Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, point of order: Is the question now on the Dodd amendment? Amendment No. 1821

Mr. DODD. If my colleague yields, we will yield back whatever time we have. I realize he is trying to move things along.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a Senate resolution to reauthorize the Jacob K. Javits Senate Fellowship Program. This program was created in 1985 to honor the life work of our former colleague, Senator Jacob K. Javits, who served the people of New York with distinction and legislative acumen for many years. The Senate expanded this program and reauthorized it for 5 years in 1988 and reauthorized the program again in 1993 for another 5 years. The resolution I am introducing today will reauthorize this outstanding program for another 5 years through September 30, 2004. The Javits Fellowship Program authorizes up to 10 fellowship participants each year to be placed by the Secretary of the Senate, in consultation with the Majority Leader and Minority Leader, in positions in the Senate. To the extent practical, such positions should be supportive of the fellowship participants' academic programs. My office has been the beneficiary of this program and found the Javits fellows to be talented, energetic, and of great assistance to the work of the Senate. I thank my colleague, the chairman of the Rules Committee, Senator McConnell, for his assistance in moving this resolution. I urge its adoption.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me begin my brief remarks by commending our colleague from the State of Washington for her leadership on this issue once again. She has, on numerous occasions over the last few years, raised the issue of class size as one critical to improving the quality of public education in the country, and she is doing so again this afternoon with the introduction of this amendment. I am pleased to be a cosponsor and hope we can build strong bipartisan support for it. There is no question that the size of a class, the number of students in a classroom, and academic performance bear a correlation. My State of Connecticut has one of the lowest ratios between teachers and students in the United States. The most recent statistics indicate that class size in Connecticut hovers just over 20 students per class. A couple of States actually are lower, but the national average is around 25--about 5 additional students per class. Also, we in Connecticut make other investments in education. We pay our teachers well. We also have led the nation in the adoption of high standards for student performance measured with the Connecticut Mastery Test and with support for whole school reform. I note this, because it is these investments that have shown such dividends in Connecticut. It is no mystery that we end up, in national surveys, at the top in the country in academic performance. I do not know how many of my colleagues this morning noted in the Washington Post an article entitled ``Students Weak In Essay Skills.'' The top State in performance was Connecticut, by a margin of some 12 percentage points, in essays by 4th graders, 8th graders, and 12th graders. I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. I ask for 1 additional minute and yield to my colleague from New Jersey for any comments he may have.

Mr. DODD. This news follows on reports earlier this year that indicate Connecticut students lead the nation in reading performance and in math and science. In my state, we have invested in class size, we have invested in teachers. As a result of that, we are getting this kind of academic performance. Not everywhere in the state, performs at these high levels and frankly even in the most affluent parts of my state, too many children fail to reach the advanced levels of performance that we know will be needed to succeed in the next century. What we are suggesting today is, if this works for children, and all the studies as well as the experiences of states like mine suggest, then we should be helping all communities to achieve these smaller class sizes that will help their children succeed. If this amendment is defeated and this appropriations bill is passed without the inclusion of the Murray amendment, it is tantamount to this body giving a pink slip to 29,000 teachers in America. Pay attention to this debate today. We will vote at about 4 p.m. If this body rejects this amendment, then 29,000 teachers will know, as of this date in September, their services are no longer needed in the classrooms of America. If anyone believes that by having more students and fewer teachers, we are going to improve the quality of public education in this country, they are living in a dream world. That is not the way we are going to raise the level of excellence, whether it is essay writing, math performance--all the academic criteria we seek to improve. One thing is for certain. If we continue to have fewer teachers and larger classes, we can almost guarantee the results. We will have declining academic performance. Clearly, there are other important issues in education. We are not arguing that we do not need high quality teachers--in fact, this is what this amendment supports, or that after school and other efforts are not needed. But the central component of education is what happens in the classroom. And any teacher in any school in this country will tell you that if they have to manage 20, 23, 25, 30, 35 students in a classroom, they cannot teach. I don't care how good you are, you cannot manage 25 or 30 students in a classroom. You cannot teach young children the fundamentals of reading, math and science if forced to deal with this number of children. So this amendment, the Murray amendment, is critically important if you care about this issue. You cannot go around and say, I care about education, I am a strong supporter of it, and then walk away from class size as an issue. I hope when this amendment comes for a vote, people will get behind it. By the way, about block grants, we have been down this road in the past. Suggesting somehow if we throw it in a block grant program, it would suddenly all work. I hoped we would have learned the lesson by now. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. There is no accountability for how federal dollars are spent; too often in the past, we have found these dollars ending up in athletic programs, in administrative accounts and in other such expenditures. State and local dollars are not targeted to areas with great need unlike federal dollars. Block grants don't work because the politics are not there for it at the state and local level or else the states would already be spending their dollars this way. So, yes, we bear a national responsibility. We are a national legislature. We try to speak for our country on these issues. I am from Connecticut. Maybe I should not care what happens in Mississippi, Alabama, or New Mexico, but I do. I do not think I am wrong because I do care. I think if a child in Mississippi or Alabama is in too large a class, I suffer, my constituents in Connecticut suffer. The idea that somehow we are 50 disparate States and we do not have to worry about it, we hope each State chooses the right priorities, is ducking our responsibility as a national legislature. When a crying gap exists in an area such as this, we bear a collective responsibility to address it and a block grant program just does not do it. So I hope that we can all join together to support the Murray amendment and this flexible program that supports high quality teachers, targets lowest income areas and sends all the money down to the local level. It is what parents across the country are calling for and voters support and I urge the adoption of this amendment. This amendment is just the first of several efforts we will have during the next hours and days to improve the quality of the bill before us. While there are certainly things to be praised in the efforts of Senator Harkin and Senator Specter, this bill falls short in other ways. Even as we debate it, I understand that exactly how it is paid for is still unclear--we know there will be significant advance funding, potentially additional Defense items will be declared emergencies freeing up more budget authority and outlays. One of the most disturbing offsets contained in the bill is the reduction in the Social Services Block Grant, Title XX, which is slashed almost in half. This flexible program supports local efforts like meals on wheels, child care, adult day care, foster care, child abuse protection, programs for those with disabilities and other local efforts to respond to the neediest in our communities. How does it make sense to cut this program to pay for other programs for those in need? I believe we should also do better by way of funding for afterschool, literacy training, school construction and child care. On this last item, later in the day, Senator Jeffords and I will be offering an amendment on the Child Care Development Block Grant Program to increase funding for this critical program funding to $2 billion. My colleagues have been so good on this issue over the last year. We have had overwhelming votes on this question over and over again this year. Clearly we know child care is grossly underfunded. Many States have responded to this underfunding and set very low income eligibility levels: Two-thirds of the States have income levels of $25,000 or less; 14 States, $20,000; 8 States are even more stringent. Wyoming, Alabama, Missouri, Kentucky, Iowa, South Carolina, and West Virginia cut off subsidies for child care for families earning more than $17,000. I do not know how a family earning $17,000 a year can afford child care, which for an infant or toddler can run nearly half of that amount. And this program is not just about child care for young children; nearly 30 percent of these funds go to support afterschool programs. I am hopeful my colleagues, when that amendment is raised, will be supportive of it. They have been helpful in the past. I apologize for coming back to the issue. We had a good provision adopted in the tax bill, but it was dropped in conference, and the bill was vetoed. I apologize for coming back to child care over and over, but we have as yet been able to adopt the provisions my colleagues voted for on numerous occasions. I hope they do so again when Senator Jeffords and I offer the amendment. But let's move forward, Mr. President. Let's consider and adopt the Murray amendment. Let's move on to hopefully improve this bill. But let's get on with the people's business. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kelly Green Kahn, a fellow in my office, be given the privilege of the floor during the remainder of this debate.

Mr. DODD. I yield to the Senator 3 minutes.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation introduced by my colleague, the distinguished Senior Senator from Mississippi, Thad Cochran, and myself earlier this week, the Education for Democracy Act, which will continue successful efforts to enhance citizenship among our nation's youth. Over the last decade, there has been much discussion about the purposes, successes and failures of American schools. We talk about how schools hold in trust our nation's future--the next generation of workers, parents and artists. One of the most important, and perhaps least mentioned, roles that today's students will play tomorrow is as citizens. Yet, in too many schools citizenship education is an afterthought to an American history or government course. The Education for Democracy Act will reauthorize a highly successful program established by Congress in 1985 that helps meet these needs. The We the People . . . the Citizen and the Constitution program has demonstrated its effectiveness in fostering a reasoned commitment to the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy among elementary and secondary education students. Now in its twelfth year, this program has provided 24 million students with instruction and learning opportunities that enable them to meet the highest standards of achievement in civics and government and that encourages active and responsible participation in government. Studies have shown students benefit across the board from their exposure to this powerful program. An Educational Testing Service study found that students at upper elementary, middle and high schools levels significantly out performed comparison students on all topics studied. Even more impressive were the results of a comparison of a random sample of high school students in the program with a group of sophomores and juniors in political science courses at a major university. The We the People . . . high schools students outperformed the university students on every topic tested. Finally, an analysis of student voter registration at the Clark County School District in Las Vegas, Nevada revealed that 80 percent of the seniors in the program registered to vote compared to a school average among seniors of 37 percent. Many of us here in this chamber are fortunate to have experienced first-hand the quality of this program. Each spring, outstanding classes of students from the around the country come to Washington to participate in the final round of national competitive hearings on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. While these students' knowledge of the Constitution is impressive, what is most striking is the students' excitement about the Constitution and their government. This legislation would assure that students across the nation will continue to have access to this quality program. In addition, it would assure all of us of a stronger foundation for our country's future. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this legislation forward and would urge others to join us as sponsors of this important measure.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the resolution before the Senate today which authorizes funding for 18 Senate standing committees through the remainder of the biennium ending on February 28, 2001. This resolution marks another milestone in the development of the biennial funding authority for committees, first authorized in the 100th Congress. Since 1989, the Senate has funded committees on a two- year basis. The two-year budget has given the authorizing committees, and the Rules Committee in its capacity as the oversight committee, a management tool for efficiently operating the Senate committees. The two-year budget process allows for a continuity of funding which provides greater flexibility in allocating committee funds and scheduling committee business. Although the Rules Committee has adjusted the biennial funding authority in the past to provide greater flexibility to committees, the Senate has consistently approved a biennial budget for committee funding in each of the last six Congresses. In the 106th Congress, changes in the Senate financial management system required to address Y2K issues necessitated a departure from the Senate rules and past practices. In the past, the Rules Committee completed action on the biennial committee funding resolution prior to the beginning of the new biennium on March 1 of the new Congress, as provided for in Rule XXVI of the Senate Rules. Due to the pressing business of the Senate at the beginning of the Congress, and in light of a number of unresolved issues regarding the implementation of the new financial management system in the Senate, the majority and minority staff of the Committee jointly recommended delaying committee action on the biennial budget until later in the year. Consequently, the Committee proposed, and the Senate adopted, S. Res. 38 on February 12 of this year, which authorized the Rules Committee to report a continuing resolution for committee funding for the period of March 1, 1999 through September 30, 1999. Subsequently, the Committee adopted, and the Senate passed, S. Res. 49 which funded 18 standing committees on a continuing basis for this period. In June, the Senate passed S. Res. 122, which required the authorizing committee to report their funding resolution by July 15 of this year and authorized the Rules Committee to report an omnibus funding resolution for the remainder of the biennium, ending on February 28, 2001. S. Res. 189 before us today is the culmination of this process. This resolution preserves the overall flexibility of a two-year budget while modifying past practices to reflect changes in the Senate's financial management system. At the recommendation of the Senate Disbursing Office, this resolution moves the committee budget year from two equal funding periods, within the overall two-year budget, of March 1 through February 28, to three varying funding periods which track the Senate's fiscal year period. S. Res. 49 provided funding for the first of the three periods, March 1 through September 30, 1999. S. Res. 189 authorizes committee spending during each of the next two periods of the biennium: October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2000, and finally, October 1, 2000 through February 28, 2001. It is anticipated that the biennial funding resolution adopted in the 107th Congress will once again follow Senate Rule XXVI and be adopted prior to March 1, 2001, providing funding for committees for the three fiscal year periods occurring during the biennium ending February 28, 2003. Most importantly, this resolution continues a practice begun by the Rules Committee in 1993 referred to as the ``special reserves.'' Special reserves result from the overlap in the end of the committee funding year on February 28 and the end of the fiscal year on September 30. The unobligated balances of the authorizing committee budgets which are unspent at the end of the biennium on February 28, but which remain available through the end of the fiscal year on September 30, are reprogrammed into special reserves and made available to the committees to meet their unforseen needs. The Rules Committee first authorized the use of special reserves in the 103rd Congress in S. Res. 71, section 23. In that resolution, the Senate authorized special reserves to be reprogrammed as carry-over funds for the committees. In the 104th Congress, the Rules Committee reported S. Res. 73, section 22 of which continued the authorization for special reserves, but eliminated the authorization for automatic carry-over and replaced it with a procedure whereby the chairman and ranking member of the authorizing committee could jointly request a draw on the special reserves, subject to the joint approval of the chairman and ranking member of the Rules Committee. This procedure, and the authorization for special reserves, was continued in the 105th Congress in S. Res. 54, section 22. Finally, in the 106th Congress, S. Res. 49, which provided funding for committees on a continuing basis through September 30, 1999, also contained, in section 20, the authority for special reserves. This authority continued the procedure first adopted in the 104th Congress providing that the chair and ranking member of the authorizing committee jointly request a draw on special reserves, subject to the joint approval of the chair and ranking member of the Rules Committee. Although section 20 of S. Res. 189 continues the authority for special reserves, and the procedure by which such reserves are accessed by committees, this resolution reflects an important change in the calculation of the special reserves amount. Prior to the 106th Congress, special reserves represented a reprogramming of unobligated balances that automatically occurred when the committee funding authorization ended on February 28. With the changes necessitated by the new financial management system, committee funding authorizations now track the fiscal year. Consequently, there is no overlap between the end of the committee funding year and the end of the fiscal year. Therefore, in order to assure that sufficient funds remain available in the appropriations Investigations and Inquiries account to fund the unforseen needs of committees, the Rules Committee specified a funding level for special reserves. That funding level is based on the historic amount that has been available to the Committee for special reserves in the past three Congresses. I want to commend our chairman, Senator McConnell, for shepherding this resolution to the Senate floor. His leadership during this transition year has ensured that the committees have received sufficient funds while allowing the Committee time to adjust to the new financial management system. I especially commend the chairman for continuing the special reserves provision and for the responsible manner in which he has proposed to fund special reserves. This provision ensures that the Rules Committee can continue to hold committee funding to its historic levels, while retaining the flexibility to meet the unforseen needs that may result. I urge adoption of this resolution.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I rise to support the Daschle resolution. There is a difference. It says something about any institution in terms of how it prioritizes its agenda, and it says volumes about where the leadership in this Congress is that puts as the last issue for us to discuss and debate the Education appropriations bill. We are last. This is the last one to be considered, despite the fact the American public has said on numerous occasions over the last year or so that they think this is the most important issue. They apparently think it is the least important issue because they have decided to put it at the end of the day. When everything else is taken care of, now we will see if there is anything left over for education. We have a different point of view. We say we ought to do this first because this is the Nation's No. 1 priority. If we lack an educated society, if we fail to provide opportunities for children and their families to learn, then every other issue will suffer accordingly. The U.S. Government contributes about 7 percent--7 cents on every dollar--that goes to fund elementary and secondary education. That is our commitment. What we are talking about is as much as a 17-percent cut of that 7 percent. It will be one thing if we are talking about the Federal Government doing the lion's share of the work in education. We are not. We have a paltry 7 percent that we help contribute to the education of America's young people. Now we are talking as much as a 17-percent cut of that 7 percent. There is a sense of frustration one can hear in our voices because the American people are frustrated. They understand that for this Nation to succeed in the 21st century, it must have the best prepared, best educated generation we have ever produced. Yet here we are with every other appropriations bill having been passed but this one, the last one. What does it mean in real terms to the American public? It means in real terms there can be a lot fewer children who will get child care, a lot fewer who will get Head Start--about 140,000 of them--a $1.3 billion cut in title I, an $880 million cut in special education. Let me tell you how important that one is. Ask any mayor of any city in this country whether or not special education dollars are important to them. Put aside, if you will, the needs of families, which I think speak for themselves. But one of the rising costs for our communities across this country is the staggering cost of educating a special needs child. Yet when we are talking about $880 million in cuts for special education, how do we expect our communities to meet that tremendous challenge for those children? I respect the Ed-Flex bill. We all voted for it. But to call that major education policy--that does not even come close to being major education policy. It is worthy, but it is not the answer. I think it is things such as class size, school safety, Pell grants for needy families, and certainly doing what we can to see to it there is equal opportunity in education all across this country. I have school districts in my State where my communities have the resources, and they have every imaginable technological opportunity. But I can take you to a school 15 minutes away in inner cities where you will find four or five computers for a student body of 2,000. I come from an affluent State, but most of our educational funding comes from the local level. There are disparities that exist in every one of our States--huge disparities. When all the U.S. Government does is 7 percent--7 cents on the dollar comes from us--with a huge disparity in opportunity, to suggest somehow we have done enough with the Ed-Flex bill and that is all we need to worry about in 1999 in preparation for the 21st century I do not think convinces the American public we are there. The Daschle bill is something I will support but, candidly, we ought to be voting on a funding resolution on education, not a sense of the Senate that we ought to deal with education. I am disappointed that is not before us. But of the two propositions in front of us, the Daschle proposal at least lays out the fact we ought to be voting on the funding measures and not stealing from education to pay for every other program in this country. Education ought to come first. That is where we stand, and that is what our resolution suggests.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, earlier today, there was a memorial service for former AFL-CIO president, Joseph Land Kirkland, on the campus of Georgetown University. I was deeply saddened to hear of Lane's passing and would like to reflect for just a few moments on his life and his enormous contribution to organized labor in America. Lane Kirland spent virtually his entire working life in the service of his country. As a young man, he enrolled in the first class of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and served the duration of World War II as a transport officer. Following the war, Lane went back to school, taking night classes at Georgetown, and received a degree in foreign relations in 1948. He intended to enter the foreign service and represent American interests abroad, but shortly after graduation he took a low-level research position with the American Federation of Labor. That seemingly temporary sidestep would become the consuming mission of his working life. An unlikely labor leader, born of a well-to-do southern family and schooled in international relations, Lane became a strong advocate for justice in the workplace and a champion of human dignity. From 1948 until, some would say, the day he died, he fought for working people--for higher wages, better health care, and greater protections for workers health and safety. It is a credit to his skill, intellect and unflagging determination that he was elected president of the AFL-CIO in 1979, a post he faithfully held for 16 years. Lane was a titan of the American labor movement. A man of great personal strength, Lane used his talent and energy to act upon his convictions, uniting people of diverse backgrounds and improving the lives of countless working families across this country and around the world. During Lane's tenure as president, organized labor faced ever- increasing challenges which called for strong, decisive leadership. With union membership declining across the country, Lane fought successfully to unite the Nation's largest and best-known unions under the AFL-CIO, guaranteeing the continued vitality of organized labor and ensuring it a position in American political discourse well into the 21st century. His vision for trade unionism did not stop at the water's edge. Under Lane's stewardship, the AFL-CIO reached out to workers around the world. Like few others at the time, Lane understood the global struggle embodied in the cold war. He was a man of great insight, and he realized that a fair workplace could be used as a lever to create a fairer society. Ardently anticommunist, Lane believed personal freedom was the right of every man, woman, and child and saw the union as a vehicle of freedom. Thus, he supported trade unions in China, Cuba, South Africa, Chile, and Poland, where unions were severely suppressed and personal freedoms denied. When Solidarity assumed power in Poland, Lane's faith in the power of trade unions and lifetime of work to build them were irrefutably vindicated. With Lane's passing, a bright light for trade unions has been extinguished. He will be greatly missed. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Irena, and his family.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on Friday, July 16, 1999, I was necessarily absent during Senate action on rollcall vote No. 211, a motion to invoke cloture on Amendment No. 297, a Lott amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 557, an original bill to provide guidance for the designation of emergencies as a part of the budget process. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted against cloture.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin. Sworn in on January 10, 1995, as the 70th Secretary of the Treasury, Bob Rubin resigned earlier this month. Prior to serving in the administration, Secretary Rubin spent 26 years at Goldman, Sachs, & Co., starting as an associate and leaving as co-chairman and co-senior partner. We have had few Secretaries of the Treasury who have brought such knowledge and expertise to the job. His tenure as Secretary was marked by a steady, even-handed approach to economic policy in this country. He served in a critical time in our Nation's history. On his watch, the United States has dramatically increased its role as a leader in the global marketplace. The past 4 years have been marked by turbulent economic times, and with his leadership we have weathered numerous international financial storms, including the Asian financial crisis, the Mexico peso devaluation, and the ongoing economic turmoil of the former Soviet Union. Under Secretary Rubin's leadership, we have maintained fiscal discipline. In 1992, the budget deficit was $290 billion, the largest dollar deficit on record. Last year, the budget surplus was nearly $70 billion, the largest dollar surplus on record. Under Secretary Rubin, we have had a robust economy with strong job creation, inflation virtually nonexistent, and unemployment at its lowest rate in 29 years. His economic accomplishments are staggering. Over the past 4 years, 18.4 million new jobs have been created. Also, the unemployment rate was 4.3 percent in April 1999, which is the lowest in 29 years. At the time of Secretary Rubin's start in 1992, unemployment was at 7.5 percent. In fact, the unemployment rate has been below 5 percent for 22 months in a row--the lowest sustained unemployment rate in 29 years. After adjusting for inflation, wages have increased almost 2.7 percent in 1998--that is the fastest real wage growth in more than two decades and the third year in a row--the longest sustained growth since the early 1970s. Inflation is the lowest since the 1950s. In fact, inflation was at 1.4 percent for the beginning of 1999. I think the greatest tribute to Secretary Rubin has been the reaction of the financial markets to his departure. Our financial markets have responded with continued stable growth. Investors, both domestic and abroad, understand that the only way that Bob Rubin would consent to leave his post is if he felt that the U.S. economy was healthy and heading in the right direction. While I am saddened with Secretary Rubin's departure, I can think of no better replacement to fill the top post at Treasury than Larry Summers. I believe that it is critical that there be a smooth transition from one Treasury Secretary to another. Secretary Summers' leadership will provide a seamless transition and continuity to ensure stability in our financial markets. Secretary Summers' extensive academic expertise and tenure as Deputy Treasury Secretary make him an invaluable addition to the Cabinet. I am confident of his leadership ability and a strong believer that he will make an excellent Secretary of the Treasury. Bob Rubin has represented the best in public service, and our nation truly owes him a debt of gratitude. His tireless leadership helped put our fiscal house in order, but--just as important--helped forge a strong and vibrant economy that has created jobs and economic opportunity for millions of Americans. With his impressive financial expertise and background, he uniquely understood that government and business could work together so that everyone could benefit from economic expansion. And though he fought to make our nation a leader in the global marketplace--Bob Rubin ultimately understood the most important street in our nation was not just Wall Street, but Main Street. America is better off today because of Bob Rubin. I would like to thank him for his service to our nation and wish him all the best in his next endeavor. I would also like to congratulate Secretary Summers on his new position. I am confident of his success and I look forward to continuing to work with him.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator DeWine in introducing the Child Care Facilities Financing Act. This bill would help ease a significant crisis in this country--the shortage of adequate child care, particularly in low-income communities. The demand for child care is not being met by the current supply, especially for low-income children. Approximately 50% of children from families with household incomes of $10,000 or less are enrolled in child care or early education programs, whereas over 75% of children from families with household incomes over $75,000 are enrolled in such programs. According to the GAO, the child care supply shortage will worsen as work participation rates required under welfare reform increase over the next few years. The situation is particularly troublesome for infant and school-aged care. For example, in Chicago, the percentage of the demand that can be met by the known supply of child care providers will be only 12% for infants and 17% for school-aged children in the year 2002 if a greater supply is not created. The situation is even more dire in poor neighborhoods. One factor contributing to the child care shortage is the difficulty that would-be providers face in financing child care facility development. Child care providers are often viewed by financial institutions as risky for loans. Child care equipment and facility needs are unique, making for poor collateral. In low-income neighborhoods, child care providers face severely restricted revenues and low real estate values. In urban areas, would-be child care providers must contend with buildings in poor physical condition and high property costs. In all areas, reimbursement rates for child care subsidies are generally too low to cover the recovery cost of purchasing or developing facilities, especially after allowing for the cost of running the program. In addition, new providers often have no business training, and may need to learn how to manage their finances and business. The Child Care Facilities Financing Act would provide grants to intermediary organizations, enabling them to provide financial and technical assistance to existing or new child care providers -- including both center-based and home-based child care. The financial assistance may be in the form of loans, grants, investments, or other assistance, allowing for flexibility depending on the situation of the child care provider. The assistance may be used for acquisition, construction, or renovation of child care facilities or equipment. It may also be used for improving child care management and business practices. Additionally, intermediary organizations are required to match grant dollars with significant private sector investments, leveraging federal funding and creating valuable public/private partnerships. The added benefit in providing this kind of assistance is that it will spur further community and economic development. When parents can work with the knowledge that their children are adequately cared for, they become more reliable and productive workers. When the economic situation of families improve, distressed communities become revitalized. Let me provide you with an example from my state of how financial assistance for child care development has helped alleviate dire situations. In one low-income neighborhood in New Haven, CT, there are 2500 children under the age of 5, but only 200 spaces in licensed child care facilities. For more than a decade, the LULAC Head Start program served this community by operating a part-day early childhood program in a poorly lit church basement. There has been a waiting list of over 100 children for this program. Recently, however, this basement program closed, and the 54 children it served were moved to an already overcrowded location. Fortunately for LULAC, Connecticut has a new child care financing program. The Child Care Facilities Loan Fund Program is a public- private partnership that provides financial assistance for child care facilities development, targeting school readiness programs in underserved areas. LULAC has finally received desperately needed financial assistance to develop the Hill Parent Child Center. A new facility is being constructed, specially adapted for child care use. The center will now be able to provide multicultural child care, school readiness, and Head Start services for 172 low-income children in New Haven. Although this story had a happy ending, many more children in New Haven and other places in Connecticut still need child care. And most states do not have a child care financing system in place. Working parents and their children need adequate child care. Increasing the supply of child care will create a better economy as more parents move from welfare to work, and it will create more choices for parents to gain control over their families' lives. I hope that you will join Senator DeWine and me in taking an important step toward lifting our nation out of its current child care crisis.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. That is absolutely correct. In the case of Richard Holbrooke, he was not allowed to find out what the charges were against him for well over a year. A common criminal accused of a felony in this country has that right. It seems to me if we have a system inside our government where a mere accusation of someone can result in months and months of delay or public retribution, not to mention legal costs to defend yourself, something is terribly wrong with that process. We are trying to correct it. Again, I don't want to spend the time talking about the problems we have but to commend one individual for persistence, who wants to serve his country, who is going to do, in my view, a remarkably fine job for all of us. I am sorry it took so long for him to arrive at this point, but I am grateful he has. Again, for those who made it possible, I thank them and am confident that Richard Holbrooke will serve our Nation well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I am glad to yield.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today we consider the nomination of Richard Holbrooke to the position of United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations. I would say that this debate is long overdue. The United Nations is a very important tool in America's foreign policy arsenal and our ambassador to the U.N. is the key to unlocking that power. For the past ten months, however, that post has stood vacant, thereby degrading our influence at the U.N. Today we have an opportunity to correct that omission and restore some of the United States' leadership in that world body. There are few things the United States as a nation holds more dear than the ideals our country was founded on nearly 223 years ago. We continue to lead the global fight for freedom, for democracy, for peace, and for respect for human rights. For the past five decades, it has been the United States' strong, clear and persistent voice in both the Security Council and the General Assembly which has convinced other nations to support those same ideals. Looking back on those fifty years, it is clear that our work at the United Nations has, by and large, been a success. Today, the United Nations is one of the most powerful champions of human rights, freedom and peace around the world. The U.S. has used the United Nations to support our foreign policy in places as far flung as Korea, Libya, Iraq, and Bosnia. Without the United Nations, the two suspects in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 would probably never have faced a judge to account for their actions. Similarly, Saddam Hussein would still be free to terrorize both his neighbors and his own citizens. If it were not for the United Nations sponsored Implementation Force in Bosnia, war, bloodshed and genocide would still rule that nation. Today, the United Nations is engaged in helping to implement certain aspects of the peace settlement in Kosovo--which we all hope and pray will put an end to the bloodshed there as well. While we are all familiar with United Nations peace keeping efforts in Bosnia and Iraq, we must not forget that men and women wearing the U.N.'s signature blue helmets are keeping the peace in places as disparate as Angola and Tajikistan. In all, there are currently 16 different on-going peace keeping operations on four continents. As we embark on the next stage of involvement in Kosovo--one in which the United Nations will have an important role--it is tremendously important that we are represented in that world body. We must not allow any additional delay to further erode our leadership. Last fall, President Clinton tapped an exceedingly qualified diplomat to head our delegation to the United Nations. Richard Holbrooke has served our nation well in a wide variety of posts--from Assistant Secretary of State for two different regions to Ambassador to Germany. Today, many of our thoughts are focused on the Balkans and this first real chance to bring peace to Kosovo. It is particularly fitting, therefore, that among Ambassador Holbrooke's greatest achievements are the Dayton Peace Accords which ended the civil war and genocide in Bosnia. Five years ago, it was the war and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, not Kosovo, that captured the world's attention. Innocent civilians were murdered and raped simply on the basis of their ethnicity. Venturing into the market to buy food entailed the risk of instant death at the hands of snipers or soldiers with a mortar on a nearby hilltop. Each day was a fight for survival. Today, however, Bosnia is rebuilding. In 1995, talks held thousands of miles away from the battlefields--in Dayton, Ohio--silenced the sounds of gunfire and ended the massive human rights abuses. The man who brought the Serbs, Bosnians and Croatians together for those talks and fought hard to reach a settlement is sitting before us today. As Ambassador Holbrooke well knows, it is often easier to wage war than to make peace. In spite of the daunting odds, however, Ambassador Holbrooke did make peace and for that he deserves our praise. Following his return to the private sector in 1996, Ambassador Holbrooke continued to serve his country. Without any compensation from the government, Ambassador Holbrooke focused his efforts on trying to end the dispute on the island of Cyprus and the bloodshed in Kosovo. The success or failure of the Kosovo agreement it will be determined by whether the United States, our NATO allies and Russia stay the course together. The job of bringing this broad coalition together and keeping it together will not be an easy one, but it is one with which Ambassador Holbrooke has experience--experience we need at the United Nations at this critical juncture. It is important to mention the other critical issue which is damaging our reputation and effectiveness at the U.N.: our failure to pay our dues. The funds we owe the U.N. are formal treaty obligations, not optional contributions. Today, we are in grave danger of losing our vote in the General Assembly. Imagine the irony if the United States, one of the founders of the United Nations, loses its vote in that organization's primary decision making body. The compromise Chairman Helms and Senator Biden worked out with respect to our dues will go a long way to repairing the damage if we are able to convince our colleagues in the House to refrain from attaching poison pills to this bill. We already missed one opportunity to pass that compromise, namely the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. I remain hopeful, however, that the compromise, which is a part of the Senate passed State Department Authorization bill and now in conference with the House will become law before the end of this session of Congress. Now is the right time to confirm a new ambassador to the U.N. He has the requisite experience for the job and, even more importantly, is a proven peacemaker. Mr. President, in conclusion I add my voice to those who have already spoken expressing their gratitude to Senator Helms and Senator Biden, who are the chair and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for the leadership that my friend and colleague from Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has shown on this nomination, and for many others who have spoken on behalf of Richard Holbrooke, in many cases, not because they agree with the politics of Richard Holbrooke or necessarily agree with every position he has taken on various public matters, but because there is an understanding that in our country, regardless of administration and politics, we need good, talented people, who analyze issues well and bring an energy and a passion and a commitment to public policy. For those reasons, I am particularly grateful to our friends on the other side who may not agree with Richard Holbrooke but understand he is a talented human being. I underscore the point that Senator Sarbanes made. Too often we discourage good people in this country from serving their Nation because we have created a gauntlet that one has to go through prior to confirmation that will discourage other people from even thinking about going through this process. What you expose yourself and your family to to take on positions to serve your country is becoming far too much. I think as a body we ought to take a closer look at what we ask people to go through whom we ask to serve their Nation. Richard Holbrooke has a distinguished career, as Senator Sarbanes and Senator Warner and others have pointed out, going back more than 30 years. He has been through an awful lot over the last year and a half, almost 2 years now. I particularly am concerned about the inspector general at the State Department, as my colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee know. I have written an amendment, which was adopted, that requires that those people in the State Department who are accused of wrongdoing have a right--I know this sounds like a radical thought--to know what they are accused of and have an opportunity to respond to the accusation before the reports are written. That is not the case today.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to regrettably oppose the conference report to the Year 2000 Budget Reconciliation legislation. With this conference report, the majority has succeeded in making a bad bill worse. Rather than using this conference to come together and attempt to develop a reasonable package, all of the objectionable features of the Senate-passed bill have been exaggerated, rather than moderated. First, the conference report further skews the benefits of its tax cuts towards those who need them least, and away from working families. We now have before us a conference report that includes a 1 percent across-the-board tax cut for all income tax brackets. We are led to believe that this provision is the center-piece of a package that constitutes broad-based tax relief. However, upon closer inspection, this clearly is not the case. Under this proposal, the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers receive only 7.5 percent of the total tax cut benefits, while the top 10 percent of income earners receive nearly 70 percent of the bill's tax cut benefits. Mr. President, I would not consider this broad-based tax relief. Perhaps the clearest example of how this conference report heaps its tax cut largesse on those who least need it is that it spends nearly 60 billion dollars for the complete repeal of the estate tax. Again, the inclusion of full repeal of the estate tax within this conference report is a clear indication that its proponents do not wish to direct their tax cuts toward hard-working families who need and deserve a break. I believe in estate tax relief for farmers and small businesses of modest means where it is necessary and appropriate. However, the beneficiaries of this provision are overwhelmingly not of modest means. They are the very, very affluent leaving estates worth millions of dollars. Mr. President, I fail to see how this specific tax cut helps the average family struggling to find affordable child care or to meet rising college tuition costs. Secondly, this conference report fails to meet critical domestic and military priorities upon which our nation's long-range prosperity and security depend. In order to accommodate the costs of a $792 tax cut, extensive cuts of nearly $511 billion will be necessary in domestic spending. If defense is funded at the President's request, cuts to domestic spending would reach almost 38 percent. As a result, over 430,000 children would lose Head Start services, 1.4 million veterans would be denied much needed medical services from VA hospitals, and almost 1.5 million low-income people would lose HUD rental subsidies, forcing many into homelessness. Perhaps the clearest example of the conference report's failure in this regard is what the conferees have done to child care. Senator Jeffords and I offered an amendment to provide an additional $10 billion over the next 10 years to the existing Child Care and Development Block Grant--almost doubling the children that would be served. It passed the Senate by voice vote. So it was surprising, not to mention disappointing, that this provision was summarily eliminated in conference. I intend to continue to work to see that Congress honors the commitment it made in the Budget Resolution to significantly expand funding for quality child care this year and in the years to come. Third, the conference report, like the Senate-passed bill, continues to pose an increased risk to our current economic prosperity. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before the House and Senate Banking Committees just days ago, urging caution about implementing a $792 billion tax cut at a time when the economy is performing so well. Chairman Greenspan stated that it would be better to hold off on an immediate tax cut because it is apparent that the current surpluses are doing a great deal of good to the economy. Moreover, he warned that Congress must also be prepared to cut spending significantly should the surpluses, upon which the tax cuts are based, not materialize. It is ironic to me that so many of our colleagues, who otherwise have had high and vocal praise for Chairman Greenspan's economic leadership, can so readily ignore his clear and repeated warnings about the consequences of their unrealistic and irresponsible tax plan. I have also noted with particular interest the comments of the esteemed Majority Leader in this week's newspapers where he has stated that an acceptable alternative to the Republican tax plan would be to ``put the money in place so that the debt can be retired.'' This sentiment has also been echoed by the House Majority Leader. These are stunning admissions of the flawed nature of the conference agreement before the Senate today. Their ``all-or-nothing'' statements reasonably raise the question of how committed the majority is to this tax cut plan. Perhaps they are more committed to having a political issue than to giving working families a reasonable tax cut while also meeting our responsibilities to preserve and strengthen Medicare, Social Security, defense, and education. I fear that the Senate has been engaged in a fruitless political exercise. Mr. President, I worry that the majority has again squandered a unique opportunity to first maintain our current economic prosperity and then to address the legitimate needs of working families in this country. This legislation neglects to make much-needed investments in Social Security and Medicare, debt reduction, and critical defense and domestic priorities. The President has promised repeatedly to veto this legislation. We should have no doubt about his resolve to do so. Then I hope that congressional leaders will get serious about working in a bipartisan fashion to craft a reconciliation bill that is sensible and responsible. We have worked too hard in this decade to rectify the wretched budgetary excess of the last decade. Now is the time for prudence and caution.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator DeWine in introducing the Child Care Facilities Financing Act. This bill would help ease a significant crisis in this country--the shortage of adequate child care, particularly in low-income communities. The demand for child care is not being met by the current supply, especially for low-income children. Approximately 50% of children from families with household incomes of $10,000 or less are enrolled in child care or early education programs, whereas over 75% of children from families with household incomes over $75,000 are enrolled in such programs. According to the GAO, the child care supply shortage will worsen as work participation rates required under welfare reform increase over the next few years. The situation is particularly troublesome for infant and school-aged care. For example, in Chicago, the percentage of the demand that can be met by the known supply of child care providers will be only 12% for infants and 17% for school-aged children in the year 2002 if a greater supply is not created. The situation is even more dire in poor neighborhoods. One factor contributing to the child care shortage is the difficulty that would-be providers face in financing child care facility development. Child care providers are often viewed by financial institutions as risky for loans. Child care equipment and facility needs are unique, making for poor collateral. In low-income neighborhoods, child care providers face severely restricted revenues and low real estate values. In urban areas, would-be child care providers must contend with buildings in poor physical condition and high property costs. In all areas, reimbursement rates for child care subsidies are generally too low to cover the recovery cost of purchasing or developing facilities, especially after allowing for the cost of running the program. In addition, new providers often have no business training, and may need to learn how to manage their finances and business. The Child Care Facilities Financing Act would provide grants to intermediary organizations, enabling them to provide financial and technical assistance to existing or new child care providers -- including both center-based and home-based child care. The financial assistance may be in the form of loans, grants, investments, or other assistance, allowing for flexibility depending on the situation of the child care provider. The assistance may be used for acquisition, construction, or renovation of child care facilities or equipment. It may also be used for improving child care management and business practices. Additionally, intermediary organizations are required to match grant dollars with significant private sector investments, leveraging federal funding and creating valuable public/private partnerships. The added benefit in providing this kind of assistance is that it will spur further community and economic development. When parents can work with the knowledge that their children are adequately cared for, they become more reliable and productive workers. When the economic situation of families improve, distressed communities become revitalized. Let me provide you with an example from my state of how financial assistance for child care development has helped alleviate dire situations. In one low-income neighborhood in New Haven, CT, there are 2500 children under the age of 5, but only 200 spaces in licensed child care facilities. For more than a decade, the LULAC Head Start program served this community by operating a part-day early childhood program in a poorly lit church basement. There has been a waiting list of over 100 children for this program. Recently, however, this basement program closed, and the 54 children it served were moved to an already overcrowded location. Fortunately for LULAC, Connecticut has a new child care financing program. The Child Care Facilities Loan Fund Program is a public- private partnership that provides financial assistance for child care facilities development, targeting school readiness programs in underserved areas. LULAC has finally received desperately needed financial assistance to develop the Hill Parent Child Center. A new facility is being constructed, specially adapted for child care use. The center will now be able to provide multicultural child care, school readiness, and Head Start services for 172 low-income children in New Haven. Although this story had a happy ending, many more children in New Haven and other places in Connecticut still need child care. And most states do not have a child care financing system in place. Working parents and their children need adequate child care. Increasing the supply of child care will create a better economy as more parents move from welfare to work, and it will create more choices for parents to gain control over their families' lives. I hope that you will join Senator DeWine and me in taking an important step toward lifting our nation out of its current child care crisis.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I join with my colleague, Senator Ashcroft, and others in urging the adoption of this amendment with respect to exempting exports of food and medicine from U.S. sanctions regimes. Mr. President this amendment is quick, simple, and straight forward-- it would exempt donations and sales of food, other agricultural commodities, medicines and medical equipment from being used as an economic weapon in conjunction with the imposition of unilaterally imposed economic sanctions. Since last year, we have heard about the serious economic crisis that confronts America's heartland and is bankrupting American farm families. Not only do American farm families have to worry about weather and other natural disasters which threaten their livelihood. They also must worry about actions of their own government which can do irreparable harm to the farm economy by closing off markets to American farm products because we happen to dislike some foreign government official or some policy action that has been taken. Time and time again unilateral sanctions on agricultural products have cost American farmers important export markets. Time and time again the offending official remains in power or the offensive policy remains in effect. On July 23 of last year, President Clinton stated that ``food should not be used as a tool of foreign policy except under the most compelling circumstances.'' On April 28 of this year, the Clinton Administration took some long overdue steps toward bringing U.S. practice in this area into conformity with the President's pronouncement. It announced that it would reverse existing U.S. policy of prohibiting sales of food and medicine to Iran, Libya, and Sudan-- three countries currently on the terrorism list. In announcing the change in policy, Under Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat stated that President Clinton had approved the policy after a two-year review concluded that the sale of food and medicine ``doesn't encourage a nation's military capability or its ability to support terrorism.'' I am gratified that the administration has finally recognized what we determined some time ago, namely that ``sales of food, medicine and other human necessities do not generally enhance a nation's military capacities or support terrorism.'' On the contrary, funds spent on agricultural commodities and products are not available for other, less desirable uses. Regrettably, the Administration did not include Cuba in its announced policy changes. It seems to me terribly inconsistent to say that it is wrong to deny the children of Iran, Sudan and Libya access to food and medicine, but it is all right to deny Cuban children--living ninety miles from our shores, similar access. The administration's rationale for not including Cuba was rather confused. The best I can discern from the conflicting rationale for not including Cuba in the announced policy changes was that policy toward Cuba has been established by legislation rather than executive order, and therefore should be changed through legislative action. I disagree with that judgement. However, in order to facilitate the lifting of such restrictions on such sales to Cuba, and to prevent such sanctions from being introduced against other countries in the future, I have joined with Senators Ashcroft, Hagel, Roberts, Leahy and others in offering the amendment that is currently pending. Not only would it codify in law the administration's decision with respect to Iran, Libya, and Sudan, it would also create a politically viable way for such sanctions to be lifted from Cuba, unless the President and the Congress both take the affirmative step of acting to keep them in place. What about those who say that it is already possible to sell food and medicine to Cuba? To those people I would say, ``if that is what you think, then you should have no problem supporting this legislation.'' However, I must tell you, Mr. President, that the people who say that are not members of the U.S. agricultural or pharmaceutical industries. Ask any representative of a major drug or grain company about selling to Cuba and they will tell you it is virtually impossible. The Administration's own statistics speak for themselves. Department of Commerce licensing statistics prove our point: Between 1992 and mid-1997, the Commerce Department approved only 28 licenses for such sales, valued at less than $1 million, for the entire period. In 1998, following the introduction of procedures to ``expedite license reviews'' Commerce reported that, three licenses valued at $19 million were approved, however no exports occurred because of difficulties with on-site verification requirements. Even if these three exports had occurred, the assistance being provided to the Cuban people would be minuscule. To give you some perspective: prior to the passage of the 1992 Cuba Democracy Act which shut down U.S. food and medicine exports, Cuba was importing roughly $700 million of such products on an annual basis from U.S. subsidiaries. Moreover, since Commerce Department officials do not follow up on whether proposed licenses culminate in actual sales, the high water mark for the export of U.S. medicines to Cuba over a four and one half year period doesn't even represent roughly .1% of the exports of U.S. food and medicines that took place prior to 1992. For these reasons we feel strongly that the complexities of the U.S. licensing process, coupled with on-site verification requirements, serve as de facto prohibitions on U.S. pharmaceutical companies doing business with Cuba. Do we really believe that aspirin or bandaid are possible instruments of torture that mandate the U.S. companies have in place a costly on-site verification mechanism to monitor how each bottle of aspirin is dispensed? I cannot come up with a rationale for arguing that we are on strong moral grounds in barring access to American medicines and medical equipment. American pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment manufacturers are dominant in the international market place with respect to development and production of state of the art medicines and equipment. In some cases there are no other foreign suppliers that make comparable products--particularly in the case of the most life threatening diseases such as cancer. How can we justify denying innocent people access to drugs that could save them or their children's lives. How can we justify prohibiting access to vaccines that ensure the protection of the public health of an entire country or large segments thereof, simply because we disagree with their government leaders? I don't believe we should. Food sales to Cuba continue to be prohibited as well, despite the so called January measures promulgated by the Clinton Administration. At that time, the outright prohibition on the sale of food was modified to provide a narrow exception to that prohibition. With the change in regulations, the Commerce Department will now consider licensing, on a case-by-case basis, sales of food ``to independent non-government entities in Cuba, including religious groups, private farmers and private sector enterprises such as restaurants.'' For those of my colleagues who have any knowledge about the Cuban economy they will immediately know that this translates into virtually zero sales of food to Cuba. Yes, there are some private restaurants in Cuba--so called paladares--but they are run out of family homes serving at most ten to twelve people at lunch and dinner on a daily basis. These small operations are hardly in any position logistically or financially to contract with foreign exporters, navigate U.S. and Cuban customs in order to arrange for U.S. shipments to be delivered to their restaurants--shipments that are otherwise barred to the Cuban government. Who are we kidding when we say it is possible to sell food in the current regulatory environment. I don't believe except in the most limited of circumstances that we should deny food and medicine to anyone. I take strong exception to argument that we are doing it for the good of the Cuban people or the Libyan people--that we are putting pressure on authorities to respect human rights in doing so. The highly respected human rights organization, Human Rights Watch--a severe critic of the Cuban government's human rights practices-- recently concluded, that the ``(U.S.) embargo has not only failed to bring about human rights improvements in Cuba,'' it has actually ``become counterproductive'' to achieving that goal. America is not about denying medicine or food to the people in Sudan, in Libya, or in Iran, and it shouldn't be about denying food and medicine to the Cuban people either, certainly not my America. Let me be clear--I am not defending the Cuban government for its human rights practices or some of its other policy decisions. I believe that we should speak out strongly on such matters as respect for human rights and the treatment of political dissidents. But U.S. policy with respect to Cuba goes far beyond that--it denies eleven million innocent Cuban men, women and children access to U.S. food and medicine. That is why I hope my colleagues will support this amendment and restrict future efforts to water down its scope. The United States stands alone among all of the nations of the world as an advocate for respecting the human rights of all peoples throughout the globe. In my view denying access to food and medicine is a violation of international recognized human rights and weakens the ability of the United States to advocate what is otherwise a very principled position on this issue. It is time to return U.S. policy to the moral high ground. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, and Senator Hagel, Senator Fitzgerald, Senator Craig, Senator Lincoln, Senator Conrad, Senator Brownback, the Presiding Officer, Senator Warner, and all of the others who are cosponsors of this amendment. It is a very solid, thoughtful, precise amendment that principally, of course, allows us to be involved as a legislative branch if unilateral sanctions are going to be imposed. That is not a radical idea. We have seen the effects of the importance and the significance of unilateral sanctions. Certainly those who represent the farm community can speak not just theoretically about this but in practice as to the damage that can be done. It certainly is hard enough to have to face weather conditions, drought, and floods. But when you have to also face unilateral decisions that deny your community the opportunity to market in certain areas, that can make the life of a farm family even more difficult. I happen to agree with my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, and others who have made the case that if we are truly interested in creating change, it is not in the interest of our own Nation to take actions which would deny innocent people--be they the 11 million innocent people who live 90 miles off our shore in Cuba, or in other nations--the opportunity to benefit from the sale of medicine and food supplies that can improve the quality of their life. It is radical, in my view, to impose that kind of a sanction, particularly unilaterally. That is not my America. My America says we will do everything we can to get rid of dictators and to change governments which deny their people basic rights. But my America doesn't say to the innocents who live in these countries that if we have food that can make you stronger, if we have medicine that can make you healthier, we are going to deny the opportunity for the average citizens of these countries to have access to these products through sale. That is not my America. I live in a bigger, a larger country, which has stood as a symbol of understanding, of human decency, and of human kindness, even with adversaries that have taken the lives of our fellow citizens--in a Vietnam, in a Germany, in other nations around the globe. My America, a big America, at the end of those conflicts has reached out to people in these nations to get them back on their feet again. Today, I say to you that in these countries around the globe that still, unfortunately and regretfully, use the power of their institutions to impose human rights violations, we will do everything in our power to change these governments but we will not deny these people food and we will not deny them medicines through sale. That is what Senator Ashcroft, Senator Hagel, and others are trying to achieve. I think it is a noble cause and one we ought to bring Democrats and Republicans together on in common effort and in common purpose to change the system that is fundamentally wrong and a denial of the fundamental things that we stand for as a people. That does not suggest in any way that we applaud, or agree with, or back, or in any way want to sustain the policies of Fidel Castro, or the leader of Sudan, or Iran, or Lybia. It says that when unilateral sanctions are being imposed, we ought to have some say in all of that, and we don't believe generally that the imposition of unilateral sanctions, except under unique circumstances which the Senator from Missouri and his cosponsors have identified in this bill, ought to deny people in these countries--the average citizen--the benefit of our success in food and medicine. I applaud them for their efforts. I am delighted to be a cosponsor of their amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 335, the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act. I am proud to be one of the cosponsors of this important legislation. I commend Senators Collins and Levin for their efforts in addressing the serious problems with deceptive mailings involving sweepstakes, skill contests, facsimile checks, and mailings made to look like government documents. The investigation and hearings of the Senate Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations have shed light on sweepstakes and other mailings that promise extravagant prizes in order to entice individuals to make unnecessary purchases. Far too many of these mailings are full of deceptive and misleading statements, which lead unsuspecting recipients to believe that they must purchase various items in order to be a winner or in order to improve their chances of winning. In too many cases, the prizes and awards are never granted. In many instances, the customer receives a trinket or coupon book of little value. Those consumers who respond to these mailings are then bombarded with additional mailings seeking more money for the same or similar items. The effect on many consumers can be devastating. One of my constituents wrote about his 88-year-old father, who had spent thousands of dollars in hopes of receiving a large cash prize. This legislation would set new standards for mailings that use sweepstakes, skill contests, and facsimile checks as promotions to sell merchandise. More disclosures would be required, disclosures which are clear and conspicuous, displayed in a manner that is readily noticeable, readable and understandable. Sweepstakes mailings must include prominent notice that no purchase is necessary to win, and that a purchase will not increase the chances of winning. In addition, the mailing must state the estimated odds of winning. While S. 335 will probably not put a stop to all of the egregious practices that the unscrupulous companies employ, I am hopeful that this bill will result in fewer deceptive mailings and that fewer consumers will lose their hard-earned savings and retirement funds. One important provision of this bill would require each company that sends these mailings to have a toll-free number that consumers may call to have their names removed from that company's mailing list. This is a first step in making it possible for individuals to have their names removed from mailing lists. However, this particular system places an undue burden on the consumer to call each company that sends him a mailing. The unscrupulous companies could circumvent the intent of this provision by forming a new company that would then use the old mailing lists. To minimize this risk, I encourage the industry groups to establish a system whereby consumers would have one toll-free number to call which would serve as the mechanism to remove their names from all mailing lists for all sweepstakes, skill contests, facsimile checks and government look-alike mailings. This system has worked in other areas, and I believe that it would work here, as well. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this is a very good amendment. Only one in 10 eligible children is being served. I thank my colleagues, Senators Jeffords, Chafee, Snowe, Collins, Roberts, Specter, Stevens, and Domenici. This is a large bipartisan group that cares about this very much. These are needed resources to get to children who are not being well served. The tax credit is not refundable so it does not reach that low- income category. This child care development block grant does assist these families. For those reasons, we urge adoption of the amendment. I thank the leadership for agreeing this be done on a voice vote.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I call up amendment 1452 and ask for its immediate consideration.