Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the FERS Buyback Act of 1999, legislation that offers retirement security to many federal employees. Companion legislation has already been introduced in the House. Specifically, this legislation would help employees throughout the country hired as temporary workers in the 1980s that continued to work for the federal government into the 1990s. Hundreds of current and former term employees in federal service find themselves ineligible to receive retirement benefits because of their inability to receive credit for post-1988 service as temporary federal workers. This legislation would close a loophole in the federal pension system that has adversely impacted many federal workers through no fault of their own. It would change current law to allow individuals who have become eligible for the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) the option to receive credit for their past service as temporary employees and pay into the retirement fund for the prior years they worked as temporary employees. Because the legislation would merely allow qualified workers to buy into the retirement system, the government would not incur costs that it would not have incurred had the law treated them as permanent employees. During the 1980s, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) hired thousands of employees under temporary status in response to the savings and loan crisis. Despite their temporary designation, many served in excess of five years with the federal government because of the FDIC's annual renewal of their one-year contracts. Unfortunately, these loyal employees did not enjoy the retirement benefits accorded their colleagues serving the same length of service under permanent status. To their credit, the FDIC did try to rectify the problem several years ago by granting many of their former temporary employees term appointments. Such appointments are for more than one year and allowed employees to be eligible for FERS. The original FERS Act allowed for employees to make payments or buy back certain years of service prior to 1989 for which deductions were not taken. Therefore, the bill unintentionally denied many federal employees credit for time served after January 1, 1989. I invite you to join me in correcting this inequity and ask that you cosponsor this fair and straightforward legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Seventy percent of the workers who would benefit are over the age of 20; 59 percent are women; 46 percent of these people have full-time jobs; 15 percent are African American; 18 percent are Hispanic American; and 46 percent work in retail. The great boom that has occurred in our economy has been magnificent for those at the upper-income levels. Unfortunately, after-tax income has remained relatively flat for those in the middle, and actually declined for those in the bottom 20 percent. This minimum wage increase will make a difference to some of the hardest working people in this country. I hope by tomorrow when this issue comes for a vote, a proposal to increase the minimum wage, not smuggle a $75 billion tax cut without paying for it, will be the choice of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Science and Educational Networking Act with my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller. This legislation is a companion bill to legislation introduced in the other body by one of my Connecticut colleagues, John Larson and cosponsored by 49 other members. Very simply, the Science and Educational Networking Act charts a course for the future for our schools and for education technology. Just as we cannot imagine schools and learning without books and pencils, computers and technology have become today a critical element in education. But like other tools, technology has its limits. Teachers must be trained to use technology in their teaching. Curriculum must incorporate and utilize technology. Students must have access to computers. Classroom technology must be connected, integrated and of high quality. This legislation focuses specifically on this last element in the equation--the quality of the technology in our classrooms. Computers in and of themselves are amazing machines. But what is more powerful than their simple computing capacity is the connections students can make with them. From accessing the collection of museums and libraries to ``chatting'' with students from across the globe, computers have incredible potential to enrich our children's education. But in too many schools this potential goes unrealized because of outdated, inadequate or non-existent equipment and slow connections to the Internet. Since the enactment and implementation of the e-rate, we have made substantial progress toward meeting our goal of connecting all schools and classrooms to the Internet. Since 1994, the percentage of schools with access to the Internet has more than doubled from 35 percent to 89 percent and the percentage of classrooms with access has risen from 3 percent to 51 percent. Gaps however remain. High income communities are more likely to have Internet access than low income schools with over 60 percent of classrooms in wealthier communities having Internet access compared to under 40 percent of low income classrooms. Further limiting the benefit of the Internet and the World Wide Web is the actual capacity of a school's connection. Most schools are connected over regular telephone loans--although in many states even this is a problem. In my home state of Connecticut, four in five school districts report inadequate classroom access to telephone lines. And frankly, a regular telephone line just is not enough--trying to use the Internet with a regular telephone line can be frustratingly slow as data quickly overloads the capacity of these lines designed for telephones not computers. Students need access to high speed, large bandwidth capacity. Without these connections, it is like requiring our students to make their way only on the back roads rather than on the freeway. High speed, large bandwidth connections, which are rare except in some of our nation's technological hubs, substantially increase the quality and capacity of Internet connections. The effect of these better connections is immediate--entering, searching and accessing the Web and the information it contains is faster and much more efficient. Much more important, in my view, is what this increased capacity will do for distance learning opportunities in our elementary and secondary schools. High speed, large bandwidth connections offer the potential of real-time, two-way video and audio interactions over the Net. This is where the promise of distance learning comes to fruition when students in a remote location or several remote locations participate in real time classroom activities. This legislation will move us toward this promising goal. It will bring together leading experts in government to assess the capacity of our schools in this area, to explore the digital divide, to examine ways to better utilize this technology in schools and to report to Congress on how we can help schools meet these challenges. Mr. President, this is an important first step if we are to make the promise of the Internet a reality for our children and schools. I ask that the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Science and Educational Networking Act with my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller. This legislation is a companion bill to legislation introduced in the other body by one of my Connecticut colleagues, John Larson and cosponsored by 49 other members. Very simply, the Science and Educational Networking Act charts a course for the future for our schools and for education technology. Just as we cannot imagine schools and learning without books and pencils, computers and technology have become today a critical element in education. But like other tools, technology has its limits. Teachers must be trained to use technology in their teaching. Curriculum must incorporate and utilize technology. Students must have access to computers. Classroom technology must be connected, integrated and of high quality. This legislation focuses specifically on this last element in the equation--the quality of the technology in our classrooms. Computers in and of themselves are amazing machines. But what is more powerful than their simple computing capacity is the connections students can make with them. From accessing the collection of museums and libraries to ``chatting'' with students from across the globe, computers have incredible potential to enrich our children's education. But in too many schools this potential goes unrealized because of outdated, inadequate or non-existent equipment and slow connections to the Internet. Since the enactment and implementation of the e-rate, we have made substantial progress toward meeting our goal of connecting all schools and classrooms to the Internet. Since 1994, the percentage of schools with access to the Internet has more than doubled from 35 percent to 89 percent and the percentage of classrooms with access has risen from 3 percent to 51 percent. Gaps however remain. High income communities are more likely to have Internet access than low income schools with over 60 percent of classrooms in wealthier communities having Internet access compared to under 40 percent of low income classrooms. Further limiting the benefit of the Internet and the World Wide Web is the actual capacity of a school's connection. Most schools are connected over regular telephone loans--although in many states even this is a problem. In my home state of Connecticut, four in five school districts report inadequate classroom access to telephone lines. And frankly, a regular telephone line just is not enough--trying to use the Internet with a regular telephone line can be frustratingly slow as data quickly overloads the capacity of these lines designed for telephones not computers. Students need access to high speed, large bandwidth capacity. Without these connections, it is like requiring our students to make their way only on the back roads rather than on the freeway. High speed, large bandwidth connections, which are rare except in some of our nation's technological hubs, substantially increase the quality and capacity of Internet connections. The effect of these better connections is immediate--entering, searching and accessing the Web and the information it contains is faster and much more efficient. Much more important, in my view, is what this increased capacity will do for distance learning opportunities in our elementary and secondary schools. High speed, large bandwidth connections offer the potential of real-time, two-way video and audio interactions over the Net. This is where the promise of distance learning comes to fruition when students in a remote location or several remote locations participate in real time classroom activities. This legislation will move us toward this promising goal. It will bring together leading experts in government to assess the capacity of our schools in this area, to explore the digital divide, to examine ways to better utilize this technology in schools and to report to Congress on how we can help schools meet these challenges. Mr. President, this is an important first step if we are to make the promise of the Internet a reality for our children and schools. I ask that the bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows:

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I also inquire of the chairman of the Banking Committee whether I am also correct in stating that the statement of managers provides that ``the Federal banking agencies are directed, in implementing regulations under this provision, to minimize the regulatory burden on reporting parties. One way in which to accomplish this goal would be wherever possible and appropriate with the purposes of this section, to make use of existing reporting and auditing requirements and practices of reporting parties, and thus avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. The managers intend that, in issuing regulations under this section, the appropriate Federal supervisory agency may provide that the nongovernmental entity or person that is not an insured depository institution may, where appropriate and in keeping with the provisions of this section, fulfill the requirements of subsection (c) by the submission of its annual audited financial statement or its Federal income tax return.''

Mr. DODD. I thank the chairman for his cooperation in this matter. effective date of title i

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague and ranking member of the Banking Committee. I rise today, as well, in strong support of this very historic conference report accompanying S. 900, which I believe will receive strong bipartisan support by Members of this body as well as in the House and will be signed into law by President Clinton. Nearly 70 years ago, the Glass-Steagall Act, which provided the foundation for separating domestic banking, securities, and insurance activities, was enacted into law. Advances in technology, the change in our Nation's capital markets, and the very fast-growing globalization of financial services have demanded that we as a legislative body examine and make some changes to our financial laws to accommodate and to take into consideration these dramatic changes that have occurred. Making these changes has not been easy. The task of creating a new regulatory framework that strengthens consumer protections and, at the same time, fosters market efficiencies and industry innovations has been extremely difficult. Endless hours, days, weeks, and years of negotiations have been spent to craft legislation to allow our Nation's financial services industries to remain leaders in the global marketplace. I have been a member of the Senate Banking Committee since the first day I was sworn into the Senate, almost 19 years ago. I think this effort dates to about 1967 or 1968, more than 30 years ago. This has been an ongoing debate and issue on the part of the Banking Committees of the Senate and the House, the Commerce Committee, and numerous efforts at the executive branch level. But certainly over the last 20 years, on numerous occasions, this body has enacted reforms to financial services only to watch the legislation die either in conference or be unable to reach a final consideration on the floor of the Senate. So I speak today on behalf of a lot of people who have come before us. I think of people such as Senator Don Riegle of Michigan, who worked very hard on this; Senator Jake Garn; William Proxmire, the first chairman I served under on the Banking Committee. They all labored hard to try to come up with a means by which we might modernize these services. Certainly, those who predated those Members I mentioned worked diligently over the years to try to see if they could modernize these financial services to accommodate the efficiencies and demands of the end of the 20th century. We begin, in about 60 days, a new millennium, where already the ability to transact financial business on a global basis can be done in nanoseconds around the globe--a far cry from where we were 3 years ago when this effort first began to try to address some of the realities that had overtaken the Glass-Steagall Act, as sound a piece of legislation as it was, which was adopted so many years ago. So today I speak not only on behalf of the conference report that I think accomplishes the task so many who came before us labored to achieve, but this landmark legislation dramatically modernizes our financial laws to allow banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to affiliate and provide a rational process for these affiliations to take place--not one done by court decision or simply by regulation, but, as the legislative body in this country, we have now authorized regulation through the deliberate process of hearings, markup of bills, consideration on the floor of the Senate, and a conference report. While it is laborious, rather, to go through that, and difficult, it is far better, in my view, to establish these laws on that basis than to be relying strictly on the courts and regulators to do so. I welcome this day as a day of success and triumph for the legislative body exercising its responsibilities to put its strong imprint on how this process ought to work. As we enter the 21st century, S. 900 will help, in my view, to continue our Nation's financial services leadership in the global marketplace--that is a critical issue--remaining competitive abroad but helping to continue to create new jobs and new opportunities for literally millions of people here at home. This legislation also provides significant benefits and protections to investors and financial services consumers who will not only benefit from the competition of these diversified firms, but who will also benefit from standardized and comprehensive protections for the sale of financial products. There are a number of aspects of this conference report that I would like to touch upon very briefly. Critical to my support--and I think many others--of any financial services modernization legislation was ensuring that banks continue to invest in the communities in which they serve. I have often stated that if the price of modernizing our financial services industry would be to deny fair access of credit to those who need it the most, I was not willing to pay that price, nor do I think many others would. This legislation before us not only preserves current investment in our communities, but it actually strengthens both the intent and the practical effect of the Community Reinvestment Act. Under this legislation, CRA will continue to apply to all banks regardless of size or location, without exception. Additionally, this legislation will guarantee that no bank with an unsatisfactory CRA rating can engage in any new financial activities of insurance or securities. This is fundamentally an important change. For the first time, a bank's CRA rating will be a consideration if it attempts to engage in new financial activities. That is a major triumph. Some legitimate concerns have been raised over the potential burden on community groups and banks imposed by reporting requirements. I have worked hard, as have others, to make sure that no undue burden is placed on community groups and that the appropriate Federal banking regulations will have adequate discretion to ensure that result. We are going to need to watch this and see to it that it doesn't occur over the coming weeks and months. But I am confident that with the provisions in this bill any efforts to try to become punitive or overreaching when it comes to regulations will be met with responsible regulatory action. So we will be monitoring that action very carefully. S. 900 reaffirms that the State regulation of insurance codified by McCarran-Ferguson remains intact, a very important provision. It further provides an orderly process for resolving differences between States and Federal regulators on bank insurance activities. This legislation reinforces further the essential concept that investors need protection regardless of whether they purchase securities from a broker, bank, or other entity. S. 900 ensures that in creating this new financial structure the integrity of our markets is maintained and that investor protections are enhanced. With the rapid change in our financial markets, this legislation ensures that investors remain protected, which is fundamentally a critical area to all of us. Another area that needs improvement is the protection of consumer privacy. We did not go far enough, in my view, in this bill in doing that. There were some steps made that are certainly an improvement over the status quo. But I believe far more action is necessary in this area than incorporated in this bill. This legislation contains some important privacy protections. For the first time, financial institutions must disclose to consumers their intent to share or sell personal financial information to anyone. Although stronger provisions which I have supported along with many others were not approved by the conference, I believe that we have sent a strong signal to the industry about the use of sensitive consumer information. I happen to believe that consumers not only have the right to know, but also have a right to say no to the sharing of their personal financial information with anybody. This erosion of the privacy of our most personal, sensitive financial information can and must be stopped. I hope the privacy provisions contained in this bill will be an important first step to ensuring and addressing this critically important issue. I am a coauthor along with the ranking Democrat of this committee, Senator Sarbanes, and others of the Financial Information Privacy Act, S. 187, that was introduced in this Congress. We welcome further cosponsors of this bill. This is a matter that people care about regardless of place in the country, ideology, or financial status. It is unsettling to people to know that when a merger or acquisition occurs, while you shared certain financial information with those with whom you initially negotiated, all of a sudden there is a new entity involved, and somehow that information you shared with a company is going to become the product of another industry that you didn't anticipate when you shared the initial information. Certainly, people are finding it unsettling. They know it goes on. The unsolicited inquiries they receive by telephone and mail certainly indicate that financial services information that people thought was being held private is becoming far too public. This is an issue on which we have to spend more time. It needs to be addressed. I am aware of the concern of the industry. But consumer demands in this area are not going to go away. Further, let me say it isn't just a question of banks. Customers would be given, under this proposal, the important opportunity to prevent banks and securities firms from disclosing or selling this information to affiliates before banks and security firms could disclose or sell information to a third party. They would be required to give notice to the consumer and obtain the express written permission of the consumer before making any such disclosure. I will continue to press for even greater privacy protections than are presently included in this bill. This is a good bill, as I said at the outset. There are a lot of people who can rightfully claim credit for having been significant players in producing this product. No single individual was responsible for this result. As I mentioned, there are the people who are no longer in public life, some of whom have even passed away, who can literally be called inheritors of this product and responsible in some ways for the success we are announcing today. I mention the previous chairmen of the Banking Committee in the Senate, certainly previous banking chairs of the House side, former Secretaries of the Treasury, and different administrations must feel some sense of accomplishment today as we achieve this result. They were a part of that historic journey which began so many years ago. There were 66 conferees, an unwieldy number. Twelve percent of the U.S. Congress were members of this conference. Certainly, each and every one of them were involved to one degree or another. Though the number was unwieldy, I think all of the members played an important and constructive role from time to time. I commend Senator Al D'Amato, our former colleague from New York, who is no longer a member of this body but was chairman of this committee last year. He crafted a good bill, H.R. 10. It wasn't adopted into law. But a lot of what we have in front of us today was part of that bill last year. He did a good job. While we are of different parties and different political persuasions on many matters, Al D'Amato is a friend of mine. I have always thought of him to be such, and he deserves some recognition today as we talk about the accomplishments of this bill. Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who I have served with on the Banking Committee now for many years--I have worked with him on numerous pieces of legislation but nothing quite of the import of this bill--is a tough negotiator. He is knowledgeable and he is smart. He worked hard on this bill and deserves credit as chairman of the committee for the final result and for pulling the pieces together. It has been mentioned by my good friend, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. I see my colleague from Rhode Island, Jack Reed, who was there that evening. Rod Grams, who is on the floor at this moment, was in the room. That was quite an evening. I suppose history books will expand the size of the number of people who were in that room that night as oftentimes happens. It wasn't that big a room. There were not that many people in the room. But I have said to the chairman of the committee that I admired his stamina that night. He was there pretty much taking arrows and glances from the Federal Reserve Board, the Treasury, House Democrats, and Senate Democrats. While we fought hard, I admired his stamina, his stick-to- itiveness, his willingness to stay in the room to get the job done. I begin by commending Senator Gramm for his fine work. Obviously, our ranking Democrat, Senator Sarbanes, with whom I have sat next to on this committee for almost 20 years, without his leadership I don't believe we would have achieved the result we have today. I commend him for his fine work not only in this bill but over the years for the job he has done paying detailed attention to critical pieces of legislation, a sense of patience when others wanted to rush to a quick result. More often than not, when Senator Sarbanes suggests we slow down, it is not for idle reasons. He is as knowledgeable as any individual I know, and he pays attention to the details. Too often we don't pay careful enough attention to the details and they can come back to haunt Members of Congress. I commend him for his terrific work. Also, I commend Congressman Leach, the chairman of the House Banking Committee, John LaFalce, Chairman Bliley, and Chairman Dingell, all with whom I have served over the years in the House. John LaFalce and I were elected to Congress on the same day: 25 years ago Tuesday night we were elected to Congress the first time. Today, he is the ranking Democrat on that committee. And Jim Leach, Chairman Bliley, and John Dingell all did a very fine job in working on this. I thank the Banking Committee staff, both the minority and the majority, for the work they have done on this legislation. I begin with Alex Sternhell, who is my staff person who has worked so hard on this legislation. Again, like Alex who has worked hard going back 19 years, it began with Ed Silverman of my office, who was on the Banking Committee, along with a series of terrific staff members who have traveled this road on financial services modernization. Ed Silverman, Marti Cochran, Peter Kinzler, Michael Stein, Paul Hannah, Courtney Ward, and Andrew Lowenthal should be commended for all of their help. Alex did a great job on this. I thank him. Steve Harris, Marty Gruenberg and the wonderful job of working so many years, Patience Singleton, Dean Shahinian, and others on the minority side have been integral to this process, including Wayne Abernathy, Linda Lord, Geoff Gray, Dina Ellis, and others have made tremendously valuable contributions. I want the record to reflect my appreciation and admiration for their work. The administration has remained firm in their commitment to passage of this legislation. John Podesta, Gene Sperling, and others have played critical roles during this process and were very involved on Thursday night and Friday morning working out the final version of the bill. We should not forget that former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who pushed very hard for the legislation, did a terrific job on it and played a pivotal role in drafting the legislation. Larry Summers, his successor, deserves great credit for his contributions as well, and the whole team at the Treasury--Alan Greenspan and his capable staff; Arthur Levitt, Chairman of the SEC, for his contribution to the financial services modernization, particularly the critical pieces that affect the securities industry and investor protections. This would not have been adopted if not for his fine work. Lastly, of course, the members of our committee. Jack Reed was there that night and did a terrific job. I want the record to reflect that the Boy Scouts of America, particularly, owe Jack Reed a debt of gratitude. He discovered what could have been a very significant loophole in this bill and used the example that the Boy Scouts of America could be adversely affected. While it is not so named in the bill, that provision will be known by those in the room that night as the Jack Reed Boy Scout amendment. They got a good deal of support on behalf of the Senator from Rhode Island. John Edwards and Chuck Schumer, new members of the committee, were there, along with Jack Reed, and did a terrific job as new members of the committee, wading right in and making a significant contribution; also, John Kerry and Dick Bryan, who cared so much about privacy issues and fought hard. We did not get all we needed, but we had a tremendous voice in those efforts. Evan Bayh and Tim Johnson played critical roles, as well. I have often said over the years of trying to achieve financial modernization I am reminded of the mythical figure Sisyphus who rolled the rock up the hill only to have it roll back down the hill when he got near the top. I have a painting of Sisyphus that I cherish. Today, I can report that the rock is at the top of the hill and I think it will stay there. To all who have been involved in this, my sincere thanks for their tremendous efforts. The industry people and outside groups who make valuable contributions deserve recognition. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the Banking Committee. As the Chairman is aware, some legitimate concerns have been raised over the potential burdens imposed by the reporting requirements contained in section 711. Am I correct in stating that section 711(h)(2)(A) provides that Federal banking regulators shall ``ensure that the regulations prescribed by the agency do not impose any undue burden on the parties and the proprietary and confidential information is protected.''

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the Banking Committee. Mr. Chairman, the conference committee agreed to make the effective date of implementation of title I, except for section 104, 120 days from the date of enactment. We reached this decision to provide the regulators with an opportunity to implement this legislation effectively. Am I correct in stating that it is the intent of the conferees that title I become effective 120 days after enactment even if the agencies are not able to complete all of the rulemaking required under the act during that time.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 976, Youth Drug and Mental Health Services Act, and to express my appreciation for the leadership that Senator Frist has shown in moving this long-overdue legislation forward. At a time when so many other worthy legislative efforts have been derailed by partisan politics, the unanimous support for this measure in the Senate is particularly noteworthy. Substance abuse and mental illness take a terrible toll on individuals, families and on society at-large. Each year, approximately 5.5 million Americans are disabled by severe mental illness and an estimated 4.1 million individuals are addicted to drugs, including 1.1 million of our children. In Connecticut alone, an estimated 130,000 adults suffer from severe mental illness and 224,000 are in need of substance abuse treatment. Among Connecticut's youth, an estimated 23,000 have a serious emotional or behavioral disorder. Given that so many of our Nation's most intransigent social ills-- poverty, violence, child abuse, premature death, and homelessness--have their roots in untreated substance abuse and mental illness, it is critical that we do all that we can to ensure that states, communities and families have the resources they need to combat these devastating conditions. This reauthorization of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Act (SAMHSA) represents an important step in expanding and improving early intervention, prevention, and treatment services. Through S. 976, States are given the flexibility to develop innovative systems of care for substance abuse and mental health, but will also be required to improve accountability by developing performance measures and enhancing their data collection efforts. I am particularly pleased that this reauthorization contains legislation that I introduced earlier this year, the Compassionate Care Act, which will address a critical issue that a Hartford Courant series brought to national attention last year--the inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint within mental health care facilities. The 5-day investigative series documented more than 140 deaths directly attributable to abusive seclusion and restraint practices. An additional investigation conducted by the General Accounting Office determined that 24 deaths of individuals with mental illnesses resulted from restraint or seclusion. However, both the Hartford Courant and the GAO report determined that these figures most likely represent just the tip of the iceberg of restraint and seclusion related deaths. In fact, the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis estimated that as many as 100-150 deaths each year may be caused by the inappropriate use of restraint and seclusion. This is a tragedy that must be stopped. The Compassionate Care Act creates tough new limits on the use of potentially lethal restraints--whether physical or chemical in nature-- sets rules for training mental health care workers; and increases the likelihood that a wrongful death of a mental health patient will be investigated and prosecuted--not ignored. The legislation simply seeks to put an end to a shameful record of neglect and abuse of some our Nation's most vulnerable and least cared for individuals. Specifically, the Compassionate Care Act will ensure that physical restraints are no longer used for discipline or for the convenience of mental health facility staff by extending to the mental health population a standard that has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing the use of restraints and seclusion in nursing homes. This legislation will ensure that restraint and seclusion will only be used when a mentally ill individual poses an imminent threat either to himself or others. Further, this legislation will require that all restraint and seclusion related deaths be reported to an appropriate oversight agency as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Presently, there is no standard federal reporting requirement for deaths as result of seclusion or restraint. The simple reporting measure in this legislation will greatly aid the federal government, as well as state and local oversight agencies, in tracking and investigating abusive treatment practices. The Compassionate Care Act will also require mental health care facilities to maintain adequate staffing levels and provide appropriate training for mental health care staff, who are often the least paid and least trained of all health care workers. These safeguards will hopefully prevent further harm to individuals who may be unable to protect themselves from abuse by those entrusted with their care. I thank Senator Frist for working closely with my office in crafting this critically important part of SAMHSA's reauthorization. I am also pleased that S. 976 incorporates legislation that I have cosponsored with Senator Jeffords, the Children of Substance Abusers Act (COSA). Children with substance abusing parents face serious health risks, including congenital birth defects and psychological, emotional, and developmental problems. We also know that substance abuse plays a major role in child abuse and neglect. In fact, it is estimated that children whose parents abuse drugs and/or alcohol are three times more likely to be abused and four times more likely to be neglected than children whose parents are not substance abusers. In an effort to lessen the terrible toll that substance abuse takes on children, COSA will promote aggressive outreach, early intervention, prevention, and treatment services to families struggling with addiction. In addition, COSA will strengthen the systems which provide these services by training professionals serving children and families in recognizing and addressing substance abuse. I am also grateful that Senator Frist agreed to include my Teen Substance Abuse Treatment Act of 1999 within this reauthorization. Each year, 400,000 teens and their families, including 7,000 in the state of Connecticut alone, will seek substance abuse treatment but find that it is either unavailable or unaffordable. At best only 20 percent of adolescents with severe alcohol and drug treatment problems who ask for help will receive any form of treatment. Without help, substance abuse puts young people's health at risk and exacerbates anti-social and violent behaviors. This legislation will provide grants to give youth substance abusers access to effective, age-appropriate treatment. It will also address the particular issues of youth involved with the juvenile justice system and those with mental health or other special needs. In short, this legislation will go a long way toward ensuring that no young person who seeks substance abuse treatment will be denied help. I would also like to thank Senator Frist for working with me and Senator Gregg on the Strengthening Families through Community Partnerships program, which will promote healthy early childhood development by intervening with at-risk families with young children and their communities. This legislation will support demonstrations to test the efficacy of deterring substance use and abuse and other high risk behaviors through a comprehensive substance abuse prevention program that targets the child's family. I do have reservations, however, on one aspect of this legislation. While I support the ability of faith-based organizations to provide substance abuse services, I am concerned about provisions in this legislation that would allow religiously based facilities providing substance abuse services to hire only adherents to their own religion. The ability of faith-based providers to participate in providing valuable federally funded programs is a laudable goal. I firmly believe that faith-based substance abuse services can offer critical help in overcoming drug dependency. However, the ability of religiously based entities to provide federally funded programs within this legislation should not be allowed to blur the line between church and state and to erode crucial anti-discrimination protections. S. 976 represents a bipartisan commitment to reducing the devastating impact of substance abuse and mental illness of our Nation's families. I want to again applaud Senator Frist, Senator Kennedy, Senator Jeffords, and other members of the Health and Education committee and their staffs for their efforts in developing this legislation and urge the House of Representatives to follow the Senate's lead by acting on this bill expeditiously.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join with thousands of Americans who this month are celebrating Head Start Awareness Month. There are few federal programs like Head Start. Since its creation in 1965, this marvelous program has provided comprehensive education, health, social and nutritional services to over 17 million young children and their families. Today, over 835,000 children are involved in Head Start, benefitting from the commitment of nearly 170,000 staff people and just over 2,000 Head Start agencies nationwide. Head Start is clearly much more than a program. It is a community organized around the principle that we must together take care of our young children. Head Start brings together parents, teachers and others in the community to support young children and meet their needs. Sometimes that means health screenings and eye glasses; other times it means linking a parent up with job training services. The actions are diverse but the effects are the same--enriching and improving the child's life. Next year, we will celebrate the 35th anniversary of this powerful program. And there is clearly much to celebrate. The anniversary will also provide us with an appropriate opportunity to reflect on Head Start and consider how to continue to promote, improve and expand this crucial program. In some ways, we began this process last year with the enactment of the 1998 Head Start reauthorization bill. This legislation increased support for additional staff training and professional development, authorized further research into the long term benefits of Head Start, improved program accountability measures, and expanded Early Head Start to serve more infants and toddlers, laying a strong foundation for Head Start in the next century. However, I believe there remains unfinished business with Head Start. Most notably, the program still serves just 40 percent of those eligible. The President has proposed the laudable goal of serving one million children by 2002--but I think we must do more. We must also look to Head Start for further models of how to serve young children. For the last 35 years, the program has been a laboratory for the development of practices that are now commonplace in child care and preschool programs across the country. We must continue to build on the success of Head Start to better serve Head Start children as well as other young children. One of our key partners in this effort is the National Head Start Association (NHSA). This organization is the voice of Head Start, representing parents, children and staff. Beyond being an active advocate for young children and Head Start, NHSA is focused on a strong and vibrant future for Head Start, providing technical assistance, professional development opportunities, training tools and policy guidance to programs across the country. I am honored to join with NHSA and all in the Head Start community to celebrate Head Start Awareness Month--October 1999.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 2303, the History of the House Awareness and Preservation Act, and wish to take a moment of the Senate to congratulate the author of this legislation, the Honorable John B. Larson of the First Congressional District of Connecticut. John has proven himself to be a skilled legislator and an articulate and creative advocate for the people of his district, the State of Connecticut, and indeed the entire Nation. For twelve years John served with distinction in the Connecticut State Senate, serving as President Pro Tempore for eight years. It is altogether fitting that this initiative is John's first legislative accomplishment. As a former high school teacher, John is in a unique position to understand the significance and importance of recording the deliberations and history of the House for the benefit of future generations. As a newly elected member of the House of Representatives, John arrived in Washington at a time when it appeared that partisanship and acrimony would be the order of the day. True to his reverence for our system of government, and his respect and admiration for the institution he now serves in, John initiated this idea in response to calls for a return to civility in the House of Representatives. It is a testament to his skill and effectiveness that this legislation garnered 313 cosponsors, including both the Speaker of the House, Mr. Hastert, and the House Minority Leader, Mr. Gephardt, and was adopted by the House in just a little over four months from its introduction on June 22 of this year. The United States Senate is deeply indebted to our distinguished colleague, Senator Robert C. Byrd, for his considerable efforts to preserve the history of the Senate through his four-volume history. The House of Representatives, and students of government across this Nation, will be indebted to John Larson for his efforts as well. I am privileged to count John as a friend and an advisor and I commend him on the enactment of this, his first, legislative initiative. It is an honor for me, as the Ranking Member of the Committee on Rules and Administration, to play a small role in assisting his efforts to preserve the rich history of the House of Representatives for future generations. I urge the adoption of this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with the distinguished senior Senator from Ohio, Mike DeWine, to introduce legislation that will help create safe, orderly and drug-free schools for our nation's youth through the reauthorization of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act. Mr. President, the need for this legislation could not be more clear. Littleton, Colorado; Paduka, Kentucky; Springfield, Oregon; Pearl, Mississippi, and Jonesboro, Arkansas--up until a year or two ago, these towns were likely to appear on a list of nice small towns in America. Today, instead, they have been inscribed on our collective memory for the horrors of what happened at each school--children shooting down other children, families in crisis and communities and a nation shattered by grief. In the wake of each of these incidents, our nation has struggled to come to terms with the tragedies at these schools. And while many questions will never be answered, we must rededicate ourselves to making our schools safe for learning and to reassuring parents and students that schools are a safe haven. We clearly have a long way to go in this effort. Statistics suggest that there has been some improvement in many areas in recent years, but clearly violence and drug and alcohol abuse remain all too pervasive in our children's lives. Nationwide, from 1992-1994, 63 students ages 5 through 19 were murdered at school in 25 different states in communities of all sizes. In my own state of Connecticut alone, there were 1,532 juvenile (ages 10-17) crime arrests made from 1993-1994, illustrating the large number of youth involved in some form of crime. With regard to substance abuse, by 12th grade, more than three- fourths of students have used alcohol in their lifetime and more than 50% have tried an illicit drug. At any given time, 52% of 12th graders report being current drinkers and 25% report being current illicit drug users. In Connecticut, in 1993, 31% of eighth and tenth grade students reported having used alcohol in the past 30 days. Not only do youth substance abuse and violence harm our children, but they also drain our communities' valuable resources. According to some analyses, the total economic costs related to substance abuse added up to $377 billion in 1995, and the costs of crime directly attributed to drug abuse added up to $59 billion. These are all alarming statistics, and even more so when the interplay between violence and substance abuse is considered. For instance, there is compelling evidence that aggressive behavior is linked to frequency of marijuana use. Both youth violence and youth substance abuse are pressing matters in need of our attention. The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act is the leading federal program in this area. This program, funded at $566 million for FY1999, currently reaches 97 percent of school districts and provides flexible support for primary prevention activities like conflict resolution, peer mediation, and after school activities, as well as assistance in purchasing security equipment that has become so common in our schools. This program also supports prevention activities aimed at substance abuse among our youth. There have been some who have raised concerns that this program has not adequately accomplished its goals, in that youth violence and substance abuse rates remain high. I agree that those rates are still too high. But the proper response is to strengthen, no diminish, our commitment to assisting local schools in their efforts. And let me hasten to add that there has, in fact, been progress. For instance, in the area of youth substance abuse, a 1998 national survey of student drug use in grades 8, 10, and 12 demonstrated that alcohol use slightly declined in grades 8 and 10, from prior years. And, after six years of steady increases, drug use among students was found to have declined and student opposition to drug use has increased. The proportion of students who reported use of illicit drugs during the 12 months prior to the survey declined at all three grade levels. With regard to violence, a 1997 study found that 90 percent of public schools reported no incidents of serious violent crime to the police and less than half (43 percent) reported no crime at all. Over the past five years, school crime generally has decreased, as has the number of students being expelled for bringing a firearm to school. Fewer kids, in fact, brought weapons to school in 1997 than in 1993. The Centers for Disease Control report that between 1991 and 1997, the number of students involved in a physical fight decreased by 14 percent, and the number of kids carrying a weapon to school decreased by 30 percent. Thus, the SDFSCA has made gains in providing students with safe and drug-free learning environments. The legislation we have introduced today will build on these successes. The program will continue to offer states and local districts significant flexibility. We have also added strong new accountability measures. States will have the option of targeting dollars to areas of greater need, providing them with a higher concentration of resources. State and school districts will work together in the development of a common plan with shared goals and measures of progress. Funded activities will be tied to these plans and will be required to be based on community needs assessments and to follow strategies found to demonstrate success through rigorous study. In addition, districts and schools participating in SDFSCA will be guided by a school safety plan to ensure coordinated, effective programs. Clearly, this legislation is just the first step. Senator DeWine and I, along with Senators Murray and Abraham, will work with the other members of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, other colleagues, and other interested in this important effort to continue to improve this bill as we craft the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I am interested in particular in looking more closely at the idea of a National School Safety Center, which I believe could provide districts and schools with invaluable advice and services as they struggle to confront violence in their schools. A related idea is the one proposed by the Administration to authorize Project SERV to assist schools when there is a sudden and serious event at the school. In addition, I think we should work at additional ways to strengthen interagency cooperation, including developing and funding initiatives like the Safe Schools/Healthy Students program that is making such a difference in my state and so many others. Finally, I am very interested in considering ways to support prevention very early on in children's life through character education and training of parents, preschool teachers and other professionals in violence prevention. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator DeWine for his leadership, commitment and involvement in this issue, as well as Senator Murray with whom we have worked very closely over the past few months. I am very pleased to co-sponsor this bill with such dedicated leaders, and I look forward to working with them and other of our colleauges for its enactment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with the distinguished senior Senator from Ohio, Mike DeWine, to introduce legislation that will help create safe, orderly and drug-free schools for our nation's youth through the reauthorization of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act. Mr. President, the need for this legislation could not be more clear. Littleton, Colorado; Paduka, Kentucky; Springfield, Oregon; Pearl, Mississippi, and Jonesboro, Arkansas--up until a year or two ago, these towns were likely to appear on a list of nice small towns in America. Today, instead, they have been inscribed on our collective memory for the horrors of what happened at each school--children shooting down other children, families in crisis and communities and a nation shattered by grief. In the wake of each of these incidents, our nation has struggled to come to terms with the tragedies at these schools. And while many questions will never be answered, we must rededicate ourselves to making our schools safe for learning and to reassuring parents and students that schools are a safe haven. We clearly have a long way to go in this effort. Statistics suggest that there has been some improvement in many areas in recent years, but clearly violence and drug and alcohol abuse remain all too pervasive in our children's lives. Nationwide, from 1992-1994, 63 students ages 5 through 19 were murdered at school in 25 different states in communities of all sizes. In my own state of Connecticut alone, there were 1,532 juvenile (ages 10-17) crime arrests made from 1993-1994, illustrating the large number of youth involved in some form of crime. With regard to substance abuse, by 12th grade, more than three- fourths of students have used alcohol in their lifetime and more than 50% have tried an illicit drug. At any given time, 52% of 12th graders report being current drinkers and 25% report being current illicit drug users. In Connecticut, in 1993, 31% of eighth and tenth grade students reported having used alcohol in the past 30 days. Not only do youth substance abuse and violence harm our children, but they also drain our communities' valuable resources. According to some analyses, the total economic costs related to substance abuse added up to $377 billion in 1995, and the costs of crime directly attributed to drug abuse added up to $59 billion. These are all alarming statistics, and even more so when the interplay between violence and substance abuse is considered. For instance, there is compelling evidence that aggressive behavior is linked to frequency of marijuana use. Both youth violence and youth substance abuse are pressing matters in need of our attention. The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act is the leading federal program in this area. This program, funded at $566 million for FY1999, currently reaches 97 percent of school districts and provides flexible support for primary prevention activities like conflict resolution, peer mediation, and after school activities, as well as assistance in purchasing security equipment that has become so common in our schools. This program also supports prevention activities aimed at substance abuse among our youth. There have been some who have raised concerns that this program has not adequately accomplished its goals, in that youth violence and substance abuse rates remain high. I agree that those rates are still too high. But the proper response is to strengthen, no diminish, our commitment to assisting local schools in their efforts. And let me hasten to add that there has, in fact, been progress. For instance, in the area of youth substance abuse, a 1998 national survey of student drug use in grades 8, 10, and 12 demonstrated that alcohol use slightly declined in grades 8 and 10, from prior years. And, after six years of steady increases, drug use among students was found to have declined and student opposition to drug use has increased. The proportion of students who reported use of illicit drugs during the 12 months prior to the survey declined at all three grade levels. With regard to violence, a 1997 study found that 90 percent of public schools reported no incidents of serious violent crime to the police and less than half (43 percent) reported no crime at all. Over the past five years, school crime generally has decreased, as has the number of students being expelled for bringing a firearm to school. Fewer kids, in fact, brought weapons to school in 1997 than in 1993. The Centers for Disease Control report that between 1991 and 1997, the number of students involved in a physical fight decreased by 14 percent, and the number of kids carrying a weapon to school decreased by 30 percent. Thus, the SDFSCA has made gains in providing students with safe and drug-free learning environments. The legislation we have introduced today will build on these successes. The program will continue to offer states and local districts significant flexibility. We have also added strong new accountability measures. States will have the option of targeting dollars to areas of greater need, providing them with a higher concentration of resources. State and school districts will work together in the development of a common plan with shared goals and measures of progress. Funded activities will be tied to these plans and will be required to be based on community needs assessments and to follow strategies found to demonstrate success through rigorous study. In addition, districts and schools participating in SDFSCA will be guided by a school safety plan to ensure coordinated, effective programs. Clearly, this legislation is just the first step. Senator DeWine and I, along with Senators Murray and Abraham, will work with the other members of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, other colleagues, and other interested in this important effort to continue to improve this bill as we craft the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I am interested in particular in looking more closely at the idea of a National School Safety Center, which I believe could provide districts and schools with invaluable advice and services as they struggle to confront violence in their schools. A related idea is the one proposed by the Administration to authorize Project SERV to assist schools when there is a sudden and serious event at the school. In addition, I think we should work at additional ways to strengthen interagency cooperation, including developing and funding initiatives like the Safe Schools/Healthy Students program that is making such a difference in my state and so many others. Finally, I am very interested in considering ways to support prevention very early on in children's life through character education and training of parents, preschool teachers and other professionals in violence prevention. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator DeWine for his leadership, commitment and involvement in this issue, as well as Senator Murray with whom we have worked very closely over the past few months. I am very pleased to co-sponsor this bill with such dedicated leaders, and I look forward to working with them and other of our colleauges for its enactment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on Friday, October 29--tomorrow--the Senate will say a fond farewell to one of its longest serving employees, someone who has been with me almost 19 years, Kathy Keup. Kathy Keup began her Senate service almost 34 years ago. She is one of the longest serving employees in the Senate. She began her service November 1, 1965. On that date, Kathy Keup joined the staff of her home State Senator, Ed Muskie of Maine. After nearly 6 years of service with Senator Muskie, Kathy Keup served on the staffs of Senator Warren Magnuson of Washington and Senator John Culver of Iowa. She also served for several years in the 1970s on the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Some of our colleagues who have been here a few years will recall, back in those days, it was not uncommon for Senate staff, both Republican and Democratic, to serve for temporary stints on their caucus' campaign committees. As a historical note, the campaign offices were actually located in this building. That practice is long since over, but 25, 30 years ago, that was not an uncommon practice. As I mentioned at the outset, for the past 18 years and 9 months, it has been my very good fortune to have Kathy Keup as a member of my staff. In fact, she joined my office just a few days after I was sworn in as a new Member of this very body. I can say without any hesitation that each and every day of her time in my office has been marked by a consistent, thorough, and outstanding commitment on her part to serving not only me and the people I represent in Connecticut, but the public at large across this country. As a fellow New Englander, perhaps the highest compliment we can bestow on any individual is to say they are a true Yankee, and Kathy is a true Yankee, in all the wonderful meanings of that word. She epitomizes the very best values of our region of the country. She is very diligent and hard-working, and respectful of others, no matter their station in life. She is modest and discreet, a person of few words. Indeed, in an era and in a city where the dubious quality of self-promotion is rarely in short supply, Kathy Keup serves as a living reminder of the timeless virtue of letting one's work speak for itself. She also possesses the virtues of loyalty and dedication. The Senators and others for whom she has worked over the years could always take comfort in knowing she would be at her desk each morning at 7 o'clock, as she has been with me for almost 19 years, come rain, shine, snow, or whatever the weather. She earned the trust of those around her, not by what she said but by what she did, reliably and superbly, day in and day out, for these past 34 years. Each of us who is privileged to serve as a Member of the Senate knows well the importance of having loyal and talented men and women who work with us in this wonderful institution. These public servants may not have their names on election certificates or in the newspapers, but they are vitally important to the ability of the Senate to function on behalf of the American people. In a very real sense, they make the wheels of this democracy turn every single day. And in so doing, they make real the timeless promise of our representative government. Kathy Keup has dedicated her working life--her entire working life-- to the Senate. By her efforts over more than a third of a century, she has made an invaluable contribution to this institution and to the country as a whole. She epitomizes what a Senate staff person should be. She has rendered truly exemplary service to this individual Senator, to our former colleagues whom I mentioned already, to the Senate, and to our Nation. Come next Monday morning, I will call the office, I suppose out of habit, at around 7 or 7:15. And that voice will not be there, as it has been for almost 19 years. Kathy will return to a place she calls home-- her beloved Maine. I know I speak for all who have worked with her over these past 34 years, in saying thank you for all she has done to make this a better place. And on their behalf, let me say that I wish her in her retirement a life full of new challenges, good health, and many other rewards she so richly deserves for her long and distinguished career in public service. We thank you, Kathy, for a job well done.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Pfizer, Inc., on its 150th anniversary and to applaud the company for its many innovations in the pharmaceutical industry. The history of Pfizer is one of risk-taking, confident decision-making, and dramatic medical advances. It is the story of a small chemical company founded in Brooklyn, New York, which over 150 years has evolved into one of the world's premier pharmaceutical enterprises. Cousins Charles Pfizer and Charles Erhart emigrated to the United States from Germany in the mid-1840s. In New York City, the young cousins combined their skills and in 1849 founded a small chemical firm. Charles Pfizer & Company improved the American chemical market by manufacturing specialty chemicals that had not yet been produced in America. During its first 75 years, the company made many important discoveries and marketed popular and effective drug treatments. Union soldiers used Pfizer drugs extensively during the Civil War. However, Pfizer's real emergence as an industry leader was the result of a daring risk taken by Pfizer executives in the 1940s. In 1928, when Alexander Fleming discovered the germ-killing properties of penicillin, he knew that it could have a profound medical value. Yet, Fleming could not figure out a way to mass-produce the drug. In 1941, following new discoveries relating to this ``wonder drug'', Pfizer executives put their own stocks at stake and invested millions of dollars in finding a way to mass-produce penicillin. Eventually, they succeeded. The breakthrough came just in time to send penicillin to the front lines of World War II. From that point forward, Pfizer evolved into an international leader in the pharmaceutical industry, opening facilities around the globe and developing new and effective antibiotics to combat deadly infectious diseases. Pfizer's products, which treat a variety of diseases and disorders, are now available in 150 countries. The company also has thriving consumer health care and animal health care divisions. Pfizer now employs close to 50,000 people in 85 countries, including 4,939 employees in their Groton research facility, which lies in my home state of Connecticut. The desire to live a healthy life is universal. But for millions of people around the world, access to high quality health care remains out of reach. Pfizer is committed to bringing its medicines to those in need. Through Sharing the Care, a program started in 1993, Pfizer has filled more than 3.0 million prescriptions--valued at over $170 million--for more than one million uninsured patients in the United States. The program was cited by American Benefactor, a leading philanthropy journal, in selecting Pfizer as one of America's 25 most generous companies for 1998. Pfizer today is renowned as one of the world's most admired corporations for the many contributions it has made to our society. I applaud Pfizer on its 150th anniversary for its continued efforts to making this nation and this world a healthier place.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, earlier today, I learned of the passing of Jack Lynch, the former Prime Minister of Ireland. I was deeply saddened to hear of Prime Minister Lynch's passing and would like to reflect for just a few moments on his life and enormous contributions to peace in Ireland. While Prime Minister Lynch's achievements were many, he is best remembered for encouraging a more tolerant Irish attitude toward British sovereignty in the Protestant-dominated North; a change in attitude that made the Good Friday peace accords possible. In 1969, during his tenure as Prime Minister, Jack Lynch showed remarkable restraint in his dealings with the North, resisting pressure from his party and many citizens of Ireland to send troops across the border to protect Catholics in Londonderry from attacks by Protestant paramilitaries and local police forces. This desire for peace further manifested itself in the late 1970s, when Prime Minister Lynch began traveling to Belfast to discuss peace with British officials. These efforts cumulated in a historic dialogue about peace and tolerance with then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a dialogue which began the gradual process of trust-building necessary for a lasting peace. Another reminder of the enduring achievements of Prime Minister Lynch is Irish membership in the European Union. In 1973, Ireland was a country with a failing economy, a high unemployment rate, and rampant emigration. In an effort to rekindle the faltering economy and reconnect Ireland with the European continent, Jack Lynch entered Ireland into the European Economic Community. Today, billions of dollars of European aid and investment have helped Ireland become one of the world's 25 wealthiest nations, unemployment has dropped to half the European Union average, and people are returning to their ancestral homes. It is mainly due to Prime Minister Lynch's foresight in negotiating Irish entry into the E.E.C. that this economic turnaround has occurred. These accomplishments only begin to illustrate the many professional successes of Peter Lynch. He was a man who was able to look past historic prejudice and heat-of-the-moment emotions to bring individuals with very different viewpoints together in meaningful dialogue. He was a visionary who saw the need for economic modernization and was unafraid to seek help from his European neighbors. And, in the end, he was a leader. As current Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern has said, his firm leadership saw Ireland through a period of great turbulence and his outstanding work to gain Irish membership in the E.E.C. changed forever the way Ireland sees itself as a nation. And for this, Mr. President, people of Irish descent, such as myself, thank him.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am going to address the Senate on the issue of the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the related parts of that package. But I appreciated being in the Chamber for these last few minutes to hear some of the discussion on Social Security and budgetary items. I say with regard to Social Security--and I do not sit on a major committee dealing with the Social Security issue--all I know is, in the last few weeks, the Congressional Budget Office reported that while there may be a lockbox, apparently only one side has the keys to it because some $18 billion has already been dipped into in order to pay for spending in the present budget. While we have a lockbox, apparently only a handful of people have the keys to be able to dip into it when it becomes necessary to find funding. I hope, as well, we can find common ground solutions to the Social Security issue. As the Senator from Nebraska has pointed out, the long-term interests of all Americans depend upon our ability to make sure we have a trust fund that is sound and in good shape. I also recall a few years ago when there were proposals to amend the Constitution of the United States to require a balanced budget. The advocates of that proposal, of course, included that Social Security be calculated in reaching a balanced budget. There were those who argued that you couldn't do that because Social Security ought not to be used for that purpose. But those who were the authors of the constitutional amendment to balance the budget are some of the same ones today who argue on the lockbox. It wasn't a lockbox when we were talking about balancing the budget with a constitutional amendment. It is today. Nonetheless, I hope we can come up with some answers to this for the long-term.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to address the issue of the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the African Growth and Opportunity Act which is pending before the Senate. The package of incentives the Senate is considering this week includes the African Growth and Opportunity Act, the United States-Caribbean Basin Trade Enhancement Act, and the reauthorization of the Generalized System of Preferences and Trade Adjustment Assistance. Those are the four pieces of the proposal before us. The Trade Adjustment Assistance dates back to 1962, when we decided to provide assistance to men and women in this country who had been adversely affected as a result of trade policies and who lost jobs. Trade adjustment allows for those individuals and companies that may be adversely affected to get some help. It has been a good law for almost 40 years, and I am confident this piece of the package is one all of our colleagues will support. The matter dealing with the Generalized System of Preferences, the GSP, is also pretty routine, and one that we need to have enacted. I am, again, confident that this provision will also enjoy broad-based support. The two pieces that are provoking the debate have to deal with the enhancement of the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. I will spend a couple minutes talking about both of those provisions. I support them. I think they are important pieces of legislation that are going to accrue to the benefit of our country. I know there are those who are going to argue that somehow this is going to cause great damage to certain workers in the country. I don't believe it to be the case. In fact, I argue that if we were to defeat the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Africa Growth provisions, that they will actually accrue to the detriment of workers. These are two important provisions which are going to enhance job opportunities in this country and are not going to harm people. I notice the presence of the distinguished Senator from Delaware, chairman of the Finance Committee. I commend him and his colleagues on the Finance Committee for dealing as expeditiously as they did with this trade package. This is the only piece of trade legislation I am aware of that we will deal with in this session of this Congress. I am hopeful that a good, strong majority of our colleagues will support these two provisions on the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. First, let me share some factual information so people can put this whole effort into context. Today, the Caribbean countries and the Central American nations comprise about 1.9 percent of all of the imports that come into the United States, 1.9 percent total. Of the 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa that will be affected by this legislation if it is adopted, more than 700 million people who are the poorest in the world, live in these 48 countries. These countries make up .86 percent of 1 percent of textile and apparel imports to the United States. So between the 48 countries and more than 700 million people in the sub-Saharan Africa region and the 24 countries that make up the Caribbean Basin and the Central American nations, we are talking about something around 2.75 percent of imports that come into the United States. We are talking about millions of people who live in these nations. We have a provision that would allow for the duty-free import of products that come out of these two parts of the world. But it isn't just duty free. It doesn't mean anything they produce automatically comes to this country. In this provision, there is a very important clause regarding textiles, which is the source of most of the argument, I think. The distinguished Senator from Delaware can correct me if I am wrong, but I think the textile provisions are probably provoking the most debate. In the textile provisions, we say that the fabric and the thread that is used to assemble the product in the 48 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and the 24 countries in the Caribbean, that fabric and that thread must be made in the United States. You can then assemble the product in these other countries and it will come into the United States. Why is that important? Today, we have a massive amount of imports that come into this country from the Pacific Rim, Asian countries. There is no such requirement in those trade agreements, while there are quotas. In the year 2005, the quotas come off entirely. If we don't pass the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, by 2005, we are going to find our markets flooded by products made in the Pacific Rim, where there is no U.S. content requirement. There are some 400,000 jobs in this country that make fabric and make the thread used in the production of these textile products that would come out of Africa and the Caribbean Basin. If we don't pass this legislation, those 400,000 jobs are in jeopardy. That is why this bill is important. First and foremost, this bill is important to America. As with any piece of legislation, the first consideration is, does it do any good or do no harm, but most especially, does it do any good for the people of the United States of America? I argue this bill is critically important to the well-being of almost a half million workers in the United States. Our failure to enact this legislation places those 400,000 jobs in jeopardy. There are other reasons why I think this is important, aside from our own interests. We spent $6 billion of U.S. taxpayer money in the 1980s in one of these Caribbean Basin countries, El Salvador; $6 billion from the U.S. Treasury went to finance a war basically in the one country of El Salvador. Today, there are some 335,000 Salvadorans living in the United States. In fact, there are 1 million illegal aliens from the 24 Caribbean Basin countries living in the United States. And every day, more come. Why do they come here? Why did my great-grandparents come here? Why do the grandparents of parents of most people, with the exception of African Americans, come to America? My great-grandparents left Ireland not because they did not love Ireland any longer. It was because they were discriminated against. They couldn't get work. They weren't allowed to be educated. So they were left with no choice but to leave the country they loved to come to America. That is true for millions and millions of people in this country. Why do Salvadorans, Nicaraguans, people of the Dominican Republic and other nations leave to come here? It is not because they don't love their own countries, but the opportunities in these nations are almost nonexistent in many cases. That is why they come here. Do you want to stop that flood from coming? You have to create economic opportunity or that flood is going to continue, as sure as I am standing here. This effort doesn't solve that problem entirely. It would be ludicrous to suggest it would. But it would start to create economic opportunities in these countries that would allow their people to have some future without looking for the next boat or raft or plane in which to escape the economic deprivation they see in their own nation and to seek what millions have done over the years; that is, to come to this land of opportunity. If we are going to stem that tide, we have to begin by creating economic opportunity, or at least assisting in that process. I think this bill attempts to do that and does begin that process. Let me remind my colleagues that many of these Caribbean countries over the last few years have been devastated by natural disaster. These hurricanes that have swept across these islands and across these countries have left thousands homeless, without any future whatsoever. I recall that only about a year ago at this time, or a little less-- actually in early November of last year--I flew down to Nicaragua, after the hurricane hit there, with the wife of our Vice President, Mrs. Gore, Tipper Gore, and a group of Members of Congress. We went down for a weekend to help out with the international relief organizations to try to see what we could do as volunteers to provide some assistance. I will never forget, there were six or seven of us inside a one-room schoolhouse in Nicaragua, outside of Managua. It took us an entire day with shovels to shovel out the mud in a one-room schoolhouse. That is how thick it was. It took six people almost an entire day to shovel the mud out of what had been a one-room schoolhouse a few days earlier. We were looking over a small community that had just been devastated, with tent cities going up. Most of them were made of whatever scrap pieces of metal and cardboard people could find. So we talk about these neighbors of ours to the immediate south in this hemisphere who have been devastated by these natural disasters and events and our efforts to try to help them get back on their feet. We could write a check, although I suspect we would not come up with $6 billion in aid relief, as we did during the guerrilla conflict in Central America, for one country. We probably could not get that passed. What we can do is try to provide some opportunity for jobs to be created, using U.S. content product, that would put some people to work in these countries, which keeps people working in America, and will provide some ray of hope for millions of people in these countries. I commend the chairman of the Finance Committee and those who worked with him. This is a good bill. It is not perfect, and there may be some amendments that would be offered. My good friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, has an idea that is a different approach to what is included in the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act. I like what he is going to propose. I don't know if he will offer it as an amendment or not. My concern is that it probably would not pass. It has a factor of aid written into it, and I don't think there are 51 votes for a massive aid package here, nor does it exist in the House. So while I like what he proposes, I am concerned that would not make it, and what we have here, I think, can. I am attracted to what he is suggesting, but I don't necessarily believe that is going to be the answer in terms of how to do it. In the long term, it is creating economic opportunity in these countries that makes the most difference. We now have a balance of payment and trade in the 24 Caribbean countries that is positive. We talk about a mounting trade deficit, and it is true; but now if we are going to attack the trade deficit, we are aiming at the wrong target. To give you an idea where the numbers are, in the last several years, the trade surplus with the 24 Caribbean Basin countries is over $2 billion. In the first 6 months of 1999, the surplus stands at $830 million for this year alone. That is getting near $3 billion in a trade surplus with these 24 countries. It seems to me, if you want to deal with the trade deficit, maybe you ought to be aiming your sights on other parts of the world, although I am not advocating you do it. But if you do, that is where we ought to be looking. We have a trade surplus, and it is only a small amount of imports; 1.9 percent of the total imports come out of these 24 countries. Nonetheless, we have a trade surplus. It seems to me that trying to expand trading opportunities is one of the few bright spots around the globe when it comes to expanding job opportunities here by providing new markets where American-produced products can be sold. With regard to these African countries, all of us have seen these photographs. You don't have to go to Africa or necessarily become a great student of what is going on in the sub-Saharan region. But anybody with even a passing awareness of what has happened to these countries over the last number of years has to be moved by it. They have to be moved by what they see. When you see more than 700 million people living under the most abject conditions of poverty imaginable in the world, with less than 1 percent of textile and apparel imports coming from those 700 million people--I think .86 percent is the number; that is all it is coming into this country. If we can't say to these 700 million people in these 48 countries, look, take our fabric and our threads, and if you can produce a product to sell into this country, keeping the jobs here at home and enhancing your economic opportunities, then what do we stand for? How else do we really, in the long term, provide assistance to these people? Does anybody really believe we are going to take out a check and write out an aid program to provide assistance to this many people in those countries? I don't think so. Ironically, only two of the countries in the sub-Saharan region have any kind of trading relationship with us at all. The other 46 have virtually no trading relationship. While this bill would potentially affect 48 countries, in fact, only 2 of the 48 really have any kind of involvement in terms of trading. Again, it is almost exclusively in the textile area. Again, I will make the point I tried to make at the outset. This bill, first and foremost, is good for this country. In the year 2005, the quotas come off. Again, my colleague from Delaware has forgotten more about this issue than I know. He can correct me if I am wrong. In the year 2005, as I understand it, the quotas on trade from the Pacific rim come off. There are no content requirements, as I understand it, with product produced in the Pacific rim. So if we don't provide an offsetting market to the Pacific rim market in the Caribbean Basin Initiative in the sub-Saharan region, come the year 2005, the people today who produce the fabric and produce the threads that would be used to produce the products out of the nations affected by this bill would have their jobs in jeopardy because that content requirement is not there on the Pacific rim nations. The quotas do come off, and we could be adversely affected, in my view, by such an event. So it is going to be critically important that we start to build up an alternative market that has U.S. content requirements in it. I know some of my colleagues have raised the issue of labor standards. They are legitimate issues to raise. I point out that, to the best of my knowledge, all 24 countries in the Caribbean Basin Initiative are signatories to the international labor agreements. They are already on the line for supporting those labor standards. There is a legitimate issue about enforcement of the standards; that is a separate issue. But the fact is, there are labor standards here. The issue is whether or not you can enforce them and see to it that people are going to be protected to the extent possible by those labor standards. I hope we will figure out a mechanism to enforce the standards in those laws. The laws do exist to require these countries to meet those labor standards. Again, I commend those who have been involved. I will have more to say on the bill as the debate moves forward. For those who think that somehow this is a giveaway, this is just a favor we are doing for people who live in the island nations of the Caribbean or the Central American countries, nothing could be further from the truth. This bill is good for America. It protects jobs in America, expands growth and opportunity for businesses to be able to sell into these markets. The best social welfare program is a job. That is the best social welfare program. Nothing does more for a nation, for a family, or for an individual than to give them an opportunity to have a job, where they are self-sufficient and providing for their families and themselves. This proposal that increases a trading opportunity with these poor countries in Central America and the Caribbean and in the 48 nations of sub-Saharan Africa gives them an opportunity to have a job which, in the long-term, is what preserves democracy and creates the kind of wealth and education necessary for nations to prosper and to grow. Again, with only 1.9 percent of all the imports coming from the Caribbean, those 24 countries, and less than 1 percent of textiles and apparel coming from the 48 nations in the sub-Saharan Africa nations, I think this country of ours and the Senate should support this initiative and say to the nations and the people: We want you to be partners with us. We want you to have the chance to provide for your own people. We want to do so without costing jobs for hard-working Americans. This bill does both of those things, and for those reasons is richly deserving of the support and votes of Members of the Senate. For those reasons, I urge adoption of this bill when the appropriate time comes to vote aye. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank our wonderful dear friend from Virginia for his very moving and eloquent personal comments about his wonderful friend, a friend of all Members, John Chafee, whom we lost today. Let me begin by expressing my deep sympathies to the Chafee family, to Ginny and the children and the grandchildren. I have come to know them over the years, being the neighboring Senator of the wonderful State of Rhode Island. I express to his family, the people of Rhode Island, and to his staff and friends and acquaintances over the years, what a terrible loss the death of John Chafee is, to all who care about public service and care about this country. The words of ``scholar,'' ``soldier,'' ``athlete,'' and ``statesman'' I use quite frequently to describe people. But in the case of John Chafee, each one of those words has special meaning. He was truly a great scholar as we know from his academic work at Yale and Harvard Law School. He was truly a wonderful soldier, as John Warner has recounted. If one did not take the time to discover the service John Chafee gave to this country in both World War II and Korea, one would not know it if one solely depended upon John Chafee to describe it. John Chafee saw service in uniform to his country as not an extraordinary action but one that any good citizen would engage in during a time of serious conflict. Certainly his service in the Marine Corps and the Pacific, and again in Korea, were remarkable periods of our Nation's history. He served our Nation so wonderfully well in that capacity. He was also a great athlete. Captain of the Yale wrestling team in 1941, he went undefeated. He was also quite a squash player. My brother-in-law, Bernie Buonanno, is from Rhode Island. Bernie and John Chafee were regular squash competitors in Providence. I heard great tales about the battles between my brother-in-law and John Chafee on the squash courts. I know Carl Levin and John Warner and others play not very far from this Chamber. They have wonderful times there. He was always in great shape, always had a tremendous amount of energy he brought to his work in the Senate. Last, he was a statesman. That is hardly last. I first got to know John Chafee almost 40 years ago. I was a freshman in college in Providence, RI, when John Chafee became Governor of the State of Rhode Island. He was elected with an overwhelming margin of 398 votes in that year. He went on in 1964 and 1966 to huge margins. At that time in Rhode Island, Governors only had a 2-year term. During my entire career as a college student, John Chafee was the Governor of the small State of Rhode Island. What a wonderful reputation he had as a Governor of that State. During the latter part of that term, the Vietnam war issue, which John Warner talked about, began to boil over on campuses. John Chafee handled that leadership role as a Governor of his State with great style and with great leadership in terms of understanding the diverse constituency, even of a small State such as Rhode Island. In 1976, as we know, he came to the Senate. I arrived in 1981 and had the privilege of serving with him for the past 20 years. We didn't serve on committees together. I never had the privilege of being a member of one of the committees of which John Chafee was a member. However, he certainly led in so many areas, particularly in environment. There were few who were John Chafee's peers when it came to their longstanding concern about being good custodians and guardians of this planet Earth. Certainly throughout his career on numerous pieces of legislation John Chafee was the leader, the voice, that we all looked to when it came to deciding what path to follow as we tried to determine the best course of action, balancing the economic and environmental interests of our Nation. The Presiding Officer knows this year, as someone who has been deeply interested in child care legislation, I lobbied hard to the Presiding Officer if she would be a cosponsor with me of my child care bill. I will never forget Senator Collins saying to me: I will go along with you on your bill on one condition. I am thinking, here it comes; what is the condition, some new provision has to be written in, some new amendment added. And she said: The condition is, if you can get John Chafee to support your child care amendment, then I will join in your child care bill. I talked to John Chafee. I said: John, if I can have your support, I can think of at least one or two, maybe four or five other Members of this body who will work with us on this issue. He gave his support to that issue. This calendar year we have had four votes on child care amendments, and each has carried because John Chafee decided to be a working partner on this issue. That is another example of the kind of quiet leadership John Chafee could give to an issue that was important to not only his constituents but to many across the globe and across this country, particularly. The Presiding Officer, coming from New England, will appreciate this as well. We oftentimes find in antiques stores or flea markets the New England samplers. They are oftentimes framed. Home Sweet Home is the one with which most are familiar. There is another sampler we can find from time to time throughout New England. The sampler says: Leave the Land in Better Shape Than When You Found It. It is an old New England tradition. Our land was not particularly well suited to agricultural interests when that expression was coined; the rocky soil, the difficult winters make it hard to eke out a living. Each generation of New Englanders over the years has tried to clear another field, build another barn or shed, in some way make the land they pass on to the next generation healthier and better suited to serve the next generation. John Chafee was the quintessential New England statesman, in my view. He was not tight when it came to a dollar, but I called him a fiscal conservative when it came to budgetary matters. He was also a person who believed one ought to carefully invest capital in areas that would be critically important to the well-being of any enterprise. And in public life, investing in the environment of our country, investing in the educational needs, the transportation needs, seeing to it that all Americans have a chance to enjoy the wonderful opportunities of our Nation, and the Tax Code, are all wonderful examples of John Chafee making wise investments, the wise New England approach to the well- being of our Nation. So in many ways, John Chafee epitomized, I suppose--for me, anyway-- what a good Senator from New England ought to be. In many ways, as I think about that old sampler you can find in these bazaars in New England from Maine to Connecticut, ``Leave the Land in Better Shape Than when You Found it,'' John Chafee epitomized that simple expression. Wherever he is at this moment--and I know he is with our good Lord and Savior--he will be looking down knowing--and he should know--that even for that brief amount of time, the few short years, 77 years, he had as a scholar, as a soldier, as an athlete, and as a statesman, John Chafee truly left his State and his country and the world in which we live far better than when he found it. For the immense difference he has made, we thank him. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent while attending to a family member's medical condition during Senate action on rollcall votes Nos. 328 and 329. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted as follows: On rollcall vote No. 328, adoption of the conference report on H.R. 2684, a bill making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, I would have agreed to the conference report. On rollcall vote No. 329, the motion to table Senate Amendment No. 2299, a Reid perfecting amendment to the campaign finance reform bill, I would have voted not to table the amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the founding the Central Connecticut State University. To stand the test of time, as Central has, an educational institution must respond to the educational needs of its students. At each turn over its notable 150-year history, Central has effectively positioned itself to address the new challenges of the day. While a great deal has changed at Central--and for that matter in the world--over the years, the school's primary concern and motivating goal--educating students--has remained unaltered. Central Connecticut State University is Connecticut's oldest publicly-supported institution of higher learning and enjoys a rich and colorful legacy. Founded by order of the Connecticut State Legislature on June 22, 1849, the institution, first known as the Normal School, was a two-year teacher training facility. On May 15, 1850, Henry Barnard, the school's first ``principal,'' as he was then called, and a handful of faculty and staff members welcomed the first class of 30 students. The Normal School was the object of contentious political debate in Hartford and intermittent appropriation cuts during its early years. In fact, the school was closed from 1867 to 1869 due to lack of funding. Yet the school and its supporters persevered. Each passing year brought bigger classes to the Normal School and with them, greater support from the members of the citizenry who understood the vital importance of higher education to their future and the future of the state. As was common at many of the era's institutions of higher learning, the Normal School's student body was overwhelmingly unbalanced in its male to female ratio. Interestingly, however, at the Normal School women, not men, made up the majority of the student body through the late 19th Century. In fact, due to the social norms of the time, which held the teaching of elementary and grade-school children as women's work, men disappeared from the student body at the Normal School for over thirty years--a change that would forever influence the character of the institution. The loss of male students did not stop the expansion of Normal School. Growing beyond the confines of its original building at the corner of Chestnut and Main in New Britain, in 1922 the school moved to the spacious campus it now occupies in the Belvedere section of New Britain. The institution began to blossom academically in 1933 when it started to offer four-year baccalaureate degrees, changing its name to the Teachers College of Connecticut. The expansion of academic offerings drew men back to the college during the 1930s. Following World War II, the Teachers College of Connecticut, like many academic institutions, experienced remarkable growth and expansion. That growth led the State Legislature to grant the college the right to confer liberal arts degrees and to rename the institution the Central Connecticut State College in 1959. As the needs of its students have continued to change and expand in more recent times, so too has Central. In 1983, Central began offering graduate degrees and evolved into its present form-- Central Connecticut State University. With an enrollment of nearly 12,000 graduate and undergraduate students, Central is the largest of the four Universities within the Connecticut State System. With 80 programs of study, 38 departments and 5 individual schools dedicated to disciplines across the spectrum of learning, Central Connecticut State University has emerged as one of the premier regional universities in New England. Always on the forefront of educational trends, Central recognized the lack of emphasis placed on the historical role of women and drew upon the significant role played by women in its own development to become one of the first schools in the Nation to build, in 1977, a Women's Center. The Center, which has become a highly respected credit to the university, offers a number of services for and about women and has become a model for universities around the country. In 1990, Central became the first school in Connecticut to offer an accredited Computer Science degree, helping to prepare Connecticut students for the Information Age. Its Robert C. Vance Distinguished Lecturer Program has drawn United States Presidents and renowned leaders from around the globe to speak in New Britain. It is clear, that through these special programs, as well as others, Central Connecticut State University provides its students with a valuable educational opportunity and has established itself as one of the Nation's finest regional universities. So I say again, Mr. President, that I am proud to stand on the floor of the United States Senate to recognize the enduring dedication of Central Connecticut State University to its students, to its state, and to excellence in education. Today, under the adept guidance of President Richard L. Judd and with the effort of so many talented and committed faculty and staff, the university continues to grow and prosper. I believe that Central's unceasing pursuit of excellence will ensure it remains a vital academic institution for many years to come.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I commend my colleague for his comments. He could have easily been speaking on behalf of the State of Connecticut in talking about the particular concerns of his home State of Maryland. In a moment, I will explain why I also have serious reservations about this bill. But his point that the New England States, the Northeast, contribute significantly to the agricultural well-being of this country is well founded. I know Secretary Glickman came to Maryland and he came to Connecticut during the drought this past summer. The exact number eludes me, but it was surprisingly high, the number of farmers and the significant portion of agricultural production that occurs east of the Mississippi and north of the Mason-Dixon line, or near north of the Mason-Dixon line. So when we talk about these issues, it may seem as if it is more sort of hobby farms to people, but for many people in Maryland and for the 4,000 people in Connecticut who make a living in agriculture--these are not major agricultural centers, but in a State of 3.5 million people, where 4,000 families annually depend upon agriculture as a source of income, it is not insignificant. So when you have a bill that virtually excludes people from Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania from receiving some help during a time of crisis, I hope our colleagues who come from the States that benefit from this bill, who I know have enjoyed the support of the Senator from Maryland, this Senator, and others during times of crisis, because we have seen a flood in the Midwest, or a drought in the Midwest, or cyclones and hurricanes that have devastated agriculture in other parts of our country--I never considered my voting to support people in those areas as somehow a regional vote. When I vote to support a farmer who has lost his livelihood because of a natural disaster, I think I am voting to strengthen my country, not to help out a particular farmer in a State that I don't represent. So when we have a drought in the Northeast, as we did, a record drought this year that wiped out farmers, caused them to lose significant income, to lose farms and the like, and then to have a bill that comes before us that disregards this natural disaster--in my State, $41 million was lost as a result of the drought--I am disappointed. My colleagues may have stronger words to use. I am terribly disappointed, as someone who, year after year, has been supportive of particular agricultural needs, although I didn't directly represent them, that our colleagues in the House and Senate could not see fit to provide some financial help beyond, as my colleague from Maryland said, the loan program, which is not much help. We don't have crop insurance for my row croppers. The small farmers don't get crop insurance. When they get wiped out or lose income, they have to depend upon some direct payment. A loan program is of little or no assistance to them. I am terribly disappointed that this bill excludes those farmers from the eastern part of the United States. It was the worst drought that has hit our region in decades. Congressional delegations throughout the region have consistently supported our colleagues in other regions when their States have suffered catastrophic floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes. We don't understand why it is so difficult for the eastern part of the country to convey to our colleagues how massive the devastation has been to our small farmers. As I have said, in my State alone, it is $41 million. In other States, the numbers may be higher. I represent a small State. The dairy industry is one of the major agricultural interests in our region. It has gotten a double hit in this legislation--inadequate drought relief assistance and the exclusion of provisions that would have extended the Northeast Dairy Compact. On top of the drought losses, our farmers will lose an additional $100 million if the new milk marketing pricing goes forward. While I am heartened by the recently issued court injunction postponing the implementation of the new pricing scheme, quite frankly, this is only a short-term solution and is no substitute for affirmative action taken by the Congress. Northeast dairy farmers are deserving of the same kinds of assistance we offer to the agricultural sectors in other parts of the country. I believe it is grossly unfair that this conference report has chosen to ignore their plight. We should not be placing one part of the country against another. I don't want to see a midwestern farmer or a western farmer be adversely affected by votes we cast here. But, likewise, I don't want to see farming interests in my State or my region of the country be harmed as a result of our unwillingness to provide some relief when they absolutely need it to survive. Inadequate drought relief and the exclusion of the Northeast Dairy Compact would be reason enough to vote against the legislation before us today. But I want to raise another issue that has caused a lot of consternation during the debate on this Agriculture appropriations bill. I am referring to the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, myself, and Senator Hagel of Nebraska. The House leadership literally hijacked this piece of legislation and denied the normal democratic process to work when it came to this measure that was adopted overwhelmingly in the Senate by a margin of 70-28--by any measure, an overwhelming vote of bipartisanship. This measure would have ended unilateral sanctions on the sale of U.S. food and medicine to countries around the globe. The amendment had broad-based support from farm organizations across the country which, time and time again, have been forced to pay the price of lost income when Congress has decided to ``get tough'' with dictators and bar farm exports. Farmers, over the years, have rightfully noted that, although in some cases sanctions have been in place for 40 years, there is nothing in the way of positive foreign policy results to show for these sanctions. On the other hand, the losses to our farmers are measurable and substantial--in the billions of dollars annually--as a result of these unilateral sanctions on food and medicine we have imposed for years. Church groups and humanitarian organizations have joined farm organizations in strongly opposing use of food and medicine as sanctions weapons on moral grounds. Ironically, U.S. sanctions--particularly ones on food and medicine-- have been used as an instrument by hostile governments to shore up domestic support and retain power, the very power that we are allegedly trying to change through the use of sanctions actually having contributed to these dictators staying in power for as many years as some of them have. Whether or not the United States is fully responsible for the suffering of these men, women, and children in these targeted countries, it is hard to convince many of them that the United States means them no ill will when we deny them the access to foodstuffs, critical medicines, and medical equipment--the reason seventy of our colleagues decided to end this policy of unilateral sanctions on food and medicine. Unfortunately, the House Republican leadership would not allow the process to work in conference. As a result, this bill was tied up for days over this single measure. Again, I compliment my colleague from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, and Senator Hagel, who are leaders on this, along with others in fighting for this provision. This is not a provision that is designed to help dictators. It is a provision to, in fact, change these dictatorial governments and to provide needed relief and opportunity for millions of people who are the innocent victims of these dictators, and not deny our own farm community and business interests the opportunity to sell into these markets and make a difference. They are prepared, of course, to deny, in the case of the major opposition, by the way, which comes from some Members. I want to emphasize that some members of the Cuban American community feel particularly strongly about the government in Cuba. I respect their feelings. I respect it very deeply. These families have lost their homes, jobs, and family members as a result of the government in Cuba under Fidel Castro. There is no way I can fully appreciate the depth of their feelings and passions about this. As I say, I respect that. The exile community is not unfounded in its deep concerns about what has happened on the island of Cuba. Before I make any comments about the island of Cuba and what goes on there, I want it to be as clear as I can possibly make it that my sympathies, my heartfelt sympathies go to the exiled community that lives in this country and elsewhere. Their passions, I understand and accept, and I am tremendously sympathetic. But I must say as well that there are 11 million Cubans who live on that island 90 miles off our shores who are suffering and hurting badly. Arguably, the problem exists with the government there. I don't deny that. But to impose a sanction for 40 years on the same of food and medicine to 11 million people in this country also is not warranted. While we may want to change the government in Cuba--and that may happen in time--we shouldn't be compounding the problem by denying the sale of food and medicine to these people. Many people say they won't set foot on Cuban soil while Castro remains in power. I understand that as well. But don't deny the 11 million people in Cuba the opportunity to at least have basic food supplies and medicine. It seems to me that--in fact I believe--a majority of the Cuban American people in this country have similar feelings. Their voices are not heard as often as is oftentimes the case when a minority view is extremely vocal and can dominate. But I believe the vast majority of Cuban Americans feel strongly about Fidel Castro, want him out of power, and want democracy to come to their country but simultaneously believe the 11 million people with whom they share a common heritage ought not to be denied food and medicine by the United States. To make my point, these Cuban Americans try on their own to do what they can by sending small packages to loved ones and family members and friends who live in Cuba. Others travel to deliver medicines. Some 150,000 Cuban Americans travel annually to go into Cuba to bring whatever they can to help out family members and friends. However, these gestures of generosity are no substitute for commercial sales of such products if the public health and nutritional need of 11 million people are going to be met. Unfortunately, the antidemocratic forces have succeeded in stripping the Ashcroft-Dodd-Hagel amendment from this bill. I hope enough of my colleagues will vote against this legislation to prevent its adoption. We can delay a few days, send this measure back to conference, and reestablish this language that was supported overwhelmingly, and I think supported in the House of Representatives, the other body, as well, and bring the measure back. If this measure goes forward without the inclusion of the Dodd-Hagel- Ashcroft amendment, rest assured we will be back on this floor offering similar amendments at every opportunity that presents itself, and we will continue to do so. The day is going to come when a majority of the Congress and the will of the American people, including the Cuban Americans, I strongly suggest, is going to prevail. On that day, the United States will regain a moral high ground by ceasing forever to use food and medicine as a weapon against innocent people. I argue, as Senators Ashcroft, Hagel, Grams, and others, that the adoption of amendments that would allow for the lifting of unilateral sanctions on food and medicines will also be a major contributing factor to changing governments in these countries. Aside from helping out farmers and businesses that want to sell these products and the innocent people who can't have access to them in these countries, I believe the foreign policy implications of allowing the sale of food and medicine will be significant for our country and for the people who live under dictatorial governments. For those reasons, and what is being denied our farmers and agricultural interests in the State of Connecticut and elsewhere in the Northeast, and the rejection of the Ashcroft-Hagel-Dodd amendment, I will oppose this conference report, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise. I yield the floor.