Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I begin by thanking the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee for his leadership and for bringing these matters to the floor. We will have roughly 6 hours of debate on this matter. A number of my colleagues have some very strong views about this nomination and will take the time to express them at the appropriate time. I begin by apologizing to Danny Lee McDonald, the Democratic nominee for the Federal Election Commission, and his family. I do not have a picture of Danny Lee McDonald. I do not know if he has a dog or not, or two dogs. I will try to correct that before the next 6 hours and see if I can come up with a nice picture of Mr. McDonald to show to our colleagues and the public.

Mr. DODD. If he does not have a dog, maybe he can rent one. This is a fine looking dog here. Maybe we can borrow that fine looking red dog for our picture. I apologize to Mr. McDonald, we do not have a similar photograph of him and his family and dog before us. I want to take our colleagues who are monitoring this back in time for a historical framework before I get to the issue of the nominees before us because it might be helpful for people to understand the legislative background as well as the historical background of these nominees and how the process has proceeded over this past quarter of a century. It has been 25 years since we created these positions. It might be worthwhile to understand how this process has worked and how nominees have historically been handled. My colleague from Kentucky has already alluded to that in his opening comments. I thought it might be helpful to take a few minutes and give a history lesson about the Federal Election Commission and about the people who have been nominated to fill these positions. We are here to consider two Presidential nominations. That is the first lesson. We are considering Presidential nominations. The Republican Party may have promoted Brad Smith and the Democrats may have promoted Danny McDonald, but, in fact, these are two nominations that have been sent to us by President Clinton, as every other President has done during the consideration of nominees for the Federal Election Commission. The two nominees are Danny McDonald of Oklahoma to fill the Democratic seat and Brad Smith of Ohio to fill the Republican seat on the Commission. Rollcall votes, as we know, will be conducted later this week. It is somewhat unusual, although not unprecedented, for the Senate to take a significant amount of time to debate Presidential nominees to the Federal Election Commission. I know some of my colleagues have planned extensive remarks, and they are not out of order at all in doing that. It has been done on other occasions. It is even more unusual for the Senate to conduct a rollcall vote, however, on such nominees. It might be instructive to briefly review Senate action of FEC nominees over the past 25 years since the creation of the Commission. Approximately 43 nominees, including reappointments, have been submitted to the Senate for consideration to this Commission. Of that total, only three nominations have required a rollcall vote by this body in the past quarter of a century. In each of those three instances, the nominees were confirmed by the Senate. The Senate has never voted to reject a nominee to the Federal Election Commission submitted by respective Presidents. Of the remaining 40 or so nominees, 3 were withdrawn by Presidents for various reasons, 1 was returned to the President without action under rule XXXI of the Senate, 3 were recess appointments, 2 of which were confirmed by the Senate by unanimous consent; and the remainder, some 33 nominees, were all confirmed by unanimous consent without recorded votes in the Senate. In the last 10 years, pairs of nominees, one Democrat paired with one Republican, have been considered by the Senate Rules Committee, reported to the Senate, and confirmed en bloc by unanimous consent. In the most recent action by the Senate in 1997, four nominees, or two pairs, were considered and confirmed in this manner and confirmed by unanimous consent, again en bloc. How is it possible so many nominees, to what is considered by some to be a controversial agency, have received the nearly unanimous support of this body throughout the past 25 years? I suggest the answer lies in the very statute that created this Commission. Chapter 14 of title 2 of the United States Code governs Federal campaigns. Section 437c establishes the Federal Election Commission and provides for the appointment of Commissioners. The statute provides for--and I apologize for going through this laboriously, but it may help to understand the background of all of this--the statute provides for the appointment by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, of six members to the Commission. Further, the statute provides that no more than three members of the Commission be affiliated with the same political party; and that members shall serve for 6 years, with the requirement that the initial six members serve staggered terms, with two members not affiliated with the same political party being paired for each of the staggered terms. These requirements were adopted by the Congress in the 1976 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act. The Supreme Court struck down the original membership provision of this act in the landmark case of Buckley v. Valeo. The original provisions of the 1971 act provided that the six members of the Commission be appointed by the President, the President pro tempore of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, with confirmation by a majority of both Houses of Congress. The Buckley Court struck that process down. What is obvious, however, is it has always been the intent of Congress that these nominees be appointed with regard to their party affiliation. That part has been quite clear. Moreover, these nominees are appointed and considered in pairs--one Democratic nominee paired with a Republican nominee --and that is how the Committee on Rules and Administration has also traditionally considered FEC nominees. The committee has similarly paired their consideration so that no hearings are held, nor are the nominees reported, except in strict pairs. In recent history, the Rules Committee has reported pairs of nominees, voting to report the pair en bloc to the Senate as a full body. That is the case with the two nominees before the Senate today. The Rules Committee held a confirmation hearing in which both nominees appeared, presented testimony, and answered questions of members of the committee. On March 8, the committee, by a voice vote, reported these nominations en bloc to the full body. That is also why the overwhelming majority of these FEC nominees have moved through the Senate over the past 25 years by unanimous consent, often, again, confirmed en bloc. The statute creates a presumption that the views of each of the two major political parties will be represented by the three members of the Commission. And the practice that has developed that the leadership of the Congress, both Republican and Democratic leadership, communicate to the President their preferences for the nominees. Presidents have rejected these preferences in the past. I noted that earlier. This practice may be a holdover from the original provisions in which the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House actually chose the nominees under the 1971 statute. Now the recommendations are made to the President, and the President makes the nomination. He can reject the recommendations, which Presidents have. Ronald Reagan rejected a nominee, and I recall Jimmy Carter also. Others may have a better recollection historically of that. This practice may be a holdover from the original provisions in which the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House actually chose the nominees. Or it may reflect the reality that such nominees, because they are intended to reflect the relative views of the political parties, must be confirmed by members of those parties in the Senate. In either event, these nominees are accepted as somewhat partisan in their views and consequently are paired in their consideration. So why does the Senate find itself in the somewhat unusual position of taking the time of the body to fully debate and conduct rollcall votes on these nominees? Not surprisingly, each of these nominees is very closely associated with the majority views of their party on issues of campaign finance reform. Commissioner McDonald has been a member of the FEC since 1982. He is currently Vice Chairman of the Commission. He has been reaffirmed to a seat on the Commission twice since his original appointment. During his tenure, he served as Chairman of the Commission three times, and as Vice Chairman four times. Professor Bradley Smith is a distinguished professor of law at Capital University Law School in Columbus, OH. He is the author of numerous scholarly articles on campaign finance and his views are well- published and widely known on this subject matter. In testimony before the Rules Committee, Mr. Smith acknowledged that, notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court in Buckley and the long line of cases that follow, he happens to believe the first amendment should be read to prohibit restrictions on campaign contributions. Mr. Smith has similarly argued that Congress needs to reverse course and loosen campaign finance regulations. He has argued that contrary to the belief of a majority in Congress, and a majority of the American people, that there is too much money in politics today, Mr. Smith argues that money increases speech and therefore we need more speech-- and more money, I argue, from his point of view--in our campaigns. He also argues that campaigns funded by small donors are not more democratic and that, in fact, large donors are healthier for the system. Mr. Smith has also argued that the perception that money buys elections is incorrect and that rather than corrupting the system, limiting money corrupts the system by entrenching the status quo, favoring wealthy individuals, and making the electoral process less responsive to public opinion. Let me categorically state for the record that I could not disagree more with Mr. Smith's positions and his writings when it comes to campaign finance. It is clear to me that money plays far too great a role in campaigns today. I could not disagree more that limits on contributions are not only constitutional but necessary for our form of democracy to survive. There is no doubt in my mind that money corrupts, or has the appearance of corrupting our system, and this perception threatens to undermine our electoral system and jeopardize the confidence in our form of democracy. I could not disagree more with Mr. Smith's conclusion that Congress needs to reverse course and loosen campaign finance regulations. It is past time for this Congress to pass comprehensive campaign finance reform, which I have consistently supported and will continue to support. That is what the debate in the Senate is about today--whether or not this Congress will act on the will of the people and bring this system of campaign finance loopholes and the money chase to a close. My support for such action could not be more clear. Notwithstanding my strong disagreement with his views, I am not going to oppose this nomination of Mr. Smith for the following reasons: Traditionally, there is a heightened level of deference given to the President's nominees, particularly when the position is designated to be filled by one party. That is particularly the case with nominees to the FEC, who by statute are to be the representatives of their political parties on that commission. Moreover, in performing our constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent to the President's nominations, the Senate should determine whether a nominee is qualified to hold the office to which he or she has been nominated. Mr. President, it is clear to me that Mr. Smith is qualified to hold this office. He is clearly intellectually qualified for the position. He is a recognized, although controversial, scholar on election law and the Constitution. He is bright, articulate, and anxious to serve. Again, I could not disagree with him more, but to say he is not qualified to serve is not to have spent time reading his writings or listening to him. You can disagree with him--and I do vehemently--but he is certainly qualified to sit on the FEC. Most importantly, he has appeared before the Senate Rules Committee and testified under oath that if confirmed, he will uphold the Constitution of the United States and the election laws of the land. During Rules Committee consideration of this nominee, I asked Mr. Smith if, notwithstanding his personal views, was he prepared to enforce the election laws founded on the congressional belief that political contributions can corrupt elections and need to be limited, as allowed by law and the Constitution. Mr. Smith responded that he would ``proudly and without reservations'' take that oath of office. Finally, this Senate, and the Rules Committee in particular, have an obligation, in my view, to fill vacancies on the Federal Election Commission. Otherwise, we face gridlock and inaction by our agencies. The FEC is simply far too important, in my view, to be hamstrung by refusing to confirm a controversial but otherwise well-qualified nominee. My vote in favor of this nomination should not be read as an endorsement of his views. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is an endorsement of the process that allows our political parties to choose nominees who hold views consistent with their own. I regret that the majority party here--at least a majority of the majority party-- embraces the views they do, and nobody holds them more strongly than my friend and colleague from Kentucky. I think he is dead wrong in his views on these issues, but he represents the views of the majority party on this issue. They have made a choice that Bradley Smith reflects their views well on this issue. Therefore, they have the right, in my view, to have him confirmed to the seat, assuming that he is otherwise qualified to sit on the Commission. I would not vote for him if it were strictly a case of endorsing his views as opposed to mine. But the FEC has never been a body where that has been a litmus test applied to Presidential nominees. Whether or not this nominee is confirmed will not determine the real issue for Congress--and that is whether we will pass meaningful campaign finance reform laws to restore the public's faith in our elected system of Government. The fundamental problem we face is not whether Bradley Smith is on the FEC, but whether or not this body, before we adjourn this Congress, is ever going to address the fundamental campaign laws that some of us would like to see modified, including the McCain-Feingold legislation, which has been before this body in the past. It is time, in my view, to confirm these nominees to ensure that this agency has a full complement of dedicated, talented Commissioners sworn to uphold the laws on the books. It is time to get on with the work of the Senate to reform our campaign finance laws and give the FEC the resources it needs --both financially and statutorily--to restore the public's confidence in our electoral system. I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. DODD. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday, May 17, 2000, I was necessarily absent during rollcall votes 102, 103, and 104 in order to accompany the President of the United States to the United States Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut, and to meet with several mayors representing cities in southeastern Connecticut. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: yes on rollcall vote 102; yes on rollcall vote 103; yes on rollcall vote 104.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the $8.6 billion that this bill provides for military construction accounts. This much needed funding will ensure that our armed forces have adequate facilities to support them in their missions, from training reservists stateside to deploying active duty personnel overseas. Additionally, this bill finances the construction, improvement, and maintenance of military family housing in the United States and abroad. In a time when it is becoming increasingly difficult for the armed services to recruit and retain qualified personnel, the importance of providing for proper housing cannot be overstated. Thousands of men and women in uniform report for duty each morning in my home state of Connecticut, and this bill will fund improvements where they work as well as where they live. First, this bill will fund the building of a pier at the New London Submarine Base that will greatly contribute to safe and efficient operations at the base's drydock. The single pier that presently serves the drydock is overburdened and cluttered to such a degree that it unnecessarily complicates maintenance work and extends the time required to conduct ship repairs. Once the new pier is built, the Navy estimates that it will pay for itself in under six years. Additionally, this bill provides for the reconstruction of the Air National Guard Complex in Orange, CT. The current structure, in which the soldiers of the 103rd Air Control Squadron train to control aircraft, was built in the 1950s and suffers from several shortcomings in terms of fire, health, and safety guidelines. Last year, many of the soldiers in this squadron were deployed to Bosnia for 120 days, and they did an outstanding job. Today, they continue to train in order to be ready to deploy to the corners of the earth in defense of this nation's interests. They deserve to work and train in a safe, modern facility. Also, this bill funds badly needed improvements to 295 homes at the New London Submarine Base. The improvements to these nearly forty-year- old homes include electrical and plumbing upgrades, installation of natural gas heating systems, and replacing roofs, windows, and exterior siding. The time has come to accomplish these projects, and they help fulfill our responsibility to ensure that our armed services personnel and their families live in well-maintained homes. I can think of few better ways to show our men and women in uniform that we appreciate their service and sacrifice on behalf of this nation. Finally, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Military Construction Subcommittee, Senators Burns and Murray. They have accomplished the important work of prioritizing the military construction projects and bringing this bill to the floor. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of these priorities.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, a little over a year ago, I rose in this Chamber to address the crisis in Kosovo. At that time, I had just recently returned from a trip to the refugee camps of Macedonia, where I witnessed firsthand the pain and suffering of displaced people in the troubled Balkan peninsula. During that visit, I was struck by the sight of 45,000 people living in tents in an area half the size of The Mall. Families were lined up for food and medicine and used ditches as latrines. Some individuals told me stories of being brutalized by the Serbian military and police in Kosovo and others of being evicted from their homes and separated from their families. Mr. President, I have seen a lot of hardship in my time, but nothing I have ever seen comes close to what I saw in the Balkans. I returned from that trip determined to convince my colleagues that the United States had an integral role to play in the alleviation of suffering that the people of Kosovo had been subjected to by Serbian President Milosevic. At that time many in this body agreed that the United States had a moral obligation to join with our European allies in stopping Serbian aggression and creating the conditions to allow Kosovars to return to their homes. Now it is a year later. Some things have changed. The international community stood up to the bully--Milosevic, and like most bullies he backed down and withdrew his forces from Kosovo. However, he left the province in total devastation--both physically and psychologically. Many of those displaced by the conflict returned to find their homes and livelihoods in ashes. Rebuilding from the rubble has been difficult. Particularly as just across the provincial border, President Milosevic still rules, a million people are still displaced from their homes and families, and lasting peace has not been achieved. The United States, in partnership with our friends and allies, has attempted to assist Kosovars in picking up the pieces and restoring some semblance of law and order to the province. There has been some progress in that direction, but much remains to be done. Yet, despite the unfinished business that remains the legislation before us today, if it becomes law, would establish a date certain--next July--for ending United States participation in restoring democracy in Kosovo. I remember well, that prior to the commencement of NATO bombing in March of last year many in this body criticized the President for sitting on his hands while ethnic Albanian Kosovars were being subjected to gross human rights violations under the direction of President Milosevic and Serbian security forces. I hope that those individuals are not now going to turn around and support an effort to mandate the full and complete withdrawal of U.S. ground troops from Kosovo. Even if the United States were to decide to withdraw from the region, which, let me state, is not what I believe we should do, it is incredibly foolhardy to announce the exact date to the enemy. Knowing of imminent United States withdrawal from the Balkans, President Milosevic will have no incentive to step down or improve his human rights record at all, and the timing of the withdrawal, July 2001, follows far too quickly the inauguration of a new President here in the United States. If there is any doubt in anyone's mind about whether U.S. presence is warranted in Kosovo, I promise my colleagues that had they been with me in Kosovo last year and seen what I saw, there would be absolutely no debate in this Chamber about whether or not we are taking the right course of action. Our efforts to restore people to their homes, bring an end to conflict, and save the lives of thousands are assuredly the right things to do. Rather than send out more mixed signals, I hope that Slobodan Milosevic will hear from this Chamber--That we are not going to second guess the President or Secretary of Defense in deciding when the appropriate time has come for the United States to withdraw its forces from the Balkans--That the United States is determined to remain in Kosovo until the wounds have healed and civil society is strong enough to support democratic governance of all the people of Kosovo, including its Serbian minority--And that we are proud of the American service men and women who are deployed in Kosovo and who are committed to getting the job done. They know why they are there and understand the seriousness and importance of their mission. We do them a disservice by suggesting otherwise. Mr. President, the Senate will be acting irresponsibly if it approves legislation mandating an end to our participation in Kosovo. I would urge my colleagues to support an amendment to strike this provision from the bill and renew our commitment to assist the people of Kosovo in the months ahead as they try to rebuild their lives and those of their loved ones.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to the Senate's attention an excellent report on the state of child care in the U.S. military and the implications for improving civilian child care. ``Be All That We Can Be: Lessons from the Military for Improving Our Nation's Child Care System'' documents the Department of Defense's impressive turn-around of its troubled child care system and its emergence as a model of affordable and quality child care for the civilian world. As recently as ten years ago, military child care was in crisis--changing demographics in the military workforce had led to a surge in demand for child care that the Department was unprepared to meet. Child care waiting lists soared and quality plummeted. Prodded by a GAO report, Congressional hearings, and the recognition that child care is a fundamental issue for military readiness, the Department of Defense turned its child care system the gold standard for the Nation. The experience of the Department of Defense offers important lessons for the civilian world and offers great hope for improving child care across the Nation. Parents should not have to join the service to receive good child care. High quality, affordable care is a basic necessity for all working families. It is my hope that we will take these lessons to heart and commit to ensuring that all children are given opportunities for the right start in life. I would like to express my gratitude to Nancy Duff Campbell and Judith Appelbaum of the National Women's Law Center for their hard work on producing this valuable report and I would ask that a summary of the important ``lessons learned'' from their report be entered into the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I also thank the majority leader. I am not a member of the committee, but I wanted to commend the Senator from New York once again for his tremendous leadership on this issue, and Senator Grassley who is filling in for Senator Roth, who will be back next week. I commend the majority leader and minority leader. This is an example of what this body can do on issues that usually provoke the most bitter debates. Trade policy and some other issues can be tremendously acrimonious. The fact that the leadership on both sides of the aisle worked as diligently and as hard as they did to try to come up with some understandings as to how to recognize legitimate interests speaks volumes about what this body can do on something as significant and as important as this bill. I didn't want the moment to pass without commending, obviously, the floor managers and the Finance Committee for their work, but also the leadership for their support of this measure. The administration, as well, should be mentioned in this context. While it has been 6 years, we are going to be dealing with a couple of these issues now in sequence that will be very important and, obviously, their backing and support is worthwhile. Regarding the last point our colleague from Iowa made, my hope is that passage will also serve as a springboard for us to deal with other foreign policy matters that serve the interests of our country. We have entered a global economy. We all know the lingo about the kind of world of which we are now a part. It is going to be critically important that the Senate of the United States is fulfilling its historic role--the unique aspect of the legislative part of Government--to be engaged in the foreign policy interests of our Nation. This agreement certainly serves the interests of Africa and the Caribbean Basin very well. But more importantly, it serves the interests of our Nation very well. So I commend the staff and others who were involved. This is a great start. The leadership deserves commendation for their support and their willingness to put a shoulder behind this effort. I also thank the minority leader, Tom Daschle, for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, at the outset of these remarks let me commend the distinguished Senator from New York, my good friend and colleague, along with the chairman of the trade subcommittee and others who make up the membership of the Finance Committee, for their leadership on this issue. It has been a long time since this body has dealt with a trade issue as significant, in my view, as the matter before us. That is not because of the volume of trade or the size or magnitude of the financial transactions which will ensue as a result of our adoption of this agreement, but because, in my view, it sends a far more important signal to some of the very poor, if not the poorest, areas of this globe, that the wealthiest nation of the world at the beginning of the 21st century recognizes that we bear some responsibility for trying to alleviate some of the devastating hardship that afflicts too many millions of people around this Earth. This agreement that deals with the sub-Saharan African nations and the Caribbean Basin is an important first step in this century to take meaningful steps to alleviate some of the devastating human hardships that affect too many innocent people. I am proud to associate myself with this proposal. I urge the adoption of it by what I hope will be an overwhelming vote of this body so, as we begin this new century, we say to future generations who will sit in the chairs we now hold in this body that the 21st century is a century where the free flow of goods and services across the Earth is something that ought to be a central ingredient for economic success in improving the human condition. Passage of this legislation, in my view, comes at a very critical time for the future economic success of the regions that are covered by this legislation, the sub-Saharan African region and the Caribbean nations. One has only to pick up the paper to read of the crippling effects of poverty, famine, and illness that have taken hold in Africa and the devastating impact natural disasters, such as Hurricanes Georges and Mitch, have had on the economies of Caribbean nations. This legislation will give these nations the opportunity--just the opportunity--to begin recovering and to help them establish a foothold in our increasingly interconnected global marketplace. At the same time, this bill equally recognizes the importance of protecting American interests and American jobs by including a number of very specific safeguards aimed at ensuring the viability and success of our domestic producers. Overall, I believe the committee has presented the Senate with a very balanced trade package. The central focus of this legislation is the provisions relating to the 48 desperately poor countries of the sub-Sarahan African region. This region of the world has continuously been disregarded as a serious trading partner. While we have granted trade benefits to other areas of the world, including Mexico and Canada, Africa has never been afforded a similar opportunity--never. I believe the African Growth and Opportunity Act will significantly alter our trade relationship with Africa, while also providing these countries with the beginnings of the means for positive and substantial economic reform. I will take this opportunity to address some of the highlights of this legislation. First, the legislation provides duty and quota-free access to U.S. markets for certain textiles and apparel. This provision should not adversely affect the domestic apparel industry since African exports of these products--and listen to this carefully --account for less than 1 percent of our total imports. We are opening our door to 48 nations in the poorest region of the world for something that amounts to less than 1 percent coming into our Nation. That is why I said at the outset of these remarks that it is not the magnitude of the trading relationship that will happen or the dollar amount that will exchange hands, but for the first time we will recognize this part of the world as an important part of the world, and one that needs our help. There is not enough money in the appropriations bucket to draw upon to provide the kind of relief these people need in these 48 nations. We cannot do that, but we can begin to give them the opportunity of access to a tiny percentage of our market, and offer some hope and relief to millions of people. We should not do it without regard to the interests of our own people. I listened carefully to the remarks of my good friend and colleague from South Carolina. He speaks with great passion about the people he represents in his State. There are thousands of others across this country who earn a living every day in the apparel and textile industry. None of us ought to disregard their interests. Our responsibility, first and foremost, must be to our own people. In this piece of legislation, we protect American workers. In a few short years, if we fail to adopt the measure before us, the quotas that are presently allowed in trade bills with the Pacific Rim countries will come to an end. Once that has come to an end, the markets will open up and a domestic content requirement will not be necessary. Literally thousands of jobs that today find a home in the textile and apparel industry in this country could be lost forever. One of the things I admire about the authors of this bill is--and they truly deserve our commendation--the fact that not only have they found a way to provide some meaningful economic opportunity for millions of people in some of the poorest parts of the world, if not the poorest, but they have also done so in a way that takes into consideration the needs of our own people. It is a well-balanced piece of legislation. I strongly support their efforts. To address the serious problem of transshipment of apparel products, this legislation also establishes strict provisions to curb the practice of transshipment of products from one place to another. Beneficiary countries must adopt a visa system to guard against illegal transshipment and the use of counterfeit documents. In addition, countries are also required to enact regulations that would allow the U.S. Customs Service to investigate alleged cases of transshipment. To that end, almost $6 million has been authorized to assist the Customs Service in these efforts and to provide technical assistance to African nations which will help them combat transshipment. Furthermore, if a country is found to be engaging in illegal transshipping activities, it may be denied benefits for up to 5 years, a significant penalty. I again commend the authors for the inclusion of that provision. In the event the U.S. apparel industry suffers economic injury or a threat of economic injury due to a surge in imports, a so-called ``snap-back'' provision has been included in this bill that would set duties back to their non-preferential levels. The President of the United States has been granted authority to monitor African imports, and he has the right to initiate investigations to determine whether imports are harmful to domestic producers. Second, the bill enhances the 1984 Caribbean Basin Initiative by promoting economic growth in this region. Like the benefits accorded the sub-Saharan African nations, the enhanced Caribbean Basin Initiative will grant duty and quota-free treatment to apparel and textiles made from U.S. yarn and fabric. Benefits have also been extended to products not currently included under the Caribbean Basin Initiative, including footwear, tuna, and watches. Strict transshipment provisions also apply to these CBI nations. The legislation similarly calls on these nations to institute effective Customs programs to prevent illegal transshipment. Moreover, it establishes a ``one strike and you're out'' provision. Should an exporter be found to have illegally transshipped apparel or textiles from a Caribbean Basin Initiative nation into the United States, the President has the authority to deny benefits to that exporter for up to 2 years and who may be required to remit payment totaling three times the existing textile and apparel quotas. I cite the details of this because it is important our colleagues understand that the authors have been very careful to write into this legislation provisions that will guard against the very things of which the bill is being accused. Is it perfect? Will there be those who may try to take advantage of this? I am certain there will be, but the overall benefits of this legislation with the provisions to guard against illegal activities certainly warrant support of this bill, given the good and beneficial provisions included in it that should provide the relief I mentioned earlier. I am pleased the conference report includes language that links trade benefits to countries' commitment to eliminating one of the worst forms of child labor. We can thank our colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who cares deeply about this issue and helped write, I gather, some of the provisions dealing with it. The bill also bans imports of products made with forced or indentured child labor. This morning, President Clinton issued an Executive order that adds a provision that was dropped in conference making AIDS and HIV drugs more readily available to African nations whose people have been so ravaged by this deadly disease. I note the presence of our colleague from the State of Wisconsin who has spoken eloquently about the issue of AIDS and the importance of trying to do more to alleviate the overwhelming problems that have crippled literally millions of people in many of these nations. This is not to say this is a perfect conference report, as I said earlier, and I am disappointed the conferees did not include funding for similar trade preferences to the nation of Colombia. My good friend and colleague from New York heard me talk about this. I believe I overextended my friendship with him by calling on numerous occasions to see whether or not we could include Colombia as part of this package. I note my colleague from Florida, as well, who spent countless hours to find ways to provide some meaningful alternative economic opportunities for the people of Colombia who today are presently engaged, in far too many cases, in the growth and production of narcotics products. Unfortunately, they end up, too often, in the cities of our Nation, where drugs and narcotic trafficking is a huge problem. My hope was, by including Colombia, in addition to the other provisions that will soon be debated in the Senate, we would have been able to provide a meaningful economic alternative for these people who today engage in the drug production and trafficking in that country. My hope is, in the near future, we will move to the Andean agreements which are up for reauthorization and that Colombia can be included, along with her neighboring countries. This legislation is about helping countries help themselves by strengthening their economies. It is increasingly difficult to find funds even for the most worthy of aid initiatives. Trade, not aid, has been the answer to a country's well-being. While industrialized nations of the world have benefited from U.S. trading policies, it is time we offer less fortunate nations of the Caribbean and sub-Saharan Africa comparable opportunities. In the year 2005, pursuant to the GATT rule, all WTO member countries will gain quota-free access to our markets--quota-free access in 5 years. CBI enhancement and the African Growth and Opportunity Act, if enacted, will allow countries in those regions to better prepare for that day and to equip them to become full trading partners in the global economy during the next decade. If we do not do it and we have the quota-free access to our markets, then I do not think anything we can do 5 years from now will provide any relief economically whatsoever for the 48 nations of the sub- Saharan region and the more than two dozen nations in the Caribbean Basin that will benefit as a result of this legislation. So, again, I commend Senator Roth, who is not here with us today--but we certainly think of him and recognize his leadership on this issue-- and, as I said, Senator Moynihan, who will more than likely be dealing with one or two of the last trade bills of his tenure in the Senate. But it is worthy of him, in the waning days of his career here, that he would fight as hard as he has to see to it this legislation would have a full hearing, debate, and an opportunity for passage in the Senate. Lastly, may I say, again, we are a great and wonderful nation. We like to think of ourselves as a generous and good people. While I said a moment ago that it is far more important that we consider the impact of anything we do on our own people, it is, I think, in the hearts and spirits of all Americans that we try to reach out and help others. I had the wonderful privilege of serving as a Peace Corps volunteer back in the 1960s when I graduated from college. It was a seminal event in my life--a life-changing experience, to learn from a distance, in a way, how our country was thought of. Despite the difficulties of the day that raged in Southeast Asia, and our own difficulties here at home, we were thought of, in the nation that I served in, as a good people, a giving people. As we begin this century, as I mentioned earlier--the 21st century-- we have an opportunity, with this bill, to say to millions of people, the most desperately poor people in the world, that this, the greatest nation of all, is willing to extend a hand, a helping hand. We must help them to get on their feet, to provide the kinds of tools that will make it possible for them to achieve economic opportunity, to enhance the cause of democracy in these nations, which can never survive in the absence of some economic growth and opportunity. With this legislation we are doing ourselves and future generations, in this Nation and around the world, a great favor, indeed. I commend the authors of the bill. I strongly support its adoption and hope this small but meaningful effort will begin to make a difference in the lives of millions of people in Africa and in the Caribbean Basin. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Stevens, Kennedy and Jeffords and others in support of this amendment. As we enter the new millenium, we have before us a unique opportunity to enact legislation that will give every child the chance for the right start in life. Recent research on the brain has clearly demonstrated that the years from birth to school enrollment are a hotbed of neurological activity-- an unparalleled opportunity for children to acquire the foundation for learning. While this seems to be common sense--and something that parents have always know intuitively--in fact, it is only recently that parents' intuition has been backed by evidence. Until only 15 years ago, scientists still assumed that at birth a baby's potential for learning was pretty firmly in place. We now know that to be untrue. Now we know that just in the first few months of life, the connections between neurons, or synapses, in a child's brain will increase 20-fold, to more than 1,000 trillion--more than all the stars in the Milky Way. In those months and years, the brain's circuitry is wired. With attention and stimulation from parents and other caregivers, we begin to see the permanent pathways for learning and caring forming in a child's brain. The downside to the plasticity of the brain is that it can be as easily shaped by negative experiences as positive experiences. Fear and neglect are just as readily wired into the brain as caring and learning. Scientists have also found that the brain's flexibility in those early years is not absolute. Some skills can only be acquired during defined windows of opportunity. Abilities, like sight and speech, that are not wired into place within a certain critical period may be unattainable--a ``use it or lose it'' phenomenon. We see this phenomenon played out in the classroom. Kindergarten teachers across the country tell us that as many as one in three children begins the first day of school unprepared to learn. Because they have never been read to, basic literacy skills have not taken hold. Because they were never screened for health problems, they have undiagnosed hearing or vision impairments. If we accept the science of brain development, it's clear that is where our investments should be. The data is in and the facts are undisputable: The experiences a child has in the years from birth to age 6 set the stage for that child's later academic success. Investing in early learning saves us money in the long run. It is very simple--if children enter kindergarten and first grade unprepared, they may never catch up. As a society, we pay dearly for that lack of readiness. We pay in the lost potential of that child. We pay in terms of higher special education costs. And we pay in terms of increased juvenile justice costs. There is no more fitting place for this amendment to be considered than here as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--a very appropriate place to formally recognize the fact that learning starts at birth. This amendment has two main objectives: To provide parents and others who care for children with the skills and resources to support children's development and to engage communities in providing early learning opportunities for all children. Because parents are children's first and best teachers, this legislation would support their efforts to create healthy and stimulating environments for their children. But, knowing that more than 60 percent of children younger than age six--regardless of whether their mothers work--are in some form of non- parental care, this legislation would also support the efforts of child care centers and home-based child care providers to offer positive early learning experiences. Importantly, the delivery system for all of these investments is the community. Under this legislation, local councils of parents, teachers and child care providers will assess the community's needs and determine how to allocate resources. In addition to using funds to support parents and other caregivers, funds could be used: To increase access to existing programs by expanding the days or times that children are served or by making services available to children in low-income families. To enhance early childhood literacy. To link early learning providers to one another and to health services. To improve quality of existing early learning programs through recruitment, retention, and professional development incentives, and To increase early learning opportunities for children with special needs. If this model sounds familiar to you, it should. The strategy of investing in early learning has been embraced in some form by over 42 governors. In the laboratory of the states, governors, business leaders, parents, and kindergarten teachers have decided that they are convinced enough by the science and the facts to forge ahead. In Connecticut, we are entering our third year of a wildly popular school readiness initiative. As a result of this initiative, 41 cities and towns are now providing high quality preschool experiences to over 6,000 children. The results of this initiative in terms of improvements in school readiness and reductions in special education costs have been so significant that the Governor and legislature have almost doubled funding in three years to $72 million. Interestingly, perhaps the strongest backer of this initiative has been the business community. The people who like to crunch numbers, to see things in terms of costs and benefits looked at the facts and decided that early learning was a wise investment. That says a lot. States are doing their part. Many businesses are doing their part. The federal government must do its part. As we enter the 21st century, let's get our priorities straight. We cannot and should not let this opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of children and families across America pass us by. Our children are priceless--we shouldn't ``nickel and dime'' them when it comes to providing the best possible start in life. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I know the sponsors are here. I know there is a limited amount of time. The sponsors of the amendment want to be heard. I rise to commend Senator Lieberman and the others--Senators Bayh, Graham, Lincoln, Landrieu, Bryan, Kohl, Robb, and Breaux--who have offered this amendment. I want to commend them on their commitment and their ideas in working toward the goal before all of us today-- accelerating the pace of reform in our schools. We have worked hard together on this issue for months, and in some cases, for years. Senator Lieberman and I are fortunate to come from the same state, Connecticut, which is a national leader in school reform and student achievement and a constant source of ideas for both of us--so we have worked together on this issue for some time. And contrary to what some may have heard, there is significant agreement among all of us about the direction of federal education policy. As is always the case, we hear more about the planes that don't fly and the issues that divide us than the planes that do fly and the issues that unite us. Our agreements are many and significant. First and foremost, we all agree the status quo is not good enough for our schools, our children, our nation, or for us. We agree that the federal government must be a leader, a partner and a supporter of local, public schools. We agree that federal dollars and efforts must be targeted on the neediest students and work to address the achievement gap that plagues too many of our schools and communities. Beyond policy goals, we agree on many specifics of this proposal--a strengthened, reform-oriented Title I program; accountability for federal dollars and for progress in increasing student achievement; public school choice; a clear class size authorization; targeting of dollars to needy children; and a significant reinvestment in the public schools. These are the core issues of the debate before us--and core areas of agreement that unite all Democrats. In particular, they unite us against the bill before us, S. 2. A bill which abandons the federal commitment to needy students, to high standards for all children, and to the goals and progress of school reform. We all stand against this vision for America's children. I do, however, differ with my colleagues on the extent of consolidation they propose in their substitute--the other issues can and were worked out in our alternative. On consolidation, I believe it is appropriate to carefully examine programs and focus our federal programs on areas that demand a national response. I supported many of the provisions of S. 2 which eliminate a significant number of programs--Goals 2000, School to Work--but I cannot go quite as far as my good friends go in their proposal. I think what is lost is that all-important support of local programs in areas like after-school, school safety, education technology, character education, school readiness, and literacy. The efforts that focus attention, attract dollars and produce results. Let me give you one example that I know well--after-school programs. The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program was created in 1994 and was first funded at $750,000 in FY 1995; it has grown to $453 million in FY 2000. It grew because it is focused on after-school, which we know is desperately needed, so we funded it, and funded it substantially. Thousands of grants of significant size flow to needy school districts to support strong, comprehensive after-school programs. The proposal before us would eliminate this strong program and instead have a small portion of the dollars that reach the local level go to support after-school programs. I believe this would not leverage change in this area; it would not attract the dollars needed and it would not meet our goals in as targeted a way. I believe we better leverage our dollars through our federal partnership directly with local schools in these areas than we would through a more generic funding approach such as offered in this bill. So I cannot support this substitute today. I want to continue to work with my colleagues on these issues--their ideas have contributed a great deal to this debate. We made substantial progress putting together the Democratic Alternative, which we all supported. Our schools need many voices, many supporters and I welcome my colleagues to these issues, to this debate and ultimately to the effort to better serve our children. We have had 25 or 30 hearings over the last year and a half or 2 years on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, trying to get at the very issues and develop consensus. Participation is strongly welcomed. I look forward to an ongoing process. This does not end today, tomorrow, or the next day but will take some time to reach the level of success we want accomplished in our public education environment in this country. I thank my colleague for yielding, and my compliments to the authors.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, after numerous unsuccessful attempts, last year, Congress enacted legislation to modernize our nation's financial services laws. This important legislation will help to provide consumers greater choices for financial products and services and will also ensure that U.S. financial services companies are better equipped to handle the challenges of competing in a global marketplace. As part of the financial services modernization legislation, limited provisions were included to help protect consumers' personal financial privacy. While these provisions were constructive, I believe that Congress must continue to press for the strongest possible privacy protections for financial services consumers. I rise today in support of legislation, the Financial Information Privacy Protection Act of 2000, which affords additional privacy protections for financial services consumers. Although it does not fully address my concerns with respect to the protection of financial and medical information, this legislation is a modest, but important step, in ensuring what I believe to be fundamental for all financial consumers, whether they execute their transactions in person, by mail or phone, or online. Consumers should have the ultimate control over the sharing of their personal financial information. This legislation provides that among affiliates of financial institutions as well as to unaffiliated third parties, consumers would be afforded the opportunity to ``op-out'' of the sharing of their personal financial information. Additionally, this legislation gives enhanced protection to consumers' medical records. Under this legislation, financial institutions would be required to obtain an affirmative consent from a consumer before the consumer's medical information could be shared among affiliates. Although I believe this is an important component in safeguarding the privacy of medical information, I continue to believe that it is critical we pass comprehensive medical privacy legislation this year so that consumers can be assured that their medical information is protected regardless of the context in which it generated or used. As we continue to wrestle with finding the proper balance between the providing new financial products and services while at the same time providing consumers with the strongest possible protections for their personal financial and medical information, This legislation is a positive step in the right direction.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Correct.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague would yield, we have a number of former Governors here, some of whom support this amendment. I wonder if when they were Governors they supported this. I see the majority leader on the floor. The minority leader and I certainly yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. First, I commend Senator Kennedy for his comments. The alternative of rewarding schools as opposed to individual teachers is a very sound way of approaching this--the team environment, the team effort. I find it somewhat ironic that the authors of S. 2 want to have the Federal Government stop dictating to the States and communities how the 7 cents on the dollar the Federal government provides for education is going to be used, yet in this amendment they have offered, they ask that this body to decide what certification or merit pay will be provided for teachers across the country. What works best is a decision that ought to be left to the States or the local communities. For the Senate to go on record to decide what will work best in the 50 States is in direct contradiction to the arguments I hear being made in support of the underlying bill, and that is: We do not know what we are doing here; we ought to leave this up to the local governments. Now we are going to decide, apparently, that teachers ought to get a pay increase rather than leaving that decision to the local level. It seems they have it backwards. Those decisions are best left at the local level. As the Senator from Massachusetts has accurately pointed out, in State after State where it has been tried--it is not as if it has not been tried--it has not worked very well. Instead of disregarding what is occurring at the local level, why not give them the chance in this area to decide what works best instead of trying to micromanage the pay or compensation of teachers based on some test that, as the Senator from Massachusetts said, would pit one against the other. As he pointed out, there was an effort in Fairfax County, VA, to try this scheme. Maybe the Senator from Massachusetts can tell me again what was the experience in Fairfax, VA. They tried merit pay as a way to improve student performance, and what were the results of that experiment?

Mr. DODD. When they dealt with teacher merit pay for the whole school in New Haven--I gather it was New Haven, California, not New Haven, Connecticut----

Mr. DODD. What was the experience there? Did the entire school benefit?

Mr. DODD. Lastly, I ask my colleague, does he know of any example, in his tenure in the Senate, where we have ever required merit pay for physicians, attorneys, architects, or any other profession you can think of? Has the Senate of the United States ever gone on record and said that as a condition of receiving Federal support, such as for health care plans or for legal issues, that we, as a matter of Federal policy, would require, in those professions, that they be required to be certified midcareer?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, after numerous unsuccessful attempts, last year, Congress enacted legislation to modernize our nation's financial services laws. This important legislation will help to provide consumers greater choices for financial products and services and will also ensure that U.S. financial services companies are better equipped to handle the challenges of competing in a global marketplace. As part of the financial services modernization legislation, limited provisions were included to help protect consumers' personal financial privacy. While these provisions were constructive, I believe that Congress must continue to press for the strongest possible privacy protections for financial services consumers. I rise today in support of legislation, the Financial Information Privacy Protection Act of 2000, which affords additional privacy protections for financial services consumers. Although it does not fully address my concerns with respect to the protection of financial and medical information, this legislation is a modest, but important step, in ensuring what I believe to be fundamental for all financial consumers, whether they execute their transactions in person, by mail or phone, or online. Consumers should have the ultimate control over the sharing of their personal financial information. This legislation provides that among affiliates of financial institutions as well as to unaffiliated third parties, consumers would be afforded the opportunity to ``op-out'' of the sharing of their personal financial information. Additionally, this legislation gives enhanced protection to consumers' medical records. Under this legislation, financial institutions would be required to obtain an affirmative consent from a consumer before the consumer's medical information could be shared among affiliates. Although I believe this is an important component in safeguarding the privacy of medical information, I continue to believe that it is critical we pass comprehensive medical privacy legislation this year so that consumers can be assured that their medical information is protected regardless of the context in which it generated or used. As we continue to wrestle with finding the proper balance between the providing new financial products and services while at the same time providing consumers with the strongest possible protections for their personal financial and medical information, This legislation is a positive step in the right direction.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent for floor privileges for three individuals on Senate bill 2: Kathy Hogan- Bruen, Meredith Miller, and Shannon Faltens.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I see a number of my colleagues. I know time is running along before the first vote will occur. I will try to move along and not delay my remarks or be repetitive. Unfortunately, there are some significant distinctions between the alternative and what is being proposed in S. 2. I always think it is worthwhile to lay some basic facts before our colleagues, which I have done in the past, but I believe it deserves repeating. Fifty-three million children every day go to an elementary school or high school in America. About 48 or 49 million of the 53 million walk through the doors of public schools in all 50 States and territories of the United States; about 4 to 5 million go to a nonpublic school in America. Our principal responsibility is how do we improve the quality of public education in the United States. We spend less than one-half of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget on elementary and secondary education. I expect that comes somewhat as a surprise to the majority of Americans that we spend even less on the education of 90 to 95 percent of all children in the United States than we do on foreign aid, and more speeches are given on education on a weekly basis than any other subject matter. Most of those speeches begin with how nothing is more important to the well-being and future of our Nation than the education of our children. Yet less than one- half of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget is spent on improving the quality of education for America's children. The rest of the education money comes from our local communities and States. We are not much of a partner when it comes to the education of America's children. I do not think the question is whether we are doing too much. I happen to subscribe to the notion we are not doing much at all. Of the entire education budget, the Federal government provides 7 percent--a little less--of the total dollars spent on education. Ninety-three percent comes from our States and communities. We are involved with 7 percent of that education budget, less than one-half of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget of the United States. We really do not do much for education. We decided 35 years ago that it would make sense to at least try to do something about the poorer schools in America. Why? Simply, we came to the realization that on a State-by-State basis, there was not a great allocation of resources to the poorest schools, both urban and rural. In fact, States were spending about 60 cents, 63 cents on poor children. With our 7 cents on the dollar, we spend about $4.50 on poor children as opposed to the Governors across the country. We tried to target these resources to those areas, a rifle shot into the areas we thought might do the most good to make a difference. It has been said over and over this afternoon that, in 1965, they began with the idea of turning over a bunch of money--basically a block grant to the States--and said: Get this money back to those poor communities. As my colleagues just heard from our colleague from Massachusetts and others, the track record of what happened to those dollars was abysmal, it was embarrassing, it was scandalous. Money that was supposed to go to these poorer schools to improve the quality of education went, in case after case, to anything but that. So we decided collectively-- again not in any partisan way--that we ought to come up with a better idea of getting the resources into these tough nonperforming schools in rural America and urban America. We began the process targeting dollars. That is where we are today. What is the difference between what has been offered by the distinguished minority leader, Senator Daschle, and others and what is the underlying bill? First and foremost is this notion of block grants. It is a big difference, unfortunately. I wish it were not. I wish we could work out some differences, but apparently that is not possible, despite efforts over weeks and weeks to iron out the differences. What is the difference? A block grant is turning a large sum of money over to the Governors, which is what the underlying bill does, with the hopes the Governors are then going to transfer those resources to the local communities. We, on the other hand, think that we are better off targeting those dollars directly back to the local community. Why? We happen to know-- my good friend from Missouri is a former Governor--too often when the political debates occur in the State legislatures, it is hard. Sometimes the poorest areas do not have the political muscle to get the necessary resources. It is basically a revenue sharing program. They fight over scarce dollars even at the State level. They end up not doing what I know my colleagues who advocate block grants want to happen. The fact is, in too many States, those dollars end up going off in different directions. As a result, we do not have any accountability. We are the ones who said you do it at the State level, you identify the needs, you come up with a plan, and at the end of 5 years, we will determine whether or not, based on your criteria, you have done it. That is hardly what I call a tough accountability standard when it comes to tracking the 7 cents on the dollar that we are providing for elementary and secondary education. We came up with an alternative to S. 2, the underlying bill. Who opposes the underlying bill? We do, the Senator from Massachusetts, myself, and the Senator from Washington, but that is not terribly relevant. Also opposing it is the Council of Chief State School Officers, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Parent-Teachers Association, and the National School Board Association. Who do my colleagues think these people are? Put aside the teachers' unions everybody gets fired up about. What about the locally elected school boards? Does anyone think they know anything about education? Are they blind to all of this? Are parent-teacher associations some little special interest groups off in a corner that are trying to squeeze out some dollars for themselves? These are the people we represent. These principals, these school boards, these PTAs, they are saying this underlying bill is a bad idea. We are just giving voice to their concerns, identifying what they have said are the reasons to oppose this, and finding the common ground that will allow us to develop a program. We try to do this with the alternative which we will vote on shortly. It will get these scarce dollars to the areas that need them the most. In a sense, what we are doing with S. 2 is walking away from the partnership, as limited a partnership as it is, with the scarce dollars we provide. We are now going to walk away from that. We are saying to these local communities: You do not know what you are talking about, the things you told us that you thought would work that we tried to incorporate. Our good friends on the other side of the aisle are saying: Those school board members, those PTA members, those school principals, they do not know what they are talking about. We know best. I respectfully suggest that is a certain sort of arrogance. Our bill requires and depends upon what we are getting from the local officials who know what they are taking about and have asked us to approach this problem in the way we have offered here today. Under the plan offered by our colleagues on the other side, as I mentioned a moment ago, the Governors would identify ``educational priorities''--that is a quote from the bill--and over the next 5 years spend Federal funds on those ``priorities" without any accountability for results. We go 5 years? And then we get some sort of accountability back? Governors would also be able to reallocate dollars. There would be no targeting of resources. This is ludicrous. Given what we know from the General Accounting Office, States provide an additional 63 cents, I mentioned earlier, for each poor student. That is the history--63 cents for every poor child in the State. The Federal Government provides $4.70 or more. So we block grant a lot of what we are talking about here. Again, given the track record of our States in reaching these poor communities, it does not happen. Block grants also weaken the focus on key areas of national priorities and obligations. Does anyone really think--we have all been around politics long enough. How vibrant a constituency do you think homeless children are? Tell me about the lawyers they hire. What political action committee do homeless or migrant children have? Does anyone know of a political action committee that raises money for homeless kids or migrant kids or title I kids? I do not know of any. Yet we are saying we are going to block grant these dollars for migrant children and homeless children, and we will leave it there in the State capitals. And don't worry, it is going to get to them. There is no track record of that at all. In fact, the track record tells us a completely different story. The track record says it does not get to them. If we truly care about what our mayors and our school boards and our PTAs are saying in these communities where these kids live, they have asked us to follow a pattern that allows these dollars to go directly to them. This shouldn't be any great revelation. I do not claim any one State is necessarily better than another. The fact is, if you are a homeless kid or a migrant kid or a poor kid or a title I kid, the likelihood that you are going to end up getting your share of the $1 is pretty small. We recognize that here. The school boards recognize it. The PTAs recognize it. That is why they oppose what is in S. 2. Don't believe me. Don't believe my colleagues who have stood up and argued for this. Listen to the voices of the people who come from your States. It is the PTAs and the school boards that are saying: Get this money directly back to us. Our bill acknowledges and supports key national priorities and priorities for parents. We know our involvement is limited; as I said, 7 cents out of a dollar that is spent on education. But we try to leverage those dollars to national needs. So our 7 cents actually, in many cases, leverages a bit more of local or State dollars in these areas. National priorities: We do not make up the list of national priorities. This was not somehow drafted in a back room here or in the Democratic National Committee or the office of the minority leader. Class size, school infrastructure, educational technology: go back to any community you reside in in America and ask whether or not those are important issues. You will hear your constituents say that they are. For the millions of kids who go to public school every day, the teachers will tell you, particularly in serving disadvantaged kids where these problems are huge, that class size, technology and the key issues. I have often cited to my colleagues in my home State of Connecticut-- we are a small State. I look around the room. There are a lot bigger States geographically represented here. Our State is 110 miles by 60 miles. San Diego County is bigger than my State graphically. We are also the most affluent State in the United States on a per capita income basis. I could take you to communities in my State that are just amazing in terms of what my local communities provide for in terms of an educational opportunity for children. Public schools, almost compete with college campuses in terms of language labs, computers, and the like. I know of one such community that ought to be a model for what every public high school ought to look like in America. In 16 minutes or less, I can drive you from that school to an inner-city school in Bridgeport, CT, Fairfield County--for those familiar with my State, they know Fairfield County is a very affluent corner of my State. But in 16 minutes, I can take you from that school to a school where there are about four computers for the entire student body, cops on every corner, and teachers that have 20, 25, 30 students in a classroom. So I have two constituents--high school students--living 16 minutes apart from each other with hugely varied educational opportunities, and my State does a pretty good job. We provide the exact same salaries for teachers who teach in Bridgeport or some other area. But there is a great disparity. We wrestle with that in my State. What we are saying with this bill, or trying to say, is that back in that community--I am not going to be able to make it absolutely equal, but I would like to get some resources into that school. You have to trust your good Governors. The Governor of my State and I are friends, who are in different parties. I like John, and my State legislature. But too often I know what happens. When it comes down to my inner cities, they just do not do quite as well. Those homeless and migrant kids, those poor kids, do not have the clout, and, too often, they do not get the resources. So what we are saying with our alternative is we want to get those resources back into those communities to leverage those dollars. Let me just briefly touch on teachers, if I can, and then wrap up. There are a lot of other areas to talk about. I know my colleagues want to talk about them. Teachers are critical, we all know that, for success in schools. I come from a family of teachers. My father's three sisters taught for 40 years apiece in the public schools of Connecticut, one of them a Fulbright scholar. My own sister has taught for almost 30 years, teaching in the largest inner-city elementary school in my State--Fox Elementary School. My brother was a professor at the university level. I hear from him. Teacher quality is critical. I think all of us agree on that. There is no debate about the importance of teacher quality. But consider, if you will, what these two proposals provide. I have already explained the difference in the block grants and how to get direct funding back into our communities in a targeted way. Let me just point out the difference on teacher quality programs in these two proposals that are before us. The Democratic alternative which has been offered, provides $2 billion to help schools recruit and retain high-quality teachers and includes an accountability provision to make sure all teachers are fully qualified. Specifically, we require States to have a qualified teacher in every classroom by the fourth year after enactment of this bill--a specific requirement, an accountability standard. We will be able to see whether or not we have achieved it. The alternative that we propose would guarantee that communities receive substantial funds to recruit qualified teachers, provide qualified mentors for new teachers, provide professional development for teachers, and hold schools accountable for the results in that area. We currently spend $330 million on professional development. The Republican proposal to the alternative ignores this and only requires a portion of the $330 million be spent on these activities. If you want to have teacher quality, you have to invest in it. It does not happen miraculously. Our bill takes funds directly to $2 billion. Under the committee proposal, you cut back on the $330 million we already have, and provide only a portion of those dollars to go for teacher quality. To contrast our proposal with the underlying plan in S. 2, they block grant all of the funds for teacher quality. And then on top of that, it block grants the block grant by making it subject to the Straight A's--a block grant on top of a block grant for teacher quality. Again, you are going to write a check for the Governors and you are going to say to get teacher quality up in these areas. We all know what happens. Too often, those dollars don't end up going where they ought to go in these communities--targeted dollars, focusing on teacher recruitment and professional development or a block grant on a block grant for teacher quality. We say you have to have a school with qualified teachers in each classroom in the fourth year of this bill. There is nothing in S. 2 requiring that at all--nothing. How do you get accountability following a block grant on a block grant? Where do I go to get the answer for that? The amendment we are proposing--the substitute--offers real accountability. Our bill requires States to adopt tough accountability standards for all schools--one system, not separate systems. The underlying bill says you have accountability standards for title I schools and another accountability standard for non-title I schools. That is a nightmare. Talk about creating some inherent discrimination in the process where you have accountability standards for one set of schools and then a separate one for others. That doesn't make sense. Our bill requires States to adopt tough accountability standards. If all children are going to learn to high standards, as required, then let's subject all schools to the same high expectations. We also call for a real step toward accountability requiring school report cards. This will give the public and parents the information they need to hold schools accountable. Where those schools fail, we send in a new staff, new people to operate them at the first opportunity. If that doesn't work, we create charter schools, and if that doesn't work, we shut them down. What does S. 2 do? S. 2 says at the end of 5 years you have to sort of report back to us and let us know whether or not the schools have met the State standard and what they consider to be a high degree of performance. Under the Republican proposal, you wait 5 years for accountability. I don't know how, with a straight face, you call that accountability. That is not what the American public expects with accountability. They want a higher standard than that. Lastly, our amendment responds to calls made by parents for help after school. The provision in this bill that calls for the 21st century learning community centers started out as a $1 million program 5 or 6 years ago. As a result of demand from our school districts, that program has gone to a $500 million afterschool program in 5 years. Our proposal has schools working with community-based organizations, such as the Boys and Girls Clubs and other organizations, to develop an afterschool program for an additional 2.5 million kids in this country. Five million children every day, right about at this time--on the east coast at least--parents go through the anxiety of wondering where their kids are. Ask a local police chief what hours they worry the most about where kids are involved, and they will tell you between 2:30 and 6:30 in the afternoon, not after 11 o'clock at night. This is the dangerous period. We have an afterschool period here where we put a billion dollars into after school--up from a $500 million--to expand that idea, so people have some security or a sense of confidence that their children are being taken care of. The Republican proposal is status quo on after school. We have to do better than that. This is one of the ways we can improve the quality and the safety of children, which parents worry about. The two words ``status quo'' have been tossed around a lot in the last few days. I happen to think that is where the big difference is. We offer an alternative which is anything but the status quo. It is anything but that. I am so saddened, Mr. President. I have been on this committee for 20 years. I have never been in a situation where we didn't work out amendments together and craft a bill that was still subject to amendment on the floor. It was a bipartisan approach. Education ought not to be an ideological debate. It is turning into that. My constituents don't walk up to me and talk to me about block grants and categorical programs, or about all these fancy formula issues that people talk about. They want to know whether or not you are working together with local people and trying to make a difference. None of us have a silver bullet here. None of us can say with total certainty what works or doesn't work. But we know, based on experience, particularly the experience of those who, day in and day out, dedicate their lives to the education of children, those who serve on our local school boards, those who serve on the Parent-Teacher Associations, those people who have become principals and teachers in schools. Are we trying to demonize these people. These teachers are ``evil'' somehow, or they don't care about the kids. In the 30 years my sister has taught--she is blind, by the way, from birth--she has dedicated her life to education, when other options were available to her. She cares deeply about what happens to the kids she teaches. She tries to come up with better ideas each year on how to make it work better. Her experience is duplicated over and over again in community after community. To suggest somehow that school boards and PTAs and principals and teachers such as my sister don't give a damn about the kids is just wrong. Our bill reflects their priorities, their ideas, and it is anything but status quo. I am saddened that we haven't been able to find common ground to listen to them and craft a piece of legislation here in the waning days of this session of the Congress--a bill that will have to survive for the next 6 years and will address these concerns. Our schools are in trouble, and we ought not allow this to become so politicized that we can't come up with some common answers on how to address their needs. I urge adoption of the alternative and of some amendments that will be offered later on. Listen to the PTAs and the school boards. Listen to the principals. We give voice to their agenda. That is why they oppose the underlying bill. They oppose it. I oppose it but, more important, they oppose it. That is why the alternative is a far better idea. I urge its adoption.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to waive the 1920 Merchant Marine Act, the so-called Jones Act, to allow Mr. Thomas Brooks Brener of Norwalk, Connecticut to commercially operate the Puffin, a sailing sloop built in the Netherlands in 1985. Mr. Brener seeks the Jones Act waiver in order to reclassify the Puffin from a strictly recreational vessel to a charter or commercial vessel documented to operate with six or fewer paying passengers. If granted this waiver, Mr. Brener intends to provide private sailing instruction and captained private and charitable charters out of Norwalk, Connecticut. The operating plan proposed by Mr. Brener is quite modest and limited in scale. With a total length of just under 36 feet and carrying six or fewer passengers, the Puffin is not the foreign built challenge to American shipyards and shipping envisioned by the drafters of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. Indeed, it poses no threat to larger U.S. coastal shipping interests. On the contrary, instead of being a threat to the local coastal trade, reclassification of the Puffin will provide a beneficial service to the community of Norwalk and the people of southwestern Connecticut by creating an additional recreational and small business opportunity. I believe it is altogether appropriate to grant a Jones Act waiver for the sailing sloop Puffin and I urge the Senate to do so. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to waive the 1920 Merchant Marine Act, the so-called Jones Act, to allow Mr. Thomas Brooks Brener of Norwalk, Connecticut to commercially operate the Puffin, a sailing sloop built in the Netherlands in 1985. Mr. Brener seeks the Jones Act waiver in order to reclassify the Puffin from a strictly recreational vessel to a charter or commercial vessel documented to operate with six or fewer paying passengers. If granted this waiver, Mr. Brener intends to provide private sailing instruction and captained private and charitable charters out of Norwalk, Connecticut. The operating plan proposed by Mr. Brener is quite modest and limited in scale. With a total length of just under 36 feet and carrying six or fewer passengers, the Puffin is not the foreign built challenge to American shipyards and shipping envisioned by the drafters of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. Indeed, it poses no threat to larger U.S. coastal shipping interests. On the contrary, instead of being a threat to the local coastal trade, reclassification of the Puffin will provide a beneficial service to the community of Norwalk and the people of southwestern Connecticut by creating an additional recreational and small business opportunity. I believe it is altogether appropriate to grant a Jones Act waiver for the sailing sloop Puffin and I urge the Senate to do so. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.