Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 2 p.m. today.

Mr. DODD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the business before the Senate?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, are there limitations on the amount of time Members are allowed to speak?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, while legislation is not presently pending before the Senate, I understand that the leadership intends to soon call up an education proposal by Senator Coverdell, a tax cut that would allow families with an adjusted gross income of up to $95,000 for single filers, $150,000 for joint filers, to make contributions to individual retirement accounts up to $2,000 per child for K-12 education expenses, including private school tuition, during the tax periods from the year 2000 to 2003. As I understand it, the revenue loss of this proposal is somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.3 billion. I believe I am correct in so characterizing this proposal. First of all, I am somewhat surprised this legislation is coming up at this time. We are about a week away from the education committee of the Senate reporting out, I hope, a bill on elementary and secondary education. We are required under law to authorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act once every 5 years. That bell actually tolled last year but obviously we are still in this Congress, so we have an obligation to report to our colleagues our thoughts and solutions on the needs in elementary and secondary education in this country. The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, of which I am a member, has held something in the neighborhood of 20 to 25 hearings over the last year and a half on this legislation, and I have listened to literally dozens and dozens of witnesses about how we can do a better job improving the quality of education in this country. I know in the last week or so, in surveys done by polling operations that are both of the Democratic persuasion and the Republican persuasion, they have indicated what most of us knew already, that education is the single most important issue the American public thinks we need to address. I think the numbers were 38 percent of the American public listed education as the lead priority issue that Congress ought to deal with, on which the American people would like to see us focus more attention. Education placed higher than the public's concerns about Social Security and Medicare by some three points, and health care by seven points. Those were the top three responses: education, Social Security, and Medicare, and health care generally, with education surpassing those concerns with some 38 percent. It is appropriate this Congress deal with education. What I am stunned by is that 1 week away from action by the major committee charged with the responsibility of dealing with education issues, the leadership has decided to bring up the Coverdell bill rather than waiting for the committee product to come out, after having waited now a year and a half for it. So on one level I am disappointed that the leadership has decided to bring up this legislation prior to the education committee's markup of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Further, I take particular issue with the legislation that will soon be before us, the Coverdell proposal. I have a lot of respect for my colleague from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, but he and I have significant disagreements on some issues, and on this one particularly. Let me inform my colleagues what this bill would do. Obviously, a tax break designed to help defray the costs of education for grades K-12 sounds very good. It is a lot of money, $1.3 billion. But let me explain specifically how this legislation would actually impact people's tax obligations. According to a Joint Tax Committee report, which is an objective committee that is not supposed to take partisan issue with any particular bill, the average benefit per child in public schools would be $3 in the year 2001, $4.50 in the year 2002, and $6 in the year 2003, reaching a high mark of $7 in the year 2004, or a total of $20.50 over 4 years. That is $1.3 billion in lost tax revenues to provide the average taxpayer with $20.50 in tax relief. That is going to be the answer to how we improve public education in this country, this legislation purports. No one is going to suggest that this Congress has a perfect record on tax cut proposals, but I noticed recently in a national survey that only some 13 percent of the American public thought at this juncture a tax cut was necessary, that they would rather see us spend the surplus we are accumulating, the non-Social Security surplus, on Social Security, Medicare, and educational needs in this country. While people certainly like the idea of a tax cut, they like better the idea we are reducing our national debt. Shouldn't we be working to eliminate the approximately $220 billion in interest payments we pay each year on the national debt? What greater gift could this generation give to future generations than ensuring their National Government would be free of debt? Almost without exception, Americans would rather we reduce our national debt than receive $20.50 over 4 years for an educational tax benefit proposal that is not going to do much at all. If your child is enrolled in a private school, $20.50 will provide very little assistance. The decision of whether or not to take $1.3 billion of taxpayer's money and give people, on average, $20.50 as opposed to paying down the national debt or dealing with Medicare or dealing with broader educational needs, I think is an easy one. I don't think we need much persuasion--I hope--when these clear choices are before us. Certainly with $20.50 we are not going to get smaller class sizes, which most Americans think is important. Certainly we are not going to get better qualified teachers, which most Americans think is important. This legislation is not going to modernize crowded, old, and unsafe school facilities. It is not going to wire these schools so students have the advantage of the Internet and modern technology to better prepare them for their futures. It is certainly not going to help school districts cope with the costs of special education. There is an issue, however, that we do have the opportunity to do something about. If you want to take $1.3 billion and do something, and if paying down the national debt doesn't impress you, why not do something about special education costs? Why not take the $1.3 billion and apply that towards the Federal Government's commitment to local communities to help them meet their special education costs? Our respective States know well the complaints of our mayors and our county executives, that the cost of special education is rising all of the time. They also know the Federal Government made a commitment years ago pledging 30 to 40 percent of the cost of special education services. The Federal Government has never gotten above 13 percent of that commitment. If we want to do something meaningful for our communities, be they Colorado or Connecticut, if we want to spend this money on education, why not return the money to our States and allow them to meet the costs of special education? I promise you, there is not a mayor in this country, there is not a county executive in this country, there is not a school board in this country that would not applaud a decision by this body to provide some meaningful help on defraying the costs of special education. Believe me, if the choice is one between helping our local school districts or giving $20.50 over 4 years as a tax break to the people in their communities, they will take the special education option every time. I intend to offer an amendment to the underlying bill. At the first opportunity, I am going to offer an amendment that will take the $1.3 billion and apply it to special education and lets us do something meaningful in our respective States. Let me share with my colleagues the background on the special ed proposal. In my view, it is a waste of fiscal resources to be spending $1.3 billion on this minor tax break, $20.50 over 4 years. One cannot buy hamburgers for a family of four at MacDonald's or Burger King with this amount of money. As I said earlier, however, these funds can make a difference in the area of special education. Let's take a look at how my proposal will make a difference. It will strengthen public schools by assisting them with the very high cost of special education. Upon enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1975, the Federal Government committed to State and local school districts that it would contribute 40 percent of the funds needed to provide special education services. Twenty-five years ago we made that commitment. Presently, the Federal contribution to special education is 12.7 percent of the total special education costs. The Federal Government today would need to boost its IDEA funding an estimated $15.7 billion to live up to its original commitment. I am not suggesting $1.3 billion is going to get us to the 40 percent level, but it would be a major step in the right direction. The amendment that I plan to offer will redirect the $1.3 billion over 4 years that the Coverdell amendment applies, to aid State and local school districts in providing the critically important special education services that children with disabilities deserve. This proposal will truly do something for our communities, I suggest to my good friend, the Presiding Officer, in his wonderful State of Colorado and my State of Connecticut. This will truly make a difference. This proposal will strengthen these local school districts. I believe it is better for us to take this money, which the Coverdell legislation will take out of general revenues of the Treasury, and apply it to something for which our constituents and our communities will be grateful. Mr. President, $20.50 does not put a dent in our real education needs. I emphasize, again--and this is the first point I made--I am somewhat disappointed we are bringing up this proposal just days away from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions reporting out its bill on the elementary and secondary education proposals, as we have done historically over the years. But 5 or 6 days before the committee acts, after all the hearings the committee has held, all the time that has been invested by Republicans and Democrats on the committee who care about education and have listened to people from across the country offering their suggestions on how we can best improve the quality of education, it is a great pity, in my view, that we are going to disregard that exercise and come right to the floor with a tax-cut proposal that does little or nothing to improve the quality of education in our country. At the appropriate time, I will offer an amendment that will require this $1.3 billion to go directly to our school districts, to our communities, to provide the financial support they can use, given the high cost of special education in communities all across the country, and help us get closer to fulfilling that commitment we made 25 years ago of meeting 40 percent of the costs of special education. I have offered this amendment in the past. This amendment has had bipartisan support. When I offered this amendment in 1994, the majority leader, Senator Lott, supported the amendment, as did Senators Gorton and Jeffords. However, eventually we came short of the majority necessary to adopt the amendment. In fact, the distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, to his great credit, when he and I served together on the Budget Committee years ago supported a similar amendment to the one I'm proposing today. When I offered an amendment in the Budget Committee that would require that over a number of years we increase the federal contribution to special education to 40-percent, it unfortunately fell on a tie vote. As some people are aware, the Federal Government commits only 7 cents on the dollar to fund elementary and secondary education services in this country. Seven cents on the dollar is what we do; 93 cents on the dollar comes from the States and local governments, and most funding for education comes from local taxation. My proposal offers a way for the Federal Government to provide some real tax relief at the local level for special education costs that these communities must raise in order to meet their obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. I am hopeful that, while this amendment has not been adopted in the past, given the choice between a $20.50 tax break over 4 years and taking $1.3 billion and sending it back to our communities to help them meet their special education costs, this amendment may prevail this time. Our children with disabilities and our communities deserve our support. I then hope we can move on to the real business of continuing our work on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Lieberman, Snowe, Jeffords, Lautenberg, Reed and Leahy in introducing the Home Heating Oil Price Stability Act. For the past several weeks, Connecticut and the Northeast have been gripped by cold weather and skyrocketing heating oil prices. Approximately 36 percent of households in the Northeast rely on home heating oil. On Friday, February 4th, home heating oil cost $2 per gallon in Hartford, Connecticut and $1.80 per gallon a little farther east in Groton, Connecticut, almost double the price from mid-January. Prices averaged $.86 per gallon during the winter of 1998/1999. Independent, family-owned heating oil retailers in Connecticut are struggling to meet their delivery demands because of supply constraints. Local oil terminals are at dangerously low levels. Last week, supply levels of heating oil were so low in Bridgeport and New Haven that the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection issued a 48-hour waiver to allow the sale of 7-9 million gallons of heating oil with sulphur content above the level permitted by state law. To be sure, the extreme cold weather and isolated refinery problems have contributed to the supply strain. Icy waters around New Haven had slowed the off-loading of some heating oil in late January and early February. However, even after tankers were able to unload millions of gallons last weekend, customers throughout Connecticut are still paying record-high prices as high as $2.10 per gallon--supply is still tight. The Northeast is always cold in winter, so why are consumers and retailers suffering so much this winter? Many analysts believe that the precarious petroleum situation was precipitated by a calculated decision by OPEC and others to cut back production, and by major oil companies adhering to a practice of just-in-time inventories. As petroleum prices began to rise in reaction to OPEC action, refiners drew down from their already low stock of lower-priced crude rather than purchasing higher-priced crude and thus replenishing the stocks. Inventories dwindled and the supply is now at record low levels. For the week ending January 14, the total distillate stock for the East Coast was 33.5 million barrels compared with 69.1 million barrels a year ago. What do these events mean to the average consumer in Connecticut and the Northeast? Dramatically higher costs, for starters. Heating oil bills are averaging 30-60 percent higher than last year. The wide range is due to the extent to which people are turning down their thermostats to ration supply and stretch their dollars. Schools, libraries and small businesses are seeing their budgets burst as more money is allocated for fuel. The Middletown, Connecticut school system has spent more than twice as much for heating oil from October to January than during the same period a year ago, despite a warmer than average December. Some market analysts believe this is a temporary situation. Mr. President, this is not a temporary situation. Just-in-time inventory practices appear to be here to stay. OPEC has intimated that the petroleum production drawbacks may continue beyond March, thus causing further instability at a time when peak demand for gasoline begins. This is a perennial problem--unusually high heating oil prices in winter followed by skyrocketing gasoline prices in the summer. Today's legislation is an effort to address the heating oil problem for the long-term. It would create a heating oil reserve of 2 million barrels in leased storage facilities in New York Harbor and 4.7 million barrels of heating oil in one of four Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) caverns along the Gulf Coast. The Secretary of Energy may fill the reserve by trading crude oil from the SPR for heating oil. The President may draw down the reserve when fuel oil prices in the United States rise sharply because of anti-competitive activity, during a fuel oil shortage, or during periods of extreme winter weather. Let me be perfectly clear. The creation of a Government regional heating oil reserve is not intended to compete with the commercial sector for sales under normal conditions. It is intended, rather, to help stabilize supplies and prices during critical periods. I, along with Senator Lieberman, first raised the issue of establishing a regional reserve in 1996 when Connecticut consumers were facing unusually high heating oil prices attributed to extreme winter weather and domestic and international events, including the onset of just-in-time inventories. We asked the Department of Energy (DOE) to examine regional reserve feasibility and report back to Congress. Their conclusions form the foundation of our legislation. Mr. President, I have an article from July 13, 1998 coinciding with the release of the report that states a positive benefit/cost ratio if a small reserve were located in leased terminals in the Northeast and filled by trading crude from the SPR for the distillate. As I stated briefly a moment ago, our legislation also establishes a backup 4.7 million barrel reserve in the Gulf due to excess capacity there. This legislation should be part of a long-term solution. In the meantime, Connecticut and Northeast residents need near-term action. Advice to just ride out the winter is simply not acceptable. Hardest hit are the poor and elderly who should not have to choose among having a warm house, food on the table, or medicine in the cabinet. The current home heating oil crisis cuts across all income levels. The 1999/2000 winter will go down in the history books as the year with the highest heating oil prices ever. I am sure you will agree with me that this is one record that need never be broken. I urge our colleagues to join me, Senators Lieberman, and our other cosponsors in support of working families, small businesses, and towns across the Northeast to move forward with this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and additional material be entered in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Lieberman, Snowe, Jeffords, Lautenberg, Reed and Leahy in introducing the Home Heating Oil Price Stability Act. For the past several weeks, Connecticut and the Northeast have been gripped by cold weather and skyrocketing heating oil prices. Approximately 36 percent of households in the Northeast rely on home heating oil. On Friday, February 4th, home heating oil cost $2 per gallon in Hartford, Connecticut and $1.80 per gallon a little farther east in Groton, Connecticut, almost double the price from mid-January. Prices averaged $.86 per gallon during the winter of 1998/1999. Independent, family-owned heating oil retailers in Connecticut are struggling to meet their delivery demands because of supply constraints. Local oil terminals are at dangerously low levels. Last week, supply levels of heating oil were so low in Bridgeport and New Haven that the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection issued a 48-hour waiver to allow the sale of 7-9 million gallons of heating oil with sulphur content above the level permitted by state law. To be sure, the extreme cold weather and isolated refinery problems have contributed to the supply strain. Icy waters around New Haven had slowed the off-loading of some heating oil in late January and early February. However, even after tankers were able to unload millions of gallons last weekend, customers throughout Connecticut are still paying record-high prices as high as $2.10 per gallon--supply is still tight. The Northeast is always cold in winter, so why are consumers and retailers suffering so much this winter? Many analysts believe that the precarious petroleum situation was precipitated by a calculated decision by OPEC and others to cut back production, and by major oil companies adhering to a practice of just-in-time inventories. As petroleum prices began to rise in reaction to OPEC action, refiners drew down from their already low stock of lower-priced crude rather than purchasing higher-priced crude and thus replenishing the stocks. Inventories dwindled and the supply is now at record low levels. For the week ending January 14, the total distillate stock for the East Coast was 33.5 million barrels compared with 69.1 million barrels a year ago. What do these events mean to the average consumer in Connecticut and the Northeast? Dramatically higher costs, for starters. Heating oil bills are averaging 30-60 percent higher than last year. The wide range is due to the extent to which people are turning down their thermostats to ration supply and stretch their dollars. Schools, libraries and small businesses are seeing their budgets burst as more money is allocated for fuel. The Middletown, Connecticut school system has spent more than twice as much for heating oil from October to January than during the same period a year ago, despite a warmer than average December. Some market analysts believe this is a temporary situation. Mr. President, this is not a temporary situation. Just-in-time inventory practices appear to be here to stay. OPEC has intimated that the petroleum production drawbacks may continue beyond March, thus causing further instability at a time when peak demand for gasoline begins. This is a perennial problem--unusually high heating oil prices in winter followed by skyrocketing gasoline prices in the summer. Today's legislation is an effort to address the heating oil problem for the long-term. It would create a heating oil reserve of 2 million barrels in leased storage facilities in New York Harbor and 4.7 million barrels of heating oil in one of four Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) caverns along the Gulf Coast. The Secretary of Energy may fill the reserve by trading crude oil from the SPR for heating oil. The President may draw down the reserve when fuel oil prices in the United States rise sharply because of anti-competitive activity, during a fuel oil shortage, or during periods of extreme winter weather. Let me be perfectly clear. The creation of a Government regional heating oil reserve is not intended to compete with the commercial sector for sales under normal conditions. It is intended, rather, to help stabilize supplies and prices during critical periods. I, along with Senator Lieberman, first raised the issue of establishing a regional reserve in 1996 when Connecticut consumers were facing unusually high heating oil prices attributed to extreme winter weather and domestic and international events, including the onset of just-in-time inventories. We asked the Department of Energy (DOE) to examine regional reserve feasibility and report back to Congress. Their conclusions form the foundation of our legislation. Mr. President, I have an article from July 13, 1998 coinciding with the release of the report that states a positive benefit/cost ratio if a small reserve were located in leased terminals in the Northeast and filled by trading crude from the SPR for the distillate. As I stated briefly a moment ago, our legislation also establishes a backup 4.7 million barrel reserve in the Gulf due to excess capacity there. This legislation should be part of a long-term solution. In the meantime, Connecticut and Northeast residents need near-term action. Advice to just ride out the winter is simply not acceptable. Hardest hit are the poor and elderly who should not have to choose among having a warm house, food on the table, or medicine in the cabinet. The current home heating oil crisis cuts across all income levels. The 1999/2000 winter will go down in the history books as the year with the highest heating oil prices ever. I am sure you will agree with me that this is one record that need never be broken. I urge our colleagues to join me, Senators Lieberman, and our other cosponsors in support of working families, small businesses, and towns across the Northeast to move forward with this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill and additional material be entered in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a resolution on behalf of myself and my colleagues Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Durbin. Because I have not solicited cosponsors of this resolution, others may wish to add their names at a later time. This resolution is virtually identical to a resolution that has been introduced in the other body by Congressman Rangel of New York, along with a number of other Members of the House. I am told that support for that resolution is bipartisan in nature. I am going to read the resolution into the Record. That is not a normal event, but I think the wording of it is so significant that it deserves to be read into the Record. The resolution deals with the case of 6-year-old Cuban boy, Elian Gonzalez, who we all know tragically lost his mother in that dreadful boating incident, an accident as they left Cuba and sought to come to the United States. Young Elian spent some time in the water alone and survived that tragedy. Today, after weeks of this going on, this matter has attracted national and international attention. Yesterday, together with Senators Leahy, Boxer, Durbin, and Hagel, I met for about an hour with the two grandmothers of this 6-year-old boy. I was convinced before the meeting--and even more so afterwards--that this is a matter which ought to be resolved immediately by reuniting this young boy with his father in Cuba. I am terribly upset and worried that this matter may end up as a subject of debate in the Senate. I have no intention whatsoever of pursuing the resolution that I introduce today. In fact, it is my strong desire not to pursue it--unless the Senate is forced to address legislation that would extend citizenship or permanent resident status to this young boy. Should such legislation come to the Floor of the Senate, then I will offer this resolution as an alternative. My sincere hope is that the leadership of the Senate and of the House will think again before deciding to make this child a focal point in a debate about the current regime in Cuba. He really should not be, in my view. The Senate of the United States and the House of Representatives ought not to utilize this child as a way of advancing the debate on Cuba. This would be a great travesty, in my view. Conferring, by special legislation, citizenship or permanent resident status on this boy would, I believe, set a dangerous precedent. It would violate longstanding legal processes. Furthermore, it would violate a cherished principle ingrained in the Constitution and laws of our country, and embraced by all of us here--namely, that the best interests of a child is normally served by that child being with his or her parents. Tragically, this young boy lost his mother. His father, we are told, was a good father--and is a good father. This boy ought to be returned to his dad and be home with him, and the quicker the better. So I hope the matter will not come before the Senate. I have great respect for our majority leader. Most of my colleagues know this. We have our disagreements, but the Senator from Mississippi, the majority leader, and I are good friends, and I cherish that friendship. I urge him to think again about this before deciding to ask this body to cast votes on extending citizenship to an infant. I do not think it is a wise move. I think it is wrong for the Senate to do so, and I hope a different decision will be reached and this matter is left to be resolved in the courts where it is now. That is the best way, in my view, to expedite this process so this boy can be returned to his father and cease to be a pawn in a larger geopolitical debate. Let me, if I can, read the wording of this resolution because I think it might enlighten some Members who are not necessarily familiar with all the facts and details.

Mr. DODD. I appreciate that. I stated the facts in that resolution. Mr. President, let me state, again, this boy ought to be home with his father. We have a significant disagreement with the Government of Fidel Castro. Those disagreements are not going to be resolved by this case. But good families exist in countries with bad governments. The idea that the family of Elian Gonzalez, because he lives under a repressive regime in Cuba, cannot be a good family is, on its face, false. There are plenty of good families all over this globe who live under governments that we do not approve of. In this case, I believe--based on the examination by the Immigration and Naturalization Service of Elian Gonzalez' father, and based on all that is known about his grandparents and other family members--that such a family exists in Cuba. The evidence suggests that his father is not only fit as a parent, but caring and involved, as well. Despite the fact that he was divorced from Elian's mother, the evidence suggests that he shared with her the responsibility of raising this young boy. Therefore, I think it is in the interests of this child that he be returned to that family as quickly as possible. That really ought to settle this matter. Based on what we know today, his father loves him, and wants him back. That is a desire that every American parent can understand and share. But what has happened here, apparently, is that the hatred on the part of some for an old man in Cuba--Fidel Castro--is interfering with the love of a father and a son. If there is a debate--and there is between our two Governments--let that debate be conducted by adults. Let us debate the embargo. Let us debate the issue of food and medicine. I note, as I stand here, the Presiding Officer has been an enlightened and thoughtful participant in that discussion, as we are trying to work our way through what is the best way for us to try to repair this relationship between the Governments of Cuba and the United States that has gone on for 40 years, to bring about the kind of change in Cuba that would bring freedom to the people of Cuba. We have said repeatedly that our argument is with Fidel Castro and his government, not with the Cuban people. Yet, unfortunately, in this discussion, it appears that for some the debate is with the Cuban people if Elian Gonzalez is denied the opportunity to return to Cuba to be with his father. I hope, again, as I said a few moments ago, that this matter will not come to the floor of the Senate for debate, that the leadership, in its wisdom, will decide to move on to other matters--the bankruptcy bill, the budget matters that we need to discuss, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a Patients' Bill of Rights,and a minimum wage increase, to name just a few. There is a long list of issues for us to debate and discuss. But we ought not to debate the custody status of a 6-year-old child who, in the opinion of all who have taken a look at this issue from a neutral and responsible position, have concluded that Elian Gonzalez ought to be home with his father in Cuba. We ought to instead allow the current legal process to work so that a decision on this boy's fate can be rendered expeditiously and, hopefully, in favor of reuniting him with his father. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. It is.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry, what is the business before the Senate?

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with profound sadness to discuss the passing from this life of a remarkable and beloved woman, Pauline Israelite of Norwich, Connecticut. On the day of Pauline's funeral at the Beth Jacob Synagogue in Norwich, some 1000 people arrived to pay their respects. Hundreds of them were required to stand throughout the service because there was not enough seating to accommodate all those in attendance. Rabbis, clergy, and other attendees all agreed that they could not recall a funeral service held in that particular house of worship that was ever attended by more individuals. Those of us privileged to know Pauline can well understand the outpouring of affection shown for her on that day. She was an extraordinary individual in so many ways: a devoted wife, a loving mother, a successful business owner, and not least, an extraordinarily generous and energetic community servant. For many years, Pauline owned and operated the Norwichtown Mall Bookstore. The true business of her life, however, was not running a business, but serving others. She was an active member of Beth Jacob Synagogue. She served as President of Beth Jacob Sisterhood, and as an active member of Hadassah and a Hands of Healing honoree. She was a volunteer for Hospice; a member of and volunteer for the William W. Backus Hospital Auxiliary; a volunteer for the Adult Probation Department; and an ombudsman for the Area Agency on Aging. She served as a member of the board of the Jewish Federation of Eastern Connecticut, and of the Norwich Chamber of Commerce. In addition, she volunteered for We Care in Delray Beach, Florida, and for the Literacy Volunteers of America. I first met Pauline more than a quarter of a century ago. Her husband, Stanley, had just left a successful business career to become a member of my congressional staff. At Pauline's funeral, I was introduced as someone for whom Stanley worked. I hastened to correct that mis- impression. It is I who work for Stanley, I said. And it was Stanley, I added, who worked for Pauline. Therefore, in a very real sense, I worked for Pauline. Indeed, so many of us worked, in a manner of speaking, for Pauline. I recall numerous times over the years when Stanley and I would wrestle with a tough problem about how to best help someone in need, or how to bring about some positive result for our community or our state. On those occasions, we would invariably arrive at the same conclusion: ``Ask Pauline.'' Countless others no doubt uttered those same words over the years. And just as invariably, Pauline knew how to help. And those of us who worked with her--or, I should say again, for her--came to rely on her sound judgment, her instincts for doing the right thing, and her understanding of how to help others--concretely, discreetly, and in a spirit of generosity and understanding. Over the course of her rich and vibrant life, Pauline developed a deep love of books. She didn't just sell them. She read them, and read them with the same passion she brought to the other facets of her life. It is appropriate, therefore, that I close these remarks by referencing two passages that I believe capture much about Pauline, her family, and all those who mourn her unexpected passing, and who wish to celebrate the blessed achievement of her life. The first passage comes from Seamus Heaney's ``Clearances'', a poem about the death of a mother that evokes how her spirit survives in those left behind: In the last minutes he said more to her Almost than in all their life together. `You'll be in New Row on Monday night And I'll come up for you and you'll be glad When I walk in the door . . . Isn't that right? His head was bent down to her propped-up head. She could not hear but we were overjoyed. He called her good and girl. Then she was dead, The searching for a pulsebeat was abandoned And we all knew one thing by being there. The space we stood around had been emptied Into us to keep, it penetrated Clearances that suddenly stood open. High cries were felled and a pure change happened. The second passage is from ``Tuesdays with Morrie,'' a touching account of a beloved teacher's last months. It serves as a reminder that our death, like our lives, is part of a larger scheme composed by the hand of a Creator whose purposes may not always be apparent to us, especially in times of sorrow: ``I heard a nice little story the other day,'' Morrie says. He closes his eyes for a moment and I wait. ``Okay. The story is about a little wave, bobbing along in the ocean, having a grand old time. He's enjoying the wind and the fresh air--until he notices the other waves in front of him, crashing against the shore. `` `My God, this is terrible,' the wave says. `Look what's going to happen to me!' ``Then along comes another wave. It sees the first wave, looking grim, and it says to him, `Why do you look so sad?' ``The first wave says, `You don't understand! We're all going to crash! All of us waves are going to be nothing! Isn't it terrible?' ``The second wave says, `No, you don't understand. You're not a wave, you're part of the ocean.' '' I smile. Morrie closes his eyes again. ``Part of the ocean,'' he says, ``part of the ocean.'' I watch him breathe, in and out, in and out. Mr. President, Pauline Israelite is survived by a large and loving family: Stanley, her husband of 53 years; her son Michael and his wife Donna; her son Jon; her daughter Abby and her husband Bill Dolliver; her daughter Mindy and her husband Bill Wilkie; several siblings; and six wonderful grandchildren. I extend to them all my deepest sympathies, and my profound gratitude for granting me and so many others the opportunity to know and love Pauline Israelite.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there are obviously many issues that one might discuss in the context of the omnibus spending bill that is currently pending before the Senate. I would like to take a few moments to mention two very important issues that have been included in the pending legislation, the IMF debt initiative and payment of U.N. arrears. I was extremely pleased that the House and Senate leadership were able to reach agreement earlier this week with Secretary of Treasury Larry Summers and other administration officials on legislative language that will permit the IMF's historic debt relief initiative to move forward. Just a few short days ago, it seemed unthinkable that the Congress and the Executive would reach a compromise to permit the United States to support the IMF debt initiative for highly indebted poor nations around the globe before the end of this session of Congress. The provisions contained in the pending legislation authorize U.S. support for IMF participation in the international debt reduction initiative by permitting the United States to vote for the immediate non-market sale of the amount of gold necessary to generate profits of $3.1 billion; permit the use of 64% of the interest earned on the invested profits to be used for debt relief; authorize the U.S. share of a special reserve account at the IMF to also be used for debt relief purposes, and appropriate $123 million for FY 2000 bilateral U.S. debt reduction programs that will be undertaken in conjunction with the international debt initiative. With the enactment of this bill into law, the United States will be able to make a major step forward toward achieving the commitments made by President Clinton and other so called G-7 heads of state at this year's Cologne Summit. Among other things, this will enable the IMF, for the first time, to utilize its own resources to participate in international efforts to reduce the mounting debt burden that has been a yoke around the necks of the most impoverished nations of the world-- countries which are home to nearly half a billion people. With this debt relief and the economic reforms that will be an integral part of the IMF's multilateral initiative, the poorest countries in Africa and Latin America can now approach the next millennium with prospects for a brighter future. I am extremely pleased that bipartisanship ultimately won the day during negotiations of this important issue. Another important issue with major international implications has also finally been successfully resolved, namely the authorization and appropriation of $926 million in long overdue U.S. payments to the United Nations. While I would have preferred to see this issue treated on its own merits, rather than linked to restrictions on bilateral funding for family planning programs of foreign private and international population organizations, at least this issue has been finally resolved, and the United States will not lose its vote at the United Nations. I believe that extremist elements in the Congress jeopardized United States national security and foreign policy interests by holding up our payments to the UN for more than three years. They held this money hostage to the unrelated issue of international population programs. I am not happy with the compromise that had to be agreed to in order to resolve this issue. It is un-American in my view to legislatively seek to limit the free speech of foreign non-governmental organizations with respect to local family planning laws as a condition for receiving United States funding for their important family planning programs. Were I to have had the opportunity to vote on this language as a free standing amendment I would have certainly voted against it, as would a majority of the Senate. Unfortunately, because it has been included in the omnibus conference report we do not have that option. We must balance our distaste for this provision against the many positive programs that will be funded, including UN arrears, once this bill becomes law. Having done so, I will vote in favor of the pending legislation. Mr. President, the IMF, the United Nations and its related specialized organizations--UNICEF, the International Labor Organization, the World Health Organization, the Commission for Human Rights el al.--have a daily impact of the lives of the world's people-- and it is an impact for the better. Without doubt, these international organizations further United States national security and foreign policy interests through their programs and initiatives. Representatives of the United Nations are on the ground in the far comers of the world--in East Timor, Kosovo, Haiti, and Iraq to mention but a few ongoing missions of the United Nations. The United States is able to maximize its interests and advance its foreign policy agenda at much lower cost thanks to our participation in this important international organization. There are clearly many reasons for voting to support this spending bill, despite its many flaws. The IMF Debt Relief Initiative and payment of UN arrears are two of the more compelling ones in my opinion. I urge my colleagues to support this bill when it comes to a vote later today.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, due to the illness of a family member, I was unable to participate in much of the debate on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I voted in favor of ratification of the treaty, and, now that there is ample time, I want to express my views on the treaty and the debate prior to the Senate's vote against ratification. In my view, that vote was a sad day for the United States Senate, for our nation and for the world. During the debate, my colleague, Senator Cleland spoke eloquently of the pride he felt as a young man sitting in this chamber 36 years ago when the Senate voted to ratify the first nuclear test ban treaty which prohibited atmospheric nuclear tests. I doubt that many people can express a similar sense of pride over the outcome of the Senate's consideration of the Test Ban Treaty earlier this fall. My disappointment rests, firstly, with the manner in which this treaty was considered. It can only be characterized as hurried, a legislative rush to judgement. For instance, Senator Byrd, one of the most senior members of this chamber and a former majority leader, rose to speak prior to a procedural vote. He dared to ask for fifteen minutes to speak during this chamber's headlong rush to vote against a treaty that would ban nuclear explosions throughout the world. The majority was well aware that there were not 67 votes for this treaty, and they knew what the final outcome would be. Sadly, though, the majority found it necessary to brush aside the most senior member on this side of the aisle. That is not the way we should conduct business in the Senate. Unfortunately, that episode characterized the entire debate on this treaty. There was a hastiness and a needless sense of urgency about arriving at that ratification vote that we rarely see in this body. The sudden scheduling of the vote, prior to a single hearing, brought one week of frenzied focus that some members characterized as ample consideration. I think that it fell far short. All hearings on this treaty were crammed into one week, and most of the floor debate time was allocated on a Friday, prior to a three day weekend and after the week's final vote. The brief debate and vote on this treaty were closely watched within this country and around the world. As evidence of that, most, if not all, Senators received a high volume of constituent calls, and no Senator is unaware that foreign leaders made rare appeals to this body. The process followed with this treaty bore little resemblance to the process the Senate normally follows when it receives a treaty. The normal process includes careful consideration of a treaty's merits, an airing of the arguments from those who have objections, the addition of any safeguards that may be necessary, and, finally, a vote on ratification. In this case, that process was ignored and, some would argue, even maligned. The Senate could have easily avoided a ratification vote, and, given the haste of its actions and the profound importance of the subject at hand, should have done so. Moreover, some members on the other side of the aisle clearly stated that they needed more time to examine this treaty, study its implications, and propose any appropriate amendments or side agreements. In fact, a majority of this body appeared to want more time to do so. That view is eminently reasonable considering how quickly this treaty was considered. Instead, all Senators were forced to make a fast decision and put their position on record. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the defeat of this treaty was an end in itself, rather than a byproduct of considered action. Now, by this vote, the United States Senate has allowed friend and foe to conclude that we want more nuclear testing and we need more nuclear explosions. We ignored Senator Levin's injunction to, at the very least, ``do no harm.'' Instead, we have at a minimum muddied this nation's position with respect to containing the threat of nuclear warfare. All we had to do to avoid this outcome was to delay the vote. There were those on the other side of the aisle who endorsed doing just that. Regrettably, they were overruled by their colleagues who are overzealous opponents of this Administration. I support the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and, as the President stated, I expect that the treaty will be ratified--if not this year, then some year. Nuclear test explosions are becoming anachronisms; the tide of history is quickly sweeping away the last vestiges of their legitimacy. Prior to the vote, I had decided to support the President's request to put off the vote on ratification. It had become clear to the President and me and most other members of this chamber that, despite our strong support of this treaty, the Senate was not yet ready to support ratification. It was with regret that I arrived at that conclusion, because no one enjoys putting off a vote that will benefit the people of this nation, and, in this case, the people of the world. This treaty has been signed by over 150 nations. It is supported by nearly every member of the United Nations. Clearly it merited several days or even weeks of hearings in which experts on both sides of this issue would have a chance to present testimony and answer questions. More than that, though, it deserved to be ratified. Our nation is the world's greatest force for peace and freedom. It is not worthy of that stature for us to be outside the community of civilized nations that have committed themselves to an end to nuclear testing. We have missed an opportunity to lead these nations, and to provide an example to countries like India and Pakistan, both of whom are on the verge of signing this treaty. Instead, we have, I fear, energized forces in those countries and others around the world that favor further testing or revoking pledges not to test. This treaty will make the world more safe for our children and our children's children. We have a responsibility, despite the vote, to those future generations to do our part to stop nuclear detonations. If we fail in our responsibility, we will dash the hopes of generations yet to come. They may wonder why, when the world finally seemed ready to halt nuclear testing, the United States refused to go along. Throughout the Cold War, nuclear tests may have been necessary to modernize this nation's nuclear weapons capability. But at the height of tensions with the Soviet Union, President Eisenhower said that the failure to achieve a nuclear test ban ``would have to be classed as the greatest disappointment of any administration, of any decade, of any time and of any party.'' In 1992, President Bush, a former CIA Director and Ambassador to the United Nations, unilaterally halted nuclear weapons tests in the United States. President Clinton subsequently continued the moratorium. This treaty would halt nuclear weapons tests in other nations, as well. It would force other nations to do what this nation has already done and has been doing for these past several years. Since the first test in 1945, the United States has conducted 1030 nuclear explosions--more than all other nations combined. As a result, we have far more test data and a far more deadly nuclear arsenal than any other nation. This treaty would effectively preserve this nation's position as the pre-eminent nuclear weapons power. It would limit the ability of nuclear-capable nations from developing more sophisticated and more deadly nuclear weapons. It does not outlaw improvements and advancements to weapons, but without the ability to test the new weapons, nations would be hesitant to deploy them. For those nations that do not yet possess a nuclear arsenal, this treaty will hinder their ability to develop such an arsenal. Those nations will be barred from conducting and studying a single nuclear explosion. Perhaps they could develop, at some time in the future, a crude nuclear arsenal, but they would face daunting uncertainties without having witnessed a single explosion. This treaty enhances our national security. It has the support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and several former military leaders including Gen. Colin Powell. Besides solidifying this nation's vast lead in nuclear technology and nuclear weaponry, it would assist us in monitoring nuclear explosions throughout the world. Regardless of whether this treaty goes into force, this nation must determine whether other nations are conducting nuclear explosions. This treaty mandates a global network of sensors and allows for on-site inspections, so it would greatly assist this nation in meeting its monitoring responsibilities. Questions have been raised about whether we can maintain the reliability of our nuclear arsenal absent more nuclear tests. Many nuclear experts, however, assert that we can maintain a reliable deterrent, as we have since 1992, without the nuclear explosions. Furthermore, this nation plans to allocate $45 billion over the next ten years to ensure the reliability of our stockpile. What other nation has greater resources to dedicate to its stockpile? What other nation is better able, given its experience, to ensure the reliability of nuclear weapons? Our allies, Britain and France, have conducted far fewer nuclear explosions than we have, yet they have ratified this treaty. Over half of the nuclear-capable nations in the world have ratified this treaty. We have the least to lose and the most to gain if this treaty goes into force. This nation must do its part and help rid the world of these terrible nuclear explosions. I urge my colleagues to support a reexamination of these issues and a reconsideration of the Senate's regrettable course of action.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague and friend, Senator DeWine of Ohio, to introduce legislation that would represent our nation's first comprehensive commitment to fire safety. The Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement Act (the FIRE bill), will, for the first time, provide volunteer and professional firefighters with the resources they need to protect the people and property of their towns and cities. In communities throughout America, firefighters are almost always the first to respond to a call for help. They respond to a fire alarm. They are on the scene of traffic accidents and construction accidents. Emergency medical technicians, who often belong to fire departments, each day answer tens of thousands of calls for medical assistance. And, when a natural or manmade calamity strikes--from hurricanes to school shootings to bombings--firefighters are there without fail, restoring order and saving lives. Given all that they do, it should surprise no one that, across the Nation, fire departments struggle to find resources to help keep our communities safe. As the demands placed on fire departments have grown in volume and magnitude, the ability of local residents to support them has been put to a severe test. As a result, towns and cities throughout the country are struggling mightily to provide the fire departments with the resources they require. The FIRE Act will help localities meet that critical objective. It will provide grants to help localities hire more firefighters, train new and existing personnel to handle the volume and intensity of today's tragedies, and purchase badly needed equipment. This legislation will also provide critical resources to communities to fund fire prevention and education programs so that they can anticipate disasters and respond appropriately. Such programs are critical means of preventing tragedies from occurring in the first place. Eight out of ten fire deaths occur in a place where people feel the safest--their homes. Tragically, our children and the elderly account for a disproportionate number of these deaths. Indeed, preschool children face a risk of death from fire that is more than twice the risk for all age groups combined. While we can and should ensure that the fire equipment and personnel are available to respond to these tragedies, our best defense remains education and prevention. Yet, it is a painful irony that when resources are scarce, education and prevention efforts are often the first to be put on the budgetary chopping block. The legislation Senator DeWine and I are introducing will help ensure that no locality is put in the painful position of choosing between prevention and responding to emergencies. This legislation will enable our fire departments to worry more about saving lives and less about finding dollars. It will enable communities to better prevent disasters, and better train firefighters. I look forward to working with Senator DeWine to successfully advance this legislation in the Senate. It is our shared hope that our colleagues will come to realize that this bill is one whose time has come. Our Nation's firefighters deserve the support that this bill will provide, and I hope that we will give it to them before the end of this Congress.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague and friend, Senator DeWine of Ohio, to introduce legislation that would represent our nation's first comprehensive commitment to fire safety. The Firefighter Investment and Response Enhancement Act (the FIRE bill), will, for the first time, provide volunteer and professional firefighters with the resources they need to protect the people and property of their towns and cities. In communities throughout America, firefighters are almost always the first to respond to a call for help. They respond to a fire alarm. They are on the scene of traffic accidents and construction accidents. Emergency medical technicians, who often belong to fire departments, each day answer tens of thousands of calls for medical assistance. And, when a natural or manmade calamity strikes--from hurricanes to school shootings to bombings--firefighters are there without fail, restoring order and saving lives. Given all that they do, it should surprise no one that, across the Nation, fire departments struggle to find resources to help keep our communities safe. As the demands placed on fire departments have grown in volume and magnitude, the ability of local residents to support them has been put to a severe test. As a result, towns and cities throughout the country are struggling mightily to provide the fire departments with the resources they require. The FIRE Act will help localities meet that critical objective. It will provide grants to help localities hire more firefighters, train new and existing personnel to handle the volume and intensity of today's tragedies, and purchase badly needed equipment. This legislation will also provide critical resources to communities to fund fire prevention and education programs so that they can anticipate disasters and respond appropriately. Such programs are critical means of preventing tragedies from occurring in the first place. Eight out of ten fire deaths occur in a place where people feel the safest--their homes. Tragically, our children and the elderly account for a disproportionate number of these deaths. Indeed, preschool children face a risk of death from fire that is more than twice the risk for all age groups combined. While we can and should ensure that the fire equipment and personnel are available to respond to these tragedies, our best defense remains education and prevention. Yet, it is a painful irony that when resources are scarce, education and prevention efforts are often the first to be put on the budgetary chopping block. The legislation Senator DeWine and I are introducing will help ensure that no locality is put in the painful position of choosing between prevention and responding to emergencies. This legislation will enable our fire departments to worry more about saving lives and less about finding dollars. It will enable communities to better prevent disasters, and better train firefighters. I look forward to working with Senator DeWine to successfully advance this legislation in the Senate. It is our shared hope that our colleagues will come to realize that this bill is one whose time has come. Our Nation's firefighters deserve the support that this bill will provide, and I hope that we will give it to them before the end of this Congress.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I raise today to honor the enduring union of David and Ann Cannon and the legacy of accomplishment that their partnership has produced. On December 19, 1999, they will retire together, 35 years to the day after David was ordained as a priest and the two began their work at the St. James Episcopal Church in the Village of Poquetanuck, Connecticut, located in the greater Norwich area of my home state. For these past three and a half decades, David and Ann have been pillars of the Norwich community. Through their unflagging commitment to improving the lot of those in need, they have touched the lives of countless neighbors and set an impressive example for the rest of us to follow. Specifically, their work on behalf of the homeless of Martin House and Thames River Family Program has given dignity and hope to those who previously had little of either. Individually, each has many accomplishments for which to be proud. David has been a faithful pastor and a caring leader for his parish. He has dedicated himself to increasing access to quality higher education and ensuring compassionate care for the ill and infirm. To her great credit, Ann has worked tirelessly to shape a more responsive local government and to conserve the history of the community for generations to come. But the sum of this pair's worth is well beyond the measure of its distinguished parts. Perhaps it is the love and good humor these two share with themselves and others, their common zeal for hard work, and their joint commitment to excellence that is most memorable about them. Perhaps, as well, it is their unbending faith and their untempered compassion for their neighbors, and their talent for simply caring about others that has magnified their impact. All these traits have defined David and Ann for the many years I have known them and undoubtedly long before. While I merely scratch the surface of their many virtues and accomplishments here today, I would be remiss not to mention David and Ann's three most remarkable accomplishments--David, Andrew and Ruth, their three wonderful and loving children. Through 42 years of marriage, 35 years of selfless dedication to their parish and community, and 3 wonderful children, David and Ann Cannon have remained the central characters in a wonderful life story. I know I speak for countless others in the Norwich area in wishing that the next chapter in their remarkable life story be one of many rewarding years filled with love and happiness.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation with my colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett, that addresses the serious shortage of students graduating from our nation's colleges and universities with technology-based education and skills. Technology is reshaping our world at a rapid pace. Competition to meet the needs, wants, and expectations of businesses and consumers has accelerated the rate of technological progress to a level inconceivable even a few years ago. Today, technology is playing an increasingly important role in the lives of every American and is a key ingredient in sustaining America's economic growth. It is the wellspring from which new businesses, high-wage jobs, and a rising quality of life will flow in the 21st century. This profound technological change, coupled with a period of sustained fiscal discipline in the federal government, has led to an unprecedented period of economic growth in our nation. For the first time in three decades, we are enjoying the prospect of budget surpluses that could total one trillion dollars over the next ten years. We have the lowest unemployment in 29 years. Inflation has fallen to its lowest rate in almost 30 years. Our economy has created 20 million new jobs in the last seven years. If we want to build on this progress, we must encourage people to develop and use emerging technologies. Technological progress has become the single most important determining factor in sustaining economic growth in our economy. It is estimated that technological innovation has accounted for as much as half the nation's long-term economic growth over the past 50 years and is expected to account for an even higher percentage in the next 50 years. And yet, there is growing evidence that we are not doing enough to prepare people to make the most of this emerging ``New Economy.'' The explosive growth in the technology industry has resulted in a growing shortage of qualified and educated workers with skills in computer science and other technologically advanced systems. For example, more than 350,000 information technology positions are currently vacant throughout the United States. That is an astounding statistic. While we have managed to erase the budget deficit, our nation faces a rising knowledge deficit that could just as readily impede economic growth. At this moment, there is little sign that this technology deficit will be erased. The supply of technology-savvy U.S. college graduates appears to be on the wane. In my home state of Connecticut, public and private colleges combined produced only 297 computer and information science graduates in 1997, a 50 percent decline since 1987. The decline in students receiving engineering degrees is even more troubling. From 1989 to 1999, the number of Connecticut students graduating in this field has decreased by 65 percent. This trend is not limited to any one state; it is nationwide in scope. The number of graduates receiving bachelor of science degrees in engineering has fallen to a 17-year low of 19.8 percent. Between 1990 and 1996, the number of students obtaining high-tech degrees declined by 5 percent. These are clearly trends that must be reversed if we wish to continue building upon the technological achievements we have already made and ensure that our economy can continue to grow and create jobs to its full potential. Indeed, at large and mid-sized companies, there is already one vacancy for every 10 information technology jobs, and eight out of 10 companies expect to hire information technology workers in the year ahead. Over the next decade, the Department of Commerce estimates that 1.3 million new jobs will be created for systems analysts, computer engineers, and computer scientists. Moreover, by 2006, nearly half of the U.S. workforce will be employed by industries that are either producers or significant users of technology products and services. Clearly, we must do more to eliminate this shortage of technologically skilled workers. Some have suggested stop-gap measures such as extending more visas to foreign nationals who possess the skills most in demand here in the United States. More important than steps such as this are efforts to promote technology-based learning among American students. In Connecticut, many businesses are making such efforts. They are establishing scholarships, donating lab equipment and computers, planning curricula, and sending employees into colleges and universities to instruct and help prepare students for technology-based jobs. For instance, one Connecticut company, the Bayer Corporation, has committed $1.1 million to the University of New Haven over six years to help increase the effectiveness of its science curriculum. This partnership includes the donation of equipment, scholarships, internships, and other efforts that seek to engage students more actively in science and technology. Another positive example of cooperation between business and academic institutions in Connecticut is the support provided to the biotechnology program at Middlesex Community-Technical College by the Bristol Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute and the Curagen Corporation. These companies, too, have established scholarships, donated lab equipment, and encouraged their research scientists to give lectures to students. While these partnerships do exist in Connecticut, and indeed, across the country, businesses and academic institutions should not be left to tackle alone the challenge of helping students obtain the technological learning and skills they need to succeed in the new century. The Senate has before it the opportunity to assist in this effort, to encourage the growth of innovation and education, and to address the shortage of skilled high-tech workers so vital to our continued technological and economic growth. That is why I am pleased to have the opportunity today to introduce legislation that will encourage businesses to form partnerships with institutions of higher learning in order to improve technology-based learning so that more of our nation's students will be better prepared to fill the jobs of the 21st century. The ``Businesses Educating Students in Technology,'' or BEST Act, will give a tax credit to any business that joins with a university, college, or community-technical school to support technology-based educational activities which are directly related to the purpose of that business. The legislation would allow businesses to claim a tax credit for 40 percent of these educational expenses, up to a maximum of $100,000 for any one company. Mr. President, it is my hope that this tax credit will provide the incentive for more of our country's corporate leaders to take a more active role in the technological education, training, and skill development of our nation's most valuable resource--its students. If businesses take advantage of this credit, they will help create a larger pool of skilled workers to draw from and, in turn, help our nation foster a better educated population that possesses the knowledge to succeed in the information-based economy of the future. I hope my colleagues join me and Senator Bennett in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation with my colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett, that addresses the serious shortage of students graduating from our nation's colleges and universities with technology-based education and skills. Technology is reshaping our world at a rapid pace. Competition to meet the needs, wants, and expectations of businesses and consumers has accelerated the rate of technological progress to a level inconceivable even a few years ago. Today, technology is playing an increasingly important role in the lives of every American and is a key ingredient in sustaining America's economic growth. It is the wellspring from which new businesses, high-wage jobs, and a rising quality of life will flow in the 21st century. This profound technological change, coupled with a period of sustained fiscal discipline in the federal government, has led to an unprecedented period of economic growth in our nation. For the first time in three decades, we are enjoying the prospect of budget surpluses that could total one trillion dollars over the next ten years. We have the lowest unemployment in 29 years. Inflation has fallen to its lowest rate in almost 30 years. Our economy has created 20 million new jobs in the last seven years. If we want to build on this progress, we must encourage people to develop and use emerging technologies. Technological progress has become the single most important determining factor in sustaining economic growth in our economy. It is estimated that technological innovation has accounted for as much as half the nation's long-term economic growth over the past 50 years and is expected to account for an even higher percentage in the next 50 years. And yet, there is growing evidence that we are not doing enough to prepare people to make the most of this emerging ``New Economy.'' The explosive growth in the technology industry has resulted in a growing shortage of qualified and educated workers with skills in computer science and other technologically advanced systems. For example, more than 350,000 information technology positions are currently vacant throughout the United States. That is an astounding statistic. While we have managed to erase the budget deficit, our nation faces a rising knowledge deficit that could just as readily impede economic growth. At this moment, there is little sign that this technology deficit will be erased. The supply of technology-savvy U.S. college graduates appears to be on the wane. In my home state of Connecticut, public and private colleges combined produced only 297 computer and information science graduates in 1997, a 50 percent decline since 1987. The decline in students receiving engineering degrees is even more troubling. From 1989 to 1999, the number of Connecticut students graduating in this field has decreased by 65 percent. This trend is not limited to any one state; it is nationwide in scope. The number of graduates receiving bachelor of science degrees in engineering has fallen to a 17-year low of 19.8 percent. Between 1990 and 1996, the number of students obtaining high-tech degrees declined by 5 percent. These are clearly trends that must be reversed if we wish to continue building upon the technological achievements we have already made and ensure that our economy can continue to grow and create jobs to its full potential. Indeed, at large and mid-sized companies, there is already one vacancy for every 10 information technology jobs, and eight out of 10 companies expect to hire information technology workers in the year ahead. Over the next decade, the Department of Commerce estimates that 1.3 million new jobs will be created for systems analysts, computer engineers, and computer scientists. Moreover, by 2006, nearly half of the U.S. workforce will be employed by industries that are either producers or significant users of technology products and services. Clearly, we must do more to eliminate this shortage of technologically skilled workers. Some have suggested stop-gap measures such as extending more visas to foreign nationals who possess the skills most in demand here in the United States. More important than steps such as this are efforts to promote technology-based learning among American students. In Connecticut, many businesses are making such efforts. They are establishing scholarships, donating lab equipment and computers, planning curricula, and sending employees into colleges and universities to instruct and help prepare students for technology-based jobs. For instance, one Connecticut company, the Bayer Corporation, has committed $1.1 million to the University of New Haven over six years to help increase the effectiveness of its science curriculum. This partnership includes the donation of equipment, scholarships, internships, and other efforts that seek to engage students more actively in science and technology. Another positive example of cooperation between business and academic institutions in Connecticut is the support provided to the biotechnology program at Middlesex Community-Technical College by the Bristol Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute and the Curagen Corporation. These companies, too, have established scholarships, donated lab equipment, and encouraged their research scientists to give lectures to students. While these partnerships do exist in Connecticut, and indeed, across the country, businesses and academic institutions should not be left to tackle alone the challenge of helping students obtain the technological learning and skills they need to succeed in the new century. The Senate has before it the opportunity to assist in this effort, to encourage the growth of innovation and education, and to address the shortage of skilled high-tech workers so vital to our continued technological and economic growth. That is why I am pleased to have the opportunity today to introduce legislation that will encourage businesses to form partnerships with institutions of higher learning in order to improve technology-based learning so that more of our nation's students will be better prepared to fill the jobs of the 21st century. The ``Businesses Educating Students in Technology,'' or BEST Act, will give a tax credit to any business that joins with a university, college, or community-technical school to support technology-based educational activities which are directly related to the purpose of that business. The legislation would allow businesses to claim a tax credit for 40 percent of these educational expenses, up to a maximum of $100,000 for any one company. Mr. President, it is my hope that this tax credit will provide the incentive for more of our country's corporate leaders to take a more active role in the technological education, training, and skill development of our nation's most valuable resource--its students. If businesses take advantage of this credit, they will help create a larger pool of skilled workers to draw from and, in turn, help our nation foster a better educated population that possesses the knowledge to succeed in the information-based economy of the future. I hope my colleagues join me and Senator Bennett in supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is with great enthusiasm that I rise today to celebrate the 90th Anniversary of the American Red Cross of Southeastern Connecticut. Since 1909, victims of war, strife and natural disaster have been given the gift of hope and the means of survival by the selfless men and women who make up the Red Cross' Southeastern Connecticut Chapter. Indeed, for nine decades, the Southeastern Connecticut Chapter has provided assistance to those in need in Connecticut, across the United States and around the world-- truly exemplifying the ideals of the American Red Cross--offering aid and support during periods of acute emergency and prolonged rebuilding alike. The Red Cross itself has a long and distinguished history in the United States. In 1881, the American Red Cross was founded by Clara Barton and dedicated to the basic principles of service to humanity, independence, voluntary service, unity and universality. President Taft described the American Red Cross as ``the only volunteer society now authorized by this government to render aid to its land and naval forces in times of war,'' for that was its original intent, to aid the casualties of war. As we all know, the organization's peace-time role grew rapidly, however, and at the turn of the century, new leadership brought new goals and expanded the services of the American Red Cross. The growth of the American Red Cross was made possible by the success of regional chapters and the dedication of countless volunteers. The Red Cross was entirely staffed by volunteers until 1941, and today, volunteers still make up ninety-eight percent of all Red Cross personnel. When membership drives were initiated by the Southeastern Connecticut Chapter, residents of that area answered the call. Citizens from all walks of life--businesses, mills, farms, schools, churches and hospitals--donated their time, skill and money to the organization. Over the years, the Southeastern Chapter has been able to generate the ever-increasing support required to meet developing demands because of the sacrifice of their volunteers and the generosity of their neighbors. Over the last 90 years, this generosity and self-sacrifice has produced a remarkable track record. Historically speaking, the Red Cross organization in Southeastern Connecticut was active even before its formal charter was granted on November 1, 1909. The founding members began organizing at the Park Congressional Church in Norwich, Connecticut in October, 1905. They played a role in the relief efforts following the eruption of Mount Vesuvius and in 1906 helped survivors of the San Francisco earthquake and fire. Back home in Connecticut, the chapter also moved rapidly to combat a growing tuberculosis epidemic in its early days. As the world braced for war in August, 1914, the Chapter prepared for its own humanitarian campaign. The Chapter's members opened their hearts and homes to the work at hand. Preparations were carried out in homes, offices, social clubs, church societies and any other available space. The spirit of the Red Cross in Southeastern Connecticut was truly embraced by the community as a whole. The Honor Roll Committee, the Home Service Section, the Motor Corps and the Junior Red Cross were all formed in the endeavor to relieve those affected by war. During the latter decades of the century, the Chapter, and the Red Cross in general, made great strides in the field of blood donation. Connecticut Chapters contributed to the Blood Services of the war in Vietnam by sponsoring ``Operation Helpmate" in which each Chapter supplied a mobile blood unit in Mekong, Vietnam. Relentless in their selfless devotion to humanitarianism worldwide, Southeastern Connecticut Red Cross has provided a safety net for the 20th Century. While most of us think of the Red Cross as an international force for good, the presence of the American Red Cross in Connecticut has been important, as well. When the deadliest hurricane to ever hit New England slammed into Eastern Connecticut on September 21, 1938, the Disaster and Civil Preparedness Committee of the Southeastern Chapter responded to the emergency situation immediately, helping countless lives. And the Chapter led the effort to rebuild once the storm had passed. Had it not been for the preparedness of the Chapter in disaster situations, the damage and loss of life sustained would have been far greater. More recently, the state's organization has created what is now hailed as a model program for preventing the spread of HIV throughout the state. This program has become highly successful, and is partly the reason why cases of new infections have dropped significantly. Just this year, the destruction brought by hurricane Floyd was mitigated by the Southeastern Red Cross. While parts of Connecticut were so badly soaked by floods that they were declared federal disaster areas, the Southeastern Connecticut American Red Cross was assisting local hospitals and rescuing those in need. At the turn of the millennium, the American Red Cross faces new challenges. Cultural and national conflicts, natural disasters and acts of nature have caused unimaginable human suffering in recent memory. After each calamity, however, the Red Cross and its volunteers have been there to pick up the pieces. Volunteers from Connecticut have played an active role both around the world and at home over the last 90 years and I rest easier knowing they will continue to play a vital role well into the next century. So, it is with great pride and gratitude, Mr. President, that I stand on the floor of the Senate today to recognize the accomplishments of the Southeastern Connecticut American Red Cross over these past 90 years. I know I speak for many Connecticut residents in expressing congratulations for achieving this milestone, and best wishes in coming years for continued service to those in need.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, crooks and scam artists there may be, but in our appetite, to go after the scam artist, we should not make women and children pay the price. To suggest somehow that someone is scamming the system because they buy $251 worth of goods and services they may need for their children, that they are somehow ripping off the system, is to approach being ludicrous when it comes to this. I have great respect for prosecutors, and the General Accounting Office. But when 180 organizations representing every family group in this country from the right to the left, if you will, strongly support this amendment because it tries to do something to protect these families, then we have achieved a new low when it comes to speaking about families and children with one voice and then turning around and doing violence to them. The IRS schedule is not terribly flexible. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.