Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to express my thoughts and observations on the Senate's consideration of S. 1429, The Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999. Regrettably, in choosing to pass this bill, the Senate has missed a unique opportunity to provide Americans with long-term economic stability, improved retirement and health security for seniors, and targeted tax cuts for working families. Instead, the Senate has adopted--along largely partisan lines--a package of reckless and fiscally irresponsible tax cuts that threatens our economic prosperity and short-changes our commitment to Social Security, Medicare, education, and other priorities. Let me briefly express my concerns about this legislation in more detail. First, it would harm the country's long-term economic prospects. I find it somewhat ironic that many of our Republican colleagues applaud Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan's economic stewardship, yet choose to ignore his warnings about the ill-considered implications of their tax plan. In fact, the Chairman has made abundantly clear that this tax package will stimulate an economy that is already performing at a high level. That will only contribute to the kinds of inflationary pressures that have already caused the Fed to recently raise interest rates. The further irony, of course, is that, as we all know, an increase in interest rates acts as a hidden tax on taxpayers. So by contributing to a hike in interest rates, this tax package could actually have the effect of raising the cost of a mortgage loan, a car loan, a student loan, and so many other items upon which working families depend. Second, S. 1429 fails the test of tax fairness. According to the Department of the Treasury, nearly 67 percent of the tax cuts would benefit the wealthiest 20 percent of families. Only 12 percent of the tax benefits are targeted at the bottom 60 percent of income earners. The bill contains estate tax relief that eases tax burdens for those with estates exceeding $10,000,000 in worth. Is this middle America? I don't believe so. Meanwhile, the Majority has once again refused to extend child care tax credits to people earning less than $28,000. The Republicans stress the importance of securing the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. Again, it is a cruel irony that, at precisely the time early in the next century that Medicare is scheduled to become insolvent and Social Security surpluses are expected to disappear, the cost of the Majority's tax cut will begin to skyrocket to almost $2 trillion. As the baby boomers begin to retire and the solvency needle approaches zero, the Republicans have left virtually nothing to secure the viability of these important programs for future generations of retirees. Drastic cuts to domestic and defense spending are a third consequence of this ill-conceived tax bill. It will have the effect, if not the intent, of crowding out investments in critical domestic and defense priorities. This bill assumes cuts in defense of $198 billion and cuts of $511 billion in discretionary priorities. As a result, 375,000 children would be cut from the Head Start program, 1.4 million veterans would be denied much needed medical services from VA hospitals, and approximately 1.25 million low-income tenants would lose rental subsidies in FY 2009. Even more troublesome is the fact that if defense spending is funded at the President's request, cuts in domestic spending would be as high as 40 percent. Mr. President, I am deeply disturbed not only by the details of this tax plan but also by the erosion of the integrity of the budget process that it represents. It is premised on accounting gimmicks, false assumptions, and budgetary slights of hand to achieve its desired numbers on spending and revenues. That was tried in the 1980's, with disastrous results. In this decade, we have restored the integrity of the budget process. In some ways, that is an achievement almost as important as balancing the budget itself, since it has given confidence to taxpayers and financial markets that the Administration and Congress can keep its fiscal house in order. Now, with S. 1429, we risk simply squandering the gains that have been made. This distorted process using budgetary smoke and mirrors will, I fear, lead this nation down a precarious path in years to come. This is not to say that I do not support some reasonable tax relief targeted at those who need it the most. But just as no family would leave for vacation without making sure that their bills could be paid, the Congress should not provide tax cuts without first meeting our obligations to strengthen Social Security and Medicare, reduce the debt, and invest in defense and domestic priorities. What the supporters of this bill have done is essentially to buy a vacation without making sure they could pay for the necessities. Senator Moynihan's amendment struck the proper balance among these important obligations by devoting one-third of the surplus to discretionary spending, one-third to paying down the debt, and $290 billion in tax cuts for low and middle income Americans. It would have, among other provisions, increased the standard deduction for the 73 percent of Americans who claim the standard deduction, provided a 100 percent deduction for health insurance for the self-employed, and offered a 25 percent credit for employers who operate child care centers on site or who help employees pay the cost of off-site child care. This is broad-based tax relief targeted to the people who need it the most. While the Dodd-Jeffords amendment on child care was adopted by voice vote, regrettably the Moynihan amendment did not prevail. Nor did other important amendments. Chief among these was Senator Kennedy's efforts to provide a much needed prescription drug benefit. Three- quarters of American seniors lack dependable private sector coverage of prescription drugs. Yet seniors increasingly rely on new and often costly medicines to preserve their health and prolong their life. In a bill providing $792 billion in tax breaks, I regret that the Senate could not find $49 billion for modest drug coverage for seniors. My friend and colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, along with Senator Hollings, offered an important amendment that would have stricken all of S. 1429's provisions, effectively eliminating the tax cut for now. The surplus would have then been used to pay down the debt. I voted in favor of this amendment not as a statement against all tax cuts, but rather to support its message of fiscal responsibility and to express my utter opposition to the Majority's tax bill. Mr. President, in simple terms, tax cut may be compared to apple pie. Everyone likes them. Everyone would like a slice. But we have other responsibilities. We should provide tax cuts, but we should take care of our other priorities as well. Especially now, when economic times are as good as they have been in our lifetimes, we should build a strong foundation for long-term prosperity by reducing the national debt, strengthening Social Security and Medicare, boosting our national defense, and investing in education, the environment, and other vital priorities. The bill that has just passed the Senate fails to do that. I remain optimistic that in conference we can craft legislation that is more faithful to our shared vision of future prosperity and stability for all Americans.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would save a historic vessel from the scrap heap. The Glacier, a 310 foot, 8,600 ton icebreaker was commissioned as a vessel of the U.S. Navy in 1955. It made 39 trips to the North and South poles; made the deepest penetration of the Antarctic by sea in 1961; rescued explorer Sir Vivan Fuchs; and was the largest icebreaker of its time. Currently, the Glacier is part of the reserve fleet awaiting disposition as scrap or transfer to the Glacier Society, a group dedicated to restoring the Glacier. This bill would simply convey the Glacier from the reserve fleet to the Glacier Society. The Society is mainly composed of active and retired servicemen who served aboard the Glacier and is headed by Ben Koether, one of the ship's former navigators. The group envisions that the Glacier will operate as a museum and scientific laboratory. Both in port and underway, the Glacier Society hopes to provide hands-on training to children and adults while teaching the history of Polar exploration. By passing the title of the Glacier to the Glacier Society, Congress will save taxpayers roughly $200,000 per year, enable the development of unique educational opportunities, contribute to the nation's maritime heritage and preserve a piece of history. I look forward to the day when the Glacier Society's vision for the Glacier is achieved. Passage of this bill would be the first step towards realization of that vision.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would save a historic vessel from the scrap heap. The Glacier, a 310 foot, 8,600 ton icebreaker was commissioned as a vessel of the U.S. Navy in 1955. It made 39 trips to the North and South poles; made the deepest penetration of the Antarctic by sea in 1961; rescued explorer Sir Vivan Fuchs; and was the largest icebreaker of its time. Currently, the Glacier is part of the reserve fleet awaiting disposition as scrap or transfer to the Glacier Society, a group dedicated to restoring the Glacier. This bill would simply convey the Glacier from the reserve fleet to the Glacier Society. The Society is mainly composed of active and retired servicemen who served aboard the Glacier and is headed by Ben Koether, one of the ship's former navigators. The group envisions that the Glacier will operate as a museum and scientific laboratory. Both in port and underway, the Glacier Society hopes to provide hands-on training to children and adults while teaching the history of Polar exploration. By passing the title of the Glacier to the Glacier Society, Congress will save taxpayers roughly $200,000 per year, enable the development of unique educational opportunities, contribute to the nation's maritime heritage and preserve a piece of history. I look forward to the day when the Glacier Society's vision for the Glacier is achieved. Passage of this bill would be the first step towards realization of that vision.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to others in thanking Ambassador Jim Sasser for his service to our country as the United States Ambassador to the People's Republic of China for the last three and one half years. Our friend Jim Sasser has just returned home having distinguished himself as the President's representative in Beijing during a critical and often difficult period in United States/Chinese relations. He understood better than anyone how important it was that he do an effective job as United States Ambassador to such a strategically important country. When President Clinton nominated Jim as his ambassador he had every confidence in Jim's ability to fulfill his diplomatic duties, and that confidence was not misplaced. Even before Jim took on this assignment he understood that the state of U.S./China relations could have profound implications for peace and prosperity not only in the Asia/ Pacific region but globally as well. Once confirmed, Ambassador Sasser became an articulate and effective spokesman for the administration's policy of engagement with China. He rightfully stressed that the United States does not have the luxury of not dealing with China. He would remind his audiences that China's sheer size, its permanent membership on the United Nations Security Council, its nuclear weapons capability, its economic and military potential, all demand that the United States engage the Chinese Government and the Chinese people. Soon after his arrival, Jim established excellent working relationships with the Chinese leadership. Both formally and informally he encouraged Beijing to view itself as a responsible member of the international community and act accordingly. I credit Jim's efforts along with others in successfully persuading China to commit itself to respect a number of non-proliferation regimes and to take under serious review the possibility of formally acceding to others. Perhaps Jim's most significant achievement during his tenure was to oversee preparations for two high level bilateral summits between the United States and China, President Jiang's 1997 visit to Washington and President Clinton's return visit to Beijing in 1998--the first such meetings between the United States and China in nearly a decade. I cannot imagine even the most seasoned of career diplomats performing more ably as United States Ambassador than Jim Sasser has over the last three and one half years. I kept in touch with Jim during his tenure as ambassador. He was always enthusiastic and fully engaged in working to ensure that United States policies with respect to China served our national security, foreign policy and economic interests. I have already mentioned to some of my colleagues, that I was actually talking to Jim one evening at the very moment that the U.S. Embassy was under siege by crowds of Chinese students pelting the building with rocks in retaliation for the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. It showed great courage for him to remain in the embassy with his staff rather than be evacuated as some had recommended. And through it all Jim never lost his sense of humor. Although relations between Washington and Beijing have deteriorated in recent months, Jim was able to maintain open lines of communication with the Chinese government at the highest levels. He accomplished this difficult task by the strength of his intellect and personality. Having had the pleasure of serving with Jim Sasser in the United States Senate it came as no surprise to me that Jim has been an outstanding diplomat. Jim brought to the job of U.S. Ambassador the same vision that he brought to the U.S. Senate while he served in this Chamber. I remember vividly serving with Jim on the Budget Committee --at the time I was a very junior member of that committee. From 1989 onward, I was able to observe Jim's remarkable, remarkable performance as Chairman of that committee as he built support for sound budget resolutions. Time after time, he marshaled the votes and brought together people of totally different persuasions and opinions--one of the most difficult jobs that any Member of this body has. And he did it successfully, on six different budget resolutions and three reconciliation bills. These victories came under the most difficult circumstances--including during the Republican administration of President George Bush, when he fashioned one of the most difficult budget compromises in modern history. Jim has served our country ably as a United States Senator and an American diplomat. In fact, there are very few people in public life who come to mind who have made the kinds of contributions to our country that Jim Sasser has over the years. And through it all, never once has Jim or his family complained about the personal sacrifices that they have made in their years of public service. It therefore seems only appropriate and fitting that I take time today to publicly thank Jim, his wife Mary, and his children Gray and Elizabeth for all that they have done for our country. It is also a personal pleasure to welcome them home to the United States and to Jim's beloved State of Tennessee. I look forward to seeing Jim and Mary very soon and I know our colleagues do as well.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank my distinguished colleague from Nevada. The 1877 general revisions expanded the 1868 rules to specifically prohibit amending general appropriations bills with general legislation, or with amendments not germane or relevant to the subject matter of the bill. The next set of general revisions to the rules was adopted by the Senate during the 48th Congress, on January 11, 1884. These revisions renumbered the rules and consolidated the language regarding amendments to appropriations bills. The prohibition on including amendments to an appropriations bill dealing with general legislation as incorporated into Rule XVI. Then in 1979, under the leadership of our colleague, Senator Byrd, a comprehensive revision of the standing rules of the Senate was adopted. These revisions contained the current language of rule XVI and rule XVIII, regarding the scope of conference reports. I do not wish to belabor the history of the Senate rules with my colleagues, but I take this time to stress the historic importance of rule XVI in order to put the action of the majority leader in context. The prohibition on legislating on appropriations bills has been part of the parliamentary fabric of this great deliberative body almost since its inception. And that should come as no surprise. The orderly consideration of legislation is paramount to the ``cooling'' effect of the Senate's deliberations. For that reason, under normal circumstances, I would support the majority leader in his effort to restore the rule XVI point of order against legislating on appropriations bills. Under normal circumstances, I would agree that the rules offer Senators ample opportunity to engage in debate on legislation. Under normal circumstances, I would agree that appropriations bills are too important to be the subject of legislative amendments, especially given the need to keep the Federal Government running. But these are not normal circumstances, Mr. President. What brings us to this debate, again, has nothing to do with the longstanding notion that legislation ought not to be included on appropriations bills. I don't know of anyone who disagrees with that longstanding proposal. If taken alone, everything else being equal, if all the other rules which guarantee the right of this body to function, as intended by the Founding Fathers, then I would stand first and foremost in a long line, I presume, of my colleagues in demanding that rule XVI be upheld and that legislation be kept off appropriations bills. Unfortunately, you cannot look at rule XVI alone today. We have watched slowly, some would argue rapidly, over the last several years how the rules of the Senate, such as rule XVIII, have been so fundamentally altered that today this body de facto functions as a 99- 100 Member reflection, not the antithesis, not the corollary, not the counterweight, but as a reflection of the House of Representatives. That is not as it should be. This body ought to function very differently. In the four and one-half years since the Republicans regained the majority in this Chamber, we have witnessed a profound and regrettable change in the way we do business. Instead of allowing legislation to come to the floor for amendment and debate, the majority has seemingly used every opportunity to limit the minority's right to offer amendments and be heard. It is this attempt to silence opposing views that poses the greatest threat to the Founding Fathers' vision of the Senate as an anchor for our democratic form of Government. For example, the majority has repeatedly employed the tactic of combining a motion to proceed to a bill with the immediate filing of a cloture petition--which, by definition, is designed to limit debate. The cloture petition is then used as leverage to obtain a limit on the number of amendments and the allotted time for debate on the bill. In some cases, the majority has even insisted on approving, in advance, the very few amendments that the minority has been allowed to offer. My colleagues might be surprised to learn that from 1996 to the present, the majority has tried to silence the debate by forcing the Senate to vote on 102 cloture petitions. But what is even more remarkable is that 33 of these votes--or nearly one in three--involved cloture petitions on motions to proceed. While the majority are certainly within their rights and consistent with the rules to offer so many cloture petitions, it is not the norm. In fact, during the 4 years immediately preceding the 1994 elections, the Democratic leadership also availed itself of the procedural tactic of filing cloture on a motion to proceed--twice, on the motor voter bill. In general, Mr. President, cloture petitions on motions to proceed have been used by this majority to attempt to dictate the terms of debate. It is almost as if the majority does not want the American people to hear this deliberative body speak. But cloture petitions are not the only silencing tactic employed by our friends in the majority. They also rely on the arcane parliamentary maneuver known as ``filling the amendment tree.'' Mr. President, I am willing to bet that only a handful of people in the world--most of whom are present in this chamber today--could provide a clear explanation of how one ``fills the tree.'' But the effect of such a parliamentary maneuver is clear. It is to choke off debate by making it impossible for any member to offer amendments that have not been approved by the senator who has filled the tree. A review of the use of this tactic reveals that since 1995, the majority has ``filled the tree'', and thereby restricted debate, a total of 9 times. Most recently, this maneuver was used during the debate on the social security lockbox legislation and most notably on legislation to reform our system of campaign finance, where the tactic has been used repeatedly and with great effect to stymie the growing calls for reform. Again, a comparison of the 4 years of Democratic leadership prior to the 1994 elections reveals that Senate Democrats used the parliamentary procedure sparingly--at most once. And the sponsor of the amendment at the time denied that the amendment tree had been filled. Regrettably, Mr. President, since our friends in the Republican majority took office in 1994, there has been unprecedented use of parliamentary maneuvering to choke off debate and dictate the terms of the Senate's business. Under Republican leadership, the rules of the Senate no longer ensure the cooling off that was intended to take place here. Instead, the rules have become the majority's weapon to prevent the very deliberation, and even disagreement, that the Founding Fathers intended. As we have seen time and again over the last 4 years, the most effective means for the minority to ensure that its voice is heard is by offering amendments for debate to must-pass legislation, such as the appropriations bills. Whether it be debate on raising the minimum wage for working Americans, or protecting taxpayers from arbitrary decisions by HMOs, the ability to amend appropriations bills has ensured that the people's concerns can be heard. If the Senate could return to the normal open and deliberative process that the founding fathers envisioned for it, I would welcome the reinstatement of rule XVI. But until that time comes, I must oppose the majority's efforts. But if we are going to reform the rules, we should not stop with rule XVI. We should also restore rule XVIII to its original intent. Rule XVIII establishes a point of order against conference reports which contain provisions outside the scope of the conference. Again, under this majority, rule XVIII has been overturned so that today, conferees may insert any matter into privileged conference reports, even neither the Senate nor the House has debated the issue. To deny Members the opportunity to be heard, to allow for a conference report to include extraneous matter never considered by either body, particularly when both Chambers are controlled by one party, to rush to cloture petitions with the incredible acceleration that the majority has authored over the last 4 or so years, undermines the role of this institution. One hundred of us serve in the Senate, have an obligation to represent our constituents, have an obligation to do the Nation's business. We also bear a collective responsibility, as temporary custodians of this valued institution, to see to it that its historical role will not be undermined, will not be changed by the precedents we establish in the conduct of our business. Over the last 4 or so years, regretfully, the majority in this Chamber has so warped the rules of the Senate that the minority is denied the opportunity to raise critical issues the American public wants us to debate and on which they want to have our voices heard. Without rule XVI, as presently enforced under the 1995 precedent, which allows us to raise the issues that we are denied to bring up under normal circumstances, and without rule XXVIII which prohibits matters which have not been publicly aired from being included in conference reports, it is not just a matter that I am denied the opportunity to be heard, it is that my constituents and the American public are denied an opportunity to be heard. We are their voices here. So, for these reasons I will support the Democratic leader in his efforts to restore rule XXVIII to prohibit the majority from adding provisions in conference that have not been considered by either the House or the Senate. It flies in the face of common fairness to shut out the minority's opportunity to be heard on appropriations bills, but then allow the majority to have unlimited scope to add any provision to a privileged conference report. I would urge my colleagues in the majority to think carefully before opposing Senator Daschle's amendment. When both the House and the Senate are in the hands of the same party, it is tempting to ignore rule XXVIII and use highly privileged conference reports to pass legislation that the minority in the Senate might otherwise attempt to stall by use of the Senate's rules. But such a short-term view can come back to haunt a majority if the leadership changes in one of the houses of Congress. The tactic the majority uses today to shut out dissent and debate and force through legislation can just as easily be turned against it tomorrow by an opposing party. In the end, rule XXVIII maintains the balance between the House and the Senate. The rule ensures that neither House, regardless of party, has so great a leverage over the other that it can force legislation through without debate. In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to make it perfectly clear that Democrats are not asking for the right to control the Senate. The voters determine who is the majority. But as the majority, the Republican leadership knows that on any issue it can summon the votes to thwart a minority victory. Nonetheless, the constitution provides for a body that is intended to engage in full and open debate. I urge my colleagues to restore the Senate to its place as the deliberative anchor of Government by supporting the Daschle amendment and opposing the restoration of rule XVI at this time. And I urge the majority, on behalf of history, to modify their behavior in the Senate and allow this institution to function as its creators and founders intended. I thank my colleague from Nevada for the time.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada. And I thank my colleagues who have spoken on this issue this morning, an issue that may seem to the general public as sort of an arcane debate involving the internal machinations of this body. But in my brief remarks this afternoon, I would like to suggest that this debate may be one of the most significant ones we have in this Congress because it is the process and the procedures which determine the ability of a minority in this body to be heard. If that ability is constrained, is gagged, is muffled, then the public is denied the opportunity which the Senate, as a forum, has historically provided to the citizenry of this Nation, and that is a full airing of the issues that they should hear, that they should be aware of, as we deliberate the matters which will affect their lives and the lives of their families for years and decades to come. So while a procedural debate may sound boring to some and may not sound as if it is of terribly great import to others, this is, in truth, a significant debate and discussion. Therefore, I add my voice to those who have raised concerns about a vote that will occur later this afternoon dealing with rule XVI of the Senate. I am in somewhat of a unique position. I am standing next to my dear friend and colleague from West Virginia, who is recognized by all in this Chamber, regardless of party, and those who have come before us, as one of the truly great historians of the Senate, arguably the most knowledgeable person who has served in this body in its 210-year history when it comes to the role of the Senate both in terms of our own history as well as the role of senates throughout recorded history. I am also in a unique position in that I am the inheritor of the seat once held by a distinguished Senator from Connecticut by the name of Roger Sherman. Roger Sherman, among other things, was the only Founding Father, as they are referred to, to have signed the four cornerstone documents, as we call them, of our Nation. He signed the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights. He was from New Haven, CT. I sit in his seat in the Senate, as you track a Senate seat from those who first represented the Thirteen Original Colonies in the Senate to the modern Senate of today. But maybe more importantly than his signature on those four cornerstone documents, he was the author of what was called the Connecticut Compromise. The Connecticut Compromise produced the Senate of the United States as a body. There was a crisis, politically, at the time of the debate in the constitutional convention between large States and small States about where power would reside. Roger Sherman, along with others, proposed the Connecticut compromise, which gave birth to the Senate as a place where small States would be equally represented by the participation of two Senators from each State regardless of the size of the State. But more importantly than that debate, it was also designed to be a forum wherein the rights of a minority could be heard. The rules of the House of Representatives--I served in that body for 6 years--were and are specifically designed to guarantee the rights of the majority. Majority opinion prevails in the House, and that is how it should be. We had come off a system ruled by one individual, a king. We wanted to establish a system of government where the majority opinion of the American people could be heard and their voices could result in opinions being rendered and decisions being made which reflected those majority feelings. But the Founding Fathers and those who supported them in their wisdom understood there could be a tyranny of the majority, that quick decisions made rapidly without a great deal of thought or consideration could in some instances do more harm than good. So the Senate was created as a balance, as a counterweight, in many ways. The Senate was designed to be a place where those majority decisions, as important as they are, would then have to be brought for further consideration in this Chamber where additional consideration and thought would be offered, where the views of those who may not have been heard in the House of Representatives could be heard, where the rights of a minority, including a minority of one Senator, would absolutely be guaranteed the right to be heard, as long as that Senator could stand on his or her feet and express their opinions--the filibuster rule which protects the right of one of us out of 100. Ninety-nine people cannot stop one Senator from speaking, once that Senator has gained recognition from the Presiding Officer. It is a unique set of rules, completely contrary to the rules of the House, where one Member of the House cannot command the attention of the entire Chamber, or that person is limited to 5 minutes in talking and must get unanimous consent to speak for a 6th minute. In the Senate, that is not the case. As long as you can stand and be heard, no one can interrupt you or break the flow of debate. There are many other distinctions which make the Senate unique and special, but that is certainly one of them. This afternoon we are going to debate and vote on a rule which also goes to the very heart of whether or not the Senate is going to maintain its unique and distinct role as being sort of the antithesis, if you will, the counterweight, as was described by Thomas Jefferson when he argued against the creation of the Senate, that this would be the saucer in which the coffee or the tea would cool, where temperatures could be lowered, the heat of debate would be softened, consideration and thought would be given to the decisions that the majority had made in the other Chamber. I come to this issue with a sense of history about Roger Sherman, in whose seat I sit, who authored the creation of the Senate with the Connecticut compromise, with a deep sense of appreciation for the role of the House, having served there, and also a very strong sense of the role that the Senate should play and why this debate on rule XVI is more than just an internal discussion, a debate among Senators that has little or no impact on the daily lives of the people we seek to represent. As the ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee, I yield to no one except, as I mentioned earlier, the senior Senator from West Virginia, in my respect for the standing rules of the Senate, as intended by the Founding Fathers. The Senate is respected as the most deliberative body in the world. The rules, as I have suggested, of the Senate assure that such deliberation can occur, must occur, and that the rights of a minority will always be protected. We are all familiar with the story of the conversation I mentioned a moment ago between Thomas Jefferson and George Washington in which Thomas Jefferson questioned the need for the United States Senate. Washington reportedly responded to Thomas Jefferson, as Jefferson was pouring his tea into a saucer to cool it during the informal discussion they were having, so legislation would be poured into the senatorial saucer to cool it, Washington suggested to Jefferson, and thus the value of the Senate. Similarly, as reported by our own historian, Dick Baker, James Madison, writing to Thomas Jefferson, explained the Founding Fathers' vision of the Senate. Madison reminded Thomas Jefferson that the Senate was intended to be the ``anchor'' of the government. According to Madison, the Senate was ``a necessary fence against the fickleness and passion that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and Members of the House of Representatives.'' Within the first month of its convening, on March 4, 1789, this anchor, the Senate, recognized that to function efficiently rules were going to be required. Almost from the beginning there was a recognition of the need to separate the authorizing and appropriating functions of the Senate, the very matter with which rule XVI is concerned. The first Senate rules were adopted on April 16, 1789, and the Senate adopted general revisions to those rules seven times over the 210-year history of our Nation, including revisions in 1806, 1820, 1828, 1868, 1877, 1884 and 1979. Although the current language of rule XVI did not appear until the 1979 revisions, the prohibition on adding general legislation to an appropriations bill had its roots in rule XXX of the 1868 revisions adopted in the 48th Congress. The 1868 general revisions were the ones last proposed by the special committee prior to the establishment of the Rules Committee as a standing committee in 1874. I ask for an additional 5 minutes, if I may.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this amendment expresses the Sense of the Senate with respect to the discriminatory European trade practices being perpetrated against certain American products in the guise of promulgating regulations on noise emissions. Last year the European Union began to restrict the use of so called hushkitted or reengined U.S. aircraft in the European community. These aircraft had been specifically modified to meet U.S. Stage 3 quiet noise standards. Ironically, the United States is several years ahead of Europe in urging U.S. aircraft to be reengined to comply with such standards. EC Regulation No. 925/1999 has been crafted in such a way as a noise standard to effectively prohibit U.S. aircraft that have been hushkitted from flying in European airspace even though these aircraft are actually quieter than many European aircraft and engines. The standard is written in such a clever way that it touches only U.S. products. That in and of itself should make anyone suspicious as to whether the motive is noise abatement or a clearly disguised technical barrier to trade. At the moment the EU has delayed implementation of the regulation but it has not been formally rescinded. That means that anyone thinking about buying U.S. aircraft that have been hushkitted, which most older aircraft have been to meet U.S. standards, would have to make some judgement as to whether this regulation is likely to resurface again. If the judgement is yes then a potential buyer would refuse to buy U.S. aircraft if they would be contemplated for use on European routes. For more than fifty years, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has been the single entity vested with the authority to establish international noise and emission standards, and thanks to its efforts aircraft noise has been decreased by forty percent. Moreover, ICAO is working as we speak to tighten international noise standards even further. For the European Council to arbitrarily seek to preempt the efforts of the ICAO is extremely unhelpful and patently discriminatory against U.S. aircrafts and engines. The amendment I have offered today calls upon the U.S. Department of State to seek international relief from this discriminatory regulation by partitioning the ICAO under existing relevant international conventions. It also calls upon other relevant U.S. agencies with jurisdiction over trade and transportation matters to work to resolve this matter. Mr. President, there are clearly binding amendments that could be offered to deal with this problem. I do not support such an effort at this time. This is a matter for the Departments of State and Transportation together with the Office of the United States Trade Representative to work out with their European counterparts. I strongly urge them to do so on an expeditious basis.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to address the Senate for a few moments about a topic I know has consumed the attention of each and every one of us in this Chamber, indeed all Americans, over the past several days, and that is the tragic deaths of John Kennedy, Jr., his wife Carolyn, and her sister Lauren Bessette. Permit me, if you will, to engage in a little regional chauvinism, for there are few things in life so pleasant as a New England summer day. It is glorious to behold. The warm sweet air, the cold waters of its rivers and lakes and ocean seem to command a celebration of the very simple pleasures of life. On this past Saturday, though, the inherent joy of a New England summer season dissolved throughout America with the news that these three young people were lost off the New England coast. Lost on a day that seemed meant for gladness, not grief. Lost in waters that should have welcomed pleasure, not disaster. For one family, the Kennedy family, a moment of a family's supreme joy--a wedding--was snatched greedily by the hand of a very cruel fate, indeed. Most of us spent the better part of this past weekend hoping against hope that John and Carolyn and Lauren could be found safe and alive. By Sunday night we were resigned to the awful truth. Two American families have endured unspeakable loss. One of those families, which is represented by the Bessette and Freeman families, we know very little about. They are constituents of mine and my colleague, Senator Lieberman. We know very little about them other than the fact of their tragic loss. We can only imagine the joy and love and, yes, the easy and brilliant summer days, that they shared with these two remarkable and talented young women. The other family we know a great deal about--about its moments of triumph and tragedy--and through it all their consistent service to our Nation and to humanity. It happens that the patriarch, if you will, today of that family is our colleague and one of my dearest friends in this body, Ted Kennedy. We can only wonder at the immense burden of the grief he carries for his relatives over this loss and over all the other senseless, excruciating losses endured by the Kennedy family over the years. Those of us who have come to know him can only admire his courage and perseverance in the face of adversity which would wither the will of other men. I know I speak for all of us here, and that I echo the sentiments expressed here on the floor this morning and last evening by other colleagues, in saying that we send our deepest, deepest sympathies to him, to his family, and to the family of Carolyn and Lauren Bessette. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

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

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, once again this year, the Small Business Administration held its annual Small Business Week. The SBA hosts this event to recognize the many accomplishments of this country's small businessmen-women. Today, I am pleased to pay a special tribute to the achievements of Max Solis, Chairman and CEO of BST Systems, Inc., who was named Connecticut's 1999 Small Business Person of the Year. Having received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the City College of New York and a Masters of Business Administration from New York University, Max Solis went on to found BST Systems, Inc. in 1983. BST Systems, Inc., located in Plainfield, Connecticut, is a small minority-owned business that employs approximately 68 people. BST focuses on engineering-oriented, high- technology business and specializes in manufacturing and testing high- energy silver zinc cells, specialty cells and complete batteries, as well as electronic support equipment for NASA, the Department of Defense, and various commercial applications. In addition to this most recent honor, BST Systems also received NASA's 1994 Minority Subcontractor of the Year Award and NASA's Commitment to Excellence Award in both 1995 and 1997. Just this past May, BST Systems was the recipient of the George M. Low Award, NASA's highest honor for excellence and quality and recognition of its significant contributions to the advancement of our nation's space program. Mr. President, I am so very pleased to have the opportunity to highlight the success of Max Solis and BST Systems, Inc. Small business entrepreneurs like Max Solis and his employees keep this country on the cutting edge of innovation and advanced technology. And as we enter a new century, small businesses like BST will be integral to ensuring continued American leadership in these critical areas. I congratulate Max Solis and BST Systems, Inc. on being honored by the Small Business Administration for their outstanding efforts, and I wish them much success as they, and other small businesses, continue to provide valuable products and services to people across the country and, indeed, throughout the world.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator DeWine, in introducing the Nurse Appreciation Act of 1999. It will alter the Department of Veterans Affairs' regulations regarding compensation rates for nurses. Unfortunately, the current regulations have led to hardship for many of our nation's VA nurses. For example, from 1996 through 1999, nurses at 16 VA hospitals have seen their pay slashed by up to eight percent. Also, during those same years, nurses at 80 VA hospitals have not received a single raise. Meanwhile, other federal employees at all VA hospitals received the annual General Schedule increases of 2.4 percent to 3.6 percent. This nation cannot continue a policy of turning a blind eye to those who care for its sick and wounded veterans. The Nurse Appreciation Act of 1999 will correct this injustice which seems to be an unintended consequence of the Nurses Pay Act of 1990. That law was written when VA hospitals faced a shortage of qualified nurses, and it gave hospital directors wide discretion in setting pay rates for nurses in their hospitals. The law partially served its purpose because it allowed directors to increase nurses' pay rates if they were having difficulty recruiting and retaining qualified nurses. Those who wrote the law, however, could not have anticipated that the VA would take advantage of the fact that the law did not mandate any minimum annual increase each year. They could not have anticipated that the law would be used to freeze or even reduce nurses' pay rates. Over the past several years, a few factors emerged to create the inequity in VA nurses' compensation. First, the nurse shortage of a decade ago has subsided. Second, VA hospital directors and network directors have been granted more responsibility for their budgets. In other words, if hospital directors can save money by not providing an annual increase to nurses, then the directors can use that money for other purposes. Finally, to make matters worse, the funding that goes to these hospitals has been, in many cases, steady or decreasing over the past few years. I know, for example, that the two VA hospitals in Connecticut have not received a real funding increase in about three years. So the hospitals in Newington, West Haven, and in many other cities throughout the country must tighten their belts each year to absorb costs due to inflation. The pressure to save money has caused many hospital directors to forgo providing even the slightest annual increase to nurses. Yet, hospital budget pressures have absolutely no bearing on whether other federal employees--including other veterans hospital employees--receive their annual salary increases. Those increases are prescribed by the federal government. This legislation just says that nurses should be treated the same as the others. It says that nurses should not bear a disproportionate share of the burden caused by stagnant budgets at our VA hospitals. Apparently the VA believes that, in the absence of a nurse shortage, annual increases for nurses are unnecessary. But I do not subscribe to that reasoning. We should not wait for a crisis before we take action. If we get to the point where some VA hospitals are unable to retain well-qualified nurses as a result of unbearably inadequate pay, we will have waited far too long and will have badly degraded services at our VA hospitals. Furthermore, this nation has benefitted from a robust economy over the last several years. That economy has given a boost to nearly every segment of society. Clearly, though, despite the immense value of their work, many VA nurses have been left behind. Valuable work on behalf of this nation deserves, at a minimum, adequate compensation. This bill will provide that compensation and enable us to do right by our VA hospital nurses.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator DeWine, in introducing the Nurse Appreciation Act of 1999. It will alter the Department of Veterans Affairs' regulations regarding compensation rates for nurses. Unfortunately, the current regulations have led to hardship for many of our nation's VA nurses. For example, from 1996 through 1999, nurses at 16 VA hospitals have seen their pay slashed by up to eight percent. Also, during those same years, nurses at 80 VA hospitals have not received a single raise. Meanwhile, other federal employees at all VA hospitals received the annual General Schedule increases of 2.4 percent to 3.6 percent. This nation cannot continue a policy of turning a blind eye to those who care for its sick and wounded veterans. The Nurse Appreciation Act of 1999 will correct this injustice which seems to be an unintended consequence of the Nurses Pay Act of 1990. That law was written when VA hospitals faced a shortage of qualified nurses, and it gave hospital directors wide discretion in setting pay rates for nurses in their hospitals. The law partially served its purpose because it allowed directors to increase nurses' pay rates if they were having difficulty recruiting and retaining qualified nurses. Those who wrote the law, however, could not have anticipated that the VA would take advantage of the fact that the law did not mandate any minimum annual increase each year. They could not have anticipated that the law would be used to freeze or even reduce nurses' pay rates. Over the past several years, a few factors emerged to create the inequity in VA nurses' compensation. First, the nurse shortage of a decade ago has subsided. Second, VA hospital directors and network directors have been granted more responsibility for their budgets. In other words, if hospital directors can save money by not providing an annual increase to nurses, then the directors can use that money for other purposes. Finally, to make matters worse, the funding that goes to these hospitals has been, in many cases, steady or decreasing over the past few years. I know, for example, that the two VA hospitals in Connecticut have not received a real funding increase in about three years. So the hospitals in Newington, West Haven, and in many other cities throughout the country must tighten their belts each year to absorb costs due to inflation. The pressure to save money has caused many hospital directors to forgo providing even the slightest annual increase to nurses. Yet, hospital budget pressures have absolutely no bearing on whether other federal employees--including other veterans hospital employees--receive their annual salary increases. Those increases are prescribed by the federal government. This legislation just says that nurses should be treated the same as the others. It says that nurses should not bear a disproportionate share of the burden caused by stagnant budgets at our VA hospitals. Apparently the VA believes that, in the absence of a nurse shortage, annual increases for nurses are unnecessary. But I do not subscribe to that reasoning. We should not wait for a crisis before we take action. If we get to the point where some VA hospitals are unable to retain well-qualified nurses as a result of unbearably inadequate pay, we will have waited far too long and will have badly degraded services at our VA hospitals. Furthermore, this nation has benefitted from a robust economy over the last several years. That economy has given a boost to nearly every segment of society. Clearly, though, despite the immense value of their work, many VA nurses have been left behind. Valuable work on behalf of this nation deserves, at a minimum, adequate compensation. This bill will provide that compensation and enable us to do right by our VA hospital nurses.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Oregon. I apologize for not being here during the presentation of the amendment dealing with clinical trials by my friend and colleague from Florida, Senator Mack. He made numerous references to the amendment I offered yesterday, and I want to address those concerns. While I have deep appreciation for the motivations behind the amendment offered by our colleague from Tennessee, Senator Frist--and I will speak specifically on the issue of the clinical trials--the amendment offered by Senator Mack, if you look at it in the totality, says no to 9 out of 10 people in this country. How does that work, 9 out of 10? The clinical trials are limited to cancer therapies only; only for cancer. We all agree we ought to have clinical trials for cancer. No one disagrees with that. In a way, it is very cruel to say we can have experimental testing for cancer patients, but we cannot for people with AIDS, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, and heart and lung disease. A long list of patients are excluded. Today, if you are watching this debate and you have cancer and this amendment is adopted, you are OK, but God help you if you fall outside the cancer area and you need the clinical trials, or you want to get involved in that because it could save your life, save your wife's life, or your child's life. You would like to get in the clinical trials. If you adopt this amendment, you cannot. The argument is, we need to study the issue more. If we need to study clinical trials, why make an exception for cancer? If we don't need to study the clinical trials for cancer, it seems to me we don't need to study them when it comes to other life-threatening, devastating diseases where the only option can be the clinical trial. As I said to my colleagues yesterday, this is the only option we offer in our amendment. It has to be clinical trials approved by NIH or the Department of Defense or by the Veterans Administration. There must be no other alternative available, and it only picks up routine costs. The cost of drugs and medical devices is not included. I don't understand how we say to someone with mental illness, osteoporosis, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, stroke, blindness, arthritis, Lou Gehrig's disease, and more areas where clinical trials can make a difference for people. By adopting this amendment, we are excluding the option of people to utilize what may be the only avenue available to them to save their lives or the lives of their family. Obviously, we acquire necessary information that allows a product or a device to become available to the public at large, saving future generations. So I urge my colleagues, with all due respect, while it is hard to argue with this limited amendment, we will have a broader amendment that covers all of these areas which are so critically important to people.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, let me know when I have a minute and give the Senator from Florida a minute to respond to what I am saying. The CBO estimates 12 cents per patient per month. That is their estimate. Sloan-Kettering and M.D. Anderson say it is lower than standard cost, less than the cost that would be otherwise. We limit, by the way, how the clinical trials are approached so that you have to have no other available option. It has to be life-threatening. It is only NIH, Department of Defense, and Veterans Affairs. We have narrowed it and also said, as important as cancer is--and I am a cosponsor of the bill of the Senator from Florida, but I hope my cosponsoring of clinical trials for cancer is not interpreted to mean that I do not think there ought to be clinical trials for diabetes or AIDS or mental illness or heart and lung disease or multiple sclerosis osteoporosis--all these other areas in which it can make a difference. I applaud my colleague for his bill. That was to deal with cancer, but we do not exclude these other options which most are doing today. Most are, but this is for the few that do not.

Mr. DODD. Two minutes.

Mr. DODD. I ask the Senator have an additional 1 minute.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for yielding. I suppose the best evidence I can offer is, in fact, a significant number of HMOs today are offering full clinical trials. What we are talking about are the few who are not. My amendment is not designed to deal with every HMO. Most of them today provide clinical trials on a wide array of issues. We are, by our amendment, saying: Shouldn't those few HMOs that are not doing this do what the others are doing? Sloan-Kettering and M.D. Anderson cancer research centers did independent studies on costs. I think they are world-class institutions. Their conclusion was the clinical trial was less, lower cost----

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. DODD. On this issue, on the clinical trials, to deny people across the board the ability to access clinical trials is one of the great shortcomings of the Republican proposal here. This will do a lot of damage to an awful lot of people, unnecessarily. The application of clinical trials is the only course available to people to save their lives and to save future lives. By excluding AIDS and the other diseases I have mentioned from the clinical trial approach, not to mention 113 million people who are excluded, we do a great disservice, at the end of this century, to people who expect more of this body. I urge the rejection of this amendment. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent for half a minute.

Mr. DODD. I deeply appreciate the Senator from Massachusetts raising that point. He is absolutely correct. It does cover the cancer patient, provided you are part of that small minority that gets coverage. But if you are part of the 113 million and have cancer, you are out. It is an important point to make. If you are part of the 48 million, you are out there completely. You are just gone. I think this is a tragedy. Every single cancer group in this country does not support this amendment. No cancer group at all endorses this amendment because they understand it is a great deprivation and liability to their efforts. They understand how important it is to cover these other illnesses as well. These groups, by the way, also have supported unanimously the amendment we offered, which would have covered clinical trials for all patients.

Mr. DODD. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. Let me just say, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 90 percent of HMOs provide broad-based clinical trials. They did the study on the 12-cent per month cost; and 90 percent do. Our amendment deals with a handful who are not. Ironically, the adoption of this amendment may encourage some of these HMOs that are today providing clinical trials across the board to reduce actually the number they provide. That is No. 1. No. 2, I say to my friend and colleague from Tennessee, these HMOs, the 90 percent that are providing broad-based clinical trials, have obviously done an economic study or they would not do it. They are not mandated under current law to do it. So the vast majority providing clinical trials beyond just cancer have, obviously, made the financial calculation that this is something they can afford to do. So in addition to Sloan-Kettering, M.D. Anderson, and the Congressional Budget Office--the costs are relatively low. They are providing the benefit. What we were saying in the amendment that was defeated yesterday is you ought to be for those 10 percent or 12 percent that are not providing the clinical trials in these other areas. You ought to do so. That is the distinction, and there is ample data.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today the people of Northern Ireland were denied an opportunity to take a major step forward in making the promise of peace contained in the Good Friday Peace Accords a daily reality. Today, David Trimble, President of the Ulster Unionist Party, refused to lend his party's critical support to the implementation of a key provision of that agreement--the establishment of a Northern Ireland legislature and the appointment of its twelve member, multiparty executive. Ironically, in refusing to cooperate in the formation of the assembly, the Ulster Unionists are further away from their stated goal of ensuring IRA decommissioning of its weapons at the earliest possible date. Regrettably, despite the herculean efforts of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern to move the process forward, the so called d'Hondt mechanism provided for in the agreement has been run and an attempt to form an executive with cross community support has failed. I am deeply disappointed that the leadership of the Ulster Unionist Party has been unable to garner the necessary support of its membership to honor the obligations that the leadership committed that party to when it signed the Accords on April 8, 1998. More importantly, the people of Northern Ireland, who turned out in large numbers to participate in last year's referendum endorsing the Good Friday Accords, must also be deeply disappointed that once again their political leaders have fallen short, let this deadline pass and jeopardized the peace process. Where do we go from here? Prime Minister Blair and Taoiseach Ahern will meet next week to reassess the situation, including the possibility of implementing those provisions of the agreement that fall within the mandate of the British and Irish Governments. In addition, the parties are required by the terms of the agreement to undertake a fundamental review at this juncture. In the meantime, I would hope that the people of Northern Ireland, Protestant and Catholic, who stand the most to lose if this agreement is allowed to wither on the vine, will let their political leaders know how disappointed they are that the agreement is not being implemented in good faith. I would also call upon those who have resorted to violence in the past to refrain from doing so--violence can never resolve the political and sectarian conflicts of Northern Ireland. Mr. President, for more than a quarter of a century Protestants and Catholics throughout the North have lived in fear that a trip to the movies or the market place could prove to be a fatal one because sectarian violence has been a common occurrence in their daily lives. The Northern Ireland Peace agreement was designed to end the cycle of violence that has destroyed so many families in Northern Ireland. It can still accomplish that goal. There is still time for all of the parties to find the political courage to do the right thing for the people who they claim to represent. Mr. President, I like to think of myself as a realist, yet despite the events of the last several days I am optimistic that the Good Friday Accords remain the key to unlocking the formula for a lasting peace throughout Ireland. With the help of the British, Irish and American governments, there is still time for Northern Ireland's political leaders to find within themselves the courage to move forward with the implementation of the Accords. I hope and pray they do so before that time runs out.