Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, have the proponents spoken on the resolution, I inquire of my colleague from Florida?

Mr. DODD. How much time is there on the resolution?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is not in America's interest to have an armed insurrection occurring in that country or to see living conditions become so onerous that everyone takes to the boats and finds themselves at sea, seeking safe harbor in this country or elsewhere. With respect to policy, I suggest the lifting of restrictions on food and medicine. These restrictions border on immoral, in my view. I also recommend lifting restrictions on travel. Under certain circumstances, U.S. companies should also be permitted to invest in Cuba, provided American-style workplace conditions prevail in U.S.-owned investments. I also encourage contacts between United States and Cuban diplomats, including inviting Cuban diplomats to the United States, discussing issues of huge concern including regional terrorism, drug trafficking, and the preservation of the environment. If we really want to see the peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba, then it is about time, after 40 years, the end of the cold war and the falling of the Berlin Wall, to break out of the policy straitjacket that has prevented meaningful change from taking place in Cuba-United States relationships. Passing resolutions of this kind, year after year, year after year, do nothing to help change what is a situation that demands, in my view, some new thinking, a new conversation. With that, I thank my colleague for providing the additional minute.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, they are not here on the floor at this moment, but let me say to my colleagues from Missouri and Washington, that I appreciate the sense-of-the-Senate resolution in which they called for increased Federal funding for elementary and secondary education to be directed to the States and local school districts, granting decisionmaking authority in the hands of the States. I have no difficulty with that assertion. But, as my colleague from Massachusetts has just pointed out, there is not a single dime that flows to the States as a result of this amendment. I commend the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, and the members of the committee, both Democrats and Republicans, for earmarking additional funds for education. This was a long overdue but welcome addition to the budget process. But, as the Senator from Massachusetts has pointed out, there are some significant differences in what we should do with those dollars because we are competing within the educational function, in effect, on some very critical needs. Many times Members stand on the floor of the Senate and tell you what message the American public may be sending. Two Senators can get up on the same subject matter, take entirely different positions, and tell you they are speaking on behalf of the American people. On education, Mr. President, we hear one message. We hear, I think, very loudly and very clearly, regardless of geography, economics, ethnicity, gender, or age, that education is a major concern of the American people. There has been a deep and abiding appreciation throughout the long history of our Nation for the importance of education, the fundamental understanding that the subtleties of our democracy and our Constitution can only be perpetuated in time because each succeeding generation is an educated generation. We prosper economically, we grow culturally and intellectually, because we are an educated people. That has been ingrained from the founding days of this Republic. Earlier today I heard our new colleague from Indiana give his maiden speech on the floor of the Senate. It was a fine speech in which he talked about this being the last budget of the 20th century. I would like to take that in a different direction, in a sense, and remind our colleagues, that this is the first budget of the 21st century. What we are adopting here today, tonight, or tomorrow by noon will be the first budget that will apply to the first year of the coming millennium. I suppose historians looking back, as they are apt to, will want to know what we were saying about our society as we left the 20th century and began this new millennium. Where were our priorities? What was our agenda? What did we want to see envisioned for our country? Again, I think the voice of the American public is pretty loud and clear and pretty uniform on the issue that education ought to be paramount on our agenda. For those reasons, the Senator from Massachusetts and I will offer an amendment later today--we will not be able to debate it so we are doing it now--which will say that 80 percent of the tax cut that we are talking debating today will stay in place, if, in fact, that is the will of the majority. Twenty percent of that proposed tax cut we would like to take and deal with the educational needs of America over the next 10 years. We would like to do something about the commitment we made almost a generation ago, when it came to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. I do not know of a mayor, Mr. President, or a Governor, I say to the Presiding Officer, who knows what I am talking about, in my State or across the country, who has not begged me to do something about us living up to that 40-percent level that we said we would fulfill when it came to the educational needs of special needs children. We have gone from 8 to about 11 percent of special education funding. I offered an amendment 5 or 6 years ago, Mr. President, in the Budget Committee, which I lost on a tie vote on the IDEA budget that would have increased our commitment to special education. What Senator Kennedy and I are offering this afternoon is an opportunity for us to do that over the next 10 years and fulfill that commitment by merely saying, let's slightly modify the tax cut proposal. We are also proposing to take some of those funds, and apply them to deal with the issue of class size--again, a subject matter that I think all Americans agree is important--to have an additional 100,000 teachers, to reduce the ratio of student to teachers in our classrooms; thus, obviously, as I think we all appreciate, increasing the opportunity for learning. Those are the two things we do in this amendment we plan to offer. There are other questions, obviously, including both school construction and student loans. The Senator from Massachusetts made reference to Pell grants. Does anyone doubt in the 21st century that there is going to be an increasing cost in higher education for families? What a signal to send on the first budget of the 21st century that we recognize that need and that growing cost, and we are going to commit some resources to provide for the higher educational cost needs of average American working families. School construction: Again, it is incredible to me that in the most affluent nation in the world, we have school buildings that are falling down within blocks of this building. Within blocks of where we are speaking today, there are school buildings that were built in the early part of the 20th century, facilities in which we are training and educating young people who will be the leaders of the 21st century. We somehow have not yet been able to find the resources to make sure those schools are going to be well constructed, are going to be wired with the technology that they need. The problem with the budget resolution that our good friend from New Mexico and others have crafted is that while it increases spending for education, it does so at the expense of the very programs I have just identified, and others. It says, in order to do that, we are going to take it from Head Start and higher education, and we are going to take it from other areas. Further, it says we are not going to do something about special education costs at the local community level. So on the one hand, I commend my colleagues for raising the ante, if you will, on education. Simultaneously, they are squeezing the other programs that are absolutely critical, so that we can attempt to provide for the educational needs of the Americans of the 21st century. We have a way of paying for this. Again, I think our colleagues earlier today talked about a balance in this budget. There is a need for tax cuts. I am looking forward to supporting some good tax cut proposals--child care, the marriage penalty tax, investment in small business, innovation and technology, housing. I can think of a dozen areas where good, strong tax cuts make sense. But that is not the only need in this country. There is a need to do something about the educational improvement of American schools. There is something valuable in assisting our communities and local governments with the cost of special education. What we will offer in our amendment will do that. New school construction, classroom size, special education: why not also provide for that and simultaneously provide the resources for some of the tax cuts people are proposing? The resolution before us, the sense of the Senate which says we ought to do more about elementary and secondary education, if Senators vote for that, and I hope they will, then they are going to get a chance momentarily, right after that, to fulfill that commitment. Rarely do we get to do that. We make a promise with one resolution, and within minutes we will be given a chance to actually fulfill that commitment and that promise with the amendment that we will offer. We hope, Mr. President, that our colleagues will support the resolution by the Senator from Missouri. In doing so, we also hope that when the amendment is offered by the Senator from Massachusetts and myself, to fulfill our commitment on IDEA and do something about classroom size by reducing marginally the tax cut proposal, that we will also put real dollars and real meaning behind the commitments made in the resolution before us. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will be glad to yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. DODD. Join the club.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this is a letter that I think the Presiding Officer will be very familiar with. This is a letter from the National Governors' Association. Let me quote this letter, if I may. So my colleagues will be aware, this is signed by Michael Leavitt, Republican Governor of Utah; Mike Huckabee, Republican Governor of Arkansas; Tom Carper, Democratic Governor of Delaware; and Jim Hunt, Democratic Governor of North Carolina. They say in their letter to us, to the chairman of the Budget Committee, ``Governors urge Congress to live up to the agreements already made to meet current funding commitments'' regarding education before adopting ``new initiatives or tax cuts in the Federal budget.'' It goes on in the letter to say that they are already cutting existing funds locally to provide for special needs students. They are asking unanimously, Democratic and Republican Governors across this country, to do exactly what Senator Kennedy and I will be asking our colleagues to do in the amendment when we vote on it, and that is to place the special education needs of children ahead of a tax cuts. Our commitment to special education ought to come before tax cuts. There will still be plenty of room financially for the tax cuts. But here is Mike Leavitt, Mike Huckabee, Tom Carper, and Jim Hunt speaking on behalf of the National Governors' Association telling us to fund IDEA before enact tax cuts. What clearer message could we have? I hope our colleagues today, after they vote on the Ashcroft amendment and say that we ought to provide more for education, and then quickly thereafter have a chance to vote on the Kennedy-Dodd amendment, will remind themselves--and I will see that each Member gets a copy of the NGA letter regarding IDEA funding--to live up to the commitment in the Ashcroft amendment by fulfilling the request of the National Governors' Association to support this program as crafted by this amendment. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. How much time remains?

Mr. DODD. We have more time remaining.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I do not know if there are--Senator Harkin of Iowa wanted to be heard, but I don't see him in the Chamber at this time. I don't know, are there any further requests for time on this side? We reserve the remainder of our time, unless the distinguished chairman of the committee wants to be heard.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Ashcroft, to introduce the ``Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1999''. This legislation would expedite the provision of financial compensation to the victims of asbestos exposure by establishing a nationwide administrative system to hear and adjudicate their claims. Mr. President, millions of American workers have been exposed to asbestos on the job. Tragically, many have contracted asbestos-related illnesses, which can be devastating and deadly. Others will surely become similarly afflicted. These individuals--who have or will become terribly ill due to no fault of their own--deserve swift and fair compensation to help meet the costs of health care, lost income, and other economic and non-economic losses. Unfortunately, many victims of asbestos exposure are not receiving the efficient and just treatment they deserve from our legal system. Indeed, it can be said that the current asbestos litigation system is in a state of crisis. Today, more than 150,000 lawsuits clog the state and federal courts. In 1996 along, more than 36,000 new suits were filed. Those who have been injured by asbestos exposure must often wait years for compensation. And when that compensation finally arrives, it is often eaten up by attorneys' fees and other transaction costs. In the early 1990's, an effort was made to improve the management of federal asbestos litigation. Cases were consolidated, and a settlement to resolve them administratively was agreed to between defendant companies and plaintiffs' attorneys. This settlement also obtained the backing of the Building and Construction Trades Union of the AFL-CIO. Regrettably, the settlement was overturned by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1996. Though the Court termed the settlement ``arguably a brilliant partial solution'', it found that the class of people created by the settlement--namely, those exposed to asbestos--was too large and varied to be certified pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court affirmed that decision. In its decision, the Court effectively invited the Congress to provide for the existence of such a settlement as a fair and efficient way to resolve asbestos litigation claims. Hence this bill. In simple terms, it codifies the settlement reached between companies and the representatives of workers who were exposed to asbestos on the job. It would establish a body to review claims by those who believe that they have become ill due to exposure to asbestos. It would provide workers with mediation and binding arbitration to promote the fair and swift settlement of their claims. It would allow plaintiffs to seek additional compensation if their non- malignant disease later developed into cancer. And it would limit attorneys' fees so as to ensure that a claimant receives a just portion of any settlement amount. All in all, Mr. President, this is a good bill. However, it is not a perfect bill. My office has received comments on the bill from representatives of a number of parties affected by asbestos litigation. I hope and expect that those comments will be given the consideration that they deserve by the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate as this legislation moves forward.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as I understand it, I have the right to modify my amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to the desk and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this modification reduces the amount from $7.5 billion over 5 years to $5 billion on a child care block grant amendment. It is very simple. It is designed to help working families. The amendment increases the mandatory spending by $5 billion over 5 years. The offset comes from a reduction of the $800 billion tax bill by that amount. This amendment also asserts in nonbinding language that if child care tax credits are expanded in future legislation, that they would be for stay-at- home parents as well as working parents, and that there would be a tax refundability so the poorer families would be able to take advantage of it. The reason why this amendment on this concurrent resolution is so important is that if we do not provide additionally to the child care needs in the budget resolution, then there is no other opportunity for us to do it in the 106th Congress. So this modest amount over 5 years, given the huge waiting lists that exist, the difficulty that working families have in meeting these costs, and providing that incentive as well for stay-at-home parents so they can get the benefit of it, I think justifies the adoption of it. I am delighted to have as my cosponsors, Senator Jeffords of Vermont, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, and others. I thank some of my Republican colleagues on the other side for their indication of support for this amendment as well. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment. I think it is a good one. I think it will help working families and their children get good and decent child care. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleagues for listening.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor on the resolution offered by both of our colleagues from Arkansas. I commend them highly for this. I hope all of our colleagues will join them. This is the kind of issue we need to speak out on. Incidents like these have caused great pain across the country. Yet, too often, the problem of school violence only receives attention at the moment a tragedy occurs. So I commend both of my colleagues and ask to be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, last week, on the eve of Saint Patrick's Day, the American Ireland Fund recognized Senator Kennedy for his life-long commitment to the Irish people and to peace in Northern Ireland. Senator Hatch and myself had the honor of introducing Senator Kennedy that night. Today, I rise to recognize Senator Kennedy for his work on behalf of peace and justice here in the United States and around the world, particularly in Ireland. Before Ireland was in fashion, Senator Kennedy was its loyal friend. Throughout the adult lives of most of the members of this body, Senator Kennedy, his sister United States Ambassador to Ireland Jean Kennedy Smith, and members of their family have worked tirelessly, day in and day out, to better the lot of the least fortunate of their fellow men and women. Senator Kennedy's efforts regularly reach across the borders of nation, race and religion. It was only natural, then, that the conflict and injustice in Northern Ireland would make a claim on Senator Kennedy's conscience. His unceasing interest in achieving peace in Northern Ireland was, and is, the one constant over the many ups and downs on the still bumpy road to resolving that conflict. He labors both as a distinguished representative of the United States, and as a loyal son of Ireland. Reflecting on the way Senator Kennedy has led so many of his colleagues down the tortured path that must inevitably lead to peace, I am reminded of the figure of the great Irish poet, William Butler Yeats, standing amidst the portraits of his contemporaries in the Dublin municipal gallery of art, and urging history to judge him not on this or that isolated deed but to: Think where man's glory most begins and ends; And say my glory was I had such friends. Mr. President, I, and many others, are most grateful to be able to call Senator Kennedy both a colleague and a friend. In recognition of the honor he received last week from the American Ireland Fund, Mr. President, I ask that the remarks he gave that evening be printed in the Record. The remarks follow: Thank you, Chris Dodd and Orrin Hatch, for those kind words. Bertie Ahern, Kingsley Aikens, Loretta Brennan Glucksman, Father Gerry Creedon, friends, family--and fellow immigrants! I just wish my parents could have been here. Mother would have loved everything you said--and Dad wouldn't have believed a word of it! There's an old Irish saying that half the lies your opponents tell about you are not true. But when your friends tell lies like that--it's beautiful. It is an especially great honor to accept this award in the presence of so many of those who were essential to the success of the Good Friday Agreement. The shamrock has three leaves, and I'm convinced that the peace agreement would never have been possible without the strong support at all the critical moments of the three greatest friends of Ireland in America--President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, and our truly indispensable peacemaker, Senator George Mitchell. I welcome Bertie Ahern back to Washington. He deserves great credit for his own leadership during the peace negotiations and in the succeeding months. I also pay tribute to the leaders of the Northern Ireland political parties who are here--John Hume and Seamus Mallon, Gerry Adams, David Trimble, Lord Alderdice, and Monica McWilliams. And I especially congratulate John Hume and David Trimble for the well-deserved Nobel Peace Prize. I also welcome Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Mo Mowlam. And I salute Prime Minister Tony Blair, and many other Irish and British officials for their courage and determination not only in reaching the peace agreement, but in moving it forward, inch by inch, day by day. I'm reminded of the lines of Robert Frost that President Kennedy loved, ``I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep.'' I am very grateful for this honor and my heart is very full this evening. In truth, I owe a great deal to two others in our family--my sister Jean, the Ambassador who won the hearts of the Irish people all over again for our family. She made her own indispensable contributions to the peace process, and I know how much she looks forward to working with all of you on the Irish Festival she's planning at the Kennedy Center a year from now. And, of course, my brother Jack. In fact, it's because of President Kennedy that all of us are here this evening. During his visit to Ireland in 1963, he joined with President de Valera in creating the American Irish Foundation, to encourage closer ties between Irish Americans and Ireland. A quarter century later, the merger with Tony O'Reilly and Dan Rooney's Ireland Fund created the world's largest private organization supporting constructive change in all of Ireland, North and South. So I say to all of you, well done-- Erin Go Bragh! Jack would have enjoyed this evening. He was always ready to share his love of Ireland and all things Irish, especially with those, like so many of us, who have the map of Ireland on our faces. And he would have admired your skill in turning our ties of heritage and history into practical avenues of peace and prosperity for both our peoples. The bonds between America and Ireland have flourished from the beginning. There might never have been a United States of America without the timely support from Ireland two centuries ago. As President Kennedy told the Doil on his visit to Ireland in 1963, Irish volunteers played so dominant a role in our Revolutionary Army that Lord Mountjoy lamented in the British Parliament, ``We have lost America through the Irish.'' It is often forgotten that more than half of the 44 million Americans of Irish descent are Protestant. The impact on America of Scotch-Irish settlers from what is today Northern Ireland was profound. They made and continue to make immense contributions to our country. Andrew Jackson was of Ulster Presbyterian stock, and proud of it. Eleven other Presidents of the United States were of Scotch-Irish heritage, including President Clinton. Now, in our own day and generation, by facilitating the peace process, Irish Americans have a priceless opportunity to give something back to Ireland in return for all that Ireland has given us. To the Unionists in Northern Ireland, we say that we are your brothers and sisters, not your enemies. The vast majority of Irish Catholics in America bear you no ill-will. Our hope is that as your ancestors did for America, you will help to lead the way to peace for Northern Ireland. Many able leaders in the past devised what they thought were lasting solutions for Ireland. We know the high price that Ireland--and Britain, too--have paid because of those failed solutions and the endless seeds of repression, famine, partition and violence they sowed. It is the clear lesson of that tragic history that no settlement will last unless it is based on equality and mutual respect. These are the twin pillars of peace. The Nationalist community will never accept a role of subservience to Unionism. And the Unionist community will never accept a role of subservience to Nationalism. We know how far we have already come towards these goals because of the Good Friday Agreement. People on both sides in Northern Ireland understand that progress best of all, because they see the true meaning of peace in their lives and their communities. The ascent to a peaceful future is nearly won, and they know how much is at risk. They are determined not to slide backward into the violent past--and they reject political leadership that would take them back. We talk of a thirty-year conflict. But its roots go back not 30 years, but 300 years, not one generation but 10 generations, before the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock. The Good Friday Agreement is the best new beginning of all those 300 years, and the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland know it. It was endorsed by decisive votes in both parts of Ireland as a clear mandate to their leaders, and history will not deal kindly with any leader who fails this test, or any others who return to the bomb and the bullet. The task now facing the Irish and British Governments and political leaders in Northern Ireland is to build greater momentum for full implementation of the Agreement. Clearly, there has been welcome recent progress. Last month, the Northern Ireland Assembly approved the designation of the Northern Ireland Departments and the group of cross-border bodies. Last week, Britain and Ireland signed historic treaties for closer ties. Further progress in these areas is dependent on full implementation of all aspects of the agreement. We commend the work of General de Chastelain's independent commission on decommissioning, and we look forward to the important meetings taking place this week in Washington and in the weeks ahead. Inevitably, there will be new difficulties beyond this current one. But implementation of the Agreement offers the best way forward and the best yardstick to judge the policies and actions of all involved. The goal of peace is best served by prompt action on the Agreement. Those who take risks for peace can be assured of timely support by President Clinton, Congress, and the American people. Not all the guns have remained silent. The carnage inflicted on the town and people of Omagh last August was a grim reminder that, in spite of all that has been achieved, there are still some who subscribe to violence. As recently as yesterday, the cowardly murder of Rosemary Nelson reminds us anew of the urgency of our task. The horror of these atrocities unites all the people of Ireland and Great Britain, and friends of Ireland everywhere, in a determination that such tactics of terrorism will never again be tolerated or condoned Sectarian attacks, punishment beatings, and other acts of violence must also stop. They serve only to inflame division, recrimination and pressures to respond in kind. Resort to violence is unacceptable. It is time to say enough is enough is enough is enough. It is time to replace hate with hope. We see the signs of progress in many ways. There is growing confidence that a new police organization will soon be born in Northern Ireland, capable of attracting and deserving the support of all parts of the community. The Patten Commission has a mandate to produce these new arrangements for fair law enforcement, accountable to and fully representative of the society. Its report is due this summer. So progress on this critical issue is being made. Prisoners have been released. The British have reduced their troop levels to the lowest point in twenty years. Surely, only those for whom too long a sacrifice has made a stone of the heart can fail to see that the future lies with peace. We are heartened by the establishment of the Human Rights Commissions and we look forward to close cross-border co- operation on these vital issues. We also count on early progress on the review of the criminal laws, and the dismantling of emergency legislation. As preparations for the 1999 marching season begin, the situation at Drumcree remains disturbing. We call on all involved to respect and uphold the decisions of the Parades Commission, and to recognize that progress can only be made on the basis of negotiation and agreement. The Ireland of our dreams is no longer a poor country. The dark side of emigration from Ireland now belongs to history. There is still poverty in Ireland, as there is in America. But we are witnessing one of the great miracles of economics, as the romantic Ireland of the past transforms itself into the high-tech Ireland of the future. Yeats would have appreciated it. In Easter 1916, a terrible beauty was born. At Easter 1999, an entrepreneurial beauty is being born before our very eyes. But the modern transformation of Ireland also means that we can no longer rely on the naturally renewing ties between Ireland and America created by successive waves of immigrants. We must work together all the harder, therefore, on both sides of the Atlantic to keep our ties strong and vital. The growth of student educational exchanges between our youth can have a primary role --through college Junior Years Abroad, in summer schools, in the Mitchell and Fulbright Scholarships, and in the expansion of Irish Studies in American universities and American Studies in Ireland. Important though economic performance is, the challenges of the twenty-first century will come increasingly in the realm of the mind, the spirit, and the imagination, where Ireland's strengths are especially great. In an increasingly global world, the contributions of peoples and nations will be measured by how well they enrich our common humanity. Ireland has enormous potential to be one of the brightest stars in this new worldwide firmament, and this challenge is an area in which the American Ireland Fund is playing a vigorous and impressive role. Starting before World War II, it was the custom of Eamon de Valera to speak to his Irish kinfolk in other lands, especially in the United States, and to tell them year by year on St. Patrick's Day of the progress being made to build the Ireland of our dreams--an Ireland, he said, that ``is destined to play, by its example and its inspiration, a great part as a nation among the nations.'' His dream has long been our dream too, and how beautiful it is to see it coming true, as we dedicate ourselves anew to one of the truly great friendships in human history, the friendship of America and all of Ireland. In closing, let me say a final word to our friends from Northern Ireland who are here. It is natural that we focus on the problems of the moment. But we do not overlook all that is good about your land--the ability of the people, their remarkable work ethic, their culture, and the vast potential of both communities that will be unleashed by a peaceful future. We know the achievements of your leadership, which have brought you to this threshold of that future. President Kennedy would call you profiles in courage twice over--for your political courage in facing this extraordinary challenge, and for your very real personal courage in facing physical danger every day. You've been asked to do a great deal already, and you've done it well. Now, you're asked to do even more, because we know you will not fail. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. Thank you very much.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the life and achievements of Mr. Merrill S. Parks Jr., the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Special Agent in charge of Connecticut, who recently passed away after a brief illness at the age of 55. Merrill Parks began his career with the FBI 29 years ago in Montana after graduating from Memphis State University. He quickly moved on to serve in the FBI's New York division where he worked from 1971 to 1975. While there, he became a supervisory Special Agent overseeing the investigation of organized crime and white-collar crime. Special Agent Parks's success as an investigator earned him a reputation as an expert in dealing with organized crime. By 1979, Special Agent Parks had been reassigned to the FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. to manage the bureau's national program of identifying and infiltrating organized crime. He also initiated a long-term program that dealt with combating money laundering. One of Special Agent Parks most widely profiled accomplishments was his leadership of what became known as the Pizza Connection case. His experience and knowledge of the inner-workings of crime families led to the successful prosecution of Mafia-connected drug dealers who sold heroin through pizza parlors and bakeries. In 1986, Special Agent Parks was reassigned as an Assistant Special Agent in charge of Houston's FBI office. The Houston area had been witnessing a growth of Mexican organized crime groups attempting to distribute drugs throughout the United States, and Special Agent Parks's expertise was enlisted to help curb their illegal activities. Within the first year, under the guidance of Special Agent Parks, the Houston office solved 32 drug-related kidnappings. The course of Merrill Parks's career eventually brought him to Madison, Connecticut in 1994, where he made his home with his wife, Patricia. In that year, he was also appointed to head the FBI's Connecticut office. Vigorous in his determination to stop the flow of drugs and violence within our communities, Special Agent Parks faced the new task of eliminating gangs. Sadly, Connecticut, like so many other states, has experienced an emergence of gangs and gang-related crime in recent years. Special Agent Parks's work in Connecticut was no less impressive and, as with his previous assignments, he was, once again, successful. In his first year working in Connecticut, Special Agent Parks infiltrated one of the state's most infamous gangs, the Latin Kings, and arrested numerous gang leaders. Realizing that gangs were a long-term problem, he created a task force that for three years continued to monitor and collect evidence on gang activity. Finally, in 1997, federal charges were brought against 20 Latin King members throughout the state, and his hard work ultimately led to the prosecution of dozens, helping to rid our streets of gang violence. Mr. President, although Merrill Parks only lived in Connecticut for a short five years, the contributions he made to the state and the protection of its residents will be long remembered. I appreciated his willingness to always keep me and my staff informed of recent developments within his office and his obvious concern for making Connecticut a safer place to live. His stay was brief but his accomplishments were many and on behalf of myself, and the entire state of Connecticut, I would like to offer our sincere thanks for his outstanding efforts. Merrill Parks is survived by his wife, Patricia, a son, Andrew, and a daughter, Meredith. I would like to extend my heartfelt condolences to each of them on the passing of an outstanding father, husband, and law enforcement officer.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, many of my colleagues may know that 9 years ago my colleague from Utah and I offered and authored the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990. Year after year, we have talked about this important program and about what a difference we think it has made in the lives of working families. Any Member of this body who has spent time in his or her State over the past 2 months enters this debate about budget priorities knowing with absolute certainty that very few issues weigh as heavily on the minds of parents across this country than how their children are being cared for. Parents worry they can't afford to take time away from work to be with their children. When they must work, they worry that the child care they need will be unavailable, unaffordable, or unsafe. It is a constant daily struggle for parents with young children in this country. It is a constant source of concern for parents all across the Nation. Helping these families does not require inventing a slew of new programs. We already have the Child Care and Development Block grant, a program that works and that enjoys strong bipartisan support. This block grant is a model of flexibility. It provides direct financial assistance to help families pay for child care. It does not dictate where that child care must be provided. Parents can choose a child care center, they can have a home-based provider, a neighbor, a church, a relative, whatever they think is best for their child. In our opinion, this is an excellent program. In fact, its only downside is that the level that it is currently funded at reaches far too few families in this country. As a result of underfunding, the child care block grant--now almost a decade old--can only serve 1 out of every 10 children. This graph highlights that: Out of every 10 children who are eligible, only 1 today can actually take advantage of the child care block grant. Consequently, States have had to employ various strategies to ration the subsidies that these block grants provide. Almost all States without exception have lowered their income- eligibility requirements far below the federally allowed level--85 percent of the State's median family income, or approximately $35,000. I notice the presence of our colleague from Ohio, and I know as a former Governor how he wrestled with these issues. I think he knows very graphically what I am about to describe for other colleagues. The Presiding Officer was a Governor and he can appreciate this as well. Because of underfunding, over 20 states have cut off all assistance to families of three earning over $25,000. Fourteen States have cut assistance for families earning over $20,000. Seven States are even more stringent: Wyoming, Alabama, Missouri, Kentucky, Iowa, South Carolina, and West Virginia cut off subsidies for families earning more than $17,000 a year--half the income level that is allowed for under Federal law. What is the effect of this? What happens? In some States, subsidies are only provided to parents on or moving off welfare. Working families out there living on the margin can't get any help. This is not what I think any of us intended to have happen. This graph shows that 52 percent of the child care needs of working families cannot be met with current funding schemes. They are either locked out by strict State income eligibility requirements, they are locked out by long waiting lists, or they are locked out by subsidies that are too low to pay for the child care they need. Even with these strict income eligibility requirements, as I mentioned, many States have long waiting lists. How bad are the waiting lists? In California, 200,000 children are on waiting lists for child care slots. In the State of Texas, it is 36,000; Massachusetts, 16,000; Pennsylvania, almost 13,000; Alabama, 19,000; Georgia, 44,500. Other States ration their limited child care dollars by paying child care providers far below the market rate--again, trying hard to guard these dollars carefully. For example, my own State of Connecticut has been unable to raise the payment rates for child care providers for 7 years. Even during a robust economy, we have not been able to increase the pay of child care providers because of the lack of funding in the child block grant program. It isn't hard to see that paying unrealistically low rates makes providers reluctant to accept subsidized children. It also isn't hard to see that this practice jeopardizes the ability of families who do get assistance to find good quality child care. When you look at the astronomical costs of child care, you can see how all of these rationing practices put families in a crisis. Let me draw the attention of my colleagues to this last chart here. These are annual child care fees across the country for children of selected ages. I have picked a cross section, with some of the highest and some of the less costly States, to give examples. I have broken it down by the cost of an infant, which is the highest child care cost, a 3-year-old, and a 6-year-old. The highest-cost State is Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, to take care of a 1-year-old child, the annual cost is $11,860; for a 3-year-old, it is $8,840; for a 6-year-old, it is $6,660. If you go down the list, I have done North Carolina, Florida, Minnesota, Texas, Colorado, and California. Consider these numbers for a minute and recall what I showed you about how States have lowered the financial eligibility criteria down to as low as $17,000. It means that if you live in one of the states with strict income eligibility, you might earn $21,000 and not qualify for the subsidy, but still be paying $8,580 for the care of an infant. If you make $21,000 and have an $8,500 yearly child care bill--you are getting close to paying 50 percent of your gross income to care for one child. If my colleagues would like, I will have this information before the vote tomorrow for each State to give Members some idea on what the waiting lists are like, to get some sense of how important an issue this is for the families living in your States. Without help in paying the $4,000 to $11,000 a year that child care can cost, low-income working families are forced into the untenable position of placing their children in an unsafe, makeshift child care arrangement or forgoing employment. Unfortunately, what we have before us is a budget that chooses to ignore this problem. I say, with all due respect, to those who have to draft these budgets, what we have before us is a budget that disregards these needs. We are being asked to endorse a budget that doesn't just fail to provide for an increase in child care funding but in fact would cut discretionary child care spending by $122 million in fiscal year 2000-- cutting off assistance to some 34,000 children in the first year, and up to 79,000 by the fifth year of the program--in order to pay for tax cuts for the more affluent citizens in our society. I have heard my colleagues all across this Chamber repeatedly say that they only want to return the surplus to working families. That is hard to argue. But that is what this amendment does. Working people need this. This amendment provides an additional $7.5 billion over 5 years for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, which goes directly to families to help them pay for child care--by a church, by neighbors, by family members, We pay for this funding increase by reducing the proposed $800 billion tax cut by the same $7.5 billion over 5 years. I don't think that is too big a chunk out of that for a very serious program which needs help. We also make a non-binding statement that if there is a tax cut, we want a tax credit for child care that helps all working families as well as all parents who stay home to care for an infant. That is a critically important issue if you are in the working poor category. If you are down at the $15,000 to $25,000 income level, a non-refundable tax credit is not very valuable to you because you probably have little or no tax bill. Without making the credit refundable, you don't get much benefit. I hope, Mr. President, that my colleagues will seriously consider this amendment. Too often these amendments come up and people sort of blow by them, and just march in lockstep. If we don't adopt this amendment, we will be very limited in the type of child care funding increases we can seek this year. If it is not in the budget as part of a mandatory spending, I'm essentially closed out for the year. Others have said in the past, ``Don't make it mandatory. Take your best shot in the discretionary spending and fight over appropriations that.'' I have tried that over the years, I say to my colleagues. You just don't win. And this year will be harder than ever because, as you know, we have about a 12 percent across-the-board cut in nondefense discretionary programs. For me to get $7.5 billion over 5 years in a discretionary nondefense appropriations battle, is not going to happen. You have to ask yourself a tough question: Regarding that $800 billion tax cut, as important as it is to many of you, would you mind reducing it by $7.5 billion over 5 years to try to make a difference here for working families who need child care? You also have to ask if tax credits should go to all working families and stay-at-home parents. Low-income families in both these situations make tough choices and they ought to have the backing of their representatives in Congress, in my view. I ask my colleagues who are here this evening, or others who may be watching the debate, before the vote tomorrow, to please take a hard look at this amendment and see if you can find a way to be supportive of it. This is the only opportunity we will have to really deal with this issue, and unless it is included in this budget resolution, it is essentially off the table. That is it for the 106th Congress. This is our one opportunity to do something to help these families.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that my colleagues Senator Jeffords of Vermont, Senator Kennedy, Senator Kohl, Senator Wellstone, Senator Murray, Senator Bingaman, Senator Johnson, and Senator Kerry of Massachusetts be added as cosponsors to this amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Amy Sussman, a fellow in my office, be allowed privileges of the floor.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD. I want to take note. I think it was my persuasive arguments that persuaded the ranking Democrat to support the amendment. Amendment No. 160 (Purpose: To increase the mandatory spending in the Child Care and Development Block Grant by $7.5 billion over five years, the amendment reduces the resolution's tax cut and leaves adequate room in the revenue instructions for targeted tax cuts that help families with the costs of caring for their children, and that such relief would assist all working families with employment related child care expenses, as well as families in which one parent stays home to care for an infant)

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if my colleague would yield further, coming from the Northeast and New England, we have recently seen stories in newspapers of gas prices going up in the peak travel season for our States. I think it may be national in scope, but we feel it particularly in the Northeast. I commend my colleague from Maine for making this proposal. I think it can be a great help, particularly when we find the battle over some of the formulas, and where need exists. Certainly the Senator from Maine has a great need with a lot of roads, a lot of highways, and a relatively small population. It is an important amendment. I commend her for that. I might join her as a cosponsor in it.