Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague, we had a very delightful meeting for an hour and a half with Andy Grove. Those were, as I recall them, his sentiments expressed to us. He is someone who has been quoted over and over in the last number of weeks, and we finally got to meet the man quoted endlessly and found out where he stood on this legislation. Four or five of us had the privilege this morning of spending an hour and a half with him and discussing a wide range of issues, including education policy. He was very clear, I thought, in his expression of concerns about this effort and the damage that can be caused by the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thought our colleagues might find it worthwhile to know that there are literally dozens of organizations, representing a significant percentage of the gross domestic product of this country, that endorse the McCain-Wyden-Dodd legislation, the Y2K bill. Beginning with the aerospace industry organizations, running through to the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce Association, the West Virginia Manufacturers Association, Valve Manufacturers, Service Masters--all of the high-tech organizations, many of the State organizations--the North Carolina Electronic and Information Technology Association, Technology of New Jersey--it just goes on down this long list. My colleagues may want to have some idea and sense of the people we have worked with mostly now for many months to try to craft this legislation in a timely fashion. This list represents almost 70 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States and thousands and thousands of working men and women in this country who would like to see Congress come up with some answer of how to solve the Y2K problem and yet not create a cost and an action that doesn't solve the problem but ends up with more costs and without resolving the very serious issue that Y2K poses. I ask unanimous consent that list be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to again turn to the Y2K liability bill and the very real importance of this issue. As you know, I have served for the past year with Senator Bennett on the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem. For over a year, we have examined the coming millennium changeover and the possible problems associated with it. We have held hearings to examine the effects of the year 2000, including hearings on industry, finance, energy, telecommunications, international trade, community safety, health, and litigation. Throughout these hearings, the committee has become increasingly alarmed at both the perception and the reality of a gathering storm of potential liability and consequent litigation that could swamp our court system and impact our Nation's businesses. Mr. President, I would dare say that many Americans, have in one way or another felt the direct effect of our Nation's burgeoning wave of litigation that has been growing steadily over the past half century. Whether it be the increasing cost of health care, insurance premiums or consumer products, we have all experienced the results of litigation costs. Americans have become accustomed to living in a litigious society. Occasional abuses of the legal system generally arise from problems that are generally limited in scope. An example of this can be found within the securities industry where the legal system was no longer an avenue for aggrieved investors but rather had become a pathway for a few enterprising attorneys to manipulate legal procedures for their own profit. So-called strike suits were generated whenever stocks went down and sometimes when they went up. These costly suits were frequently settled by companies seeking to avoid the expense of protracted litigation. I authored litigation reform legislation, which passed despite a veto by the White House. In other words, I have strongly supported litigation reform efforts in the past. As with securities litigation reform, the need for Y2K litigation reform arises from a national problem yet it should be addressed with a narrowly tailored solution. Mr. President, only a narrowly tailored solution could effectively manage the demands of such a pervasive problem. Potentially, any business in the country might be swept into the Y2K problem, either because it is itself not prepared or because a firm it depends upon is not prepared. The Special Committee on Year 2000 has heard testimony that as many as 15 percent of the businesses in this country will suffer Y2K-related failures of some kind. Even now we read that small and medium-sized businesses across the globe are not taking the necessary steps to become Y2K-compliant, and many think they don't have a Y2K problem. Since businesses are interconnected these days, just one failure in one business may generate cascading failures that may then generate numerous lawsuits. The mere fact that this is such a pervasive problem is in itself the primary reason why litigation on this matter could cost in the hundreds of billions. It has been suggested that as a result of Y2K, the United States could easily find itself witnessing not only a huge surge in litigation, this potential litigious bloodletting could have long-term consequences on the economic well-being of our country. By now we have all heard that the cost of Y2K litigation could reach the astronomical figures. Various experts, including the Gartner Group from my own state of Connecticut, have estimated that the costs of litigation may rise to $1 trillion. Such estimates, and I must stress that these are only estimates, underscore the need for serious review and a bipartisan approach to this issue. Massive amounts of litigation has the potential to overwhelm the court system, disrupting already-crowded dockets for years into the next millennium. We must be careful that an avalanche of lawsuits does not smother American corporations and bury their competitive edge. A maelstrom of class action lawsuits could have long- term consequences on the American economy and the American people. There are several things that should be absolutely understood about this bill, first and foremost, the provisions in this bill will sunset in 2003. Secondly, this bill will not affect the rights of plaintiffs and defendants in personal injury actions in any way. Most importantly, this bill seeks to encourage individuals and businesses to do all that they can do to make themselves Y2K compliant and to encourage efforts to mitigate Y2K related damages. This is a complex bill with many complex legal issues. Some of my colleagues are opposed to the section of the bill that provides for proportionate liability, which generally means that a defendant can be held liable only for the damages for which he is responsible. Some of my colleagues argue that it is unfair for an innocent plaintiff to run the risk that it might not recover 100 percent of its damages if it can't hold the defendant liable for that amount, even if that defendant was only responsible for 20 percent of those damages. I would respond by saying that not only is it equally unfair to demand that businesses with little complicity in a dispute be required to pay for most of the damages just because it has deep pockets. Moreover without some form of proportionate liability, plaintiffs' lawyers will always name a deep- pocketed defendant in a suit because they know the deep-pocket will have to pay for all the damages even if that defendant is only marginally responsible. I would remind my colleagues that the bill retains joint and several liability in cases where the defendant acted with specific intent to injure the plaintiff or knowingly committed fraud and does not affect personal injury cases. As a result, the proportionate liability provision in this bill finds a reasoned balance between the rights of plaintiffs and the rights of defendants. As I have said on numerous occasions that a Y2K liability bill should not be a vehicle for broad tort reform. And efforts to impose broad caps on punitive damages are just that. The provisions that I propose aren't tort reform, but merely protect small businesses and the mom and pop enterprises by capping punitive damages only for small businesses that have 50 or less employees and caps damages at $250,000 or three times the compensatory damages, whichever is smaller. The White House has expressed concern about the bill's provisions for capping punitive damages, however as my esteemed colleague Senator Wyden pointed out the last time the Senate considered this issue during last year's products liability bill, it included a cap on punitive damages lower than this, and the White House agreed to this proposal. It is unclear then why they are opposing the cap in this bill which provides for more punitive damages. Other voices have suggested that this bill relieves businesses and corporations from accountability or responsibility. The bill does not do this, but does try to ensure that those who do sue will do so responsibly and specifically and that there will be ample opportunity for parties to solve the Y2K problem before litigating their Y2K problems. To ensure responsibility on the plaintiff's side, for example, the bill requires the plaintiff to provide specific details about the injuries they've suffered when they file a complaint. Plaintiffs who can articulate the nature of their injuries are less likely to be filing frivolous complaints. To ensure accountability on the defendants side, companies are given a narrow window of opportunity to solve any Y2K problems they've created before a lawsuit is filed. This window of opportunity gives them the chance to maintain a business relationship by providing professional and responsible service to their customers before the business relationship is soured by a lawsuit. There are those who say that state courts have been addressing issues like the Y2K problem for years and can continue to do so. They also say the state legislatures are fully capable of addressing the Y2K problem and that there is no need for the Federal Government to become involved. My colleagues should know, however, that nearly every state to date has either passed Y2K liability legislation or is considering such legislation, so Y2K actions in the future will probably not be set on long-standing state precedents. Instead, they may be decided under new untested and untried state laws. The bill provides in most cases, for uniform provisions to be applied to Y2K cases, enabling both plaintiffs and defendants to predict the law that applies to them. Furthermore, since all of these laws are different, firms engaged in interstate commerce--nearly every firm these days--will be at a disadvantage. It is difficult to do business where potentially 50 different and changing sets of laws might apply. The bill's provision of generally uniform guidance for Y2K cases levels the playing field and reduces the cost of doing business for potential plaintiffs and potential defendants. Multiple sets of laws also raise the problem of forum shopping, which occurs when plaintiffs try to bring their lawsuits in states where the laws are most advantageous to them. This leads to imbalances in our state courts, and high costs for defendants. Since the bill provides for generally uniform standards across the country, forum shopping in Y2K cases will not be a problem. State courts can maintain balanced caseloads: and the cost of defending Y2K lawsuits will not be unreasonably high due to forum shopping. Some are of the view that the Y2K problem has been around for 40 years and should already have been solved, and that the Senate has no business stepping in to protect the high-technology industry. And we should be clear, we are not trying to protect the high-technology industry, but instead we are trying to manage a problem for all business and individuals, the mom and pop grocery and the major enterprise. We are all plugged in today, and the bill speaks to the massive litigation boom that has the potential to bankrupt all kinds of businesses, costing individual Americans their livelihoods. While we are rushing to solve the Y2K problem and the policy issues therein, we should above all strive to enter the next century with a sense of vision, and this vision should include a prudent analysis of the looming challenges of potential Y2K litigation. As I have said before, no one wants to begin the next millennium by trading a vision of the future for a subpoena. I commend my colleagues from Arizona, Oregon and others who have worked so hard on this. I thank my colleague from South Carolina, the ranking Democrat of this committee. He feels very strongly about this legislation. It could have--as Members have the right to do--delayed action a long time on this. In fact, to be able to get to the consideration of it today is something that I deeply appreciate. We disagree on this matter. It is one of those rare occasions when we do. But, when we do, that is a normal way of conducting business. I happen to think this is a good bill. It is a practical bill. It is a 36-month bill--3 years. That is it. It is narrow in scope and narrow in time. It is a practical way to try to deal with a serious problem that looms on the horizon. We have to have balance. It incorporates the ideas that are fair to the plaintiffs and that are fair to the defendants. It allows resolution of these potential difficulties without having to get to court. We are a very litigious society. Every person in the country knows that. I think every effort that we can make to avoid going to court instead of rushing to fix the problem we ought to do. This bill tries to achieve that goal without denying people the right to get to court. I commend my colleagues in this effort. I hope that we can pass this bill today or tomorrow after covering a variety of amendments, and go to conference. I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. DODD. I was going to urge that it be set aside for 5 minutes or so. There is an item that I think might make that a bit stronger.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. Let me just again state to my colleagues, this is a 3-year bill. We are not changing tort law for all time. We are not even changing tort law. This is narrow in scope. It affects just Y2K issues for a limited duration to try to resolve the Y2K issues. Let me say to my friend from Massachusetts, again, I respect what his intentions may be, but the adoption of the Kerry amendment expands, rather than contracts, the area of law we are trying to deal with here. My colleague from Oregon has stated it well. You cannot, because you do not like the contract, all of a sudden decide you want to get into torts. I appreciate a plaintiff's lawyer wanting to do that, but we ought to be trying to fix these problems, not litigate these problems. That is what the McCain bill is designed to do. My fervent hope is my colleagues will understand the fundamental difference and support the underlying legislation and not allow this bill to be destroyed, in effect, by adopting a measure here that would create more litigation, more problems, make it far more difficult for Americans who are going to be afflicted by this problem with the Y2K issue. With all due respect to its authors, I urge the rejection of the amendment and the support of the underlying McCain bill.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tania Calhoun, a fellow with the Select Committee on Y2K, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the bill.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. DODD. We do not protect illegal contracts in this legislation. If there is any question, let the legislative history confirm that. I do not think we need confirmation. Upholding an illegal contract by legislation would require herculean efforts that do not exist in this particular proposal. I yield the floor to others who may want to speak.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am grateful to Senator Kerry of Massachusetts for offering his amendment, which allows us now to have a full debate on what is a comprehensive amendment. It covers a whole series of provisions which are included in the pending bill before the Senate. Let me try, if I can, to take each of the critical provisions in the amendment, address them, and explain why I believe, despite the good intentions of its author, it would do significant damage to the underlying purpose of the bill that Senator McCain and Senator Wyden and myself and others have offered to the Senate for its consideration. I said at the outset of my remarks earlier today that this bill is very narrow in scope, very narrow in duration, and limited to a fact situation which most Americans, I think, have a growing awareness of today. In 204 days the millennium clock will turn, and there is a very serious set of issues that could affect many Americans and many people outside of our shores: that is the so-called Y2K glitch or bug in computers based on information that is included in embedded chips and other items within these computers which would read the date of the year 2000 incorrectly. I am, of course, simplifying the situation. I think the Senate is well are aware of the danger inherent in the Y2K problem. That problem could, of course, create serious disruptions in a variety of mission- critical functions in telecommunications, transportation, medical care, Federal services, and the like. Over the last year and a half the Senator from Utah and I, as chairman and vice chairman of the Y2K Special Committee, have conducted some 21 hearings to examine where we were with the Y2K problem, what the Federal Government was doing, what State governments were doing, what local municipal governments were doing, and what the private sector and nonprofits were doing in order to remediate the problem; to fix the problem as soon as possible; and, where that may not be possible, to have contingency planning to avoid the kind of potential disruptions that those who are most knowledgeable about this issue suggest could occur. Over that period of time we have seen significant improvement in the remediation done by the private and public sector, State and local governments, all across this country. In fact, we are at the point where we believe, as of this date, in June, with some 204 days to go, the country is by and large in good shape. We should not anticipate or be worried about any major disruptions here in the United States. There could be exceptions to that but, by and large, we think that is the situation today. One of the things we are trying to do is see to it that when January 1 arrives, the best effort of a business--small, medium, or large--does not go for naught as a result of its inability to detect problems with embedded chips that ultimately result in Y2K-related failures. Last year we passed a bill on disclosure to encourage the various sectors of our society to share as much information as possible with each other so that we could contribute to the remediation effort and avoid the kinds of problems some are anticipating will occur after January 1. That bill created a safe harbor provision, which allowed for the sharing of information--not sharing of lies and knowingly false information, but sharing as much knowledgeable information that businesses had--without worrying that someone would come around later and say, ``what you said in June of the year 1999 was not exactly right,'' and, therefore, you would be subject to litigation. That bill was passed overwhelmingly by this body and the other body and signed into law. It is making, we think, a significant contribution to avoiding the kinds of problems that we could have had after January 1 of the year 2000. But it does not eliminate all the problems. In fact, no one can pass a piece of legislation that will eliminate all the difficulties. We realize with those problems that may emerge that you could have disruptions as a result of the failure to detect such things as faulty embedded chips. So this legislation before us is designed to be a complementary piece of legislation to the disclosure act of last year, a complementary piece of legislation to the efforts of Senator Bennett, myself, and others who have worked on that committee, who strived to encourage, jawbone, do whatever we could, to minimize the kind of difficulties Americans could face. We do not claim we have achieved all of that yet. But with the adoption of this bill, a 3-year bill, a 36-month bill, we say to potential plaintiffs and defendants: If, in fact, a problem arises that under any other circumstances might give rise to a lawsuit, we want you to try to avoid that lawsuit, if you can. We want you to try to work out the problem. We want you to spend your time, your money, and your efforts to fix the Y2K problem, not to run to the nearest courthouse and then spend weeks and months, potentially years, at the cost of millions of dollars, litigating an issue and not solving the underlying problem which is causing the kind of disruptions this issue can potentially cause. That is the purpose of this bill. That is the rationale behind it: to try to avoid rushing to the courthouse. We are a litigious society. We love lawsuits. Most Americans are painfully aware of this. There is nothing wrong with going to court to try to solve your problems. But I think most would agree that if you can avoid going to the courtroom to solve your problems, you can get better results in many instances. So this legislation is designed specifically to avoid rushing to the courthouse for 36 months--not for a lifetime, not for eternity, but for 36 months--during the critical period where this issue is upon us, to see if we can't work out these difficulties. We only do that for 36 months with issues directly related to the Y2K issue, not any matter that comes up, but specifically the Y2K issue. We do so in a very limited way. Specifically, we do not prohibit lawsuits. We merely are trying to see if we cannot come up with an alternative vehicle to solve the problems. Mr. President, what Senator Kerry of Massachusetts has done is offered a series of ideas that he and those who have joined him believe will enhance the underlying legislation. They state --and I believe them--that they are desirous of making this a better bill, of making it less likely that we are going to have a race to the courthouse. As you analyze what they have proposed, despite their good intentions it would appear they are doing just the opposite of their intentions. I can accept, although I do not entirely understand, those who are just fundamentally opposed to what we are trying to do, and then offering a series of provisions which would gut our very underlying intent. I do not support it. I vehemently oppose it. But I can't understand how a rationale could be made for you to oppose the idea of trying to avoid litigation for 36 months, if you can, on this Y2K issue. Let me take, if I can, some of the provisions included specifically in the Kerry proposal and explain why I think those provisions directly undercut the underlying intent of the McCain-Wyden-Dodd proposal. One deals with the bill's proportionate liability provisions. As I read the legislation, the Kerry bill, on page 13 of this proposal, states that notwithstanding the proportionate liability sections, the liability of a defendant in a Y2K action is joint and several if the defendant fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that prior to December 31, 1999, the defendant identified the potential for Y2K failure, and then, in paragraph two, provided information calculated to reach persons likely to experience Y2K failures. Consider what those two provisions would do. Those are findings of fact, not findings of law. So even if a defendant has made some effort to identify potential Y2K failures, and made efforts to provide information calculated to reach the likely persons, you know very well that those are questions of fact, not of law. I would be hard pressed to identify a judge that was not going to say that questions of fact go to a jury. As a result, there will be litigation on the very issue upon which my colleague from Massachusetts is trying to avoid litigation. Again, I can understand why some may disagree with the proportional liability provisions of the bill. They do not like the idea of having proportional liability. But I think it is only fair and just, under these fact situations. Otherwise what you get, very clearly, is attorneys who will go shop around for some company that is infinitesimally involved but simultaneously has deep pockets, and that becomes your defendant. They will then try to get that fractionally involved defendant as becoming totally responsible and culpable for the Y2K failure. That is directly contrary to what we are trying to do here in this bill, directly contrary to what we are trying to do with the 90-day cooling off period, directly contrary to our saying that you have to go after the people responsible for the injury. By suggesting here that if they would just identify the potential Y2K problems and provide information to reach the persons likely to experience these failures, it seems to me that you have undercut entirely the desired goal in the underlying bill by avoiding the proportional liability provisions of the legislation. It is these provisions that we think will do a great deal to minimize the rush to the courthouse. These matters just do not end up in court miraculously. It takes an energetic and aggressive bar that wants to pursue them. That would be the case, in my view, if this amendment were adopted. Again, these are findings of fact, not of law. No judge that I know of would dismiss a case where there are findings of fact to be determined. Those should go to a jury. Therefore, your motion to dismiss fails. Therefore, you are in court. Therefore, you have destroyed what we are trying to accomplish with this 36-month bill, just to deal with a Y2K issue, where the issue ought to be to try to resolve the problems the American public faces. As a practical matter, we have 204 days left before the millennium clock turns. If you adopt these provisions here over the next 204 days, instead of remediating the problem, setting up your contingency planning, which is what you ought to be doing at this point, we will have people running around here trying to figure out ways to meet some standard here so they can avoid the joint and several liability provisions. I can see them suggesting that we ought to be spending resources here to identify potential Y2K failures and provide information to persons likely to be subjected to those failures. With 204 days to go--if my colleague from Utah were here, I think he would echo these comments--we need everyone in this country involved in this issue spending every available moment of time and every bit of resources fixing these problems instead of trying to avoid the kind of legal hurdles placed in the way that the Kerry amendment would require, if his amendment were to be adopted. An excellent point that should be made is that this proportional liability section would also encourage results where U.S. companies could end up paying for the wrongs of foreign companies, non-U.S. companies. It has been stated over and over again, and I can tell you that it is true based on our information, that Y2K remediation efforts abroad are lagging. If a U.S. plaintiff can't recover against a non- U.S. company, he is going to try to recover against the closest deep pocket in this country. So you end up having U.S. companies that have made a significant remediation effort having to bear all the burden because a foreign manufacturer has not done the job as well. The plaintiff has a hard time reaching that potential defendant, so he races to the most fractionally involved U.S. company in order to get their full compensation. That is just not fair. The amendment's contracts preservation section does not preserve contracts. Although it is essential that Y2K contract rights be fully enforceable, the bill's formulation allows contractual provisions to be set aside, even by vague State common law rules. This approach would give State court judges the power to throw out contract provisions they don't like. One thing that has been sacrosanct is, when there is a contractual relationship, that is what prevails. If the parties enter into a contract, then the contract rules. If you are going to allow, as you would if the Kerry amendment is adopted, State court judges to undo contracts, because you don't like contract law but you want tort law, then you are expanding an area of the law that we have never done. Where there is a contract in place, the contract rules. If you are going to allow State courts to undo that and then allow attorneys to shop around the country until they find a State jurisdiction where they have avoided these contracts, you have just gutted this bill. If you want to gut the bill, gut the bill. If you want to destroy this effort, destroy the effort. But do not stand up simultaneously and tell me you are trying to enhance what we are trying to do and then allow State courts to gut contract law in this country. The Kerry amendment also makes liability for economic losses more expansive than current law. Under current law in most jurisdictions, plaintiffs who are in a contractual relationship with the defendant cannot circumvent the contract by trying out the tort idea. I understand lawyers want to do this. We don't like the contract my client entered into, so let's try going to the tort idea here. Not terribly clever, not terribly unique, pretty commonplace. But we are not going to all of a sudden say that contracts are no longer valid here. In essence, if you adopt this amendment, at least this part of it, that is what you are doing. If there is a good contract, then the contract rules. The idea you can circumvent that contract by seeking to bring a tort suit to recover your economic losses permits all intentional torts to go forward, whether or not the parties have a preexisting relationship. Whatever else you may like about this amendment, that provision alone ought to cause it to be overwhelmingly defeated. The amendment's carveout for noncommercial suits, in my view, will permit a huge range of abusive actions. The Kerry proposal carves out suits by individuals from most of the provisions of this bill. I believe that abusive class actions on behalf of consumers are one of the greatest dangers in the Y2K area, because such suits are easily created and controlled by plaintiffs' lawyers. That also was the case in the securities area prior to the enactment of the securities legislation, a bill that we adopted several years ago. Again, in this area, the McCain-Wyden-Dodd bill does protect class action lawsuits. They are not done away with here. We simply try to tighten up the rules under which class actions can be brought, and I think wisely so. We don't want to be going back and saying basically that in these areas you can file vague complaints where no one can determine what the charges are against you. Remember, in this area of Y2K--unlike securities litigation where clearly the defendants are going to be securities firms and the like--a small business can be a plaintiff and a defendant very quickly. It is not going to be as clear as to who the consumers are here. Is one going to suggest to me that a small business where there is a computer glitch that all of a sudden gets sued is a nonconsumer, in a sense? I think we are trying to draw lines here that don't apply in the area of law that we have crafted with the McCain-Wyden-Dodd bill. So by suggesting that all the other provisions of law are OK here is to basically just say this bill has been defeated. If that amendment is offered as a single freestanding amendment, we may as well not take the time of the Senate to go further. I will recommend that you pull the bill down because, frankly, then you have said this proposal here has no merit. So I am not suggesting these are all the provisions of the Kerry amendment, but they are the ones I think are most egregious and which I think would do the most damage to the underlying effort that the Senators from Oregon and Arizona, and others, have tried to craft here. Again, this is a bill for 36 months, that is it. We have 204 days left to do something to minimize a serious problem. I hope we have no problems come January 1 and February, and that all of the talk about a serious Y2K problem turns out to be wrong. Then we can look back and say maybe we didn't need this bill. But I would rather be standing here and have that happen than to be sitting around in January and all of a sudden watch serious problems occur, people racing to courtrooms all over the country because this body didn't think 36 months set aside in this area was a worthy exercise to defend against a potential problem that could cause Americans a lot of difficulty. For once, this body, the Congress, is taking action in anticipation of a problem. What we normally do is wait for the problems to happen and then scurry around trying to fix them. Here in June we are trying to do something to avoid potential catastrophes in January. I commend my colleagues again--those who have been involved in this--for having the wisdom to step up and try to take meaningful action here. Do we have a perfect bill? No, I can't tell you that. We realize we are sailing in uncharted waters here. But we think we are on the right side of this and our footing is strong--36 months, narrow in scope and time--to try to avoid the millions, if not billions, of dollars that ultimately taxpayers and consumers may end up paying for a lot of worthless lawsuits to satisfy the appetites of a few narrow members of the bar. I think it is a risk worth taking. I think in the long run the American public will support our efforts. With all due respect to my colleague from Massachusetts, for whom I have a great deal of admiration, we fundamentally disagree. Were his proposal to be adopted, I believe it would do significant, if not irreparable, damage to the McCain-Wyden-Dodd approach we have drafted and submitted for our colleagues' consideration. I yield the floor. Unanimous Consent Agreement

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to state my views on the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization bill. First, I congratulate the Chairman, Senator Warner, and the Ranking Member, Senator Levin, for their work on this bill. Together they helped move this bill through the Senate in record time. The broad support for this bill provides a promising beginning to Senator Warner's tenure as Chairman of the committee, and it is a tribute to Senator Levin's ability to work with members from both parties on matters of national defense. This bill provides an increase in defense spending that will maintain this nation's superpower status as we enter the 21st Century. As always, this defense bill relies heavily on Connecticut--the Provisions State. In procurement and modernization, Blackhawk helicopters, Comanche helicopters, the F-22 program, the Joint Strike Fighter program, Joint STARS aircraft, and submarine programs were all funded at or above the President's request. For our military personnel, this bill authorizes much deserved pay and pension increases. Other important programs that this bill funds include: military construction, cooperative threat reduction and ballistic missile defense. I commend the Senate Armed Services Committee for increasing the number of H-60 helicopters requested in this bill from 21 to 33. The Committee added nine UH-60L Blackhawk helicopters for a total of 15 that will begin to fill the Guard's requirement for 90 Blackhawks. I feel strongly that it is important to fill this requirement, especially as we continue to call up our Guard and Reserve forces to serve in the Balkans. Those forces deserve to have the most modern equipment that this country can provide. The Committee also added three CH-60 helicopters, the Navy version of the Blackhawk. The CH-60 will replace several models of the Navy's helicopter fleet and will perform all the missions for which those models were responsible. The committee gave a vote of confidence to the Comanche helicopter program by adding over $56 million in research and development funding to the Administration's request. Likewise, it supported the purchase of a fifteenth Joint STARS aircraft. Those aircraft are performing magnificently in the Balkans, and I feel that this nation should continue to build these aircraft until the Air Force has the 19 aircraft it needs. The guided missile submarine concept received a boost by this committee in the form of $13 million in needed research and development funding. The concept proposes converting four Trident submarines into guided missile submarines which would be capable of launching more tomahawk missiles than any ship afloat today. As important as the funding authorization was the provision the committee included in the bill to reduce the lower threshold of our Trident submarine force. That action will allow the Navy to reduce the number of Trident submarines from 18 to 14, an adjustment to the fleet that the Chief of Naval Operations has requested. By including the provision, the committee surmounted an obstacle to implementing the submarine concept and saved taxpayers billions of dollars which would have gone towards upgrading Trident missiles. This bill authorizes important increases in military pay and pensions that this nation's servicemen and servicewomen deserve. I note that this bill not only calls for more pay and higher pensions, but it also identifies how this nation will pay for those important increases. Furthermore, through the regular hearings with Defense Department officials over the last few months, the Department has had ample opportunity to air its views with respect to provisions of this bill that address pay and pension issues. I am proud to support these provisions. As for the prospect of additional military base closures, a minority of the Senate once again sought to mandate another Base Realignment and Closure round in 2001. I opposed that amendment for a few reasons. Even after a Defense Department report and a General Accounting Office report, there is no clear accounting of how much this nation saves from base closure rounds. Furthermore, the long-term environmental clean-up costs are virtually impossible to estimate. I think that before we put communities across the country through the wrenching experience of another base closure round, we must better understand the costs and benefits of another round. Finally, I want to remind my colleagues that some of the bases ordered to be closed under previous rounds have yet to be closed. Of those that have been closed, some have not yet been turned over to the surrounding communities. I would like to know the full impact of the previous rounds, and I will not put communities in my state at risk by rushing into another round without being absolutely certain that this nation is ready. The Senate wisely voted to table an amendment offered by Senator Specter which would have sent a dangerous signal to Slobodan Milosevic that the United States is not committed to ending his horrific campaign of genocide. As we debate these issues, we must be cognizant of the fact that our men and women in uniform are risking their lives in the Balkans. They deserve to know that our Nation's leaders, including the Senate, stand firmly behind them. An amendment which limits our Commander-in-Chief's ability to act sends exactly the opposite message. It tells every soldier, sailor and airman and woman that the United States Senate is wavering in our support for their efforts and sacrifices. That is a statement we must never send. Similarly, we must remember that there are innocent men, women and children, desperately looking to the United States and NATO for relief from Slobodan Milosevic's hateful campaign of genocide. Approval of the ill-advised amendment would have likewise sent a signal to the 1.4 million ethnic-Albanians who have been displaced from their homes that we were wavering at the moment they needed us most. As I have said time and time again, we must be mindful of the United States role as a world leader and the degree to which our NATO allies look to us for guidance. The Specter amendment would have precluded the President and our military from effectively responding to urgent military requirements and putting an end to Slobodan Milosevic's murderous campaign as expeditiously as possible. It would also have precluded the United States from taking the lead on an important potential avenue to bringing a lasting peace to the Balkans. In closing, I again commend the managers of this bill for their efforts. This legislation is a fitting tribute to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who protect this Nation's freedom and liberty. It comes at an appropriate time--just before Memorial Day when we will honor the sacrifices that the members of our armed forces have made.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate Ehud Barak, on his victory in the recent Prime Ministerial election in Israel. Mr. Barak is a man of courage and a proven leader. He is eminently capable of leading our closest ally in the Middle East at this important juncture in its history. His resounding victory reaffirmed the Israeli people's strong desire for peace. Not only was the election a victory for Mr. Barak, it was also a victory for Israeli democracy. Nearly four out of five Israeli citizens over the age of 18 cast ballots on May 17, 1999. That figure is even more astounding when you consider that Israelis--even those living oversees--are not permitted to cast absentee ballots. More than ten thousand Israelis purchased airline tickets and traveled great distances in order to exercise their right to vote. This dedication to the most basic pillar of democracy is enviable, for if people fail to exercise their right to vote they quickly lose their voice. This election also marked an important milestone. For the first time in Israel's history, an Arab campaigned for Prime Minister. Although Azmi Bishara withdrew from the race shortly before the election in order to boost the chances of Mr. Barak, he should be commended for his courage in running. While members of Israel's Arab minority have long been represented in the Knesset--Israel's parliament--Mr. Bishara's campaign demonstrated that Arabs are welcome in all segments of Israel's political life. Mr. Barak is both a true son of Israel and a worthy leader of the only democracy in the Middle East. Born on a Kibbutz six years before Israel's independence, he has served his country well as its most decorated soldier, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, Member of the Knesset, Minister of the Interior and Foreign Minister. After the polls closed on May 17th, when it was clear that he had been elected, Mr. Barak traveled to Rabin Square in the center of Tel Aviv. Standing just feet from the spot where an assassin's bullet struck Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin three and a half years ago, the Prime Minister-elect renewed his commitment to the Peace Process Prime Minister Rabin courageously began. It was a fitting tribute to Israel's fallen leader. Making peace is not an easy endeavor. Indeed, it is often more difficult to make peace than to wage war. As Prime Minister Rabin often said, one does not make peace with one's friends, one makes peace with one's enemies. Barak, like Rabin, has proven himself a great general on the battlefield. Now he must prove himself worthy of the even more exalted title of peacemaker. I am confident that Ehud Barak will indeed earn that title, making Israel's second fifty-years devoid of the wars which characterized its first fifty years. Mr. President, the United States is one of Israel's closest allies. Under the stewardship of Mr. Barak, I am confident that relationship will only grow stronger. I look forward to a close collaboration between our two nations on issues ranging from security to trade. Most importantly, however, is the struggle to bring peace to a region which has seen far too many wars.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. Mr. President, I rise to support the Conference Report of H.R. 1141-- the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill before us today. I do so reluctantly, however, because of the many special interest riders that have been attached to this emergency legislation. In the final analysis I will support the conference report because it provides critically important funds to assist American farmers, to support ongoing action against Yugoslavia, to relieve the suffering of Kosovar refugees, and to help Central America recover from the devastating effects of Hurricane Mitch. In light of all the other measures that have been added to this bill, many of dubious merit, I deeply regret, Mr. President, that the Speaker of the House refused to allow House conferees to accept a Senate amendment that would have freed up monies for payment of the United States debt to the United Nations. I find it somewhat puzzling that House Republicans are on record calling for a negotiated settlement of the Kosovo conflict, yet are not prepared to provide overdue payments to the organization that will likely play a central role in implementing any peace agreement. I would like to dwell on two major provisions of this bill which I support, namely the aid to help Central America recover from the damage caused by Hurricane Mitch and the funds to sustain our ongoing efforts in the Balkans. The funds aimed at helping Central America recover from Hurricane Mitch stem from an emergency request the President made back in February. It is extremely embarrassing that it has taken until May for the Congress to finally get around to passing the necessary legislation to provide relief for a natural disaster that occurred last fall. I cannot overstate the degree to which the storm ravaged Nicaragua, Honduras and other nearby nations. In less than a week, Hurricane Mitch claimed at least 10,000 lives--possibly as many as 20,000, left more than a million others without adequate food or shelter, and set the economies of Nicaragua and Honduras back as much as a generation. The need for long-term international assistance is great. In late October and early November 1998, Mitch carved a slow, meandering and deadly path through the Caribbean. At the hurricane's apex, Mitch's storm clouds stretched from Florida to Panama and wind gusts topped 200 miles per hour. Meteorologists labeled Mitch a ``Category 5 Hurricane,'' the highest such designation. Unlike other hurricanes, Mr. President, it was not Mitch's winds which proved so deadly. By the time the storm crossed the Honduran Coast on October 29, 1998, its winds had slowed to 60 miles per hour and the storm's movement to a mere crawl. The torrential rain, however, did not abate. The storm's slow speed allowed it to continually pound the same area day after day. By the time the skies cleared, Mitch had dropped five feet of rain onto Honduras and Nicaragua. The massive flooding which followed claimed the lives of at least 10,000 Central Americans. That number, Mr. President, is certainly shocking. Yet, sadly, it is probably an understatement of the actual loss of life. As many as twelve thousand other people in the region are still missing and presumed dead. The Honduran government has declared 5,657 dead and 8,052 officially missing. In Nicaragua, at least 3,800 died. Smaller numbers perished in El Salvador, Guatemala and other countries in the region. Mr. President, not since the Great Hurricane of 1780, nearly 220 years ago, has a storm claimed so many lives in the eastern Caribbean. Mitch also destroyed or damaged 338 bridges, 170 in Honduras alone, leaving much of Honduras and Nicaragua accessible only by helicopter. The lack of helicopters in the region and their limited capacity left thousands without adequate food and water for weeks while some of the food provided by international aid organizations rotted at the airport. Those who survived face the task of piecing the economy and mangled infrastructure back together. Meanwhile, more than a million people throughout the region, including one out of every five Hondurans, had to rebuild their homes and replace their personal possessions. Honduran and Nicaraguan agriculture--a vital component of both economies--was decimated. Hurricane Mitch destroyed a quarter of Honduras's coffee plantations and 90 percent of the country's banana plants. The entire shrimp farming industry was destroyed. Damage to sugar and citrus crops was similarly heavy. The factories and farms of Honduras's Sula Valley, which normally contribute 60 percent of the country's GDP, were all flooded. While Nicaragua was not as badly damaged, the effects are still staggering: 20 percent of the nation's coffee plantations were destroyed. Newer crops such as citrus were completely annihilated. The process of rebuilding the shattered lives, infrastructure and economies of Honduras and Nicaragua will be long and expensive. The World Bank and the United Nations Development Program estimate the total damage to the region at more than $5.3 billion. While these numbers are difficult to comprehend, they are even more daunting given that the GDP of Nicaragua is only $9.3 billion and that of Honduras only $12.7 billion. I commend my colleagues for finding the resources to assist our neighbors to the south who have called upon the international community in their hour of need. It is not only in their interest, it is in our interest to assist them. It deserves our strong backing. The original intent of the President's request for emergency appropriations from the Congress was to provide our men and women in uniform with the equipment and materiel they need to effectively strike the Yugoslav military. While I am heartened by recent reports of a possible diplomatic solution, we must remain prepared to continue our military efforts in the absence of an enforceable diplomatic solution which meets NATO's conditions. Mr. President, we must never take the decision to send our service men and women into harm's way lightly. If a situation which is such an anathema to the United States that it calls for military action presents itself to us, however, we must vigorously support our soldiers, sailors and airmen through both word and deed. As I just mentioned, the decision to send our military into battle is one of the most solemn that this body or this nation ever faces. And so, before I go on, let me reiterate why the situation in Kosovo justifies, in fact demands, American military involvement. Slobodan Milosevic has carved a place for himself amongst history's most despicable tyrants. Serb forces have murdered least 5,000 ethnic- Albanian civilians and burned six hundred villages. To date, approximately 80 percent of Kosovar Albanians--more than 1.3 million innocent men, women and children--have fled their homes in a desperate attempt to outrun Serb military and police forces. Nearly 750,000 Kosovar Albanians have made it to the relative safety of neighboring countries and are now living under the most difficult of conditions. These numbers, however horrific, tell only part of the story. They cannot express the pain of a family torn apart by blood-thirsty paramilitary policemen or the pain of a young woman gang-raped by Serb soldiers. They do not express the tears of a young child who spends each day wandering between the tents of a Macedonian refugee camp searching for his or her missing parents. They do not describe the pain, both physical and psychological, the victims of torture feel each day. Many members of Congress, myself included, have traveled to the region and visited the refugee camps. We have seen the pain in the eyes of the refugees fortunate enough to have made it out of the killing fields of Kosovo. Mr. President, the look in the eyes of these refugees defies description. The ongoing genocide in Kosovo is antithetical to the most basic principles on which the United States stands. By acting to preserve the fundamental rights of Kosovar Albanians, the United States is reaffirming our belief that all people are endowed with certain inalienable rights, including the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If, however, the United States chose to stand idly by in the face of such grotesque evil, we would draw into question our dedication to human rights and our resolve to oppose dictators around the globe. Our military, however, cannot effectively combat this evil if we in the Congress fail to offer them our support. One month ago, President Clinton sent a request to Congress for $6 billion in order to fund our military operations through the end of the fiscal year. That money is included in this bill. As we debate this issue, people far beyond the walls of this chamber are listening to our words and watching our actions. Our men and women in uniform throughout the region who are putting their lives on the line each day want to know whether we in the Congress will seize this opportunity to support them. They need and they deserve the very finest equipment our nation can muster--the type of equipment the President's original request will pay for. In capitals across Europe, our allies are listening and looking to the United States for leadership. They want to know whether the United States will maintain its commitment to NATO and to this important operation. In refugee camps in Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro and elsewhere, hundreds of thousands of Milosevic's innocent victims are listening; hoping that we will reaffirm our commitment to them. In the hills and forests of Kosovo, men, women and children who are hiding from soldiers and policemen are listening to American radio broadcasts on portable radios. They are looking to the United States for hope and support in their most desperate hour. And finally, tyrants around the world, but especially in Belgrade, are judging our dedication to human rights and freedom. Mr. President, we must send the same message to all: The United States will not back down in the face of unspeakable evil. Just a moment ago, I mentioned that the President requested $6 billion for the ongoing operation in the Balkans. In just one month, however, that $6 billion bill has ballooned into a $14.9 billion monstrosity. The President's original request now represents well under half of the total bill. Regretfully, the majority of the new spending is for non-emergency programs which fall far outside the original intention of the legislation. Such programs should rightfully be left to the regular appropriations process. The issues this bill was intended to address are simply too important to be embroiled in political spending. Thus, while I continue to support strongly the President's original request, I support the legislation before us with reluctance due to the expensive, non-emergency riders that were added during the House/Senate conference on this measure. Mr. President, the provisions of this bill relating to Kosovo and Central America deserve our immediate attention and support. The victims of mother nature's fury in our own hemisphere and of Slobodan Milosevic's genocide in Europe, as well as the brave American men and women fighting under the American flag, need and deserve America's support. For that reason I intend to vote to support passage of this conference report despite its imperfections.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, one of the best ways to approach juvenile justice is to prevent violent offenses from occurring in the first place. Therefore, I am pleased to offer the ``Violence Prevention Training for Early Childhood Educators'' amendment to S. 254, which is aimed at preventing the development of violence in children at the earliest ages so that they never grow up to become juvenile offenders. This amendment--which I understand will be contained in the Managers' amendment at the conclusion of consideration of the bill--would authorize no less than $15 million in grants for teachers to learn violence prevention skills. All of us have been shaken by the tragedy at Littleton, CO. Americans are left searching for answers to many questions. How could these teenagers have committed such brutality? What happened to the innocence and joy of youth? How can society help prevent such violent, deadly behavior from happening again? One of the most effective solutions is to begin violence prevention at an early age. This program is a carefully thought-out program aimed at true prevention. It is designed to help early childhood educators-- the people who work directly with young children in preschools, child care centers, and elementary schools--learn the skills necessary to prevent violent behavior in young children. This amendment would provide support to programs that prepare these professionals so that early childhood teachers, child care providers, and counselors are able to teach children how to resolve conflicts without violence. In addition, these professionals are in the perfect position to reach out and extend these lessons to parents and help whole families adopt these powerful skills. Research has demonstrated that aggressive behavior in early childhood is the single best predictor of aggression in later years. Children observe and imitate aggressive behavior over the course of many years. They certainly have plenty of exposure to violence, both in the streets and at home. A Boston hospital found that 1 out of every 10 children seen in their primary care clinic had witnessed a shooting or stabbing before the age of 6. I am disheartened to report that in my home State of Connecticut, 1 in 10 teens have been physically abused. Alarmingly, more than a third of teenage boys report that they have guns or could get one in less than a day. In these circumstances, aggression becomes very well- learned by the time a child reaches adolescence. We must provide children with strategies for altering the negative influences of exposure to violence. Early childhood offers a critical period for overcoming the risk of violent behavior and later juvenile delinquency. And the proper training of professionals who work with young children offers one of the most effective avenues for reaching these kids. This is not to suggest that early childhood professionals would replace parents as a source of teaching social skills and acceptable behavior. Instead, these teachers should demonstrate these skills with the children in their care and be encouraged to work with the whole family to address conflict without violence and aggression. In 1992, Congress enacted similar legislation to provide grants for programs that train professionals in early childhood education and violence counseling. These grants funded some remarkable programs. In my home state, a program at Eastern Connecticut State University trained students--half of whom were minority, low-income individuals-- to be teachers in their own communities, and trained child care providers in violence prevention with young children. Unfortunately, just as these efforts were getting off the ground and starting to show promising results, the funding for the program was rescinded as part of the major 1994 rescission bill. Looking back, after the horrible events in Littleton, CO, Springfield, OR, and too many other communities, I think we can clearly see that was a mistake. Hindsight is always clearer--but let's not make the same mistake going forward. Let's reinvest in these efforts so that we can prevent our children from developing into violent juvenile offenders. Preventing future acts of violence is an issue that rises above partisan politics. I think we can all agree that steps need to be taken to reduce the development of violent behavior in children. Please join me in this effort to begin creating a safer society for everyone, especially our children. truancy prevention

Mr. DODD. As many of my colleagues know, I have worked consistently for the last several years to address what I believe is one of the key ``gateway'' offenses leading to delinquency and serious crime among our youth--Truancy. Working with Senator Sessions, we have been able to include language encouraging states and local communities to pursue truancy prevention programs with the assistance they will receive under this bill. I want to thank Senator Sessions for working with me on this effort. Truancy is a dangerous and growing trend in our nation's schools. It not only prevents our children from receiving the education they need, but it is often the first warning of more serious problems to come. Truant students are at greater risk of falling into substance abuse, gangs, and violent behavior. For many students, truancy is the beginning of a lifetime of problems. It is estimated that, in the past ten years, truancy has increased by as much as 67 percent. On an average school day, in the United States, as many as 15 percent of junior and senior high school students are not in school. In some urban schools, absentee rates approach 50 percent. Alarmingly, the problem is becoming increasingly prevalent in our elementary schools. Almost one quarter of Connecticut's truants were 13 or younger. By some estimates, truants cost our nation more than $240 billion in lost earnings and forgone taxes over their lifetimes. Yet this sum does not include the billions more in dollars spent on law enforcement, foster care, prisons, public assistance, health care and other social services. Fortunately, truancy is a solvable problem. Many communities, including many in Connecticut, have set up early intervention programs--to reach out and prevent truancy before it leads to delinquency and more serious criminal behavior. A number of Connecticut cities have brought back truant officers, hired drop-out prevention workers, held parents accountable for their students absences, denied credit to students with unexecused absences, and have created truancy courts. These programs are showing signs of success. Several towns have reported dramatic drops in daytime burglary rates--some as much as 75 percent--after instituting truancy prevention initiatives. Unfortunately, communities have had difficulty implementing these programs as truancy is considered an educational rather than a criminal justice issue, and, with growing classroom enrollments, many financially-strapped schools simply do not have the resources to adequately address this problem. The provision that Senator Sessions and I are adding to the juvenile justice bill will ensure that communities have the wherewithal they need to respond to this increasingly serious problem. The legislation's goal is to promote anti-truancy partneships between law enforcement agencies, schools, parents, and, community organizations. While each community must create a program which works for it, I believe that there are certain key components of successful programs. First, parents must be involved in all truancy prevention activities and they must be given incentives to face up to their own responsibilities. Second, students must understand that they will face firm sanctions for truancy. Third, all hubs of this partnership wheel-- law enforcement, educational agencies, parents, and youth serving organizations--must work together to help solve this problem. Truancy is an early warning that a child is heading in the wrong direction. I am hopeful that states and communities will use this new authority to support high quality truancy partnership projects. And we can move on to spend more time celebrating the accomplishments of our children than grieving over lost opportunities to stop the cycle leading to violent crime. federal son of sam legislation

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the distinguished Senator from New Mexico in offering this amendment to provide support for character education projects in schools and in after-school programs. These programs, organized around character education, would provide alternatives to youth at risk of delinquency and work specifically to reduce delinquency, school discipline problems and truancy and to improve student achievement, overall school performance, and youths' positive involvement in their community. Our amendment-- which I understand will be considered as part of the managers' package--would authorize no less than $25 million per year for character education in schools and in after-school settings. I am not here today to claim that character education is the answer to all the questions that have been posed to us as policy makers, parents and community members in the wake of the tragedy at Littleton, CO. But character education is part of the answer. Today's children have so many obstacles to overcome, including violence, drug use, peer and cultural influences, and too much unsupervised time on their hands. As a society, we must find ways to help these children become responsible citizens, to distinguish between right and wrong. To do this, we must build on traditional education by nurturing students' character. That is fundamentally what character education is about--it is about reinforcing those elements of character which bind us together into communities and into this great nation. Ideas like--trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and citizenship--underlie all of our government and civic organizations. We must reinforce these beliefs with our children at every opportunity. Parents have the primary responsibility here. Churches and other community organizations support these efforts. Schools are a key part of the equation. And these ideas must be a part of a child's day--after school--when they are often unsupervised and most risk of negative behaviors. And that is what this amendment does. It would set aside $25 million for school-based and after-school programs in character education. Schools could use these funds to work with parents and develop a character education program for their schools. We have seen so many successful programs in schools in my state; indeed, over 10,000 students currently participate in these activities. And the schools report amazing turn-around with reduced absenteeism, discipline problems, graffiti and fighting and improved student achievement and student participation in positive extra-curricular activities. In addition, this amendment would support afterschool programs that are organized around character education. These out of school hours are a key opportunity for our youth. We can provide enriched academic activities, sports and the arts. Or we can leave them to the alternatives--smoking, drug use, teen pregnancy, delinquency, and crime. I believe the better route is supervised, quality after school programs--and these programs will be even stronger with the inclusion of a character education focus, such as provided in this amendment. I commend my friend and colleague from New Mexico for his dedication to our children and to character education. I am pleased to be here with him again today to move forward this critical initiative that truly gets at the core of delinquency.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to commend Mr. Allan ``Bud'' Selig for his tireless efforts to make the recent baseball series between the Cuban National Team and the Baltimore Orioles a reality. Not only did this series bring together teams from two nations with a great love of baseball, but it bridged a gap between two peoples who share a great deal in common. Baseball is often called the ``American Pastime,'' and with good reason. Few events are greater harbingers of the coming of summer than the first pitches in ball parks around the country. Millions of parents across this nation carve time out of their days to teach their child how to throw a baseball or to coach a little league team. And millions of American children count their first baseball glove among their most treasured possessions. Baseball, however, is not only an American tradition. Rather, it is treasured with equal fervor and excitement by Cubans less than 100 miles from our shore. There, too, baseball is the national pastime. Countless Cuban and American children play little league baseball with visions of a future in the major leagues. Just as Americans eagerly count down to opening day, Cubans anticipate the first pitch of a new season with a mix of anticipation and excitement. Not only do Cubans and Americans share their deep love of baseball, they also both play the game with great skill. Indeed, some of America's finest players hail from Cuba. In spite of this close connection, however, politics has kept American and Cuban teams from visiting each other's stadiums for nearly four decades. This artificial separation remained intact until this spring when the Cuban National Team hosted the Baltimore Orioles in Havana. That game marked the opening day, not just of a two game home- and-home series, but hopefully of a new season in the relationship between two of the world's greatest lovers of baseball. The series, which continued in Baltimore this month, would never have come about if it were not for the courage and dedication of Bud Selig. His efforts succeeded where those of hundreds of diplomats and politicians have failed: he managed to bring the Cuban and American people together to celebrate the game they love so dearly. I recognize that the process of arranging these two games was rarely easy. At times, it seemed that the opening pitch would remain forever out of reach. Yet, Mr. Selig persisted and brought the two teams closest to our capitals--and their fans--together for two historic games. Our nation should be proud of and grateful to Mr. Selig for his efforts and look forward to additional contact between the Cuban and American peoples, both on and off the baseball diamond.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in expressing our condolences to the Nance family. As Senator Helms has pointed out, there are a number of them gathered today in the Senate gallery to hear these tributes. I cannot help but think what Bud Nance would think about a lot of this language out here. I imagine that I would see a twinkling in his eye. He might think we are getting excessive--to describe it politely. I do not think you can get excessive when talking about someone of the human quality that Bud Nance possessed. The reason you are seeing this bipartisan demonstration here today is because I never knew what Bud Nance's politics were. I had my suspicions because he was working with the chairman of the committee, but I never detected an ounce of partisanship in any approach he ever made to a Member of this body or members of the staff on either side of the aisle. It is a great tribute to his human qualities that he saw issues as they were--either right or wrong--or ways in which to get a job done to move a bill forward. Throughout that process, which too often brings out acrimony in people, Bud Nance seemed to attract the better angels in all of us. And it is that wonderful quality that he possessed that I admired so much. I came to really respect and enjoy this man's wonderful company over too brief a period of time. We lost a great friend and a wonderful member of the Senate family a few days ago. Many of us knew Bud Nance simply as ``the admiral.'' He was 77 years young. That is not a polite expression. Up until his last illness, he had great vitality. And I admired him. Less than a week before he passed away, I saw him here in the staff gallery. I went over and talked to him. I admired his tenacity. In spite of all that he was going through at the hospital, transfusions and all the rest, he remained determined to be here and determined to be involved. It is a great lesson for all of us that we should live life to the fullest. He certainly did. The loyalty that many members of the Senate and the staff, many of whom are here today, felt toward Bud Nance should be noted as well. Both sides of the aisle respected Bud Nance enormously. We were extremely fond of him personally. All of us who had the honor of knowing him are deeply saddened to hear of his passing. I express my condolences to his wife and children and grandchildren as well. As has been noted, he was the staff director of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He took over the stewardship of the committee in 1991. He was summoned out of retirement, as has been noted over and over again here by the chairman of the committee. It is not the first time that the admiral had worked for the Foreign Relations Committee. Back in 1979 and 1980, he had served as a special consultant to the minority staff on the SALT II deliberations. Over the years, many Senators consulted with him on matters related to strategic arms treaties. He was truly an expert in this area. When his wonderful friend, his lifelong friend, and our friend, Jesse Helms, called him up in 1991, seeking his help in reorganizing the committee, the admiral did what he had always done--he showed up ready for duty. He had retired to Virginia sometime before, but he could not say no. He accepted the challenge; and we are all the better because of it. In fact, he was excited to take on another challenge. Some of you may know that the admiral had initially refused to take any salary. This is something of which not many Americans are aware. But there are people around here who do work because they believe in the work they are doing. Admiral Nance was one of those individuals. He insisted he should not be paid lest someone think there was an appearance of impropriety. Of course that never crossed anyone's mind. The words ``impropriety'' and ``Bud Nance'' just would not fit in the same sentence, page, or book. He was a person of impeccable integrity. Eventually, the two friends had to compromise, as I am told, on minimal, symbolic compensation in order to comply with Federal laws. Bud Nance would also not want to be in violation of Federal laws. So there was a symbolic compensation that became Bud's salary. At any rate, Senator Helms and the admiral belonged to a mutual admiration society. All of us became associate members of this wonderful friendship that these two individuals shared. Bud Nance had an excellent relationship with the chairman, as all of us know, based on their deep loyalty to one another, deep appreciation of each other's talents, abilities and sense of character, and deep friendship that goes back to childhood. We make friends in our lives through the various phases of our travels in this world, but there is no friendship that is more enduring or more deeply appreciated than one that begins in childhood and carries on through life. That does not happen often, but when it does it is a unique relationship. The fact that Bud Nance and my great friend, Jesse Helms, had this friendship at the young age of 4 or 5 years of age that lasted to Bud's passing says wonderful things about both of these individuals that they sustained that friendship over these many, many years. For me personally, I say to the chairman, every day it was a pleasure to work with Admiral Nance. He was candid. He was straightforward. He always tried to do what he believed was in the best interest of our country. He was truly a patriot. That word too often is used to describe too many people, but in this case it happily applies to Bud Nance. He was 77 years old and a veteran of several distinguished careers. And he was tapped by Senator Helms to take over the helm of the committee. Of course, he had a wonderful and distinguished career in the Navy, as was noted by the Senator, and others. He grew up in North Carolina, attended North Carolina State, enrolled in the U.S. Naval Academy, U.S. Naval War College, and specialized in world governments and strategic planning. He earned a master's degree at George Washington University. He had many wonderful accomplishments. But the most important quality of all was he was just a wonderful human being, and all of our lives are enriched because he was a part of our lives. We are going to miss him.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, nearly five years ago, a bipartisan majority of this body ratified the North American Free Trade Agreement. Since then the promises of new jobs, increased exports, lower tariffs and a cleaner environment have all come true. In other words, Mr. President, NAFTA has succeeded despite the predictions of some that America could not compete in today's global economy. With the success of NAFTA as a backdrop, it is now time to move forward and expand the free trade zone to other countries in our hemisphere. To help accomplish that important goal, I am introducing legislation today which will authorize and enable the President to move forward with negotiations on a free trade agreement with Chile. Chile, Mr. President, is surely worthy of membership in NAFTA. In fact, Chile already signed a free trade agreement with Canada in 1996. Today, the Chilean economy is growing at a healthy annual rate of more than 7 percent. Chile is noted for its concern for preserving the environment and has put in place environmental protections that are laudable. Chile's fiscal house is in order as evidenced by a balanced budget, strong currency, strong foreign reserves and continued inflows of foreign capital, including significant direct investment. Chile has already embraced the ideals of free trade. Last January, the Chilean tariff on goods from countries with which Chile does not yet have a free trade agreement fell from 11 percent to 10 percent. That tariff is scheduled to continue to fall gradually to 6 percent in 2003. While some goods are still assessed at a higher rate, the United States does a brisk export business to Chile, sending approximately $4.5 billion in American goods to that South American nation. That represents 25 percent of Chile's imports. That $4.5 billion in exports represents thousands of American jobs across the nation. Furthermore, the United States currently runs a trade surplus of nearly $3 billion per year. Our firm belief in the importance of democracy continues to drive our foreign policy. After seventeen years of dictatorship, Chile returned to the family of democratic nations following the 1988 plebiscite. Today, the President and the legislature are both popularly elected and the Chilean armed forces effectively carry out their responsibilities as spelled out in Chile's Constitution. American investment and trade can play a critical role in building on Chile's political and economic successes. It is unrealistic to think that the President will be able to negotiate a free trade agreement without fast track authority. Nor should we ask Chilean authorities to conduct negotiations under such circumstances. Therefore, the bill I am introducing today will provide him with a limited fast track authority which will apply only to this specific treaty. I believe that fast track is key to enabling the President to negotiate the most advantageous trade agreements, and should therefore be re-authorized. At this point, however, there are stumbling blocks we must surmount before generic fast track can be re- authorized. Those stumbling blocks should not be allowed to stand in the way of free trade with Chile. Naysayers claim that free trade prompts American business to move overseas and costs American workers their jobs. They will tell you that America, the nation with the largest and strongest economy, the best workers and the greatest track record of innovation cannot compete with other nations. Mr. President, the past five and a half years since we ratified NAFTA have proven them wrong. Today, tariffs are down and exports are up. The environment in North America is cleaner. Most importantly, NAFTA has created 600,000 new American jobs all across the nation. The successes of NAFTA are an indication of the potential broader free trade agreements hold for our economy. Furthermore, trade and economic relationships foster American influence and support our foreign policy. In other words, Mr. President, this bill represents new American jobs in every state in the nation, a stronger American economy and greater American influence in our own Hemisphere. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, nearly five years ago, a bipartisan majority of this body ratified the North American Free Trade Agreement. Since then the promises of new jobs, increased exports, lower tariffs and a cleaner environment have all come true. In other words, Mr. President, NAFTA has succeeded despite the predictions of some that America could not compete in today's global economy. With the success of NAFTA as a backdrop, it is now time to move forward and expand the free trade zone to other countries in our hemisphere. To help accomplish that important goal, I am introducing legislation today which will authorize and enable the President to move forward with negotiations on a free trade agreement with Chile. Chile, Mr. President, is surely worthy of membership in NAFTA. In fact, Chile already signed a free trade agreement with Canada in 1996. Today, the Chilean economy is growing at a healthy annual rate of more than 7 percent. Chile is noted for its concern for preserving the environment and has put in place environmental protections that are laudable. Chile's fiscal house is in order as evidenced by a balanced budget, strong currency, strong foreign reserves and continued inflows of foreign capital, including significant direct investment. Chile has already embraced the ideals of free trade. Last January, the Chilean tariff on goods from countries with which Chile does not yet have a free trade agreement fell from 11 percent to 10 percent. That tariff is scheduled to continue to fall gradually to 6 percent in 2003. While some goods are still assessed at a higher rate, the United States does a brisk export business to Chile, sending approximately $4.5 billion in American goods to that South American nation. That represents 25 percent of Chile's imports. That $4.5 billion in exports represents thousands of American jobs across the nation. Furthermore, the United States currently runs a trade surplus of nearly $3 billion per year. Our firm belief in the importance of democracy continues to drive our foreign policy. After seventeen years of dictatorship, Chile returned to the family of democratic nations following the 1988 plebiscite. Today, the President and the legislature are both popularly elected and the Chilean armed forces effectively carry out their responsibilities as spelled out in Chile's Constitution. American investment and trade can play a critical role in building on Chile's political and economic successes. It is unrealistic to think that the President will be able to negotiate a free trade agreement without fast track authority. Nor should we ask Chilean authorities to conduct negotiations under such circumstances. Therefore, the bill I am introducing today will provide him with a limited fast track authority which will apply only to this specific treaty. I believe that fast track is key to enabling the President to negotiate the most advantageous trade agreements, and should therefore be re-authorized. At this point, however, there are stumbling blocks we must surmount before generic fast track can be re- authorized. Those stumbling blocks should not be allowed to stand in the way of free trade with Chile. Naysayers claim that free trade prompts American business to move overseas and costs American workers their jobs. They will tell you that America, the nation with the largest and strongest economy, the best workers and the greatest track record of innovation cannot compete with other nations. Mr. President, the past five and a half years since we ratified NAFTA have proven them wrong. Today, tariffs are down and exports are up. The environment in North America is cleaner. Most importantly, NAFTA has created 600,000 new American jobs all across the nation. The successes of NAFTA are an indication of the potential broader free trade agreements hold for our economy. Furthermore, trade and economic relationships foster American influence and support our foreign policy. In other words, Mr. President, this bill represents new American jobs in every state in the nation, a stronger American economy and greater American influence in our own Hemisphere. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is my intention to vote to table the Hollings amendment regarding television programming and I wanted to say a few words about why I am going to cast this vote. Television can be a valuable entertainment and educational tool and I commend my good friend, Senator Hollings for his work in this important area. I share his concern for the impact that violent programming has on children. However, I have concerns about a government entity, the FCC, determining for everyone what is deemed ``violent programming''. This amendment has critical free speech implications. What would constitute violent programming? Would a documentary or an historical piece be deemed as such because it depicted violent acts or victims of violence? These determinations are best made by parents--the people who know their children best. The impact of this amendment would be overly broad. In fact, two-thirds of American households have no children under the age of 18. Further, I have concerns about the government mandating another solution before current technology practices have been given a chance. Most television broadcast and cable networks have implemented a voluntary ratings system that gives advance information about program content. The TV Parental Guidelines were designed in consultation with advocacy groups and approved for use by the Federal Communications Commission last year. These voluntary systems are an important step in the right direction, because it allows us to think more carefully about what we watch and what our children watch. Congress also required that an electronic chip, called a V-chip, be included in newly manufactured television sets to allow parents to screen out material that they find inappropriate for their children. The first television sets equipped with V-chips will arrive in stores July 1, 1999; all new sets will contain a V-chip by July 1, 2000. I support the use of this valuable and innovative technology which enhances our ability to make careful choices. Just this week, FCC Commissioner William Kennard announced the creation of a task force to monitor and assist in the roll-out of the V-chip. Special emphasis will be given to educate parents about the availability and use of the technology. In fact, the Kaiser Family Foundation recently released a poll stating that 77 percent of parents said that if they had a V-chip in their home, they would use it. We need to give the integrated V-chip and ratings system a chance to work. It is time to honor the commitment that was made in 1997--to allow this system to proceed unimpeded.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Reauthorization Act and to commend Senator Frist for his leadership on this issue. I am pleased to join him as a co-sponsor of this legislation. This reauthorization will support SAMHSA in achieving its mission to improve the quality and availability of mental health and substance abuse prevention, early intervention, and treatment services. The SAMHSA Act allows States to develop comprehensive systems to provide better quality mental health care so that children and adults with serious emotional disturbances may remain in the comfort of their home and within a familiar environment as they receive treatment. The flexibility provided by this piece of legislation will also allow States to build partnerships with schools and neighborhoods so that we can better confront the causes and impact of violence on our schools and communities. I am pleased that this legislation will also continue to support homeless individuals who need mental health services and will allow States to be innovative in addressing the needs of special populations such as pregnant, addicted women and those with HIV. I am particularly pleased that this legislation incorporates a bill introduced by Senator Jeffords and myself, the ``Children of Substance Abusers Act'' (COSA). Children with substance abusing parents face serious health risks, including congenital birth defects, psychological, emotional and developmental problems, and the increased likelihood of becoming substance abusers themselves. Additionally, they are three times more likely to be abused and four times more likely to be neglected than children whose parents are not substance abusers. COSA addresses the devastation generated in the wake of parental substance abuse by promoting aggressive outreach to families in need and providing early intervention, prevention, and treatment services, and education and training for health and social services providers on recognizing and serving these families. Although this legislation is an excellent beginning, I am concerned about the omission of two critical issues which have not been adequately addressed by federal efforts to date-- the need to provide treatment to teens who are abusing alcohol and drugs and the use of restraints and seclusion on children in mental health facilities. Statistics reveal that in senior high schools across the country, twenty-five percent of students use an illicit drug on a monthly basis, and seven percent on a daily basis. In 1997, fifty-two percent of senior high school students reported monthly alcohol use, meaning more than four million teens consumed alcohol in any given month. Yet, only twenty percent of the 648,000 adolescents with severe substance abuse problems receive treatment. The legislation that I have introduced today, the ``Teen Substance Abuse Treatment Act of 1999'' would fill an important gap in our national strategy for combating substance abuse in our communities by dedicating funding for treating youth with alcohol and drug problems. This legislation would authorize grants to develop innovative services aimed at the specific needs of teenagers, including services that coordinate mental health and substance abuse services. In addition this legislation would address the interaction between substance abuse and violent and antisocial behavior. While I am disappointed that this bill is not currently included in the SAMHSA Reauthorization legislation that will be introduced today, I am encouraged that Senator Frist has agreed to work with me, Senator Reed, and Senator Bingaman prior to a markup of the bill to craft legislation to comprehensively address the substance abuse needs of adolescents. Secondly, Mr. President, I also today want to briefly mention an issue that I hope will eventually be addressed within SAMHSA's reauthorization. This issue, the misapplication of restraints and seclusion within facilities providing mental health care services, signals a national tragedy that must be addressed. As evidenced last year by the Hartford Courant in a ground breaking investigative series that confirmed 142 deaths that occurred during or shortly after restraints were applied, the federal government must do better to protect individuals with mental illnesses from the punitive and deadly misuse of restraints and seclusion. Additionally, because many of these deaths go unreported, the actual number of restraint-related deaths may be many times higher. More than 26 percent of restraint-related deaths were children--nearly twice the proportion they constitute in mental health institutions. The alarming number of deaths reported in the series illustrates the need for national, uniform standards for the use of restraints in the mental health care field. Low pay for mental health care workers, little-to-no training, and a lack of accountability and oversight, all contribute to the deplorable conditions found in many of the nation's mental health care treatment centers. The initiative that I hope to include within SAMHSA will establish uniform standards for restraint use, ensure adequate training and appropriate staffing levels, and allow protection and advocacy organizations to review deaths that occur at mental health care facilities. Legislation concerning the use of restraint and seclusion use is badly needed. As the Hartford Courant series mentioned, the federal government monitors the size of eggs but does not record the number of deaths caused by the use of restraints and seclusion in mental health care facilities. I look forward to working with Senator Frist toward the inclusion of this important initiative within SAMHSA's reauthorization. Mr. President, this bill demonstrates our continuing support for SAMHSA and for sustaining programs which improve the quality and availability of substance abuse and mental health services. I am pleased that Senator Frist has moved this legislation forward and look forward to working with him to include provisions to address the substance abuse treatment needs of adolescents and to enact standards regarding the use of restraint and seclusion. I again offer my support and co-sponsorship of this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Reauthorization Act and to commend Senator Frist for his leadership on this issue. I am pleased to join him as a co-sponsor of this legislation. This reauthorization will support SAMHSA in achieving its mission to improve the quality and availability of mental health and substance abuse prevention, early intervention, and treatment services. The SAMHSA Act allows States to develop comprehensive systems to provide better quality mental health care so that children and adults with serious emotional disturbances may remain in the comfort of their home and within a familiar environment as they receive treatment. The flexibility provided by this piece of legislation will also allow States to build partnerships with schools and neighborhoods so that we can better confront the causes and impact of violence on our schools and communities. I am pleased that this legislation will also continue to support homeless individuals who need mental health services and will allow States to be innovative in addressing the needs of special populations such as pregnant, addicted women and those with HIV. I am particularly pleased that this legislation incorporates a bill introduced by Senator Jeffords and myself, the ``Children of Substance Abusers Act'' (COSA). Children with substance abusing parents face serious health risks, including congenital birth defects, psychological, emotional and developmental problems, and the increased likelihood of becoming substance abusers themselves. Additionally, they are three times more likely to be abused and four times more likely to be neglected than children whose parents are not substance abusers. COSA addresses the devastation generated in the wake of parental substance abuse by promoting aggressive outreach to families in need and providing early intervention, prevention, and treatment services, and education and training for health and social services providers on recognizing and serving these families. Although this legislation is an excellent beginning, I am concerned about the omission of two critical issues which have not been adequately addressed by federal efforts to date-- the need to provide treatment to teens who are abusing alcohol and drugs and the use of restraints and seclusion on children in mental health facilities. Statistics reveal that in senior high schools across the country, twenty-five percent of students use an illicit drug on a monthly basis, and seven percent on a daily basis. In 1997, fifty-two percent of senior high school students reported monthly alcohol use, meaning more than four million teens consumed alcohol in any given month. Yet, only twenty percent of the 648,000 adolescents with severe substance abuse problems receive treatment. The legislation that I have introduced today, the ``Teen Substance Abuse Treatment Act of 1999'' would fill an important gap in our national strategy for combating substance abuse in our communities by dedicating funding for treating youth with alcohol and drug problems. This legislation would authorize grants to develop innovative services aimed at the specific needs of teenagers, including services that coordinate mental health and substance abuse services. In addition this legislation would address the interaction between substance abuse and violent and antisocial behavior. While I am disappointed that this bill is not currently included in the SAMHSA Reauthorization legislation that will be introduced today, I am encouraged that Senator Frist has agreed to work with me, Senator Reed, and Senator Bingaman prior to a markup of the bill to craft legislation to comprehensively address the substance abuse needs of adolescents. Secondly, Mr. President, I also today want to briefly mention an issue that I hope will eventually be addressed within SAMHSA's reauthorization. This issue, the misapplication of restraints and seclusion within facilities providing mental health care services, signals a national tragedy that must be addressed. As evidenced last year by the Hartford Courant in a ground breaking investigative series that confirmed 142 deaths that occurred during or shortly after restraints were applied, the federal government must do better to protect individuals with mental illnesses from the punitive and deadly misuse of restraints and seclusion. Additionally, because many of these deaths go unreported, the actual number of restraint-related deaths may be many times higher. More than 26 percent of restraint-related deaths were children--nearly twice the proportion they constitute in mental health institutions. The alarming number of deaths reported in the series illustrates the need for national, uniform standards for the use of restraints in the mental health care field. Low pay for mental health care workers, little-to-no training, and a lack of accountability and oversight, all contribute to the deplorable conditions found in many of the nation's mental health care treatment centers. The initiative that I hope to include within SAMHSA will establish uniform standards for restraint use, ensure adequate training and appropriate staffing levels, and allow protection and advocacy organizations to review deaths that occur at mental health care facilities. Legislation concerning the use of restraint and seclusion use is badly needed. As the Hartford Courant series mentioned, the federal government monitors the size of eggs but does not record the number of deaths caused by the use of restraints and seclusion in mental health care facilities. I look forward to working with Senator Frist toward the inclusion of this important initiative within SAMHSA's reauthorization. Mr. President, this bill demonstrates our continuing support for SAMHSA and for sustaining programs which improve the quality and availability of substance abuse and mental health services. I am pleased that Senator Frist has moved this legislation forward and look forward to working with him to include provisions to address the substance abuse treatment needs of adolescents and to enact standards regarding the use of restraint and seclusion. I again offer my support and co-sponsorship of this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Jeffords in introducing the Children of Substance Abusers Reauthorization Act'' (COSA). This legislation represents a vital step in expanding and improving early intervention, prevention, and treatment services for families confronting substance abuse. In addition, this legislation addresses the devastation generated in the wake of parental substance abuse--the physical and emotional difficulties faced by children of substance abusers, abuse and neglect, and adolescent substance abuse and violence. Children with substance abusing parents face serious health risks, including congenital birth defects and psychological, emotional, and developmental problems. For example, fetal exposure to alcohol puts a child in danger of fetal alcohol syndrome and other congenital birth defects. In addition, each year around 500,000 babies are born prenatally exposed to some form of addictive substance including crack, alcohol, and tobacco, compromising their long-term ability to thrive and to learn. We also know that substance abuse plays a major role in child abuse and neglect--irreparably damaging family bonds and threatening to further strain an already over-burdened child welfare system. In fact, over the past 10 years, fueled by parental substance abuse, the number of abused and neglected children has more than doubled from 1.4 million in 1986 to more than 3 million in 1997, a rise more than eight times greater than the increase in the child population. The disturbing link between parental substance abuse and child abuse is irrefutable. It is estimated that children whose parents abuse drugs and/or alcohol are three times more likely to be abused and four times more likely to be neglected than children whose parents are not substance abusers. In a 1998 report, the General Accounting Office estimated that two-thirds of all children in foster-care had substance abusing mothers and that 80% of those mothers had been using drugs or alcohol for at least five years--many of them for ten years or more. Alcohol and drug use exact a huge price tag on both children and society at large. Estimates are that parental substance abuse costs the nation approximately $20 billion a year. Of that amount, the federal government pays 44%, states 44%, and local governments 12% of the cost. We also know that the toll that substance abuse takes on families is immeasurable. Parents sacrifice the joys of watching their children grow and thrive and their children lose the opportunity to learn and grow in a safe, supportive home. In Connecticut alone, there are an estimated 12-15,000 children of substance abusers who are in desperate need of integrated, specialized support services. To assist those families and the thousands of others across this nation battling substance abuse, this legislation seeks a broad-based commitment from schools, social service agencies, health providers, community centers, and the other entities serving families to join together to promote aggressive outreach, prevention and treatment services. Because parental substance abuse impacts so many aspects of children's lives, this legislation would also provide comprehensive, family-centered services addressing health, mental health, violence, child abuse and neglect, HIV and family planning services, child care, and transportation. In addition, COSA will strengthen the systems which provide these services by funding the education and training of providers. COSA represents a bipartisan commitment to lessen the terrible toll that substance abuse takes on families. I am grateful for Senator Jeffords' co-sponsorship and am pleased that Senator Frist and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee have agreed to include COSA within the larger Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Reauthorization legislation that will be introduced today. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.