well when she speaks on this issue.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President. I rise today to pay tribute to the town of Seymour, nestled in the Lower Naugatuck Valley of Connecticut. Located in New Haven County with the Lower Housatonic River nearby, Seymour offers its residents a wide variety of recreational activities, history, industry, and a strong sense of community with an emphasis on education. Seymour was formally founded on June 24, 1850, when the town's council held its first meeting. I rise today to congratulate Seymour on its Sesquicentennial anniversary, 150 years as a town, and to reflect for just a few moments on the rich history of this town. The Naugatuck Valley increased in importance during the early 1800s because of its valuable natural resources and industrial growth. Due to different manufacturing concerns and the desire to separate and become their own community, the town of Seymour, then called Humphreysville, petitioned the state legislature to become the town of ``Richmond.'' Thomas H. Seymour, who was the Governor of the state of Connecticut, promised the people that if the town was named in his honor, the bill would be accepted immediately. Evidently, the good people of the town agreed, for shortly thereafter the town of Seymour was formally constituted. Throughout the years, companies have prospered and grown in Seymour, paralleled by the development and expansion of the town itself. The H.P. & E. Day Company began in Seymour in 1865, and has developed into the Waterman Pen Company of France, producers of some of the world's finest fountain pens. Telegraph cables that could be placed underwater were developed by Austin Goodyear Day in Seymour in the mid-nineteenth century, and continue to be produced by the Kerite Company, presently located on Day Street. With the vital shipping lanes of the Housatonic River, as well as the region's railroads and factories, Seymour flourished throughout the late nineteenth century, and within the town a broad range of products--from copper to paper to bottled spring water--was produced. Outside of the industrial diversity of Seymour, one is immediately aware of the natural beauty of the area. Not only is the Housatonic River one of New England's greatest assets, but it also provides recreational activities such as canoeing and fishing for local residents. I have had the pleasure of visiting the town of Seymour on many occasions, and am always impressed with the natural beauty and spectacular resourcefulness of the residents. One thing that has lingered in my mind from past visits is the strong sense of community, and the emphasis on the importance of education. Seymour offers residents an abundance of entertainment and activities through the Seymour Recreation Commission, a strong police force led by Police Chief Michael E. Metzler, the Seymour Senior Center, cultural and performing arts events through the Seymour Culture and Arts Commission, and celebrations of important national holidays such as Memorial Day through local events and parades. In the realm of education, Superintendent Eugene A. Coppola has continued to uphold the fine reputation of local schools, which have seen recent increases in test scores, state-of-the-art expansion of Bungay Elementary School, the strengthening of the core curriculum, and a majority of students participating in extracurricular activities. One of the most important facets of the school system in Seymour is the DARE program, instilling in students the importance of remaining drug-free. Seymour in the year 2000 is in many respects a great American town. It is a place where businesses can prosper, where families can thrive, and where a sense of community permeates everyday life. In recognizing this important anniversary in the life of the town, we pay homage to all those who have in the past contributed to making Seymour the outstanding place it is today. And we congratulate those current residents who pause on this occasion not only to remember the past, but who dedicate themselves to the future success and vitality of this remarkable town they call home.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy in sponsoring the ``Error Reduction and Improvement in Patient Safety Act,'' legislation which will establish a national system to identify, track and prevent medical errors. Last November, the Institute of Medicine reported that between 44,000 and 98,000 deaths per year are attributable to medical errors, ranging from illegible prescriptions to amputations of the wrong limb. In other words, patients are being harmed not because of a failure of science or medical knowledge, but because of the inability of our health care system to mitigate common human mistakes. Most Americans feel confident that the health care they receive will make them better--or at the very least, not make them feel worse. And in the vast majority of circumstances, that confidence is deserved. The dedication, knowledge and training of our doctors, nurses, surgeons and pharmacists in this country are unparalleled. But, as the IOM report starkly notes, the quality of our health care system is showing some cracks. If we are to maintain public confidence, we must respond quickly and thoroughly to this crisis. One thing is certain: the paradigm of individual blame that we've been operating under discourages providers from reporting mistakes--and thwarts efforts to learn from those mistakes. We have to move beyond finger-pointing and encourage the reporting and analysis of medical errors if we want to make real progress towards improving patient safety. This legislation will do just that. It authorizes the creation of a national Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety to set and track national patient safety goals and conduct and fund safety research. The bill also sets up national non-punitive, voluntary, and confidential reporting systems for medical errors. By analyzing and learning from mistakes, we will be better able to determine what systems and procedures are most effective in preventing errors in the future. Identification and analysis of errors is critical to improving the quality of health care. But we must also develop measures of accountability that ensure that the information that is generated by a national error reporting system is actually used to improve patient safety. Our bill takes those practices shown to be most effective in preventing errors and creates a mechanism for integrating those practices into federally-funded health care programs. These evidence- based ``best practices'' will also be used as standards for health care organizations seeking to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Mr. President, the ``Error Reduction and Improvement in Patient Safety Act'' addresses the complex problem of medical errors in the most comprehensive manner possible--from the identification of errors, to the analysis of the errors, to the application of best practices to prevent those errors from ever occurring again. Simply put, this legislation will save lives. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation expeditiously, because frankly, one medical error is one too many.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I add my voice as well and compliment Frank Lautenberg for his accomplishments. I commend him for his fine service in the Senate.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Kennedy in sponsoring the ``Error Reduction and Improvement in Patient Safety Act,'' legislation which will establish a national system to identify, track and prevent medical errors. Last November, the Institute of Medicine reported that between 44,000 and 98,000 deaths per year are attributable to medical errors, ranging from illegible prescriptions to amputations of the wrong limb. In other words, patients are being harmed not because of a failure of science or medical knowledge, but because of the inability of our health care system to mitigate common human mistakes. Most Americans feel confident that the health care they receive will make them better--or at the very least, not make them feel worse. And in the vast majority of circumstances, that confidence is deserved. The dedication, knowledge and training of our doctors, nurses, surgeons and pharmacists in this country are unparalleled. But, as the IOM report starkly notes, the quality of our health care system is showing some cracks. If we are to maintain public confidence, we must respond quickly and thoroughly to this crisis. One thing is certain: the paradigm of individual blame that we've been operating under discourages providers from reporting mistakes--and thwarts efforts to learn from those mistakes. We have to move beyond finger-pointing and encourage the reporting and analysis of medical errors if we want to make real progress towards improving patient safety. This legislation will do just that. It authorizes the creation of a national Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety to set and track national patient safety goals and conduct and fund safety research. The bill also sets up national non-punitive, voluntary, and confidential reporting systems for medical errors. By analyzing and learning from mistakes, we will be better able to determine what systems and procedures are most effective in preventing errors in the future. Identification and analysis of errors is critical to improving the quality of health care. But we must also develop measures of accountability that ensure that the information that is generated by a national error reporting system is actually used to improve patient safety. Our bill takes those practices shown to be most effective in preventing errors and creates a mechanism for integrating those practices into federally-funded health care programs. These evidence- based ``best practices'' will also be used as standards for health care organizations seeking to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Mr. President, the ``Error Reduction and Improvement in Patient Safety Act'' addresses the complex problem of medical errors in the most comprehensive manner possible--from the identification of errors, to the analysis of the errors, to the application of best practices to prevent those errors from ever occurring again. Simply put, this legislation will save lives. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation expeditiously, because frankly, one medical error is one too many.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, for clarification----

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am deeply honored this morning to have had Father Gregoire Fluet provide us with the opening prayer in this session of the Senate. It is a particular pleasure because Father Fluet is not just a resident of Connecticut but he is my parish priest. So this morning is a moment of particular pride to welcome him to the Senate. Father Fluet is someone I have known now for a number of years. We met each other when Father Fluet was the pastor of St. Joseph's Church in North Grosvenordale, CT. I used to, on an annual basis, speak at the communion breakfast of the Knights of Columbus, something which I enjoyed immensely and did for more than 20 years. It was a wonderful experience. The community would get together and Father Fluet would say mass and participate in the breakfast afterwards. We had a wonderful time over many, many years. Then, to my wonderful surprise, on the retirement of my dear friend and pastor, Father Henry Dziadosz--unfortunately, we just lost Monsignor Dziadosz, a wonderful human being--Father Fluet was assigned to my home parish in East Haddam, CT, a section of Moodus, CT. You have to be very careful; it is really East Haddam. The people of my town would appreciate the distinction I am making here. Father Fluet is a wonderful man, a spiritual leader; he has counseled and advised me on numerous occasions. He has a wonderful background in history. He is a teacher. He taught at St. Bernard's High School in the diocese of Norwich. He also was a curate at the parish in Lyme, CT. He just received his doctorate in New England studies, the history of New England. In addition to being a great spiritual leader, he also has a deep interest in the history of this country and particularly the history of New England. It is truly an honor to welcome my good friend, my pastor, to this wonderful Chamber. We are deeply honored that he is here. We welcome him immensely. We thank him for his wonderful words this morning. I am confident that the parish of Saint Bridget of Kildare, my home parish, is going to be blessed for many years to come with the wonderful spiritual leadership of Father Fluet. He has a wonderful mother who I have gotten to know. She is in a little ill health, but we are praying for her this hour as well. She is a woman of deep, strong French background, a delightful person to be with as well. Senator Lieberman, who was just here and wanted to stay to greet Father Fluet but had a hearing to run off to, wanted me to express to Father Fluet his deep admiration and respect and extend his words of welcome as well this morning. With that, Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I appreciate that.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I had not intended to speak on this, and I will not take any length of time. I think we are on the Defense appropriations bill. I don't know whether his intent was to offer this on Defense authorization or Defense appropriations. My colleague does not have to rise.

Mr. DODD. My colleague said he was amending the Defense authorization bill. This is the Defense appropriations bill. I just wondered if he was clear as to what bill we were dealing with at this moment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. DODD. I had not seen the proposal that my good friend and colleague from North Carolina offered, but he made two observations. I don't disagree with the substance of his sense-of-the-Senate resolution, whether it is on an authorization bill or an appropriations bill. This body has spoken out unanimously expressing outrage over the atrocities in Chechnya. I will say, on behalf of the Secretary of State and the President, that this matter has been raised by them with their counterparts at the highest levels, including a summit a few days ago when the President met with President Putin in Russia. I know the Secretary of State has raised it on numerous occasions in conversations I have had with her and others have had in hearings. There is a sense, somewhat, of redundancy here, in that all of us have expressed this view, at the executive branch level and at the legislative branch level. I think the word has certainly gone forth directly to Mr. Putin on behalf of the President of the United States through our Department of State and through resolutions passed here. I have no objection at all to the resolution and don't disagree with any of the substance of it. But Madeleine Albright has conducted herself admirably in this regard, as has the President. We all hope the tragedy there will end and a political resolution will be what results from their efforts, and that the atrocities will stop. It is obviously up to the floor managers on how they want to consider this, but I don't have any objection to it being on this bill or any other bill. I just wanted to make an observation. That was all I was trying to suggest to my friend and colleague. I do believe that Madeleine Albright and the President have done a good job expressing how all Americans feel about this. Nonetheless, we will support this sense-of-the-Senate resolution.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman and the ranking Democrat for their patience. Every day that we have been in session over the last several weeks, the Democratic leader or his designees have identified those people who on this date in the year past lost their lives to gun violence in the United States. It is a way in which we have tried to highlight the significance of this issue. We have talked about Columbine High School and the tragedy of people losing their lives on that day. The point the leader and those of us who support his efforts in the area of gun control have tried to make is that every single day in this country, there is a Columbine High School, and there has been for some time. So today, in that spirit of reminding our colleagues and the country again of the ongoing tragedy that occurs every single day in the United States, I will read the names of those people who on June 9, 1999, all across our country, lost their lives. This is not the complete list in that this list only represents 100 cities with a population of more than 12,000 people. There are many other communities for which we don't have data. The names are the following: Humberto Albear, Houston, TX; Jeffrey Barbush, St. Louis, MO; Guido Colomo, Houston, TX; Maria Cruz, Philadelphia, PA; Bernard Freeman, Chicago, IL; Scott Hawkins, Baltimore, MD; Robert Koch, Davenport, IA; Johnnie Martin, Chicago, IL; Martin Mendoza, Memphis, TN; Terrance Morrison, Boston, MA; John Rice, Philadelphia, PA; Gerardo Rios, Charlotte, NC; Cherie Shaw, Charlotte, NC; Chon Tang, Houston, TX; Tracy Taylor, Chicago, IL; Oscar J. Tunales, Laredo, TX; unidentified male, Norfolk, VA. Mr. President, the violence still continues in this country. While there is no simple answer, including gun control, there are many other aspects that provoke and cause this level of violence. There are several measures that could be adopted by the Congress that would reduce this wave that continues every single day in our country. In memory of these 17 people and more--I assume, since we do not reflect communities of 12,000 or more who lost their lives, that almost that many will lose their lives today somewhere in this country--it is our fervent hope that we will do a better job in reducing this level of violence in our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in another 15 or 20 minutes we are going to be voting on this amendment. We have some 30 working days, the way I calculate, maybe 40 legislative days remaining in this session of Congress. Probably the only vote we're going to have on this issue this year will occur in just a few minutes. I don't like to count noses at this particular juncture, but I suspect, based on what I have heard so far, that my good friends on the Republican side will probably prevail politically. I say to them with great respect and affection that while they may win politically today, there are an awful lot of people all across the country who will lose. I have been in Congress 25 years. I have been in conferences, a lot of them. Every now and then, conferences just don't move. I am not going to engage in the debate back and forth about whether or not this conference has actually resolved some particular issue or not. Enough has been said about it. The fact is that occasionally things just don't move. There are just too many differences of opinion. That's all there is to it and that is what has happened here. It doesn't make anyone comfortable to have to deal with this issue on the Department of Defense authorization, but we find ourselves in a situation in which it is probably the only chance we are going to have to do something about patient protections this year. Despite the way our colleagues have portrayed this amendment, the kinds of protections that we want to provide to the American people are not radical ideas. This is not about destroying the insurance industry and enriching trial lawyers. If it were, I wouldn't be a part of it. My colleague knows that as a Senator from Connecticut I represent more insurance companies than any other Member except my colleague, Joe Lieberman. And, I think I would be recognized as someone who has taken on the trial bar when it was warranted. I've worked with my friend, Phil Gramm, on securities litigation reform. We did uniform standards. We did Y2K legislation. I am a cosponsor of tort reform. I don't take a back seat to anyone on these issues. But, I also happen to believe, as strongly as I feel about the good work of many of the insurance companies in my state, that when they make a medical decision or when a business makes a medical decision, just as when a doctor makes a medical decision, they ought to be held accountable. I don't think that is a radical idea. Others may think so; I don't think so. The idea that we should provide basic protections to all Americans with private health insurance, that patients should have access to emergency care, that women should have access to their Ob- Gyn, these are not groundbreaking ideas. These ideas are pretty straightforward. In fact, a third of the Republicans in the other Chamber thought so too and voted for the Norwood-Dingell bill. The author of the bill, Dr. Norwood, is a Republican. This is not some great partisan battle except here in the US Senate. Across the country it is not a partisan issue. When people get sick and families are hurting, they don't talk about themselves as Democrats or Republicans or conservatives or liberals or independents, they talk about themselves as individuals who need help. I hope enough of our colleagues on the other side will join with the minority here in voting for this, voting for the very same bill that an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans supported in the House almost a year ago. Again, I respect my good friend and colleague from Oklahoma for his efforts. It has not been an easy job. It is a complicated bill and it is a complex issue. But, we have come to a point, with the few days left in this session, that if we don't try to do something about this here, I am convinced nothing will happen in this Congress on this issue. Every now and then you begin to read the tea leaves. It is like the student who didn't get the homework done. First the dog ate it. Then somehow it ended up in the garbage. Then their computer crashed. After a while, you have to say maybe the student just isn't going to get the homework done. In a sense, that is what has happened here. In the 3\1/2\ months since conferees began working on this bill, essentially almost nothing has happened. We simply have not moved forward. So, with 40 days left, we are put in the position of asking colleagues to join us in supporting a bill that has already passed the House, that the President said he would sign, that would leave this Congress with a mark of achievement, even if we did nothing else in the next 40 days. Can you imagine in future years how this Congress would be recognized if we were to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights that said all Americans ought to have access to basic patient protections, that doctors ought to be able to make medical decisions for their patients, that businesses and insurance companies that make health care decisions ought to be held responsible when they make a decision that affects the lives of others? There is not a single citizen in this country who, if they make a decision that causes harm to another, can avoid the responsibility of paying a price. Why should insurance companies be exempt? That is what this bill of ours tries to do, along with ensuring access to clinical trials, providing access to emergency care, and ensuring that patients can receive needed prescription drugs. These ideas are not radical or extreme. This is what an overwhelming majority of people in this country would like to see us achieve. In the next 15 minutes we will have a chance to do it. I hope some brave souls on the other side will join us and make a record of this Congress, something all of us can be proud of for years to come. I yield back to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts whatever time remains.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, at this juncture I ought to ask to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. He has spoken eloquently about Father Philip Smith and his wonderful leadership at Providence College. I am honored to be a graduate of Providence, as was my father. I have fond memories of my years there, as my father did in his undergraduate days. Father Smith led this institution most admirably during his tenure. We are delighted and honored he is performing the duties of assistant chaplain here today. I commend him for his opening prayer. The Dominican priests are known as the order of preachers, Mr. President. Certainly Father Smith eloquently displayed that historic reputation of the Dominican order. The lives of the students who have attended Providence College have been so admirably altered as a result of the education of this wonderful institution. I know they join me in expressing our gratitude, not only to Father Smith but the faculty and administrator and others over the years who provided literally thousands of students and families with a wonderful educational opportunity in liberal arts, medicine and health, a very diverse academic curricula that is offered at Providence College. But also as my colleague from Rhode Island has adequately and appropriately identified, it is the spiritual leadership as well which we appreciate immensely. It is truly an honor to welcome Father Smith to this Chamber, to thank him for his words, and to wish him and the entire family of Providence College the very best in the years to come.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Will the majority yield? Is there a pending amendment on the DOD authorization bill?

Mr. DODD. I wish it were a Dodd amendment. I was curious about Senator Warner's amendment. That is what I was curious about.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a well-respected and remarkable public servant, Staff Sergeant Ana V. Ortiz, who has been chosen to receive the 2000 National Image Salute to Hispanics Award. Not only is Staff Sergeant Ortiz an upstanding and dedicated member of the Connecticut Air National Guard, but she is also the principal of the Betances Elementary School in Hartford and an active and vital member of her community. Staff Sergeant Ortiz has dedicated nine years of service to the Connecticut Air National Guard, displaying the qualities of a natural leader and setting an example for others to follow. She participated in three Air Force contingency operations that have sent her around the world. In 1996, she supported Operation Decisive Endeavor in Italy; 1998 found her in Panama playing a role in Constant Vigil; and just last year she worked in Southwest Asia for Operation Guarded Skies. Staff Sergeant Ortiz previously attended the Air National Guard Diversity Conference, as well as the National Guard Bureau's National Diversity Program. A vocal advocate for diversity within the Air National Guard, she worked to build a solid foundation for minorities in the military, as well as a better understanding of the armed forces among both minorities and non-minorities. Her work in the Guard has earned her the Armed Forces Reserve Medal and two Air Force Achievement Medals. Although her military feats are impressive, Staff Sergeant Ortiz is further known for her strong commitment to the Hartford schools and community. As the principal of Betances Elementary School she keeps actively involved with her students and community. Staff Sergeant Ortiz is a member of the Language Arts Committee for the State of Connecticut, and a contributor to the Center for Youth After-School Programs, the Center City Churches, and the Charter Oak Cultural Center. She also encourages and maintains a partnership program with suburban schools in the surrounding area, and is constantly working to improve education and educational opportunities for her students. Ms. Ortiz' commitment to her students extends far beyond the school grounds. She was selected to serve on the Hartford Police Department Task Force for students at risk in the community, which strives to encourage children to find positive ways to overcome the dangers of drugs and violence that face our communities today. Furthermore, Ms. Ortiz is actively involved in protecting Connecticut's park attractions through her membership on the board of directors of the Bushnell Park Foundation, again promoting the well-being of her school children, as well as the entire community. Ms. Ortiz' professional achievements are matched by an impressive educational background. She earned a Bachelors of Science degree in Education with an English major from Central University in Puerto Rico, a Masters degree in Reading from the University of Hartford, and a six year degree in Supervision and Administration from the University of Connecticut. Her wide range of expertise has enabled her to better excel in all aspects of her life, and the surrounding community has clearly benefitted as a result. Staff Sergeant Ortiz strives to make the world a better place for all--through her military service, community work, and involvement with Connecticut schools. Her dedication and commitment appear to be boundless, and she is wholly deserving of the 2000 National Image Salute to Hispanics Award. Staff Sergeant Ortiz will travel to San Juan, Puerto Rico on Thursday, June 8, 2000 to receive her prestigious award.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two rules committee minority staff interns, Melissa Pansiri and Khalil Malouf, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate and rollcall votes on the nominees to the Federal Election Commission.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I may, I commend our colleague from Utah for the job he and the ranking Democrat, Senator Feinstein of California, have done on this bill. I echo his sentiments about the role we play as custodians of these buildings. I noted earlier that all of us on a daily basis greet students who come to the Nation's Capital as part of the graduation programs of various schools. I had the wonderful privilege earlier today of meeting a group of students from Woodstock, a school in Connecticut, as part of their eighth grade graduation. It is a violation of the rules of the Senate to identify anybody who is in the galleries, and I won't do that. I am not going to identify any school groups in the gallery. If you happen to notice somebody dressed in green up there, you might notice someone who might come from that school along the way. They are very attentive students and interested about these buildings. As I explained to them, these are their buildings. We are mere custodians of them. I associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Utah and the Senator from California. We are doing what we can to see to it that they are secure and well cared for so that future generations will be able to enjoy them as much as this generation does. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to spend a couple of minutes on the legislative appropriations bill and to commend Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd, the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, as well as our good friends, the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Feinstein and Senator Bennett, for the work they have done in putting together, I think, a very responsible bill on the Senate side in terms of dealing with the costs of running the legislative branch of Government. They have put together a good bill. They have been fiscally restrained in their approach. Obviously, our legislative branch should not be exempt from the kind of scrutiny we apply to every single aspect of this, the Federal budget. They are to be commended for packaging a bill that does less than the administration wanted but is certainly far more responsible, far more thoughtful, far more balanced than what the other body has apparently crafted. The bill here is $59 million over current spending but $147 million below the President's budget request for operations of the legislative branch. We need to remember we are not just talking about Members' salary or staffs. We are talking about being the temporary custodians of these buildings we call the Capitol Grounds. A few minutes ago, I greeted another student group from my State, from Woodstock High School, a group of eighth graders, and, earlier, a group of students from a school in Washington, DC. I try to tell the young people when they are here, these are their buildings; this is their Government. They are not voters yet, but I want them to develop an appreciation of what has been handed down to us as temporary custodians, what we will be handing down to them in the coming generation so their children and their grandchildren will be able to come to this great Capital City of ours, come to the great buildings, and cherish and appreciate what it represents to them as citizens of the greatest democracy ever created in the history of mankind. As temporary custodians of their well-being, we have a responsibility not to somehow pad the budgets to serve our own comfortable interests but to see to it that we preserve this venue, this seat of democracy, for coming generations. That is what Senator Feinstein and Senator Bennett have done with this budget. Regretfully, it is what the other body has not done. That is what makes me so sad. We can have differences here--Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, moderates--and debate issues. When it comes to the buildings, when it comes to the people every day who work here, whose names you will never know, who care for the facilities, who guard these buildings, not just the Members and the staffs who work here but the 10,000-plus tourists who come to their Nation's Capitol every day and come into the buildings. Officer Chestnut and Officer Gibson, who lost their lives just a few feet from where I am speaking, were protecting not only the membership when those shots fired but protecting hundreds of tourists gathered in the building. To see a budget that disregards the importance of having good security here, not just for the Senators and Congressmen but for the innocent tourists who come to see their Nation's Capitol, is something of which we ought to be very mindful. What the House has done, of course, was to cut the police force by almost 12 percent, resulting in a reduction in force of almost 30 percent of the police force on these grounds. I was a young boy in the 1950s in the other Chamber, a few feet from that Chamber, when shots rang out from the gallery, and Members of Congress were shot on that day. I was down in Washington on a spring break. I literally just missed being in the Chamber as a tourist on that day. We have taken a lot of steps since then to try to see to it that people who are armed can't come in here and threaten the lives of people in these buildings. I remember being a relatively new Member in this Chamber when, I thank the Lord, we had all left on a Monday night and a bomb went off in the building. Had we been here, there would have been those, I suspect, who would have been severely injured, if not killed. And of course the tragedy involving Officers Chestnut and Gibson and the gunfire in the Capitol Building is a sad commentary on the times in which we live. We all know this. But to talk about reducing the police force of these grounds by 30 percent, cutting the present force, is irresponsible. Hopefully, it will be reversed. I commend our champions of this legislative appropriations bill for fighting back and putting their foot down, and saying you are not going to tolerate this because it is wrong to do this to the American public. The Library of Congress as well would be cut here, the greatest library in the world just a few blocks from this Capitol--again, a great public library. The people of Connecticut may be more sensitive to this issue than others are. The very first public library in the United States was founded in New Haven in the 1600s, so we in my State have a special affection for libraries and their value. The greatest of all libraries in the world is the Library of Congress. There is a wonderful exhibit going on as we celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Library of Congress. I encourage people who are coming to Washington to visit the wonderful exhibit of the Jefferson library. It is Thomas Jefferson's library. It was the greatest private library in the hands of any citizen in this country when he donated it. Actually, it was sold for a very modest amount after the Capitol was burned in the War of 1812. Thomas Jefferson took the 6,000 volumes that was his library, the greatest private library in the world, and said this ought to be the basis of a great national library. At the cost of $23,000, those volumes became the core of the Library of Congress we now celebrate, as we should, here in our Nation's Capital. The House proposal to cut into that budget by 1 percent, again, doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The Congressional Research Service, again, is of great value to us as we try to do our work. They are wonderful people. It does not matter, when you are provided a report, whether it is Democrats, Republicans, Independents--they give us the facts, data, hard evidence that we rely on as we try to do the people's business. We couldn't possibly afford, nor should we, to expand our staffs to include all these people who serve as our extended staff. The Congressional Research Service, the CRS, has been of great value to people in these Chambers over the years. The House proposal eliminating one out of seven employees is an example of an unwise reduction in force. With regard to the General Accounting Office, the House cuts it by 7 percent. Again, the General Accounting Office is tremendously valuable. I don't know of a single Member who has not relied on the General Accounting Office at one time or another to get good, hard, clean facts and evidence behind some of the more perplexing problems we face in our country. As to the Government Printing Office, the Congressional Budget Office, as well, the House has acted very irresponsibly. I commend our leaders, as the ranking member on the authorizing committee, the Rules Committee, and express my support for what they are trying to do. I say to the literally dozens and dozens of people who work in these buildings, be they police officers or custodial staff, doorkeepers, and the like, we do not get a chance to say this to you as often as we should but we appreciate immensely what you do. The American public, as I said, may never get to know your names, but you preserve their assets here every single day. The majority of us in this Chamber appreciate what you do. We appreciate the efforts you make around the clock. Many us have been here late in the night and meet these wonderful people, many of them women--women, not young women--who come by and clean these offices after everyone leaves, doing the tremendous work that they do. They are never seen by the Members or staff around here. I want to tell them today on this floor how much I appreciate the work they do. Again, I am confident I reflect the views of the overwhelming majority of Members in this body. We thank Senator Feinstein and we thank Senator Bennett for their efforts. We applaud Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd for demonstrating once again their deep appreciation for being good temporary caretakers, temporary custodians, of these facilities and these assets that belong to the American public. I am proud to be associated with both of these fine leaders. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Before I begin, I commend the distinguished Democratic leader, the minority leader, for his very eloquent statement and comments, particularly in regard to the need for this body to take up the issue of campaign finance reform. I could not agree more. We have had a series of hearings at the Rules Committee on the campaign finance system. We have heard from all sides, but we heard a little more from one side than another. I tried to arrange for our good friends, Senator Feingold and Senator McCain, to testify. I talked to my colleague from Wisconsin about this so we could hear about the McCain-Feingold bill. I hope our colleagues and others heard the remarks. This is a very important issue. Nothing is more fundamental than trying to get a handle on this process that has gone wild. It is absolutely out of control, and it is getting worse by the day. While there is obviously a great need to deal with other issues, nothing is more fundamental than how people get here, where their attention is spent, their time and effort, how it is allocated. Until we change the system, in my view, it will only get worse. I applaud my leader for his comments. I know he reflects the views of the overwhelming majority on this side of the aisle and some on the other side. More importantly, I think the Senator reflects the views of the American public. There may be differences on details, but fundamentally the American public understands this system is not working well at all. The point that we spend more money each year on campaigns, while voter participation seems to be heading in the opposite direction, paints a very clear picture of what the American public thinks. I associate myself with those remarks and commend the Senator for those remarks.