Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank the leader for those comments. It is very, very helpful, particularly coming from our leader. People who watch these floor proceedings should take note that it was a very important statement he just made. I believe he expresses the feelings of all of us here. Whatever other differences there may be, I think there is a deep sense of appreciation first and foremost for our own men and women in uniform; secondly, for the organizations that are trying to do a good job. I particularly commend him for his comments regarding these front- line states of Montenegro, which is showing great courage in light of some very difficult pressures; Albania, which is so poor--I think about $600 a year is the annual earnings of the people--Macedonia, about $1,300 a year, a small country with almost 200,000 refugees now. And particularly he mentions Romania and Bulgaria, which is very important as well. This ought to be heartening news to these governments and to the people of these countries that it has not gone unnoticed in our country what a tremendous job they are doing handling a problem they did not ask for, flooded by a sea of humanity that needs a lot of help. We are deeply grateful to them. And I am hopeful the leader is right. I certainly want to work with him and anyone else who is interested to see if we can put some language together which would enjoy unanimous backing by all of our colleagues, to speak with one strong, solid voice about how much we appreciate their efforts, the efforts of our service men and women, and the common determination to end this crisis and get these people back to Kosovo. So I thank him.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Yes, you are.

Mr. DODD. May I inquire of the chairman, I can offer a motion?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first, how much time is allowed on this?

Mr. DODD. I thank the President. Let me begin these brief remarks by once again commending my dear friend from New Mexico, the chairman of the committee. We use the word ``friend'' around here to describe each other with great frequency. On numerous occasions, we actually mean it, and this is one of those instances. He is one of my best friends in the Senate. So it is with a degree of reluctance I rise to offer this motion because this is in regard to an amendment that was passed by a pretty good vote, Mr. President, 57-40, during the consideration of the budget resolution. Occasionally, there are matters that are bipartisan on these budget resolutions. I argue strongly this is one of them. Child care is an issue that does not have an ideological parent, does not have a partisan parent, if you will. This is an issue of which I believe people all across the country appreciate the importance. The average cost of child care is $4,000 to $10,000 per child. Even families that have decent incomes and have two or three children can appreciate the cost of child care. One can imagine then, when talking about working families who are struggling to keep food on the table, how important this kind of a proposal is for them. The amendment that was adopted expands an existing program--it does not create a new program. It was almost a decade ago that my friend from Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch, and I offered the child care block grant, which was adopted. President Bush, to his credit, supported and accepted the block grant proposal. For almost 10 years now we have had this child care block grant. And it's only drawback is that it doesn't have enough funding to reach all eligible children--only one in ten can currently receive assistance. So Senator Jeffords and I offered, along with 55 other Members of this body--12 members of the majority and 45 members of the minority--a proposal that would increase the child care development block grant by $5 billion over 5 years, about $1 billion a year. It amounts to little more than $12 billion over 10 years. We pay for that by reducing the $780 billion proposed tax cut by the same amount. We also said in this amendment that it is our preference, if there is a tax cut proposal, that we also do a child care tax cut for all working parents as well as for stay-at-home parents. Why do we need to add money to the block grant? When we passed the welfare reform package a few years ago to move people from welfare to work, all across the country States took what little money they had for child care and provided it to the welfare recipient as they came off welfare and went to work. But tragically, what has happened in Idaho, Connecticut, and many other places is, the family that was not on welfare, that was on the margin and working, now loses child care assistance. It is a great irony in a way. So what Senator Jeffords, Senator Chafee, Senator Collins, Senator Snowe, Senator Abraham, Senator Frist, Senator Hatch, Senator DeWine, Senator Roberts, Senator Campbell, Senator Specter, Senator Warner and I, and others, are asking here in this budget resolution is that we ought to try to do something about this. The people who need this are working people with young children. They need the kind of help this block grant can provide. Some people have mistakenly said, ``Well, I don't like this program because it says that a parent couldn't choose a church-based child-care program.'' That is not true. This money can go to church-based programs, neighborhoods, families. It is not restricted as to the kind of child care setting that a family can choose to use. This is a good bipartisan proposal. It is with a great degree of reluctance that I offer this motion to instruct. But the reason I have to do it--and, again, I have such great affection for my colleague from New Mexico; and he can straighten me out on this if he cares to; in fact, I wish he would--but I am reading now from this report--the ``Daily Report for Executives''. ``U.S. Budget, Domenici and Kasich agree on final budget.'' This is dated April 13, Tuesday, today. It says, my friend: Domenici and Kasich also said they had stricken from the final budget plan a Senate-passed amendment sponsored by [yours truly] Sens. Christopher Dodd [of Connecticut] and James Jeffords [of Vermont] that would have reduced the size of the tax cut by $10 billion [over 10 years] and made that money available to a child care program. ``What they're going to do is they're going to have some language in there that's going to say that out of the $780 billion tax [cut] some consideration ought to be given to families that have child care needs,'' Kasich said of the language in the final budget that will replace the Dodd- Jeffords amendment. ``And we'll drop all add-ons like Dodd-Jeffords,'' Domenici added. Kasich [then] said they had no intention of creating a new child care entitlement-- This is not new. It is a 10-year program. I am just adding resources to it; no question about that-- but suggested that the final budget will recommend that the child care-related tax [cut] relief be looked at by the tax- writing committees ``because there are needs out there.'' I appreciate the last phrase, ``because there are needs.'' The problem, of course, with just tax writing is that if you pay taxes, you may get the benefit of it. But if you are down at that $20,000-a-year level--this is not a great mystery to anybody--the idea you are going to get a tax break at that income level that can meet the cost of child care is just a fantasy. So we want to increase the block grant by $12 billion over 10 years nationwide to help these families. I think this body, regardless of which side of the aisle we sit on, ought to be able to find room in our hearts and our budget for this, if we care about these working families. We understand the pressures, the tremendous pressures, on these families. I was at a child-care center at the Justice Department yesterday here in Washington. It is a magnificent child-care center. As you can well imagine, they have done a good job down there. But that good care costs. I spoke to a woman who is a lawyer with the Justice Department and has children at the center. Her husband is a public interest lawyer. They have three children in that child-care center, twins and a young child. It cost them $26,000 a year--$26,000 a year. And they are happy just to have a place. The waiting list is a mile long, which is another problem we face here and why I offer this motion. All over the country we see this scenario replicated--in the State of California the waiting list is some 200,000 children. In Texas and Florida, there are similar lists. So, Mr. President, again, I would love to hear the members of the Budget Committee say, ``Listen, you know, we didn't like this amendment terribly, but we did have a strong bipartisan vote''--that is a pretty strong vote, almost 60-40 here on this amendment; it was sponsored in a bipartisan fashion; it was passed in a bipartisan fashion--``while we weren't enthusiastic about this initially, this is one we are going to take.'' If that is the case, then I do not want to have our colleagues have to vote twice on something here. I do not like doing that. But when I read here that I am dropped, I am history, I am being kind of written off, then you do not leave me much choice but to defend myself. I am forced to defend it for the families out there who got excited about the fact that in this budget resolution we had made a place, for the first time in years, to provide some assistance. So I plead with my colleagues here to not oppose this, in fact even accept this instruction, if you will, and let's see if we can't convince some of those recalcitrant voices who do not want to embrace the idea that this Congress could do something about working families and their children. With that, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. Before my colleague does that, again, I appreciate my colleague from New Mexico, the chairman, has a difficult job. Having served on the Budget Committee for many years with the chairman of the committee, I have a great admiration for his ability and the difficult job he has. I appreciate as well the fact that this is a somewhat unique procedure, although we have used it in the past. It is not uncommon for it to be done. I hope my colleague appreciates, that when I pick up and read that my amendment has been pushed out, before the conference has even met, that it makes it kind of hard on me and hard on those of us who supported that amendment. So, yes, this is taking advantage of a unique situation here, but maybe, just maybe if we go into that conference--and I know the chairman does not agree with this amendment, but I know he has historically respected the will of the Senate even when he disagrees with it, which is the mark of a good chairman, in my view, and he goes on and says, look, ladies and gentlemen here, not only this crowd in the Senate, over my objection voted for this once, they did it twice. The bipartisan Senate cares about this and thinks it is an important priority. To that extent, it may have some value. Mr. President, whatever time I have remaining, I see my colleague from Vermont.

Mr. DODD. I don't know if I do or not.

Mr. DODD. Absolutely.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleague from Vermont, myself and many others who supported this 2 weeks by a vote of 57-40 I want to express my gratitude to my Republican colleagues for supporting that amendment that day. Unfortunately, the House conferees, or potential conferees, have indicated they intend to drop this amendment which would add over 5 years $5 billion to the existing child care and development block grant, despite the fact that this was a bipartisan amendment supported by a bipartisan coalition of Members here in the Senate. I would not be asking for this vote except I think it is important we send a clear message out of this Chamber that we care about working families who need child care assistance. With the few seconds remaining, I yield to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how does this proceed?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, during the recent spring recess, I took the opportunity to travel to Brussels, Belgium, to meet with NATO officials about the situation in Kosovo. Last week, I traveled to Macedonia in order to make a firsthand assessment of the refugee problem confronting that small nation. While in Brussels, I received an assessment of the ongoing military campaign against Yugoslav military and security forces and strategic installations from Gen. Wesley Clark, commander of our NATO forces. I also discussed NATO's objectives with respect to Kosovo and the more than 600,000 Kosovars now displaced with NATO Secretary General Javier Solana, NATO ambassadors, and NATO military officials. I found that NATO ambassadors were unified in their resolve to stand up to Slobodan Milosevic. They expressed a willingness to carry on the air campaign for as long as it might take to degrade Serbian military and security forces. Let me also say how deeply impressed I was with Gen. Wesley Clark, the supreme allied commander of NATO forces, our ambassador to NATO and their staffs. I urge colleagues who have the opportunity to go to Brussels and meet with these NATO officials to do so. At the end of next week, there will be a gathering of the NATO nations' leaders here in Washington to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the most important strategic alliance of the 20th century. I hope that my colleagues will take advantage of the opportunity created by that historic gathering to speak with as many of these ambassadors and NATO staff and personnel as possible about the situation in Kosovo. After these meetings in Brussels, I traveled to Macedonia on a military aircraft that was bringing urgently needed supplies to the refugee camps. It was a long flight from Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany to Macedonia, and I was deeply impressed by the young crew and their hard work. Before I left Ramstein Air Force Base, General Brady and his staff gave me an excellent briefing on how they are helping to relieve the suffering of the men, women and children displaced from their homes in Kosovo. In Macedonia, I met with United States Ambassador Chris Hill and his staff. Let me reiterate to our colleagues here how fortunate we are to have someone of Chris Hill's talents and abilities representing us in Macedonia, particularly at a time such as this. He is a career foreign service officer, has spent time in the Balkans, knows the region well and is handling a very difficult and tense situation with a great deal of energy, vision and creativity. While I was in Macedonia, I also met with U.S. military personnel who are a part of a unit called Able Sentry. A brigadier general and his staff briefed me on their operations. Before hostilities broke out, Able Sentry was intended as the base facility for a peacekeeping force in Kosovo. Now, these American service men and women are leading NATO's efforts to help the refugees on the ground. I also spent some time with the enlisted personnel who make up the unit to which three young servicemen, Sergeants Ramirez and Stone and Specialist Steven Gonzales were assigned before their illegal capture by Serbian forces. I wish all of our colleagues could have joined me in that small room last Saturday to hear these young American servicemen talk with great pride about the work of their colleagues Ramirez, Stone, and Gonzales. Ramirez, Stone and Gonzales were professionals doing a commendable job. When they were captured, they were not close to the Serbian border where they would have placed themselves and their units in any jeopardy. When I spoke with this unit of highly competent individuals just three days ago, they were deeply worried that Members of Congress in Washington would misunderstand the role that they were engaged in and the professionalism with which they were conducting their responsibilities. I assured them that my colleagues here, regardless of party, had a deep respect for the job they were doing and admire them immensely. And, like them, I pray for the safe return of their three comrades. The service men and women I met with are committed to getting the job done, Mr. President. They know why they are there. They understand the seriousness and importance of this issue and are conducting their jobs with a high degree of professionalism. I wanted to take a moment here on the floor to express my confidence in them and speak their names on the floor of the Senate, as I assured them I would. I urge my colleagues to do likewise and express their support for the hard and commendable job our men and women in uniform are doing. Mr. President, the efforts of all of these men and women in Macedonia today are focused on alleviating the suffering of the thousands of people who have been forced from their homes by Slobodan Milosevic's reign of ethnic cleansing. I fear that I am not capable of fully describing the scene at the refugee camps. For a generation of us who were born at the end of World War II, the sites of a concentration camp or of the thousands of homeless people in Europe at the end of World War II rest securely in the domain of documentary films and Hollywood depictions. Most of us in this Chamber have not had occasion to encounter firsthand the kinds of scenes that our fathers and grandfathers witnessed. Senators Thurmond and Hollings of South Carolina, Senator Inouye, Senator Chafee, Senator Lautenberg, and others who were veterans of World War II can also speak of personal recollections of those days. In the past few days, however, the images from documentary films half a century old became a reality for me. I was profoundly struck by the sight of 45,000 people gathered together in makeshift huts or tents in an area only slightly larger than half of the Mall here in Washington. They were lining up for food, water, medicine and other basic necessities, and using open trenches as latrines. Mr. President, it was a sight to which TV film footage, television broadcasts, news descriptions--despite their talent and ability--cannot really do justice. It was a truly compelling sight. I was deeply impressed with the work being done by the British military forces in this particular camp. It was stunning to learn that in less than 36 hours they had constructed and put up 4,000 tents to accommodate the 45,000 refugees that have poured into this particular part of Macedonia. There is another camp nearby in Brazda with some 12,000 people in it. I am told by the distinguished Ambassador from Macedonia that some 16,000 other Kosovars are living in the homes of people in Macedonia. In total, there are some 120,000 Kosovars in that one small country, geographically the size of Vermont, with only 2 million people. To put it into perspective for Americans, this is equivalent to 5 million people arriving on our shores to seek asylum in a 72 hour period. This influx of refugees represents a tremendous disruption in the economic life of Macedonia as it has in Albania. Mr. President, as I spent 4 hours or so wandering through the refugee camp walking by rows and rows of families huddled in tents or standing in lines to receive food and water, I noticed on every single tent a homemade sign written on cardboard with ballpoint pen or lipstick or whatever else that family could use. These signs would give a person's name and which town they had live in followed by: If you see or run into my mother, my father, my sister, my brother, or my child who is lost and separated, please tell them where I am. People wander by reading the signs, trying to find members of their own families. Teenagers are caring for small children who have been separated from their parents. As people cross the border they tell the stories of being brutalized by the Serbian military and police forces in Kosovo. These stories of what they had to endure, how they were evicted from their homes, and separated from their families, Mr. President, are haunting and shocking. I have seen a lot of hardship in my years. I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Latin America during the 1960s. I lived in countries where there is a great deal of poverty and suffering. I have been to Haiti many times. I have traveled throughout Central and Latin America over the years. But never, Mr. President, have I seen anything quite like the scene that I saw in this camp. At times, however, there are moments amongst the despair of the present which speak to the potential optimism of the future. In the camp I visited is a field hospital operated by the Israeli military. Since the refugees began arriving, the Israeli doctors and nurses have delivered 6 babies. I pray, Mr. President, that these 6 infants will not know the horrors of ethnic-cleansing and hatred their parents have fled. Rather, may they grow up in the spirit of understanding and respect for each other which drives these Jewish doctors to care for mostly Muslim refugees. If there is any doubt in anyone's mind about whether or not we were trying to do the right thing as a nation and as a group of nations under the alliance of NATO, I promise my colleagues that had they been with me last Saturday, seen what I saw, and talked to the people that I talked to, there would be absolutely no disagreement in this Chamber about whether or not the United States and NATO were taking the right course of action. Our efforts to restore these people to their rightful home, bring an end to this conflict, and thus save the lives of thousands and prevent the spread of this conflict throughout the Balkans area are most assuredly the right thing to do. I can only hope that Slobodan Milosevic will hear from this Chamber, from this Congress, and from NATO's member nations in the coming days a unanimous voice of determination to rid Kosovo of his brutal forces and stop to worst ethnic cleansing Europe has seen in decades. Furthermore, we must clearly state that we will not second guess the decisions of this administration, including President Clinton, Secretary of Defense Cohen and General Shelton, of our leaders in NATO, and of our colleagues in the diplomatic wing of NATO. Mr. President, I think it is critically important that we demonstrate at this juncture as much bipartisan support as we can for NATO's military campaign in Yugoslavia. Once President Milosevic understands that the United States and other NATO countries are resolute in their common determination to continue a military campaign against Serbian targets until NATO's conditions have been met, I am convinced he will back down. We must also be prepared to make clear that President Clinton has available all necessary means to carry out our mission against Serbian military and security forces. The Governments of Macedonia and Albania, together with international private relief organizations, have been confronted with a sea of refugees and are ill equipped to cope with this problem. International relief efforts to provide food, clothing, shelter, and medicines to the still-growing refugee community must continue--and on an expedited basis, I might add. The United Nations, and specifically the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, must dramatically step up their efforts to respond to the refugee crisis in Albania and Macedonia. It is also important to say a few words about the Governments of Albania and Macedonia. These are both poor countries that have been confronted with a situation even a wealthy nation like the United States would find difficult to cope with. While there have been some bumps along the road, I would like the Governments and the peoples of Macedonia and Albania to know that we in the United States appreciate deeply what they are trying to do to assist the Kosovar refugees and we recognize that they need substantial economic assistance to help them cope with this situation. Macedonia and Albania should receive, in my view, bilateral and multilateral economic assistance including IMF assistance, debt relief in the form of debt forgiveness, trade assistance, in order to address war-related economic dislocation in both countries. The hundred or so refugees with whom I spoke made it clear that they want to return to their home in Kosovo rather than be relocated throughout the globe. They also expressed deep appreciation of the international community, and specifically the United States, in endeavoring to accomplish certain goals on their behalf. It does not go unnoticed by them that the United States, once again, is standing up for those who have been treated as poorly as these people have. It is in our heritage. It is part of our collective ethic in this Nation to try to help, try to do what is right rather than to be silent and stand by while outrages are perpetrated against innocent people. I believe that what the United States and NATO are doing reversed the Serbian policy of ethnic cleansing and is a just cause that deserves the support of the Congress and the American people. I pledge to do all I can to support this effort. Particularly, I want to support our President, our military, and NATO as they endeavor to achieve this worthy goal. I hope before this week is out that we might find some common ideas through some collective work here to express some issues on which we can all agree. There are differences of opinion on various aspects of this crisis, but I happen to believe we share a great deal in common on this issue. I am confident that, under the leadership of the majority leader, Trent Lott, and the Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, the chairmen and ranking members of the Armed Services Committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, and the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and other interested Members of this body, we can find some common language and common ideas to send a clear, strong signal this week of how much we appreciate the efforts of our service men and women, of the front-line states, and of the international relief organizations. We must assure them that they do not stand alone and that we are going to do everything we can to ease the pressures and burdens that these poor refugees are facing. I am confident that we will speak with a common voice when we express our determination not to let Slobodan Milosevic's genocidal behavior stand. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. DODD. I just say to my colleague from Mississippi, I commend him for his statement recognizing the contributions of Eudora Welty. This Connecticut Yankee loves her writing. And for my birthday present this year I received a first edition copy of one of Eudora Welty's novels. I prize and cherish her work. She is a Mississippi treasure, but she is also a treasure for this great country of ours. And I associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Mississippi and commend him for recognizing this remarkable woman who has made such a rich contribution to the literary heritage life of our Nation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay special tribute to a unique and wonderful person who graced the State of Connecticut and who recently passed away at the age of 87, Mr. Rubin H. ``Ruby'' Cohen. Ruby hailed from Colchester, Connecticut. He accomplished a great many things during his exceptional life. The son of Jewish immigrants, Ruby made his mark at an early age. At 15 years old, after quitting school, Ruby went to work at a local hot dog stand called Harry's Place in Colchester. Then at the age of 18, with $300 borrowed from relatives, Ruby Cohen purchased Harry's Place, which eventually became a popular stopping point for travelers making their way between Connecticut and the Rhode Island beaches in the summer. Soon, Governors, State Legislators, and politicians were stopping in for a bite to eat. It is at Harry's Place that my father, Thomas Dodd, came to meet and befriend Ruby Cohen. My father deeply valued this very special man who was always honest with his opinions and supportive throughout their many years of friendship. However, politicians did not go to Harry's Place simply to enjoy a hot dog, but to rub elbows with one of Connecticut's most influential lawmakers. Unassuming in his presence, Ruby Cohen was, in fact, considered a powerful political insider. He began his political career in 1942 when he was first elected to the state House of Representatives. His popularity with the voters of Colchester earned him 14 more terms in office during which he became the first Democrat in 85 years to become the House Chairman of the Appropriations committee, a position he held for 12 years. It was during his tenure as Chairman that Ruby Cohen distinguished himself as a legislator and also aided a cultural renaissance in my hometown of East Haddam. Back in 1959, The Goodspeed Opera House, which sits quietly on the Connecticut River just a short distance from my home, was a dilapidated state-operated garage in dire need of repairs. When Ruby Cohen was approached by one of his colleagues in the House who expressed a desire to renovate the structure, Ruby seized an opportunity to enhance a community. He drafted a bill appropriating $10,000 for the repair of the building's roof, successfully beginning the creation of the Opera House. Today, the Goodspeed Opera House is a nationally renowned theater with a reputation for excellence in the arts. We have Ruby Cohen to thank for recognizing the value and importance of the arts within a community and for providing this quiet Connecticut town with an artistic outlet. Ruby will also be remembered for his commitment to preserving Connecticut's open spaces well before it became an issue of national importance. He played an integral role in the establishment of one of Connecticut's better-known refuges, Gay City State Park in Hebron. He spearheaded the restoration of the Comstock Bridge in East Hampton. Also on his list of accomplishments is the preservation of the Gelston House, a historic hotel which stands next to the Goodspeed Opera House. Mr. President, Ruby Cohen was an honest man from meager beginnings who went on to establish a reputation in Connecticut as a respected lawmaker and friend. His death is a difficult loss for those who relied on his political wisdom and personal support. Even with his passing, we all may be comforted in the thought that his spirit and memory may be found in so many ways throughout a state he held so dear. He is survived by his two sons, David and Max, three daughters, Susan, Margaret, and Mary Ann, nine grandchildren, and one great- granddaughter. I offer my heartfelt condolences to each of them.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in response to my good friend from New Mexico, I served on the Budget Committee for a number of years. Back in 1992 or 1993, I offered the IDEA amendment. I lost on a tie vote. I must say, the majority leader, Trent Lott, a member of the Budget Committee, voted with me. That was the only vote I got on the other side, so I lost on the tie vote. The amendment failed. I commend the chairman and others who have wanted to increase this. We have funded IDEA at about $500 million a year. I think there is $500 million this year, I say to the chairman of the committee, on the IDEA funding. They deserve credit for doing that. What we are saying here is that we have all tried different ways over the last number of years. I don't think you necessarily want to turn around and say to Head Start or to Pell grants or to school construction, fine, you can do IDEA but we are going to cut your budget. We are not saying that. We are saying, look, with an $800 billion tax cut, that is a big tax cut, keep 80 to 85 percent of the tax cut; how about 10 or 15 percent of that to do what the Governors have asked us to do here? That is specifically what we have said. Do this before you do the tax cut. All we are suggesting is their request is well founded. When Republican and Democratic Governors ask the Congress to set some priorities so they can have the resources to do the job, I think we in this body ought to take note of it. That is the reason I offer the argument. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the National Governors' Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may I inquire, just to be clear, the pending business is the resolution, is that correct?

Mr. DODD. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. President--

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in 1997, we reached an historic agreement on the budget. Building upon the budgets of 1990 and 1993, we brought the budget into balance for the first time in 30 years. Today, the budget before us is equally significant, as it is the first budget of the 21st century. It is one that should reflect what we, as the last Senators of the 20th century, believe should be the priorities of our country as we move into the next millenium. As we prepare to enter the next century, we need a budget that will protect our senior citizens--the people who have given a lifetime of work to their families, communities and country. They need to know that they will be secure in their golden years with good health care and a decent income. Unfortunately, this budget fails to provide this measure of security, as it fails to provide for the continued strength and solvency of Social Security and Medicare. Although this budget saves projected Social Security surpluses and uses those surpluses to retire public debt, it contains no provisions to reform the Social Security program and provides no new assets to the Social Security trust fund. In this regard, this budget fails to extend the solvency of the trust fund. In contrast, the Administration's budget proposes specific policies, including transferring publicly held debt to the trust fund, which would extend the life of the Social Security trust fund until the year 2055. In addition, this budget simply ignores Medicare, Part A of which is due to be bankrupt by the year 2008. It takes funds needed for Medicare and uses them to pay for a tax cut that largely benefits the more well- to-do in our society. Not a single extra dollar is guaranteed for this critical priority and therefore this budget has the potential to negatively impact the millions of Americans who will depend on Medicare for their health care in the future. The Administration, however, has proposed allocating 15 percent of the projected unified budget surpluses for Medicare--nearly $700 billion over the next 15 years-- which would extend the solvency of this program for another 12 years, to the year 2020. Mr. President, we also need a budget that will provide for the education needs of our people. Nothing is more critically important than to provide every child with a good education so that they can grow up to lead productive lives, contributing to the prosperity of their families and country. Unfortunately this budget fails to meet this priority, as well. Although I applaud the efforts of Chairman Domenici to increase funding for elementary and secondary education, this budget does so at the expense of equally important education initiatives, like Head Start. In fact, under the Republican plan nearly 100,000 children would lose Head Start services. This budget shortchanges our commitment to many other domestic priorities, as well. Under this budget, paying for an $800 billion tax cut that would benefit the wealthy would require cuts in non-defense discretionary spending of $20 billion in the next year alone, affecting our efforts to police our streets, to clean up our air and water, and to wage aggressive diplomacy so that we do not have to wage war. More specifically, Mr. President, under the Republican plan, more than 1 million low-income women, infants and children would lose nutrition assistance each month and 73,000 summer job opportunities for low- income youths would be eliminated. These cuts are draconian and untenable. Newspapers report that even Republican appropriations leaders consider these cuts to be unrealistic. They predict that when appropriations bills come to the Floor, it is unlikely that they will contain the cuts proposed by this budget. Finally, we need a budget in the 21st century that is fiscally responsible--a budget that sends a message to our trading partners, the markets, and future generations that the era of runaway deficits is over, and that we will not saddle future generations with a national debt that robs them of their ability to make productive investments and hurts our nation's ability to grow and prosper. Sadly, this legislation is fiscally risky and fails to meet these goals. Although this budget calls for a small tax cut in the first couple of years, the cost explodes in the future. In fact, by the year 2009, these cuts will drain the Treasury by more than $170 billion in that year alone. Let me be clear, I am not opposed to tax cuts, but I support carefully targeted tax cuts that would provide relief to those who most need our help. Regrettably, this budget provides a sweeping tax cut for those in our society who need it least, and does so largely at the expense of funding for both Medicare and other domestic priorities relied on by millions of working Americans. In conclusion, I regret for a number of reasons that I am unable to support this budget--not least of which is the high regard and esteem with which I hold Chairman Domenici. I think all of us in this body recognize that the country has been fortunate to have someone of his intellect and experience dealing with these extraordinarily complex issues. Moreover, while I am grateful that a majority of my colleagues accepted the amendment sponsored by my distinguished colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, and myself to increase funding for child care by $5 billion, the modest improvement that this makes to the bill does not change its fundamentally flawed nature. Mr. President, we have an opportunity and an obligation to enact a budget that meets the test of time. Unfortunately, I believe that the resolution before the Senate has failed to meet that objective. I think we can do better and I believe we must do better as we move forward in the effort to define priorities.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. I say to my colleagues from Delaware and Louisiana, I have listened to this. I regret to say we are going to be voting on this, because there are a lot of things in this Commission report that I think warrant the support of our colleagues, and things where obviously, as my colleagues from Massachusetts and Minnesota and others have pointed out, there is serious disagreement as well. My concern is that we are going to have a vote on this resolution, and it kind of hardens positions a lot earlier than we should be. This is very serious work. When you get involved in this kind of a vote, people casting positions on a resolution that has no value in law, it seems to me it is not in the best interest, as we try to grapple with a very serious and complex set of questions. I am caught in a situation where there are a lot of things the Commission did I like. There are things the Commission did I disagreed with. If forced to vote up or down, I guess I have to vote no, but I don't want my vote ``no'' to be construed as disagreeing with everything the Commission has done. If I thought the vote really was going to change the Medicare system, that would heighten the value of the vote, I suppose, to some degree. But since it doesn't have any real impact in law, and I am being asked, as a Member, to make a choice on this, I don't think it is really smart or wise for us to be put in that position on something as important and as complex, where there are serious disagreements over how we ought to proceed. I don't know procedurally what is possible, but this has been an interesting discussion. I suggest that maybe there is some way this could be vitiated and considered an interesting discussion and debate. But let's not ask Members to vote on a resolution that casts us in a position of making choices on a Commission where there will be a lot of legitimate disagreements.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Fine. Mr. President, if I may, let me, first of all, say I intend to support and vote for this resolution. But in doing so, I want to express some deep concerns. Many of my colleagues know we have what is now just about a 40-year-old problem that has not been even remotely close to resolution and that is, of course, United States-Cuban relations. We know why we are going to be asked to consider this resolution this week, and I suspect it will be passed overwhelmingly. The real question is, does it do anything to influence the policies of the Cuban Government or garner the support of our allies? On that issue, I have to answer resoundingly no. It may make us feel good, it will express our views, but in terms of these resolutions having some influence on the very events which provoked the resolution, I think the answer has to be we can probably anticipate the same response as we have had with a collective set of resolutions over the years. I have criticized the recent crackdowns on dissidents, as many have here, including the sentencing of the ``Group of Four,'' which is terribly wrong and totally counterproductive and, in my view, a violation of human rights of these individuals. It is also very inconsistent with the Cuban Government's efforts in the past to gain the international respectability they have been trying to garner. For the life of me, from their standpoint, I don't see why this benefits them or assists them. Our passing of these kinds of resolutions on Cuba, year after year, year after year, unfortunately, has not prevented the Cuban authorities from dealing harshly with dissidents. Depending upon the ebb and flow of the Cuban political dynamic, the human rights situation gets a little better or a little worse or a little better or a little worse, but nothing significant or permanent seems to happen or change. We need to engage, in my view, the Cuban Government on this and other issues, as we have done with other nations with whom we have significant disagreements, if we are going to create any kind of environment for some change. That engagement, which we traditionally call diplomacy, has been totally absent in the conduct of relations between these two nations, the Cuban Government and our own. Perhaps that is why, I suggest, the record is so dismal. It is action-reaction, action-reaction, and a total absence of any diplomacy. Let's not fool ourselves. This resolution is not going to help the people of Cuba. Is it not time to change our view of what should be the dynamics of United States-Cuban relations--to start a new conversation with Cuba, rather than simply act and react to unfolding events in Havana? I believe it is time to begin such a new conversation in this body and in the United States. We in this country make the mistake, in my view, of overreacting to these ebbs and flows, rather than keeping to the steady and consistent policy to bring Cuba into the world community of democratic nations. All we do, by passing resolutions of this kind which are not accurate in all respects, is to fuel nationalist sentiments in Havana and elsewhere in this hemisphere and around the globe. The resolution authoritatively cites human rights organizations as critical of human rights practices of Cuban authorities. However, it does not mention these very same organizations also criticize U.S. policies with respect to Cuba. The 1999 Human Rights Watch World Report states: The (U.S.) embargo had not only failed to bring about human rights improvements in Cuba but had become counterproductive. It goes on to conclude that: The embargo continued to restrict the rights of freedom of expression and association and the freedom to travel between the United States and Cuba, thus violating Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty [I might add] ratified by [our Government.] This resolution further, and our policy generally, allows all of Cuba's problems, and there are many, to be blamed on the United States in too many international circles. While we are not responsible for the state of the Cuban economy, the Cuban people are extremely nationalistic and will rally behind their government against foreign threats. This is true elsewhere in the hemisphere. What we need to do, in my view, is to move forward to implement Pope John Paul II's call that Cuba open up to the world and the world open up to Cuba. More constructive measures such as the upcoming baseball game and concert are more effective ways of communicating U.S. values to the Cuban people, particularly as a part of a broader effort to pursue increasing contacts between the American and Cuban people. Love of baseball and music are just two examples of the many things the American and the Cuban people have in common. We have much more in common than that. The best way to communicate that is by lifting restrictions on U.S. citizens' rights to travel to Cuba or anywhere else. Frankly, such restrictions, in my view, are un-American. We can travel to virtually any other nation in the world--North Korea, Iraq, Iran. The only restrictions are what those nations place on us. The only place I know of where we restrict Americans from going is a country 90 miles off our shore. If they want to place restrictions on our travel there, I would object. But we should not restrict Americans' travel. We need to make other fundamental changes in our policy. Our guiding principle in doing that should be that these changes are in our, the Americans', best interests. With respect to Cuba, an island of 11 million people 90 miles off our shore, America's interest is that there be a peaceful transition to a post-Castro era, whenever that time comes. Mr. President, I ask just for 1 additional minute, if I can, and I will give 1 additional minute to my colleague from Florida.