Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, I thank our colleague from Alaska for his comments about David Mahoney. I didn't know him as well as my good friend from Alaska but had the opportunity to be with him on numerous occasions. All the things the Senator from Alaska said about David Mahoney are true, and even more so. It is a great loss to the country. In fact, I point out our good friend from Alaska has lost a couple of good friends in the last few months. A man of significant contributions, a man who appreciated the arts, had a great love of this country and history--David Mahoney was all of those. Suffice it to say, I want to be associated with the comments of the distinguished Senator from Alaska on his comments about David Mahoney.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for telling me that. I hope that will be the result. My point is, here we are on the first of May and our legislative year is winding down. Not that we have done much these last two years; with the exception of one or two things, the highlight of this Congress so far might have to be the renaming of the airport. And now after frittering away weeks on nominations and cloture votes on bills going nowhere, we are bringing up ESEA. Perhaps this will change with this bill--if there is any bill that deserves our full and careful consideration, it is this one. Clearly, we should be able to afford more than a few days for the most important bill, the most important issue to the American public. We spent weeks on renaming the airport; our children deserve at least this much. Madam President, how does this make sense? It is certainly not the way we have done education in the past. We have always had debates, but we have always been bipartisan. The 1994 ESEA passed with over two- thirds of our votes. Historically, education bills have come out of the committee as overwhelming bipartisan. At least in my 20 years on the committee--this may sound strange in this day and age, but we actually had elementary and secondary education legislation come out of the committee with unanimous support. It came to the floor of the Senate and was adopted almost unanimously. Elementary and Secondary Education legislation is not and cannot be about scoring points for the election--it is about scoring points for our future, our children. We must work together. And there is much work to be done on this bill. But I do not think it is too late, Madam President, to come together around a good bill, a strong bill for America's children and schools. Let's take the time. And frankly, I believe hidden below a layer of crass partisan policies in the bill before us today, there are significant bipartisan initiatives already in this bill we can build on. Senator DeWine and I worked together over months to re-craft the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities program to make it more accountable and to focus the program clearly on programs of proven success and that is included here in this bill. I have also worked with the chairman of our Committee on some important but smaller initiatives in this bill--the Magnet Schools program, the Character Education Partnership initiative which I authored with Senator Domenici, the Civics program which I authored with Senator Cochran, the National Center for Gifted and Talented Education and initiatives to improve Title I's preschool services. Unfortunately, these efforts did not carry the day. Instead bipartisanship was abandoned and we ended up with this product before us today. But, hopefully, before this process is over maybe we can come to some agreement on these issues. As we start this effort, we should review some of the basic facts. There are some 53 million children every day who go to school in elementary or secondary schools in this country. Roughly 49 or 50 million go to school in public schools, and about 5 million go to school in private or parochial schools. So our primary responsibility, as a public institution, obviously, is to deal with public educational institutions, where almost 50 million of America's children go to get an education every day. At the Federal level, we are responsible for about 7 cents on the dollar in education; 93 cents on the dollar for the education of our children at elementary and secondary schools is paid for by the States and local governments. So when we highlight all the problems that exist in our educational system we should keep this seven percent in mind. There is no question we should certainly look at what we may do to contribute to any of these shortcomings. But frankly, it is less a function of what we do here, and certainly far more of a function of what happens in our respective States and communities. That is a sad commentary. I do not like to make it. I wish it were not the case. But the idea somehow that the 7 cents from the Federal Government is the sole reason--sole reason--why 7,000 schools or 5,000 schools, out of the thousands, are failing out there, I think, is an unfair allocation of the blame. We need to look at how we spend the $15 billion dollars of federal money we invest in schools. About $8 billion of that--half of it--is all in one program, Title I, which we distribute right back to the States and local communities through a targeted formula. What we have tried to do, over the years, is to target this $15 billion of resources so it just does not become revenue sharing. I know there are those who would support that. I know there are those who would get rid of the Department of Education entirely and merely have Washington become a turnstile: Send your money here; send the money right back. You decide what you want exactly. Some might say: I do not know why we bother with a turnstile. Some may advocate just offering an amendment to eliminate the Department of Education, eliminating the Federal Government's role all together and leaving the money at the State. That is a point of view. I disagree with it. Our role is fashioning instead a national purpose, responding to national needs and leveraging federal dollars. I believe most Americans believe this is our role, too. They know education is a national interest and that we have national needs and concerns. Improving the quality of education for our poorest children, that is a national need. I do not only concern myself with the well-being of a child in Bridgeport or Hartford or New Haven. Obviously, I worry about that as a Senator from my State. But I also recognize that my country suffers if, in fact, a child in Tennessee or Vermont or Georgia or Rhode Island or Texas, is failing in those States, then I think my constituency also suffers. I hope that is not a radical thought, the idea that as a national legislature we are trying to determine what we can do to improve the quality of education of children across the Nation, not just in our own communities. That is a job of our local towns and our States. But as national legislators, with the importance the American public has placed on education, do we just make this a revenue-sharing program, or do we try to speak as closely as possible with one voice about such things as class size, the condition of the buildings in which America's children learn, whether or not they are getting the proper support they need in immigrant education, or in various other aspects of improving the quality of children's performance levels? I do not think it is so radical a notion that we, as a national legislature, say that across the country these are things on which we would like to see improvement. And with all due respect, Madam President, I believe we owe our children and our future something much better than the bill before us. What we have here is another missed opportunity to respond to the calls of children, parents, grandparents, teachers, mayors and community leaders for real support to accelerate the pace and progress of change in our schools. There is no question, in its current form, the bill before us leads to gridlock and, at best at the end of the day, more status quo in our nation's schools. And the last thing our nation's schools need is more status quo. The process of school reform began here six years ago in the last ESEA reauthorization. In 1994, we left behind forever policies based on low expectations for our children and on checking the boxes and measuring the inputs and revolutioned our policies to focus on high standards for all children, aggressive state-based school reform, accountability for results and responsibility for failure. And we have seen results. I listened very intently to my colleague from New Hampshire talk about what has happened across the country in education. If you are looking at 35 years, which he was, you get one set of numbers. If you are looking at the last 6 years, there is a different set of numbers. Let me show you a chart of math scores on the National Assessment of Education Progress. These numbers challenge the notion that what we presently have in place is not working. If you take what these numbers represent on the chart, the bottom numbers show the poverty levels in schools. So the first column shows the most affluent schools in the country down to the poorest schools in the country. In every single income category, there has been improvement. One of the largest levels of improvement are in schools where the level of poverty is 51 to 75 percent. That is where the most dramatic increase has occurred. Even in the poorest schools there has been almost--not quite a doubling--but almost a doubling of improvement in math scores in the last 4 or 5 years or 6 years. Let me quickly add, these scores are still not good. There has been improvement toward higher achievement--but we still have a long way to go before we rest on any laurels. But there has been improvement because of what we did in 1994 when we passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. And not just math scores are up. We have seen increases in reading achievement, particularly in the highest poverty schools, fewer dropouts, and more college attendance. But there has not been enough progress. Too many of our schools are still failing--failing their students, their communities and us. I believe we must push for reform. Reform must be faster, better and targeted at those children most in need. The status quo is not an option for failing schools nor for federal education policy. The question before us today must be how to accelerate reforms to increase student achievement further, to reduce the achievement gap, to build on the lessons we have learned and to focus our resources on programs that work. And what works? As is often the case, it is the simple, meaningful things that make a difference: Smaller class sizes; investments in recruiting, training, and supporting teachers; modern, safe school facilities; after school opportunities that provide students with enriched opportunities for learning as well as safe, supervised care while their parents work; and, real accountability in federal programs. These are simple straightforward proposals to accelerate the pace of reform in our schools. These are reforms that parents do not see as Democratic or Republican--they simply see them as gaping needs in their children's schools. But instead of coming together around real change and reform, this bill does nothing to move schools forward. In place of increased accountability and resources, this bill proposes blocking granting programs currently focused on areas of national need and concern and transforming targeted programs into vouchers for private schools. Block grants, one of the central policy ``initiatives'' of this bill, are no prescription for change. Block grants offer no national purpose, no accountability, they lessen funding and decrease targeting. They simply support the status quo, more of the same. When you just have a block grant--and I know there is an appeal to block grants--you cannot, on the one hand, be for block granting everything and then simultaneously demand greater accountability. If I just give you a check and do not say, by the way, if I am going to write this check for you, here are the areas in which I want results, then how do I get any kind of accountability at the end of the day? I see my time is expiring, so I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute to conclude my remarks.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. Madam President, we have before us this afternoon one of the most, if not the most important pieces of legislation we will consider this Congress, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I thank those who have been involved in this process over the last number of months. I regret at this late hour we are considering something as fundamentally important as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It is late in the spring. We have been allocated a few days on this. I guess we will have 3 or 4 days this week and maybe a couple days next week and then move on to other business. I appreciate the fact we have some days here. Normally, with this issue, given its importance in the national agenda, we would spend a little more time on it. This is a 5-year program. We will not touch this again for 5 years. Unlike other matters which come up every year, this is a bill with which we deal once every 5 years. I see my colleague present.

Mr. DODD. I modify my request.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield before he gets into the substance of his remarks? I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks, I believe, by my colleague from Georgia, I be allowed to address the Senate on the subject matter for 10 minutes.

Mr. DODD. If I just turn over a blank check to you, in effect, and at the end of the day say, I now want you to be accountable for it--and I have not demanded any kind of requirement where these dollars are targeted--then you get almost zero accountability. That was the experience we had for years. So we changed that--we focused on high standards for all children and accountability for results. We targeted resources and demanded a return on these investments. What the present bill on the floor does is erase the bill of 1994, in effect, and goes back to the past when we didn't have the accountability and when achievement was sliding down rather than tracking up. We know block grants don't work; we have tried them before. They simply support the status quo. If that is good enough for you, then maybe this bill is. But in my view, this is not just good enough. This bill also walks away from our public schools in supporting voucher programs that would funnel much needed public resources to pay for private schools. Madame President, public schools educate over 90 percent of the children in America. They are the foundations of our communities, our economy and our democracy. We must not, cannot, walk away from them like this bill does. These policies are a recipe for failure for our schools--dollars funneled away and frittered away on the status quo, less accountability, less targeting to real need, less funding and more of the status quo. These policies are tired, timid and dangerous for our schools. Block grants and vouchers are proven failures--why should we waste our time, our schools' time, our children's time and our resources on them? We will try to change that over the next 4 or 5 days in this debate. I believe there is still hope for this bill. America's children and parents are counting on it--and I look forward to rolling up our sleeves and getting to work. We owe them and our own futures no less. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield my time to the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the 75th anniversary of St. Raphael Church in Bridgeport, Connecticut. I commend the church and its devoted members for their long tradition of faithfulness and service. This anniversary is, rightfully, cause for celebration among St. Raphael's parishioners, and it is a pleasure to recognize their enduring commitment to the Bridgeport community. The 1920s and 1930s saw a great influx of Italian immigrants into this country generally and into the City of Bridgeport, Connecticut specifically. These immigrants brought hope and courage to America, and they also brought with them a strong religious faith. A new Roman Catholic parish, St Raphael's, was soon established in Bridgeport to minister to their needs. While the church that everyone in Bridgeport recognizes as St. Raphael's was being built, masses were held in the old Caruso Theater. An altar was carried in on Sundays to make the theater more like a sanctuary. Services were modest, but they drew the parish together. On Christmas Day, 1925 the faithful celebrated the first mass in their new church. From that day forward the church has prospered and grown. A convent was added to the parish in 1937 and the sisters who lived there led religious instruction for six hundred public school children every week. During World War II, hundreds of young men from this church bravely went overseas to fight for their country, and fifty of them never returned. Despite these losses, the 1940s were a time of expansion for the church. New land was acquired and new buildings were raised. The church's current appearance is a result of the work done primarily during this period. St. Raphael's is one of the most beautiful churches in Bridgeport, and I believe, in the entire state of Connecticut. What was once a yellow Spanish-style mission has undergone many renovations. Now a Gregorian Romanesque building overlooking a school, convent, and rectory, much of the property surrounding it belongs to the Church. The altar inside was imported to this country from Italy. Some of the woodwork around the altar was carved by Italian artists, while most of the renovations to this building have been the product of devoted parishioners throughout the past seven decades. From the marble steps to the artwork contained within the Church, this place of worship is a proud combination of traditional Italian style and modern American workmanship and dedication. As St. Raphael's celebrates its 75th Anniversary, it is fitting to remember the rich history and the important role that this parish has had in the community and for the many generations of Italian-Americans that have lived in Bridgeport. It has persisted through the years as a source of spiritual guidance and communal strength, and I applaud their legacy and wish the parish well at the dawn of this new century.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will speak briefly, as I know our colleague from West Virginia is going to return to the floor to speak momentarily. As soon as he arrives, I will be glad to yield immediately. At some later point, I will take a little more time to express my views on this issue. I want to begin with these brief remarks by, first of all, commending my colleague from Arizona and my colleague from California. This is a legitimate issue, in my view. I don't know how many of my colleagues last evening--or in the last two evenings--I can't remember whether it was last night or the night before--saw a news program about the families of the victims in the Starbucks shootings in this city. It was very moving to see these families being considered and their presence during the court proceedings in the disposition of this matter. It was heartwarming for me to see the families have an opportunity to express how they felt about what had happened and what the sentences were going to be regarding those charged with this crime. It is not something that we have seen with great frequency over the years, but it exists because there is a provision within the law in the District of Columbia that gives victims some rights. To that extent, I begin these brief remarks by saying to my good friends from Arizona and California, I have great respect for the issue they are trying to address--that victims of crime be given the opportunity to be involved in the proceedings where loved ones, family members, people they cared about deeply, who have been victimized, are going to have a chance to be heard and to be involved. The concern I have is not that they have failed to identify a problem. They have. My concern is with the solution to the problem they have sought. The solution that my good friends from Arizona and California have offered to address this issue is to amend the Constitution of the United States before considering the opportunity of writing statutory language, which might achieve the very same result without amending the cornerstone, the most fundamental document each and every one of us cherish as Americans. A statute can be changed in a minute if there are problems with it, as time may prove. When you consider the Constitution of the United States, our Founding Fathers wrote the document and made it difficult to amend because they didn't want this to become a statute, an ordinance, a collection of wishes, a place where we would write party platforms. They wanted it to be the embodiment of the fundamental principles we embrace as Americans, and to change it would take herculean efforts. My concern is that there are already on the books numerous statutes that give victims the right to be heard in this process, as we saw just last evening in the case of the Starbucks crime here in this city. And across the country, such statutes exist. I happen to revere, as I know my colleagues do, the Constitution of the United States. I carry with me every day in my pocket a copy of the Constitution. It was given to me by my seatmate, the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. I carry it with me every single day everywhere I go. I constantly remind myself of what I was elected to do, what purpose I am supposed to serve as a Member of the Senate. The first and foremost of my responsibilities is to protect and defend this Constitution. That is my first responsibility. So when efforts are made to change this document--this thin document which--to protect and defend this Constitution is, in my view, our primary responsibility. We have before us a proposal for a constitutional amendment, which is represented on the left side of this chart. Here is the proposed constitutional amendment. It is nearly longer than the entire Bill of Rights. The first 10 amendments--the Bill of Rights is shorter than this proposed constitutional amendment. That in and of itself ought to give us pause and cause us to be concerned, to wait and ask: Are we really going to add a provision, given the one issue, and write it into the cornerstone document of this country which has more sections and more words than is included in the Bill of Rights on which all of our individual freedoms are grounded? I say to my good friends from Arizona and California that I could not agree with them more in identifying for the country in this forum the issue of victims' rights. It deserves and it demands attention, from State legislatures to the United States Congress. But the solution I suggest must first be sought in statutory language. If at the end of the day the statutory language is found to be unconstitutional, then you might consider amending the Constitution. But you don't seek the solution to that problem by amending the cornerstone document of our Nation first. Try the statute first. Let's see if we cannot address this problem through that vehicle and through that process, and if that fails, then come to the Constitution. But don't begin the process there. That, to me, is too dangerous. We have an obligation to protect victims. We also have an obligation to protect the Constitution of the United States. For those reasons, with all due respect to my colleagues whom I highly respect and have a great regard for--I have worked with my colleague from California on numerous issues, and with my colleague from Arizona, not as many, but I have a high regard for him, for his abilities, and for his contribution to the Senate--I urge them to take the language they proposed, and let's work with it. Let's see if we can't draft a statute that would allow us to address the legitimate concerns of victims. Write it into the ordinances of our land. Test it in the courts, if you will, but do not tamper at this juncture with the Constitution of the United States. I see the arrival of my good friend whom I just referred to by thanking him publicly for giving me my copy of the Constitution, which I carry with me. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Three percent.

Mr. DODD. I do. The total amount we spend--my colleague can correct me--is about $18.5 billion total--domestic and foreign, all the efforts. Of the $18.5 billion, if one excludes the Colombian plan money, it is about $1.5 billion out of the--three my colleague is about to say?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. DODD. I just came back. I was there a couple of months ago and spent time with President Clinton and others involved in this effort. The most recent visit was just a few weeks ago.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I anticipate the arrival of several other colleagues who may wish to speak on the same subject matter. Yesterday, members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and other interested Members of this body, had the opportunity to meet with the President of Colombia, His Excellency Andres Pastrana, during his visit to Washington. It was an extremely informative meeting. It was also apparent to all of us there that President Pastrana was terribly disappointed that the Senate of the United States had not approved, or even scheduled, early consideration of President Clinton's emergency supplemental request for Colombia to fight the narcotrafficking problem in that nation, which contributes significantly to the deaths and hardships in our own nation. It is no hidden fact that some 50,000 people die in this country every year from drug-related incidents. Ninety percent of the cocaine and a significant amount of the heroin that is consumed in this country comes from Colombia. Colombia has been devastated over the years by narcotraffickers. They are committed to trying to win this conflict. The European Community stands ready to help. They have asked the United States--the largest consuming nation of the products grown in their country--to be a part of this effort. The leadership in this body has seen fit to delay this action until the normal appropriations process. I am disappointed by that, Mr. President. This is no small issue. It is a scourge in our streets. Clearly, we need to do as much as we can here at home, but this battle needs to be waged on all fronts, including in the production and transportation of nations such as Colombia. Colombia's civil society has been ripped apart for decades by the violence and corruption that has swirled around their illicit international drug production and trafficking industry. High-profile assassinations of prominent Colombian officials who were trying to put an end to Colombia's drug cartels began nearly 20 years ago with the 1984 murder of Colombia's Minister of Justice, Rodrigo Lara Bonilla. In 1985, narcoterrorists stormed the Palace of Justice in Bogota and murdered 11 Supreme Court Justices in that nation who had supported the extradition of drug kingpins and traffickers to the United States. In 1986, another Supreme Court Justice was murdered by drug traffickers, as were a well-known police captain and prominent Colombian journalist who had spoken out against these cartels. These narcoterrorists then commenced a bombing campaign throughout the year, in shopping malls, hotels, and neighborhood parks, killing scores of innocent people and terrorizing the general population. Before drug kingpin Pablo Escobar was captured and killed by the police in 1993, he had been directly responsible for the murder of more than 4,000 Colombians. In 1994, it became clear that drug money had penetrated the highest levels of Colombian society and called into question the legitimacy of the Presidential elections of Ernesto Samper. Even today, fear of kidnapping and targeted killings by members of Colombia's drug organizations has Colombia's citizens living in fear for their very lives. At this juncture, I ask unanimous consent that a column written by Thomas Friedman, which appeared last week in the New York Times, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. If the Senator will yield further, it is this corrosive corruption that spreads. It begins in a small hamlet or borough in Colombia, and once it gets through there, then it reaches up into the higher elevations of Government there and then spills across the borders. Before you know it, as the Senator from California has pointed out, it spreads. If you do not stand up to these people early on and fight back, then you, in a sense, become an accomplice to the results, to what occurs. We have been asked, as the Senator from California has pointed out, by the good and decent Government of President Pastrana, that our Nation step up and help--not do it all, not take on the entire responsibility, but to help him regain the sovereignty of his own nation, to eliminate the corruption, and give the people of Colombia a chance for a decent future. Our inability to bring up this supplemental to at least debate and discuss this issue is deplorable and sad, deeply sad--that we do not have the time, apparently, to discuss this kind of issue which can make such a difference in the lives of the people of Colombia and, more importantly, in some ways, to the citizens of this country who lose their children every day to these drug cartels, these gangs terrorizing the streets of this country because of drugs. Mr. President, 52,000 a year die on average in drug-related deaths. If that is not enough of a U.S. interest to respond to it, I don't know what is.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, if my distinguished colleague will yield one more time, I commend her immensely for her heartfelt statement and use this as another appeal. We are leaving for another week now. There are only two of us here, but I suspect our sentiments are shared by a majority of our colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats. We make an appeal to the majority leader to reconsider this decision on bringing up a supplemental, a boiled-down one if necessary, to focus on this issue and a couple of others that legitimately fall into the category of emergency. I say this because I think the last statement made by our distinguished colleague from California is an important one. What we say here does not go unnoticed. What we do here or not do here does not go unnoticed. The greatest fear the narcotraffickers have is that there will be a united front to take them on. That is their greatest fear. They worry about a government in Colombia that is not afraid to extradite. They do not want to be extradited because they know we are not afraid to lock them up forever, if necessary. They are frightened about a European Community and other Latin American countries joining in a common effort. As every one of these leaders will tell you, they know what happens in Colombia can happen in Venezuela, in Ecuador, and happened in Peru. It is happening in Bolivia. These are better financed operations than any insurgency we have seen before with millions of dollars.

Mr. DODD. My colleague says we spend about $2 billion on our borders, as she points out, and on the drug abuse programs, the efforts of local authorities, but it is a fraction. I am not suggesting and I do not think my colleague from California is suggesting we spend all of the money there or even a half of the money there. This is a multifaceted effort. We have to spend it locally. We have to fight it at the local level. We have to have rehabilitation efforts, drug abuse efforts. We have to be fighting it at the borders of this country, but we also need to go to the source, and we are not going to the source. Here is a country willing to fight back. Many times we find it difficult to get cooperation from governments. Here is the President of Colombia who was kidnaped and knows firsthand what it is to live under this kind of system, who is coming to us and saying: Look, we are going to put $4 billion of our own money into this effort. The Europeans are willing to step up. Can you help? The addicted nation, can you help? Up to this point, this Chamber has said no.

Mr. DODD. The Senator from California has answered her own question by raising it. It takes a remarkable amount of courage. I noted earlier and introduced as part of the Record the article by Tom Friedman because they so clearly made the point, of the courage of these people. I mentioned 11 members of the Supreme Court in Colombia were gunned down in 1985. Literally thousands of people are kidnapped and executed every year; journalists, just by being there and speaking out or saying anything against these narcotraffickers. This is a business that collects $60 billion a year from this country alone. President Pastrana tells me that in Colombia $100 million is used just to bribe local police officers and functionaries who in some cases earn less than $100 or $200 a month to raise their families. Then someone shows up and offers them an envelope of thousands of dollars to turn the other way, look the other way, don't examine the truck.

Mr. DODD. I do. I say to my friend and colleague from California, I remember it very well. In fact, the decision to go in was made late at night. There was talk about it ahead of time. I received a call, as I think other Members of the Senate did, in the wee hours of the morning informing us that the effort was about to be undertaken. I recall early that morning going on a couple national television programs to discuss it. I expressed my strong support for what President Bush was doing in Panama. I thought it was important he have bipartisan support in the effort in Panama. The Senator from California is absolutely correct, General Noriega was removed. While the problem has not been eliminated entirely in Panama, that action certainly made a huge difference. It is a good case to point out. We need that kind of leadership in the Senate on this issue, in my view. The narcotraffickers in Bogota, Colombia, in the flatlands, the llanos, as they call them, of southern Colombia know what we are not doing in the Senate. They know President Pastrana has asked for our help. They are watching, and they see a Senate of the United States that says it does not have time to bring this up or does not think it is that important to bring up. I can tell my colleague firsthand there is no more encouraging sign to these people than our apparent disinterest in the subject matter. Every day we wait and do not respond, their grip grows stronger. I am not exaggerating when I tell the Senator that the sovereignty of this country of Colombia is at stake. The Senator from California has pointed out a third of the country has already been lost to them. The oldest democracy in Latin America can be lost. Mark my words. This is a well-heeled and well-financed operation. Millions of dollars every day pour into the coffers of these insurgency groups through the narcotrafficking efforts. If we wait another week or another month, we make it that much more difficult to address this issue. We have a courageous President and a courageous country in Colombia and other nations willing to step up. We are the largest consuming country. We are the addicted nation. The reason these campesinos and farmers grow the poppy seeds and grow the heroin is because there are people here who consume it. The journalists, the politicians, the judges, and the police officers are willing to fight back. They want to know whether or not we are going to join with them in that fight. That is all we are asking: Stand up and join them in that fight. I am hopeful, again, before too many more weeks go by that we will respond. The admiration I have for the House for having done so is tremendous. My admiration for the President for calling on us to do it is tremendous.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, the Colombian society is being ripped apart by this problem. It is estimated that there are a million displaced people in Colombia and that 100,000 a year leave Colombia because of fear for their lives over what these narcotraffickers and drug cartels have done to this country. We often worry about political difficulties here. We get negative letters or nasty phone calls, and we think we are putting up with a lot. In Colombia, if you take on the drug cartels, you and your family risk your lives. Journalists, judges, police officials, if they have the courage to stand up to these people, put their lives in jeopardy. This drug cartel would not exist but for the fact that Americans consume the products grown in this country. I think we bear responsibility to work with a courageous government and a courageous people who are paying a terrible price because of our habits and our consumption. For those reasons, I am disappointed we can't find the time to bring up this supplemental bill, deal with this issue, and offer help to the people of Colombia and to the government of Andres Pastrana, who has shown remarkable courage. This President was kidnapped by these very people. He is not just intellectually committed to this; he knows what it is like to be terrorized by these people. He is committed to doing everything he can. He can ask us for our help, but we cannot seem to find the time to bring up this issue. When people wonder why we are not dealing more effectively with the drug problems of this country, you can point to this. We spend days discussing insignificant issues, in my view, by comparison to this. Yet we are told by leadership we don't have time to bring up an issue. At least debate it, and vote it down, if you want, but give us a chance to vote on whether or not we think providing $1.3 billion over the next several years to the people of Colombia to fight back is worthy of this institution's time. I think it is. The President has asked for it. The House of Representatives, to their credit, has done so. Yet this body refuses to bring up this matter, even to discuss it on the floor of the Senate. The legacy in Colombia is a legacy that President Pastrana confronted when he assumed office in 1988. He inherited the reins of government. Since then, he has demonstrated, in my view, leadership and a firm commitment to address the myriad of challenges facing his nation--drug products and trafficking, civil conflict and economic recession. I have enormous respect for the manner in which President Pastrana has so quickly and aggressively taken steps to entice Colombia's largest guerrilla organization--the so-called FARC --to come to the negotiating table following on the heels of his election to office. The agenda for those ongoing talks covers the waterfront of economic and social issues that must be addressed if four decades of civil conflict are to be brought to a close. President Pastrana has evidenced similar courage and a vision in tackling Colombia's illicit coca and poppy cultivation and processing industry. He authorized the extradition of a number of Colombia's most notorious drug traffickers to the United States, an extremely controversial decision in his country. He has also crafted a national plan--the so-called Plan Colombia--to address these intertwined problems in a comprehensive fashion. President Pastrana has made it clear to us that the Government of Colombia is prepared to do its part in making available its own resources--billions of dollars--to fund the various elements of that plan for alternative development programs, for protection of human rights, for working for the resettlement of displaced persons, and for judicial reform, as well as assistance and training for Colombia's military police, the counternarcotics forces. During our meeting yesterday, President Pastrana made it clear as well that he needs to seek and intends to ask for international cooperation if his plan is to succeed. In fact, he left last evening for London to meet with members of the European Community and has already received favorable indication that the Pacific rim will be a part of this international effort. Colombia is currently the world's leading supplier of cocaine and one of the major sources of heroin. We are the largest consumer of these products. But this isn't only President Pastrana's problem; it is obviously ours as well. All of the enormous demands in the United States and Europe for illicit products grown in Colombia are clearly an important part of the equation in keeping drug traffickers in business. Moreover, despite billions of dollars spent here at home on law enforcement and drug education designed to reduce the U.S. demand, illicit drugs and consumption continue to pose a threat to the safety of our streets and to the health of the next generation of adults. I know earlier today my good friend and colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, spoke about the fact that he is concerned that not enough money is being spent on domestic-related programs and programs to protect our borders against the onslaught of foreign drugs. If one looks at the full picture of our counternarcotics efforts, only a modest amount is currently being spent on the supply and reduction of the source. Assuming Colombia's supplemental is approved, only slightly more than 15 percent of the total counternarcotics budget is being spent on programs off our shores where the products are grown: $2.9 billion out of a total of $18.5 billion is what the Colombian program has adopted, which would be roughly half of what is being spent overseas; $1.3 billion is being requested. A little more than $1 billion right now is being spent off our shores. More than $2 billion currently is being spent on border programs alone in this fiscal year. If we do nothing to stem the supply at the very source, where it comes from, then I don't see how a border program alone can prevent the exploding supply of drugs from reaching America's streets and communities--rural and urban. I am all for adding more money to programs--as the Senator from New Hampshire talked about--in the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Coast Guard. But I think we are kidding ourselves when we believe border programs alone will shut out illegal drugs. We need to attack this problem also at its source. There is not one place where this battle is going to be won. We need to do everything we can to make our borders more secure. We need to make sure our police departments have the tools necessary at the local level. We need training programs and rehabilitation programs to get people permanently off these substances. But we also need to attack the problem at its source. That also is part of the answer. It is also why it makes sense for Congress, in my view, to act expeditiously on President Clinton's and President Pastrana's request to us, so we can attack the drug problem as vigorously as possible at all these sources but particularly in Colombia. It is in our interest to provide Colombian authorities the wherewithal to gain access to areas in southern Colombia and elsewhere where coca and poppy cultivation has exploded in recent years but where guerrilla organizations and right-wing paramilitary units have made interdiction efforts extremely difficult to conduct safely. President Clinton has decided that Plan Colombia is worthy of U.S. support. The House leadership has also decided that it is in our national interest to do so. Fifty-two thousand Americans are dying every year in drug-related deaths. That is almost as many as died in the entire Vietnam conflict. Every year, we lose that many in drug-related deaths. If that is not a U.S. interest to which to try to respond, I don't know what is. As much as we need to fight this at home, we also need to fight it at its source. There is clearly bipartisan support for this program. It is not perfect. It is not a program I would even necessarily write, nor maybe the Presiding Officer, nor would my colleague from California, whom I see on the floor. But let's not fly-speck and nickel-and-dime this issue. Let's at least get it to the floor, debate it, discuss it, amend it, and modify it. But don't deny us a chance to even vote on this issue as we now enter another recess this year. For another 10 days, we will not be here. The House is out, I am told, maybe another week after that. Then it is May, June, and July. How many more deaths will there be on our streets? How many more Colombians have to die because of U.S. consumption and addiction? They have a democratic government, the oldest democracy in Latin America, whose very sovereignty is at stake. This country is being ripped apart. They are asking for our help, for the cooperation of Europe and other nations to fight back against these people and this multibillion-dollar operation. We don't even have the time to debate or discuss it. I promise you that over this Easter break, there will be a lot of speeches given about the problems of drugs in our streets and our narcotics efforts. Yet another day will go by when we cast one vote here, or two votes here--maybe--and no effort is made to bring this matter to the attention of the American public and to debate it on the floor of the Senate. Despite this bipartisan support, the measure is currently stalled. In the Senate, the majority leader suggested the clock has run out on an emergency supplemental. That has not been the history or experience of the Senate. We have dealt with many supplementals after April. I hope maybe we can do so in this case as well. We asked President Clinton during our meeting for his assessment of the likelihood that Plan Colombia will work in the absence of U.S. assistance being forthcoming in the near future. We also asked about the prospects for other governments contributing resources to this effort in the absence of U.S. moneys being forthcoming. President Clinton stressed unequivocally that the support of the United States is the linchpin to getting additional international support and for the ultimate success of this plan. Time is running out for the people of Colombia. Madam President, 100,000 are leaving every year. A million are displaced. Thousands die every year. We need to act now and provide the necessary funding so that Plan Colombia can be fully implemented. It is the only way I know to protect the democratic institutions of that country and throughout the region from falling prey to the criminal assaults of illegal drug cartels. Moreover, it is in our self-interest to do so. It is the only way to ensure that our children will be free from the threat of drug peddlers as they walk to and from school every day, that communities are safe from drug-related crimes which have taken the lives of too many innocent victims. There is still time to act and I hope we do so. I think it is tragic we have not. I note the presence of my colleague from California, who has been one of the stalwarts for years on this issue, and I am pleased she is here to talk on this subject as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Right.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I appreciate how the Chair pronounces that name so well. I am very grateful to the Chair. I am deeply pleased to be joining my good friend and colleague from Kentucky in authoring this legislation, along with several of our other colleagues. Senator McConnell mentioned several of them. But certainly Senator Enzi, Senator Bennett, Senator Robb, Senator Murray, Senator Bingaman, Senator Reed, Senator Kerrey, among others are also cosponsors of this bill. I am also pleased to inform this body that the Clinton-Gore administration is a strong backer of the Worker Economic Opportunity Act, which is presently before us. We have one of those unique opportunities that is not always available to us in this Congress of the United States; that is, we are actually going to do something this afternoon that couldn't have any rancor associated with it. It will make a difference in the lives, we think, of millions of people who would like to share in the remarkable prosperity we are enjoying. We are backed by the administration. It is a bipartisan effort in this body. I am told that a similar version of this bill has been introduced in the other Chamber, the House of Representatives. This is actually something we may accomplish, and we are not packing the galleries. It is not going to be a headline story tomorrow, but it will make a difference in people's lives. We are in a period of sustained economic growth, almost unprecedented, if not unprecedented, in the 210-year history of our Nation. The unemployment rate today at 4.1 percent is the lowest it has been in 30 years. More than 21 million jobs have been created since 1993. I see my colleague and good friend from Wyoming here. He is one of the cosponsors of this bill as well. I mentioned him earlier. We are pleased he is with us. We are enjoying almost unprecedented prosperity in the country along with the remarkable results of low unemployment, the lowest in some three decades. More than 21 million new jobs have been created in the last 7 years in our Nation. Inflation is down, and real wages are rising and have grown in 5 consecutive years; again, almost an unprecedented record in our Nation's history. For the first time in 50 years, the country posted three consecutive surpluses. Think of that. For the first time in decades, we are watching the deficit clock run in the opposite direction. Instead of how much debt we are accumulating every minute and every second, we are now reducing the national debt with the prospect of eliminating it by the year 2013. What greater gift could we give to the next generation than to burn the national mortgage, if you will. The economy is roaring. It is producing a prosperity in the confidence which very few people could have imagined a few short years ago. Factory workers, secretaries, and other nonexempt workers form the backbone of companies, large and small, that are also making a difference. These individuals have been driving our economy. It is the view of those who sponsor this bill since they are driving so much of this economy, they ought not to have to take a back seat to anyone in sharing in the prosperity this economy has produced. In today's new economy, many companies look for creative ways to recruit, train, and reward employees. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors estimated approximately 17 percent of large firms in the United States introduced a stock option program and 37 percent have broadened eligibility for the stock option programs in the previous 2 years. Ten years ago these options were a perk for the chief executive officer and other corporate executives in the corporation. Less than 1 million people received stock options in the early 1990s. Today, between 7 and 10 million people across this country are offered stock options. According to the National Center for Employee Ownership, more than 6 million workers receiving options are nonexecutives. In a 1997 survey, NECO reported that the average option grant value was $37,000 for professional employees, $41,000 for technical employees, and $12,500 for administrative employees. This is very good for the long-term economic prospects in this country. Clearly, the trend is that a broad cross section of companies offers stock option programs. In these changing times, I am concerned, as is my colleague from Kentucky and others, about laws working for businesses and employees. We need to work with them to find new ways to reward working people. As the economy changes, it is only fitting we update our laws, as well. That is why I join with my colleagues, and why others have joined, why the administration has joined, to change the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is the benchmark of worker protection laws. I want to make very clear that the bill that is before the Senate today, S. 2323, does absolutely nothing to undermine the foundation of that critical and important piece of legislation. My colleagues in the administration determined that the 1938 law needed to be amended in order to incorporate the emergence of stock option programs being offered to hourly employees. Our bill amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to clarify that the gains from stock options do not need to be included in the calculation of overtime pay. That is what the 1938 law said. That is where a lot of the confusion arose. Our legislation strikes a balance between protecting employee rights and offering flexibility to employers. This bill excludes from the regular rate stock options, stock appreciation rights or bona fide stock purchase programs that meet specific vesting, disclosure and determination requirements. A safe harbor is in effect to protect those companies that already had established stock option programs for nonexempt employees, including those programs provided under a collective bargaining agreement or requiring shareholder approval. I would like to commend the staff for their hard work on this bill-- Sheila Duffy of my staff, Denise Grant with Senator McConnell, and Leslie Silverman and Elizabeth Smith with the HELP Committee. This proposal has broad bipartisan, bicameral support between the executive and legislative branches. I ask unanimous consent two letters, one from the Union of the Needletrades, industrial and textile employees, and one from the ERISA Industry Committee, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this bill is about fundamental fairness. I urge our colleagues to support this Worker Economic Opportunity Act to give working Americans a chance to share in our Nation's prosperity. I ask further unanimous consent that during the remainder of this debate and the remainder of the day the bill be left open for additional cosponsorships. We have 20 or 30, but I suspect there may be others who would like their names associated with this bill. I ask unanimous consent cosponsorship of the bill be left open for the remainder of today's legislative business.