Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent due to a family medical emergency during Senate action on rollcall votes No. 317 through 322. Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted as follows. On rollcall vote No. 317, the motion to table Senate amendment 1861, an amendment to ensure accountability in programs for disadvantaged students, I would have voted not to table. On rollcall vote No. 318, Senate amendment 1842, an amendment to express the sense of the Senate regarding the importance of determining the economic status of former recipients of temporary assistance to needy families, I would have voted for the amendment. On rollcall vote No. 319, the motion to table Senate amendment 1825, an amendment to prohibit the use of funds for the promulgation or issuing of any standard relating to ergonomic protection, I would have voted against tabling the amendment. On rollcall vote No. 320, the motion to table Senate amendment 1844, an amendment to limit the applicability of the Davis-Bacon Act in areas designated as disaster areas, I would have voted to table the amendment. On rollcall vote 321, final passage of S. 1650, an original bill making appropriations for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, I would have voted for passage of the bill, albeit with reservations about specific provisions of the bill. Finally, on rollcall vote 322, the motion to invoke cloture on the conference report on H.R. 1906, the Agriculture Appropriations Act, I would have voted against cloture.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President: I rise in opposition to the adoption of H.R. 2606--the fiscal year 2000 foreign operations conference report. Let me say at the outset that it is very unusual for me to oppose an appropriations bill of this kind, but I do so today because I believe that if it becomes law it will jeopardize United States interests globally. Why are our interests threatened? They are threatened because this bill does not provide the wherewithal to the Clinton administration so that it can effectively carry out United States foreign policies and programs. Many programs being funded by this bill are at drastically reduced levels. The total dollar value of the appropriations contained in this conference report are approximately $2 billion below levels requested by the President. The conferees apparently did not think that the Middle Peace Process is of critical interest to the United States because nowhere can a find funding in support of the implementation of the Wye Agreement--clearly a critical component in ensuring that the peace process more forward. I believe that this omission is extremely unwise and is reason enough alone for Members of this body to oppose it. But that is not the only problem with this bill. Let me discuss some of the other deficiencies as well. First, Mr. President, we all know how much bipartisan support the Peace Corps engenders in both Houses of Congress. Peace Corps volunteers are our ``citizen diplomats'' abroad. The lasting good will and friendship that results from American men and women serving as volunteers for two years in countries that need and want their presence is immeasurable. No one that I know of has any complaints about the organization. Yet, this bill would short change its fiscal year 2000 budget by $35 million, making it nearly impossible for the Peace Corps to meet its congressionally mandated goal of placing 10,000 volunteers in the field early in the next decade. Nor does this conference report contain a penny for use by the Clinton administration as its initial responses to the tragic natural disasters that have just occurred in Turkey and Taiwan. Surely we could have provided some start up monies to assist our friends in their hour of need. Similarly, money was not included in this bill to assist the people of Kosovo begin the painful process of rebuilding after the devastation wrought by Serbian forces earlier this year. The phrase ``penny wise and pound foolish'' comes readily to mind as one reviews the provisions of this bill. Let me highlight some of the most important deficiencies as I see them: $175 million reduction in loan programs designed to help the poorest nations address their critical needs; $157 million reduction in global environmental protection programs; $26 million below the Senate passed appropriated amounts for the U.S. Export Import Bank and additional unnecessary Congressional notification requirements that could delay approval of export credit applications; $85 million reduction in debt relief for the poorest countries; $200 million reduction in regional democracy building and economic development programs for Africa, Latin America and Asia; $297 million reduction in democracy and civil society programs in the independent states of the former Soviet Union; and $20 million reduction in funds to support the Korean Peninsula Development Organization and seriously restrictive legislative conditions which jeopardize important ongoing U.S. diplomatic efforts to contain the North Korean nuclear threat to the Korean Peninsula. This is certainly not an exhaustive listing of all the problems I have with this bill, but merely the highlights, or low lights as the case may be, of the serious inadequacies with the foreign operations conference report. Having said that I believe that the issues I have cited are more than enough reason for members to vote against this legislation and I urge them to do so.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Bennett, Senator McCain, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Hollings. I urge my colleagues to support this proposal that would ground air carriers that do not respond to the Federal Aviation Administration's request for information about their Y2K status. This information is obviously critical not only to Americans who are now making travel plans for the millennium period, but to all American businesses that rely on safe air transportation to keep their doors open, to pay employees, and to contribute to the national economy. Through our work on the Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, Senator Bennett and I have learned how hard it is for Americans to determine what precautions they should take to prepare for the year 2000. This task has been made unduly onerous by the failure of too many industries, including the aviation industry, to disclose information about their Y2K status. The Y2K problem is a national challenge that requires all of us to do whatever it takes to make the transition between this century and the next one safe. The least any of us can do is to respond to surveys asking about the status of our Y2K preparations. I suppose that you and others would assume that members of the safety-conscious aviation community would be eager to reassure the public by responding to the FAA's request for information about their Y2K status. Mr. President, if you made that assumption, unfortunately, you would be wrong. At the committee's hearing last week on transportation and the Y2K issue, we learned that 1,900 of the 3,300 certificate holders, which includes air carriers and manufacturers, failed to respond to the FAA's request. Bear in mind that this survey is only 4 pages long, and the FAA estimates it would take 45 minutes to fill it out at an average cost of $30. There is no excuse, in my view, for this high rate of nonresponsiveness to the FAA's survey inquiry of certificate holders. The FAA did not conduct this survey as a mere exercise. Reviewing a Y2K survey is often the only way the public can be sure an industry can keep functioning safely into the new year. When such a high percentage of the aviation industry fails to respond, the public might as well be flying blind. These nonrespondents are mostly smaller carriers and charter airlines--not major airlines, I would quickly point out. But all of us have constituents who fly on these small carriers and rely on their cargo services. Their failure to respond to the request of their regulator is, I think, unacceptable, and I am sure my colleagues do as well. The FAA has given me an updated list of the members of the aviation industry who have not responded to this survey. I made the request, along with the chairman, last Thursday, to give time to the members of their representative organizations who were in the room until today to comply with that survey. Of the 1,900 who had failed to comply last week, roughly 600 have responded to the survey since last Thursday. The list now contains 1,368 carriers and operators who have not complied with the FAA's survey request on the Y2K issue. I told the people in that hearing that, today, I would submit the names of the air carriers, manufacturers, or others with FAA certificates who have not responded to the survey to the Senate and put them in the Congressional Record. Today, I ask unanimous consent that a list of 1,368 carriers and operators who have not complied with these surveys be printed in the Record. It lists the States they are from and the names of the businesses that have not complied. I hope that, in the coming days, these businesses will comply and provide the information to the FAA as requested. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list at a cost of $3,122.00, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2241.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a modified version of that amendment be permitted. I send the modification to the desk.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, lastly, all of us have a sense of responsibility to our constituents and the people of this country to act when we have information that raises concerns about the safety of an industry over this new millennium period. Since so many air carriers did not respond to the FAA survey, I have unanswered questions about the safety of these companies to which we deserve the answers. The irresponsibility of these carriers and companies that fail to respond prompts me to offer this amendment which I have already sent to the desk on behalf of Senator Bennett, myself, Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, and Senator Rockefeller. We realize the FAA already has the authority to suspend a carrier's flying privileges under appropriate circumstances. With this proposal, we want to make it explicit that Y2K noncompliance is one of those circumstances. Under the amendment, any air carrier that does not respond by November 1 to the FAA's request for information about their Y2K status may be required to surrender its operating certificate. It is simple. If you don't comply, you don't fly. The FAA will have the authority to keep you grounded. Air carriers do business not by right, but by privilege. Most fulfill their responsibilities with distinction, offering services unmatched by any country on the face of this Earth. Since the Y2K noncompliance of air carriers may raise safety issues, Congress must ensure that the privilege of possessing a certificate can be withdrawn from carriers and manufacturers that fail to give their regulator, the FAA, the information that is central to the safety of the flying public. This amendment does just that. We hope it spurs these carriers and manufacturers to respond to the survey before November 1, and we know it will reassure the public about the safety of the aviation system as we enter this new millennium, just 87 days away. I urge the adoption of the amendment and yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. After World War II the Submarine Force began experimenting with high speed, sophisticated silencing techniques, sensitive sonic detection, and deeper diving designs. Admiral Hyman G. Rickover lead the effort which resulted in the world's first nuclear powered submarine, USS Nautilus, commissioned in 1955. The advent of nuclear propulsion resulted in the first true submarine, a vessel that was truly free to operate unrestricted below the surface of the ocean. Continued development of advanced submarine designs lead to the most capable submarine fleet in the world. The United States Navy, led by Admiral Red Raborn, also fielded the world's first operational submarine launched ballistic missile platform in the world. This force provided invaluable support to our national security and strategic nuclear deterrence. The end of the cold war has been credited in part to the deterrent role that the strategic ballistic submarine played in our nuclear triad. Through the 1980's and 1990's the submarine force has continued to contribute to all aspects of our country's national security strategy from Desert Storm to Yugoslavia. The sailors who have taken our submarines to sea over the years should be commended for their outstanding service and performance. Always on the cutting edge, the submarine force will help the Navy sustain the adaptability necessary to maintain our national security in and around the oceans of our world.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I had no intention to speak on this matter. It is purely coincidence--one might even suggest the hand of the Almighty--that caused me just a few minutes ago to read a column that appeared in the Boston Globe in this particular case, a column that picks up on the very theme the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia has addressed this afternoon. I will read the column into the Congressional Record. I have rarely ever done this, but I found this column so compelling. It corresponds very much to the eloquent words of our colleague from West Virginia and the compelling words of our first American President, George Washington. First of all, we live in a wonderful country that allows people to express their views, whether they be public people or not. The Governor of Minnesota has expressed his views in a national publication that comes to the issue of organized religion. He certainly is entitled to his views, but I think for those of us who disagree with him and, in fact, as public persons, we bear responsibility to challenge those words when they are offensive to millions of Americans, be they Christians, Jews, Muslims, whether or not people who practice their religion in a church, a synagogue, or a mosque. There is every reason to believe that organized religion, if you will, has contributed significantly to the strength and well-being of the Nation. This morning, in a column by E.J. Dionne called the Gospel of Jesse Ventura, he quotes the statements made by the Governor of Minnesota in which the Governor said: Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business. Now, Mr. President, the column: Well, Governor, I have to hand it to you. You've told us over and over that you say what's on your mind and, because of that, you're unlike the average politician. This statement definitely justifies all your self-congratulation. Because you're so honest and tough-minded, I figured you wouldn't mind answering a few questions about your comments. I ask them because none of your explanations after the interview helped me understand your meaning. Perhaps I'm thick-headed and you can bring me to your level of enlightenment. Martin Luther King Jr. was a pastor who led the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. He organized church people to fight for justice. Many who opposed him thought he was sticking his nose into other people's business. In his first major civil rights sermon at the Holt Street Baptist Church in Montgomery, Ala., he declared: ``If we are wrong, Jesus of Nazareth was merely a utopian dreamer and never came down to earth! If we are wrong, justice is a lie!'' Please tell me, Governor, I want to know: Was Martin Luther King Jr. ``weak-minded'' for working through ``organized religion''? While you're at it, were all those civil rights activists, so many motivated by religious faith, ``weak- minded'' for risking their lives in the struggle? Rabbi Abraham Heschel was a brilliant theologian and wrote about the Hebrew prophets. He was moved by his sense of the prophetic to become a leading ally of King's battle for equality. Was he weak-minded? Dietrich Bonhoffer was a German theologian moved by his faith to oppose Hitler. He went to prison and was eventually killed. ``I have discovered,'' he wrote a few weeks before his execution, ``that only by living fully in the world can we learn to have faith.'' Was Dietrich Bonhoffer using his faith as a ``sham and a crutch?'' The Polish workers of the Solidarity trade union movement, inspired by faith and helped immensely by their ``organized religion,'' faced down the Communist dictatorship in Poland. They risked jail and beatings and helped change the world. Was that weak-minded of them? What about those theologians who thought through religious questions and the meaning of life on behalf of all those churchy souls you say need crutches? Were Augustine and Aquinas weak-minded? Were Luther and Calvin? What about 20th- century prophets such as Reinhold Niebuhr and Martin Buber? They were towering intellects, I've always thought, but perhaps I'm blind and you can help me see. I respect and admire the courage you demonstrated in serving our country as a Navy SEAL. But just out of curiosity: Do you think the military chaplains you met were weak-minded? Father Andrew Greeley, the sociologist, has found that ``relationships related to religion'' are clearly the major forces mobilizing volunteers in America. We're talking here about mentors for children, volunteers in homeless programs, those who give comfort at shelters for battered women. Are all these good volunteers just seeking strength in numbers? While you were making money wrestling, Mother Teresa was devoting her life to the poor of Calcutta. Maybe you think she would have been better off in the ring with Disco Inferno. I don't want to get too personal, but I truly want to know what you're trying to tell us. The nuns who taught me in grade school and the Benedictine monks who taught me in high school devoted the whole of their lives to helping young people learn. Was their dedication to others a sign of weakness? The parish I grew up in was full of parents--my own included--whose religious faith motivated them to build a strong community that nurtured us kids. I guess you're telling me those parents I respected were only seeking strength in numbers. Somewhere around 100 million Americans attend religious services in any given week. Sociologists agree we are one of the most religiously observant countries in the world, especially compared to other wealthy nations. Are we a weak- minded country? In explaining your comments afterward, you said: ``This is Playboy; they want you to be provocative.'' Does that mean you would have said something different to the editors of, say, Christianity Today? And, Governor, one last question: Are you tough-minded enough to understand the meaning of the words: ``Your act is wearing thin?''

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I appreciate that. I am very impressed with the level of my colleagues' debate. I commend my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, and my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, for articulating what I think the rationale and support for this amendment means to make a huge difference in our States and localities and to underserved Americans. I have an amendment that I will be offering shortly on behalf of Senator Jeffords and myself, Senator Snowe, and others, on child care. I am prepared to offer that, but I do not want to in any way cut into the debate of my colleague from Florida or others who may want to continue with regard to his particular amendment. Again, I commend him for it. I am delighted to be a cosponsor of it. I think it makes a significant contribution. I point out, in my State alone--I represent the most affluent State in America, something of which I am proud. I also tell you I am not so proud of the fact that the largest increase in child poverty in the country occurred in my State over the last several years--a 60-percent increase in child poverty. So here is a small State, Connecticut, with 3.5 million people, enjoying unprecedented prosperity. Yet in the midst of this small State, we are also finding an unprecedented hardship on the part of a lot of people, particularly young people. One out of every five children in my State is growing up in poverty. What the Senator from Florida and the Senator from Minnesota have offered is some relief for people in that category, to see to it that they might also enjoy the prosperity of our country. Meals on Wheels, adult day care, foster care--there is a wide variety of other issues. But as my colleagues know, I have tried to focus my attention, over the years, particularly on children and their needs; and hence the amendment I will offer with Senator Jeffords in a moment on child care and afterschool care. But I realize this amendment being offered by the Senator from Florida covers more than just children. For example, it covers adult day care. Three generations living under the same roof--we find that a more frequent occurrence in our society. The wonderful advances in medicine allow people to live longer, more fruitful lives, but it also creates generational burdens in many ways. So this is not an unreasonable request for a nation of almost 280 million people to see to it that those who are the least well off-- carrying some of the most significant burdens--can also share in the prosperity we are enjoying. That is what I think we would all like to think of when we talk about America: a nation where there is equal opportunity. What this amendment does is create opportunity. It does not guarantee success, but it gives people a chance to maximize their potential. For those reasons, I strongly urge the adoption of the amendment, and again I am pleased to be a cosponsor. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill. I call up amendment No. 1813

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Jeffords, Senator Snowe, Senator Kennedy, Senator Murray, Senator Levin, and others. Let me begin these remarks by apologizing to my colleagues who, once again, are being asked to vote on a child care amendment. The obvious question raised is, Why am I voting on this for the third or fourth time? The simple reason is--and I appreciate the votes. We have had good votes in the Senate, and strong bipartisan votes on this issue. But for a variety of reasons, which I will not take the time of this body to go into, the matter has been dropped in conference, or bills have died, or for other reasons. So despite the good and strong and positive efforts on behalf of Members of the Senate, we have not been able to adopt the language on child care that my colleagues, by overwhelming votes, have adopted already in these past 10 months. Again, Senator Jeffords, myself, and Senator Snowe are proposing this amendment. It is somewhat different than the other ones in this regard only. Earlier, amendments dealing with the child care proposal actually had mandatory spending in them. This is discretionary spending. In fact, the amendment I am offering--properly the credit goes to Senator Chafee of Rhode Island, who has been a champion on child care issues. This amendment is basically the Chafee amendment on child care that we think is deserving of our support on a bipartisan basis. By increasing margins, as I have indicated, this body has supported additional funding for the child care block grant. The first vote we had was 57-43, the second vote was 60-33, and by the third vote it was unanimously adopted. I apologize again at the outset for asking my colleagues, once again, to cast a child care vote since you think you have done so, and already you have. But basically our opportunity to provide some additional funding is still the same. The arguments have not changed. The bill hasn't changed, except this is discretionary and not mandatory, and obviously the need across our country has not changed over the last number of months. I will take a few minutes. We have a very short time agreement on this amendment. We have debated it extensively over the past year. I don't want to take any more of this Chamber's time than is necessary on this amendment. But the amendment would increase child care assistance to working families by doubling the discretionary fund in the child care development block grant from $1 billion to $2 billion. I continue to believe the best place for a child to be is with their parents. That is the best place--no question about it. But when both parents are working--as many do in this country, trying to put food on the table, a roof over their children's heads--that is difficult. When there is only one parent--regretfully, that happens too often in our society--you can imagine the burdens on a single parent who has to work and also has young children and trying to provide for child care needs. So the reality is that good, affordable child care is a necessity. In the absence of parental care, we try to do the best we can to approximate the kind of care that parents would give. That is what this amendment is all about. The child care block grant is almost a decade old. My good friend and colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, and I authored the child care block grant almost a decade ago. It won support and the signature of President Bush who signed the legislation into law, and it has provided a lot of decent assistance to people over the years. It provides direct financial assistance to help families pay for child care and does not dictate where that care must be provided. Parents across this country can choose a child care center as the child care provider. They can choose a home-based provider, a neighbor, a church, a relative, or whatever they think is best for that child. We leave that entirely up to the parents to make that decision. This block grant is also the largest source of Federal funding for critical afterschool programs. Again, we all appreciate, I think, the growing need for afterschool care. I point out to my colleagues that 30 percent of the child care block grant is used by parents to pay for care to school-age children. That translates into almost $1 billion a year. That is a major, major source of assistance to parents who worry about who is watching their children after school in State after State across our country. The only downside to this now almost decade-old program is that it has been underfunded because of the lack of resources. The Child Care and Development Block Grant Act is available only to 1 in 10 eligible families in America today. Despite all the efforts over the years--and I appreciate the votes and the support we have received--still only one 1 in 10 eligible families get any assistance under this program. Because of a lack of resources States have been getting under the block grant--it goes to the States--States have had to severely ration child care assistance to families in need. So what States have done is they create a threshold, a dollar threshold, an income threshold. They say that anybody above that threshold cannot get the child care development block grant assistance. They have lowered the threshold--that is all the time--because the scarce dollars mean that they can only provide it to some families. Let me explain what I mean. Two-thirds of all of the States in the United States have cut this child care assistance to families earning under $25,000 a year--two- thirds of all the States. Fourteen of those States have cut off all assistance to families earning over $20,000 a year, and eight States even ration the funds more stringently. In the States of Wyoming, Alabama, Missouri, Kentucky, Iowa South Carolina, and West Virginia, if you are a family earning in excess of $17,000, you get no child care assistance. I don't know how a family making $17,000 a year trying to work--this is a working family; I am not talking about somebody getting welfare. These are working people. If you are a working mother, and you have a $17,000-a-year income, you have two children, you do not have child care. I am sorry. You don't. You may be lucky and have a grandmother, aunt, or next-door neighbor, and probably juggling it every day. But if you are in those eight States, even in one of those 22 States, and make $20,000 or less, I don't know how people do it. That is because we have underfunded for the block grant. I am not going to be able to take care of everybody. Senator Jeffords, Senator Snowe, I, and others who have supported these amendments know we are not going to make a difference for every family. But if we can get a little more money by doubling this amendment from $1 billion to $2 billion in this discretionary program, maybe these States--we think they will--will raise those threshold levels, and as a result, more families in these States will get that kind of good child care assistance that they need. Let me tell you how bad this problem is. Even with these stringent income eligibility requirements that I have just enumerated, consider the waiting list that exists across America. I will not recite all 50 States. Let me tell you for almost every State that we have, the numbers are high. In California, there are 200,000 children waiting for a child care slot, even with the income levels as low as they are. So even when you have an income level of $17,000 or lower to get child care, or $20,000 or lower, there are 200,000 children in those States whose parents qualify financially. They are earning less than $20,000. But because there are so few funds, 200,000 are on a waiting list. Texas, 34,000; Massachusetts, 15,000; Pennsylvania, almost 13,000; Alabama, 19,000; Georgia, in excess of 12,000. The list goes on. These are families that are meeting those income criteria. But even with the income criteria, there are not enough dollars to go around to provide child care to these families. There is a waiting list even with these low-income levels. Other States ration their limited child care dollars by paying child care providers poverty level wages. That is hardly the way to ensure good, quality child care. Again, the lowest paid teachers in America are child care providers. What a great irony. I don't think anyone argues we probably ought to have the best prepared teachers for the most vulnerable of our society--kids. A case could be made, I suppose, that someone in a higher education institution needed less care. But imagine a 6-month- old baby and the person who watches that 6-month-old, 1-year-old child is one of the lowest paid workers. I am urging my colleagues to adopt this amendment so we can raise some of the income levels, we can get a few more dollars to the child care providers who are so necessary, and we can also see if we cannot help our Governors raise some of the income levels. We have voted on this now three times. I am deeply apologetic to my colleagues. I have had unanimous support for this amendment as recently as a few months ago. Because of bills dying or being dropped in conference, we are back at it again. I apologize for taking the time of my colleagues on this amendment that Senator Jeffords and I have offered. We cannot let this issue go away. It is too important to too many families. I thank publicly Senator Abraham of Michigan, Senator Campbell of Colorado, Senator Chafee, Senator Collins, Senator DeWine, Senator Frist, Senator Hatch, Senator Jeffords, Senator Roberts, Senator Snowe, Senator Specter, Senator Warner, and more. I will not read the entire list of Republican colleagues who have been supportive of this amendment. The Senators have made a difference voting for this. I thank the Senators for their support. The votes I had then were for the mandatory program. This is discretionary funding. It is substantially different. Some in the past may have said vote for this, it is mandatory; this is a discretionary program. Obviously, we are dealing with Senator Specter's bill. It is different in that regard, probably less of a problem politically for some. I am deeply grateful for the strong bipartisan support and I am confident we will have support again this afternoon on this issue which has developed strong bipartisan interest in this body. My principal cosponsor from Vermont is here. I want to make sure he has some time to talk about this.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and I thank so many of our Republican friends who worked with us on a bipartisan basis. I thank the manager, my good friend from Pennsylvania. We have been together many years. We both first arrived in this Chamber and we worked so closely together back 20 years ago, in 1981, on a caucus for children. It seems like a long time ago. Senator Specter, on numerous occasions, has been a real stalwart battler and fighter on behalf of the Child Care Block Grant Program. I am deeply grateful to him for his support on that. Senator Johnson desires to be added as a cosponsor. I know my colleague from Pennsylvania wants to be heard on this. I thank my colleague from Vermont and I thank my colleague from Maine. I thank Senator Chafee who has been a champion on this issue. The mandatory bill is gone and we are down to the discretionary bill. I apologize, I say to the manager. I know Members think we vote on this issue every other day, but each time we have been dropped in conference despite unanimous votes in the Senate on this issue. I hope, as the Senator from Vermont has said, the fourth time may be a charm and we will be able to provide some additional funds on a very worthwhile and needed program. I, again, thank my colleague for yielding. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, briefly, this is an amendment we have voted on--this is the fourth time in the last 7 months. I thank my colleagues for the bipartisan support that the Dodd-Jeffords-Snowe and others amendment has been given. Unfortunately, it has been dropped in conference in the past so it has not been adopted. It was adopted unanimously by this body only a few weeks ago. Prior to that, it was a 66-33 vote. Unlike the previous votes, this is discretionary funding, not mandatory funding. It tries to deal with the issue of child care, something about which we all care. We now know today that 1 in 10 families is struggling to make ends meet. They are the poorest families in America and are working every day and not on public assistance. Today, in 25 States, if you earn more than $20,000, you do not qualify for child care assistance. I don't know how a family of four, earning $20,000 a year, with young children--where the parents are working, where they need to place these children in a safe place during the day--can afford that without some help. For 10 years now, since Senator Hatch and I sponsored the child care development block grant that was adopted, this Congress has supported a child care program. Today, we want to serve more than just the 1 in 10 that is being served. This amendment does that. My colleagues have voted for it in the past. I urge my colleagues to do so again.

Mr. DODD. I object.

Mr. DODD. I yield back all time except 1 minute to sum up.

Mr. DODD. I appreciate my colleague's very gracious comments on this, and I appreciate the burden he is under. It is not easy to be the chairman of a committee. You have responsibilities to meet and you have a lot of good requests that come your way. I would make the case to my colleagues, I think there has been a strong indication this is a matter in which we have been able to come together. We were so divided on so many issues, but on child care we found common ground three times already in the last 7 or 8 months, the three votes that have been cast on this issue. In fact, the previous ones were on mandatory spending. This one is discretionary, so it ought to be somewhat more palatable for people. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Pennsylvania on how much is already committed. But, of course, I still make the case it still only serves 1 in 10 families--I know he knows--and there are a lot of people on waiting lists, thousands in each State, even with the income levels down. As I said, in 8 States it is $17,000 less; in 14 States, it is $20,000 less. I don't know how a family earning $20,000 a year with all the other financial burdens they have also can meet a child care expense they may have. So while I am deeply appreciative of the quandary he is in, I make a case this strengthens the likelihood we might get 51 votes for the bill. It is the kind of bipartisan proposal that has enjoyed so much support. It was unanimously adopted only a few weeks ago, so that it might, in fact, bring some people who would feel otherwise disinclined to support the legislation, but doing something, as he properly points out, for working families--it is all working folks now--trying to make ends meet, hold their families together. I know he knows this. I know he cares about it deeply. I hope in the coming minutes before the vote occurs on this, while people may have voted one way on a variety of different bills, on this one, this amendment, they might say: On this one, we ought to, with forward funding, find that extra $900 million so we can make a difference for these families. I am deeply appreciative of his kind words and his continuing efforts and fight. I was going to facetiously suggest, since his wonderful daughter-in-law and son went into the business, maybe the chairman might have to recuse himself on the vote since he may be compelled to vote to table. I say that only facetiously. I am delighted his daughter-in-law and son have felt the need to be involved in the issue, and I am not surprised, knowing the Senator and his spouse, that their children would want to carry on this terrific tradition they have started.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may I inquire, do we move now to the Dodd amendment?

Mr. DODD. Regular order. I ask unanimous consent to have a voice vote on the Dodd amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague, there is obviously a different vote count on the tabling motion than there is on a point of order. I would argue the point of order, but I am hoping----

Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1886