Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I am listening to the argument the Senator has made, and I am curious. Is there a chart or list that would inform us how our States would be doing under this different formula of which we ought to be aware?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Are you going to stay and listen to the debate?

Mr. DODD. Why doesn't Senator Harkin start talking?

Mr. DODD. So these will come after the first?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, a further inquiry. What does that do tomorrow to voting? Does this mean those are the first votes?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we have been discussing for several days in this Chamber a variety of legislative proposals concerning what we will and will not authorize the President of the United States to do with respect to the tragic situation that is unfolding, as we speak and gather in this Chamber, in Kosovo. This is a very important debate. It is more important, in my view, however, to remind ourselves at the outset of any discussion of this issue of what has happened to the innocent people of Kosovo over the last year, in the absence of clear and convincing steps to signal the end of international inaction in the face of gross and continuing violations of human rights by the Milosevic regime. For just a moment I want to focus, if I may, the hearts and minds of this country and those in this Chamber on the very desperate situation of the people who find themselves trapped in the province of Kosovo. Today, ethnic Albanian villages across Kosovo are quite literally in flames. Heavy smoke from the homes of innocent civilians fills the skies of Srbica, Prekaz, Gornja Klina, and others. As we debate these issues, a massive force of 40,000 Serb soldiers and paramilitary police are moving slowly, deliberately, and methodically from village to village to village, taking lives, burning homes, and forcing tens of thousands of innocent civilians to flee without food or shelter. Can anyone doubt in the face of such continuing atrocities that the American people would oppose participation by the United States in NATO authorized air strikes. I hope not, and I don't believe so. Each day we have delayed has meant the difference between life and death and between shelter and homelessness for tens of thousands of people. In just the last two days, since the ethnic-Albanians signed the peace agreement on Friday, Serb soldiers have forced another twenty to twenty-five thousand civilians from their homes, according to United Nations officials. Over the past week, the Serbs forced a total of 40,000 to run for their lives. The totals for the past year are almost incomprehensible: at the very least 2,000 are dead and 300,000 to 400,000 have been forced to leave their homes and seek refuge. Mr. President, we were all shocked by the horrific discoveries last January, just two weeks apart, in the towns of Racak, where Serbs murdered 45 ethnic Albanians and Rogovo where they slaughtered 23 ethnic Albanians. The first of these attacks came on Friday January 15th when, according to witnesses, Serbian soldiers and policemen, backed by armored personnel carriers, surrounded the village of Racak, rounded up the men and drove them up a hillside. On that hillside, the Serbs tortured and murdered 45 people, including a young woman and a 12-year- old boy. Many of the victims were older men, including one who was 70. All were dressed in civilian clothes. None were armed. When international observers arrived in Racak the following day, the sight that awaited them was beyond comprehension--dozens of bodies lay where they fell at the bottom of a muddy gulch. Most had been shot at close range. Many bore the signs of unspeakable torture. Although the Serbs claimed that the victims were rebels, not one wore a uniform nor carried a weapon. Those who survived the attack on Racak fled into the hills where two infants soon died of the cold. While it is sometimes difficult to assign blame for such horrors, this killing field, Mr. President, left no doubt as to the killers' identities. Western military forces intercepted radio transmissions in which Serbian officials acknowledge their culpability and international pathologists blamed the Serbs. It was hard to believe at the time that Milosevic's genocide could become more heinous or more calculated. Yet the past week proved our nightmares true. It is at times like these, Mr. President, that we are forced to reexamine the founding premises of this great Nation. When faced with massive and wholesale human rights abuses, we must bow to our conscience and to our founding fathers' recognition of the right of all people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and act to preserve those rights wherever possible. Kosovo, Mr. President, is just such a case. We have the power, the responsibility, and the opportunity to act. That is not always available to us. We have been told in recent days that we did not take similar actions on the Horn of Africa or in other places around the world where there were massive human rights abuses. That analysis is correct. The difference here is that we have the opportunity, we have the ability, and we have the structure with the NATO organization to respond to this situation. That opportunity was not available in every other place that we have seen similar, or even more severe human rights abuses. Here we have the opportunity and the chance to do something about it. The issue is whether we in this body will signal to the administration, to Mr. Milosevic, to ethnic Albanians, and to the rest of the world that we understand the difficult choices and we will step up and join with others to try to bring an end to the incredible abuse that is occurring at this very hour. Thousands of refugees have already fled into Macedonia. As history has shown, instability in the Balkans can destabilize all of Europe, a region highly critical to American interests. I respectfully disagree with our colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, who has offered this underlying resolution, when he states in his amendment that our national security interests in Kosovo do not rise to a level that warrants military operations by the United States and our NATO Allies. The challenge to the United States in Kosovo is not merely humanitarian. It is also a question of regional peace and stability. Finally, it is a test of the relevancy of NATO in the post Cold War era. All of these bear directly on the national security of the United States. We have yet to hear whether the last effort by Ambassador Holbrooke to convince the Serbs to relent will bear fruit. Although, in the next 5 or 6 minutes, we may have the final word on that. His success would, of course, be welcomed. If he doesn't, then the time has come to act in a manner consistent with that agreed to by NATO members--the United States being a full party to that action. Following military action, I believe that Yugoslav President Milosevic may be prepared to reflect more soberly on the proposed peace agreement that remains on the table. That agreement, proposed by the United States and our allies and signed by Kosovo's ethnic-Albanians, is fair and even handed. It will rid Kosovo of the fear, death and destruction of Milosevic's forces while maintaining Yugoslav sovereignty over the province. As part of the agreement, NATO has pledged to send a sizeable force to ensure that its precepts are carried out. Such a force is critically important as evidenced by the Serbs unwillingness to abide by the cease-fire agreement they signed last fall. While Milosevic pledged to withdraw his soldiers from Kosovo's villages and end his campaign of ethnic cleansing against the ethnic Albanians who live there, he clearly did neither. Milosevic's signature lacks credibility when it comes to Kosovo. Congress must not constrain the President's ability to respond in the face of such atrocities, nor can it allow a pariah such as Milosevic to destabilize an entire region. The outrage at Milosevic's ethnic cleansing and disregard for international will should be viewed as a challenge to our nation as a whole, not simply to a President of another party. Last year, our former colleague and Majority Leader, Bob Dole, traveled to Kosovo and Belgrade to assess the situation. Upon his return, he spoke of the atrocities perpetrated against civilians and the ``major, systematic attacks on the people and territory of Kosovo.'' We know now that the situation has only deteriorated. One year ago, I was proud to join with my colleagues in crafting a bipartisan resolution calling on the United States to condemn Milosevic's ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Today, I ask my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to join me once again in seeking to put an end to the bloodshed in Kosovo which will only happen when Milosevic understands that we truly mean business. While we may not be entirely satisfied with all the exit strategies, we must send the message that this Nation can speak with one voice when we leave our shores to conduct foreign policy and make a difference in the lives of the people of Kosovo. As I said last October, there is a time for words and a time for force. We tried words in Dayton and we tried words last October. The cease- fire monitors tried words for five months and we tried words for weeks on end in Rambouillet, France. I am a great believer in negotiation and diplomacy, Mr. Milosevic has shown the world that he understands only one language. It is time we spoke to him in his native tongue. The United States must demonstrate that it will carry forward with military action in the face of Serbian defiance. Congress should not weaken the projection of American power by suggesting that we do not stand behind the President. NATO's plans for air strikes, designed to stop the fighting and enforce the proposed peace agreement, have been complete for months. The United States has assumed leadership in this matter for the sake of the ethnic-Albanians facing Milosevic's genocidal plan and for the sake of regional stability. If we play partisan politics with an issue as significant as this, we should also be prepared to accept that the consequences of our actions may be grave and irreversible. I urge my colleagues to support the President and vote against the Smith amendment, an amendment that seeks to tie the President's hands and sends the wrong message to war criminals like Slobodan Milosevic. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be allocated to both sides.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume on the pending resolution.

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to again introduce with my colleague, Senator Jeffords, a critically important piece of legislation that will ensure fair treatment for individuals and families who provide invaluable care to foster children and adults. Foster care providers are currently permitted to deduct expenditures made while caring for foster individuals if detailed expense records are maintained to support such deductions. However, section 131 of the Internal Revenue Code permits certain foster care providers to exclude, from taxable income, payments they receive to care for foster individuals. Who specifically is available for this exclusion depends upon a complicated analysis of three factors: the age of the individual receiving foster care services, the type of foster care placement agency, and the source of the foster care payments. Section 131 permits foster care providers to exclude payments from taxable income only when a state, or one of its political divisions, or a charitable tax exempt placement agency places the individual and makes the foster care payments for children less than 19 years of age. However, for adults over the age of 19, section 131 permits foster care providers to exclude payments from taxable income only when a state, or one of its divisions, places the individual and provides the foster care payments. Mr. President, I believe we must move to eliminate the inequities and needless complexities of the current system. Because states and localities across the country are increasingly relying on private agencies to arrange for foster care services for both children and adults, this inequity will only become more apparent. Presently, some foster care providers are understandably reluctant to contract with private placement agencies because current law requires such providers to include foster care payments as taxable income. In contrast, current law permits providers who care for foster individuals placed in their homes by government agencies to exclude such payments from taxable income. Current law, therefore, discourages families from providing foster care on behalf of private placement agencies, thereby reducing badly-needed foster care opportunities for individuals requiring assistance. The bill Senator Jeffords and I introduce today will greatly simplify the outdated tax rules applicable to foster care payments. Under our proposed legislation, foster care providers would be able to avoid onerous record keeping by excluding from income any foster care payment received regardless of the age of the individual receiving foster care services, the type of agency that placed the individual, or the source of foster care payments. To ensure appropriate oversight, this bill will require the placement agency to be licensed either by, or under contract with, a state or one of its political divisions. Mr. President, this legislation accomplishes what current law does not--consistent and fair treatment of families and individuals who open their homes and their hearts to foster children and adults. While this modest proposal was unfortunately not adopted in the last Congress, it is my hope that foster parents may soon realize equitable treatment with the passage of this important legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to again introduce with my colleague, Senator Jeffords, a critically important piece of legislation that will ensure fair treatment for individuals and families who provide invaluable care to foster children and adults. Foster care providers are currently permitted to deduct expenditures made while caring for foster individuals if detailed expense records are maintained to support such deductions. However, section 131 of the Internal Revenue Code permits certain foster care providers to exclude, from taxable income, payments they receive to care for foster individuals. Who specifically is available for this exclusion depends upon a complicated analysis of three factors: the age of the individual receiving foster care services, the type of foster care placement agency, and the source of the foster care payments. Section 131 permits foster care providers to exclude payments from taxable income only when a state, or one of its political divisions, or a charitable tax exempt placement agency places the individual and makes the foster care payments for children less than 19 years of age. However, for adults over the age of 19, section 131 permits foster care providers to exclude payments from taxable income only when a state, or one of its divisions, places the individual and provides the foster care payments. Mr. President, I believe we must move to eliminate the inequities and needless complexities of the current system. Because states and localities across the country are increasingly relying on private agencies to arrange for foster care services for both children and adults, this inequity will only become more apparent. Presently, some foster care providers are understandably reluctant to contract with private placement agencies because current law requires such providers to include foster care payments as taxable income. In contrast, current law permits providers who care for foster individuals placed in their homes by government agencies to exclude such payments from taxable income. Current law, therefore, discourages families from providing foster care on behalf of private placement agencies, thereby reducing badly-needed foster care opportunities for individuals requiring assistance. The bill Senator Jeffords and I introduce today will greatly simplify the outdated tax rules applicable to foster care payments. Under our proposed legislation, foster care providers would be able to avoid onerous record keeping by excluding from income any foster care payment received regardless of the age of the individual receiving foster care services, the type of agency that placed the individual, or the source of foster care payments. To ensure appropriate oversight, this bill will require the placement agency to be licensed either by, or under contract with, a state or one of its political divisions. Mr. President, this legislation accomplishes what current law does not--consistent and fair treatment of families and individuals who open their homes and their hearts to foster children and adults. While this modest proposal was unfortunately not adopted in the last Congress, it is my hope that foster parents may soon realize equitable treatment with the passage of this important legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to express my views on the National Missile Defense bill as it was amended yesterday. I am glad that Senator Cochran and Senator Levin were able to agree to changes in this bill. The unanimous votes on the amendments and nearly unanimous vote on final passage are tributes to Senator Cochran's and Senator Levin's resolve to seek common ground on this important issue that has long divided this body along party lines. Thankfully, instead of a partisan battle, the Senate produced a strong statement of this nation's resolve to develop and deploy a national missile defense system in the context of other budget priorities, national security concerns, and the U.S.- Russian arms control process. The initial bill stated that the United States would deploy a national missile defense system as soon as technologically possible. I stood with the administration and this nation's military leaders in opposing that legislation because it did not consider other important factors such as cost, the specific missile threat, effectiveness of the system, and the impact on the arms control process. The amendments that were added address some of those other issues. The first amendment explicitly requires that the national missile defense program be subject to the annual authorization and appropriations process despite the bill's requirement to deploy a system ``as soon as technologically possible.'' The amendment stresses the fact that this nation is not committed to giving the missile defense program a blank check. In other words, notwithstanding the Senate's commitment to protect this nation against rogue state missiles, this body will balance the importance of national missile defense with other national security priorities. For example, we have an attack submarine fleet that continues to shrink as the result of a low build rate. That issue and many others need to be considered by our national defense leadership. Furthermore, the first amendment highlights the fact that this body will balance the need for a national missile defense system with the need to provide our citizens with strong and effective domestic programs. The second amendment, sponsored by Senator Landrieu, was absolutely necessary for the passage of this legislation. The amendment reminds us that the United States remains wholly committed to nuclear arms control. The ABM Treaty and START Treaties are basic elements of nuclear arms control, and this bill is not meant to impinge on the effectiveness of those treaties. This nation will not ignore, but instead seek modifications to, the ABM Treaty to allow for a limited national missile defense system. Also, this nation awaits ratification of START II by the Russian Duma and looks forward to agreement on the provisions of START III. In sum, this legislation does not alter the administration's present policy with respect to national missile defense. This nation will develop and deploy a national missile defense system, but the costs of the system, the specific rouge nation missile threat, the impact on arms control, and our technological ability to field such a system will all be carefully considered. For those reasons, I have decided to support this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I'd like to thank my colleague from Vermont for his cooperation in working out an agreement to address the need for afterschool programs as part of the Health and Education Committee's reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act later this year. As my colleagues know, I was planning to offer an amendment to the Education Flexibility Act, that I offered when this bill was in committee, to increase funding for programs serving children during out-of-school hours through the Child Care and Development Block Grant and the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program. I know that my colleague from Vermont shares my strong interest in ensuring that children have safe alternatives during the hours they are not in school. He has been a leader for years on this specific issue as well as a tireless advocate for many other critical concerns of American families.

Mr. DODD. Out of consideration for the Senator's interest in moving this bill forward expeditiously, I have agreed to withdraw my amendment. I am pleased that Senator Jeffords has agreed instead to take up this issue as part of ESEA and to hold comprehensive hearings on the issue of afterschool care this year. I am particularly pleased that Senator Frist shares our concern about the documented rise in juvenile crime that we see in the hours immediately after school. I also appreciate his pledge to work with us to increase support for afterschool programs.

Mr. DODD. In the 105th Congress, I offered my legislation, the Prevention of Truancy Act, as an amendment to the Ed-Flex bill during the Labor and Human Resources Committee's consideration, where it failed on a tie vote. It was my intention to offer it on the floor on this bill. However, I am pleased instead to be on the floor with my colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions, to discuss our common interest in assisting communities address this real and serious problem and express our intent to offer legislation similar to the bill I offered last year soon. We will also be working with Senator Bingaman who offered similar legislation last Congress and Senator Collins who supported my amendment in Committee last year. Senator Sessions, a new member to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Youth Violence, believes as I do that truancy is a gateway offense, and that this legislation would present us with an opportunity to catch good kids before it is too late. The Senator from Alabama has worked hard for the duration of his career on finding solutions to difficult issues such as truancy. I believe this legislation will truly make a difference in the lives of many children and, at the same time, prevent juvenile crime. I also believe that our working together will produce strong, solid legislation that we should all be able to support.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is very difficult to hear. The Senate is not in order.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment and do so with a sense of some regret. I offered an amendment a year ago with, in fact, Senator Coverdell, our colleague from Georgia, on the $7 tax break proposal as an alternative where real money--$1.6 billion--would go toward IDEA. I think all of us appreciate the fact that many of us over the years wanted to raise our level of support for that program. But in this particular issue, to kind of ask in a sense that we now take needed dollars to try to bring down class size and throw this item in--by the way, I lost on that amendment where we would have had $1.6 billion for IDEA. I got voted down on that proposal. Here we have a real issue of class size. One of the major problems in IDEA is the learning disabilities. Two- thirds of IDEA kids are learning disabled; primarily speech, and language is the second disorder. That problem is not discovered until the third or fourth grade in most schools. You don't discover that with a younger child. The irony here, in a sense, is that we are trying to reduce class size, which is what the underlying amendment would do, so that you try to avoid the problems from being created in the first place. Here we are sort of competing against each other. We have a legitimate issue that we are trying to get dollars into, and that is to reduce class size. To the extent that we do that, we are going to reduce the IDEA problem. That is what we ought to be trying to do, instead of creating this false choice out here, in a sense. If you can choose between these dollars, clearly, in many communities, because it is a tax issue, they are going to go with IDEA. The underlying problem with IDEA gets addressed if we reduce the class size. I urge my colleagues in this particular case--after we increased by $500 million last year IDEA funding--that we reject the amendment. Do what we can in this partnership and bring down class size, which is what most Americans would like us to do across the board, and still work on the IDEA issue and reducing the obligations there. For those reasons, I urge the rejection of this amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President. I am pleased to join the Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Senator Jeffords, in introducing the Health Care Personal Information Nondisclosure (PIN) Act of 1999. This legislation is designed to offer Americans the peace of mind that comes with knowing that their most personal and private medical information is protected from misuse and exploitation. Medicine has changed dramatically since the time Norman Rockwell painted the scene of a doctor examining his young patient's doll. The flow of medical information is no longer confined to doctor-patient conversations and hospital charts. Recent technological advances have introduced more efficient methods of organizing data that allow information to be shared instantaneously--helping to contain costs--and even save lives. But in the view of many Americans, the widespread sharing of medical records without appropriate safeguards, even in the pursuit of admirable goals, creates a staggering potential for abuse. In fact, concerns that medical information is not being adequately protected from misuse has led some patients to avoid full disclosure of mental health or other sensitive conditions to their physicians and to unnecessarily forego opportunities for treatment--in effect negating the benefits of the new technology. The Health Care PIN Act offers the privacy protections that the public demands. This legislation sets clear guidelines for the use and disclosure of medical information by health care providers, researchers, insurers, employers and others. The Health Care PIN Act provides individuals with control over their most personal information, yet promotes the efficient exchange of health data for the purposes of treatment, payment, research and oversight. To ensure the accountability of entities and individuals with access to personal medical information, the legislation impose stiff penalties for unauthorized disclosures. Just as you lock your doors to protect your home, this measure can act as deadbolt against those who would exploit your medical privacy. This legislation represents common-sense middle ground in the range of proposals that have been offered both this and the previous Congress. I look forward to working with Senator Jeffords, as well as with Senators Bennett, Leahy, and Kennedy, who have contributed so much to this debate, to move forward quickly to enact comprehensive, bipartisan legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in expressing my concern about the gridlock we find ourselves in here on this bill. Let me, first of all, commend the majority leader and majority for bringing up an education bill. I think most Americans feel that this is one of the most important issues for us to be addressing. So I want to begin these brief remarks by commending the majority for bringing up an education bill. The regrettable part is that having now brought up this matter of the so-called Ed-Flex bill, we are now being deprived of the opportunity to discuss a number of critical issues which affect the quality of education in the country. We are not suggesting here that this be an unlimited debate with countless amendments. There are just several very key and important issues the American public would like to have us help address. One is class size. Most Americans know if a teacher has too many students, not only can the teacher not teach, the students do not learn. This is not any great leap of logic to understand this. Too many of our classes are too big. We know that. One of the proposals we would like to raise in the context of this education bill is that amendment. You could vote it down, if you would like. But I do not think this institution, or the American public, ought to be deprived of having the Senate of the United States debate an amendment that would assist reducing the size of classes in America. That ought not be denied the American people. Yet under this present sort of Rubik's Cube we have created here legislatively, we cannot even get to that amendment. Americans would like to see us address the issue of afterschool programs. It is a major problem. Parents worry about where their children are between the hours of 3 and 6 o'clock. It is a major problem. We may disagree over how best to achieve the results of having a good afterschool program. But here we are unable to debate it, befuddling the American public. For the life of me, it is hard to explain why when we have an education bill before the U.S. Senate, we cannot even bring up an amendment and discuss and debate and vote on an amendment. An amendment that would simply offer an idea and a plan on how we might alleviate this growing concern among Americans about what happens to their children after school hours when they are not at home, when parents cannot provide for their needs and are concerned about the trouble they can get into, the difficulties they can encounter. That ought not be a great leap of logic to expect us to be able to discuss in this context of an education bill that the majority has brought up. Americans would like to see us address the issue of the condition of our classrooms, our school buildings. This morning, I met with some of our mayors down from the State of Connecticut. One of the issues raised by one of those mayors is that the school buildings in his town are more than 40 or 50 years old. They need new buildings. Now, they are willing to participate in the cost of that. But they would like to see some of the dollars they send to Washington come back to help improve the quality of these classrooms and these buildings. I do not think that ought to be too difficult. If the majority doesn't agree with that, doesn't think that is a priority, vote against the amendment, but do not deprive us of raising it, debating it and voting on it. That is not too much to ask. Again, I commend the majority. They have said this is an important issue; education is critical. We are bringing up the education bill. How ironic that having brought up this bill, they now deprive us from raising three or four amendments that we think would contribute to the well-being of the educational system of this country. We cannot even discuss, debate, and vote on them. I had hoped that we could do better on one of the first actions of this Congress, having gone through the difficulty of this impeachment proceeding, and get back to the issues that affect the American public. We took an awful lot of time on the issue of impeachment. Now, the public, our constituents, would like to see us spend some time on their issues, the things they worry about every day. When you bring up an education bill and then deprive us of the right to debate, discuss, and vote on critical issues that they think are important, they wonder what we are doing, what our agenda is--a Rubik's Cube of parliamentary maneuvering or actually addressing these underlying and critical questions that the American people care about. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I want to commend the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts who, for years, along with our colleague from Vermont, has been such a leader in these issues. I particularly thank him for raising the issue of the after-school program. Several of us have been talking about this. As my colleague from Massachusetts knows, I offered an amendment last year when we considered the Ed-Flex bill in committee to increase federal support for after-school programs. My colleague from California is interested in the subject, as well. We would like to bring this issue up. It is a very important one which we will talk about later. I thank him for including that in his remarks as he gave an overview of where we are on education issues.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield for 30 seconds?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I won't take a great deal of time. Senator Kennedy, Senator Jeffords, Senator Frist, Senator Wyden and others have talked about many of the specifics of the bill before us--the Education Flexibility Partnership Act. I just want to take a few minutes to thank my colleagues for all their work on this bill. I am very pleased that one of the first legislative matters we are taking up this year is education. This is about as significant an issue in the minds of most Americans as any. There are a lot of other questions which are very important, but none that I think dominates the concerns of Americans regardless of geography or economic circumstance as education, particularly elementary and secondary education. Later this year, we will take up the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization, which contains the major federal programs to assist our schools. This bill requires reauthorization every 5 years. And this year is the year that we must reauthorize that basic fundamental piece of legislation that deals with the elementary and secondary education needs of America. So we will have a chance, I suspect, even then to review some of the issues that concern people. I had hoped that we could consider this initiative on Ed Flex as part of that larger bill given its relationship to those programs; however, I am still hopeful that we can include the review of this program in our work on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Today, as we gather here, in many parts of the country students are still in school. Fifty-three million students, more or less, went off to elementary or secondary schools this morning, from Hawaii to Maine. Of the 53 million, 48 million are in public schools and about 5 million are in private or parochial schools across the country. The vast majority, of course, attend our public schools. And most attending our schools today are doing well and their schools are good. I think too often we focus our attention on the things that do not work. Partly it is because that is our job. And there are a lot of gaping holes in the education reaching students across this country in the ability to learn and the opportunity to learn. But in many, many communities across this great country we find schools that are filled with learning and blessed with qualified, motivated teachers, and enriched with excellent resources from libraries to computers. In recent years, more and more schools have joined these elite ranks. More schools are enjoying the benefits of these wonderful technologies; more schools have adopted strong and challenging standards-based reform strategies; and more fine, well-educated people are entering the teaching ranks. But our job, as I said a moment ago, Mr. President, is not just to point out the things that are working well. If we are to improve our schools, we must also focus on the problems and how to encourage real solutions to these problems. And that brings us to this bill. It will bring us to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as well. Let me just share some statistics with my colleagues, briefly here, on the state of education in America. The GAO estimates that one-third of all of the schools in the United States are in need of basic repairs and renovations. Two-thirds are in good shape. That is the good news. But still fully a third of them are in poor shape and in need of repairs and renovations. Just to give you one example, in my home State of Connecticut, Mr. President, there was a study done on school conditions in the city of Waterbury, CT. I live in a very affluent State, but there are pockets of real poverty in Connecticut. It is a dichotomy of affluence and poverty living in a relatively small piece of geography. Waterbury, CT, has some very fine and affluent neighborhoods. But like many of our cities, there are parts of it that are not doing as well economically. Last year, in Waterbury, they found that 500 fire code violations occurred in our schools over the last five years--500 fire code violations. Another statistic, nationwide, 53 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds participated in preschool programs. Eight percent of second graders were detained in kindergarten or the first grade. Second Graders--it is hard to imagine why someone would be held back at that level. One could maybe see it later in the elementary grades, but by the second grade almost 10 percent are being held back. Nearly 15 percent of middle and high school teachers in the United States do not minor or major in the area of their main teaching assignment. Again, we have 85 percent who do. But there is a growing number, about 15 percent, who are being asked to teach at the secondary school level in a curriculum that they have not received a significant formal education. We see, as well, that 86 percent of 18- through 24-year-olds have a high school diploma. That number, again, is getting better. But is still too high. And is way too high when one looks at some of the sub- populations of students; over a third of Hispanic Americans are dropping out. This is the fastest growing ethnic group in the United States and one-third of them are dropping out of school. At the end of the 20th century, Mr. President, we are going to have to do better in all these indicators if we are going to compete effectively. So I am pleased we are turning our attention to education today. But let's not delude ourselves. The bill that we are talking about here is not the answer. I respect immensely the authors of this legislation. I have a high regard for them and the motivations which caused them to propose this legislation, particularly my good friend from Oregon, who had a long and distinguished career in the other body, and who cares about young people and their educational needs, and our colleague from Tennessee, and others who are a part of this legislation. But I want to raise some of the concerns that some of us have about this bill and am hopeful that we can work through some of these issues in the coming days. Six years ago, in 1993, we enacted the Ed-Flex Demonstration program in the hopes that it would spur school reform in our states. It was a very tightly written program with just 6 states participating. We quickly expanded that to 12, recognizing 6 States probably was not a good enough laboratory to get some decent results back to determine whether or not this new waiver authority would prove to be worthwhile. Ed-Flex was a major departure in education policy. We were allowing, for the first time, officials to waive Federal regulatory and statutory requirements. That is not a minor thing. I mean, we are responsible to see to it that the dollars, the Federal dollars that go to education, are going to be spent well and wisely. Now, I don't question that we can get heavyhanded, and too bureaucratic. We are all painfully aware that can happen. But to allow state officials to waive statutory and regulatory requirements is a significant departure. It is one thing to modify, to amend, to drop certain regulations, but to allow a complete waiver of statutory and regulatory requirements was a dramatic departure from our education policy. We included protections in the law at the time. The Secretary would have to approve applications for this waiver authority. Only States with strong standards-based reforms in place were eligible, and waivers could not override the intents and purposes of the laws or civil rights and other certain basic protections. But the idea was for flexibility in return for results. So we passed overwhelmingly this demonstration program. But it was for a demonstration program--a test. Well, the results are not in. That is one of the difficulties here. It is not that anyone has studied this and said they are bad, they are just not in. We do not really know. It may be very good, or it may not--but raising the legitimate concerns about it is not inappropriate. Texas is the only State, the only one, by the way, out of all 12 States, that has actually been giving us some details on how they are performing. Most others cannot produce, unfortunately, any results about student achievement results they have achieved through school reform and the Ed-Flex demonstration program. The General Accounting Office, the GAO, has reviewed Ed-Flex and found little in the way to suggest that Ed-Flex is making a difference. Now, it may. Again, I find myself in a situation of hoping it does. I supported the demonstration program not because I anticipated it to fail, but I did it because I anticipated it to work. But I feel I have a sense of responsibility to the people of my State--that it is their dollars, in a sense, that are going to this--that I can look them in the eye and say why we are now going to pass legislation permanently establishing this. But if you ask me the question, ``Do I have the empirical evidence which draws the final conclusion that in fact this can work?'' I have to say, no, not yet. Now, maybe it will come in, but it is not here yet. And so I hope my colleagues understand that those of us who are raising these questions are doing so with a deep sense of optimism that this will work, but also a deep sense of concern that we do not have the information yet to make these final conclusions. While we don t know much about results, we do know a little about how this authority is being used. Seven of the participating 12 states have granted 10 or fewer waivers. The vast majority of waivers requested are about loosening title I requirements for targetting the neediest students. But generally, the finding suggests there is little being done with Ed-Flex that is not being done directly with the Secretary with his own waiver authority. We hear anecdotes from Governors about how it is promoting creativity and spurring reform--but the evidence we have on how it has been used really do not back this up in the most states. But I have never had a Governor or mayor yet that wouldn't like to get all statutory and regulatory requirements of the Federal Government eliminated; that doesn't come as a great shock. They would like us to write a check, give it to them, and get out of the way. That is how Governors and mayors think. I find it interesting that in States, when State legislatures or mayors ask Governors for similar waiver authority, I usually find the Governors are far more resistant to waiver authority at the local level than they are in asking us for it. It is where you are in the food chain in terms of your willingness to support waivers from regulation. At any rate, we hear a lot of anecdotes from Governors and State education leaders about Ed-Flex changing the mentality of their systems and motivating school improvement efforts. I am for this. I hope it works. But I think we need to ensure that students are served by these changes. That is why we have the accountability amendments. Senators Kennedy, Reed, and I will offer two simple amendments that I believe get to the core of improving accountability. These build on the changes that we were pleased to see the managers include the substitute bill they offered earlier today. Our staffs have been working together for weeks to beef up the accountability in this bill. I believe we have made good progress, but must do more. The first amendment offered by Senators Kennedy, Reed and me will ensure that accountability is resulting in student achievement. Improving the performance of students is what this is all about. I am rather surprised we have been forced to offer what we think is a very common sense amendment, rather than having it just agreed to and accepted. I understand we continue to work on this and am hopeful that we will be able to resolve this without a vote. The second amendment ensures involvement of one of the key players in school reforms, parents and the larger public. The Reed amendment ensures that parents and other local leaders can comment on applications for waivers and that these comments are given consideration. Again, I would hope that parental involvement is one of the things all of us can agree on. In Head Start, we require that parents be involved from volunteering in classrooms to parent planning boards, then make key decisions about their community programs. We get about 80 percent parental involvement with Head Start programs. What has been terribly disappointing to me is that by the first grade parental involvement drops to about 20 percent. It immediately drops, which is terribly disturbing because there is no better way to increase a child's performance in education than to have a parent involved-- visiting teachers, talking to them, going to the schools, learning what the child is supposed to be learning, involved in school governance and reform. The requirement we would add would ensure that interested parents could be engaged in this process. I hope our colleagues would be supportive of that since it fits in with the growing concern among all Democrats and Republicans that parental involvement needs to be expanded rather than contracted. The Reed amendment does not give parents or others veto power. That is not the point. It gives them the power to comment knowing their comments will be considered, which is not too much to ask. It says their comments should be available and included in the application for waiver authority. These are simple changes that broadly improve the accountability of this bill. We will also have the opportunity to consider several other important education initiatives--not to belittle the importance some have placed on this Ed-Flex bill, but I have never had one parent or teacher or student raise it with me. I have heard from many concerned about class size, districts looking for reassurance that the full promise of 100,000 teachers will reach them. Class size is a critical issue to families all across the country, whether in a rural school in Idaho, or urban school in Connecticut. Parents know that class size matters--how many teachers teach how many students, how well educated they are, and are these buildings that these kids are supposed to be learning in, in good shape. We also hear a great deal about the readiness of children to learn when they enter school. We hear about aftershool. My colleague from California, Senator Boxer, has an interest in this. My colleagues from Vermont and Massachusetts will recall last July when this specific bill was in committee, I offered an afterschool amendment to this proposal--which I hope to be offering in this debate. My colleague from California has an interest in this subject matter, as well. Eighteen years ago our former colleague from New Jersey, Senator Bradley, and I did the initial legislation on afterschool programs in the dropout legislation. Over the years I have been deeply involved in trying to reduce this afterschool problem, of the difficulties that occur with the lack of afterschool programs. This is an issue that many people in this country would like to see us do more about. I think most of my colleagues are aware of this, but this chart points out when juveniles are most likely to commit violent crimes. The spike is around 2:30 or 3 o'clock. That is the peek time of violent crimes among young people. The hours between 2:30 and 6:00 is when we see the largest percentage of violent juvenile crime. It is not uncommon for communities to have curfews. Invariably the curfew suggests some time after 9 or 10 o'clock at night. In fact, 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock at night is a relatively calm period of time. It is 2:30, 3 o'clock, 3:30, 4 o'clock--when kids are home from school, but parents are not--which is the critical time period. We are told by chiefs of police and others that violent crime among young people is on the increase. Afterschool programs, putting efforts into this, is something that we think would make a great deal of difference. I hope to offer an amendment on my own or with Senator Boxer or others to deal with this issue. Mr. President, Ed-Flex may make a difference in some States. Frankly, in my view the jury is still out for the reasons; I hope the jury comes back with good results and good reports on this. We think the accountability amendments will help here. But this legislation on its own is no substitute for what our schools need and what parents and students across this country are demanding. I am hopeful that during these next several days we can have a real discussion on education and improve this bill with the addition of some critical timely initiatives. I am happy to work with the chairman of the committee and the ranking member and move through these issues in an orderly way. I thank both Senators for their leadership. I commend my colleague from Tennessee and my colleague from Oregon for their fine work on this amendment. I appreciate, again, the motivations that have given rise to this legislation. I think we can make it a better bill and add to it some of the elements that we think will strengthen the educational needs of all Americans by some of the suggestions I have made here and that others have made this afternoon. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I point out to my chairman that one of the industries they point out that is not doing very well--it is not doing badly, but not very well--in terms of being Y2K compliant; it is the broadcast news industry, and particularly television. So when my colleague refers to ``foreign policy by CNN,'' he is accurate, but one of the problems is that CNN may have a problem--and I am sure they will respond very quickly. But I thought it was interesting when I went over this last evening detailing some of the industries identified as ones that have work to do, and broadcast news was one that is lagging behind. I also see our colleague from Oregon. Before he shares his thoughts, I want to thank him as well. He has been a tremendous asset to our committee. He has brought a wonderful perspective since he joined this body, and comes from the public sector as well as the private sector. He served in the legislature in his own State with great distinction, but also he comes with a private sector perspective, which has been tremendously helpful throughout the hearings. And I thank him for his attention and for the time he has brought to this issue as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I see that our colleague is here, and I won't be long. First, I want to commend Senator Moynihan from New York for an excellent statement. He has been a real value to us on the committee. He brings such a wealth of knowledge, information and experience. I thought his observation about at least some of the material the Defense Department has is a worthwhile suggestion. We might want to explore how to make more of that information available to the general public. I think those who are skeptical about whether or not there is legitimacy in pursuing this committee and making the information available as we require it, their concern would be further dispelled were they to have the ability to share some of the information we have come across. I commend my colleague from Utah. I think this memo where he has left off the name--and I will respect that as well here, although I will point out that it is not a Connecticut company. Most people would assume that since it is an insurance company, it is probably located in Connecticut; but it is not. We may want to compose a letter to send to the industry as a whole. I would be very curious as to whether or not this is a unique, isolated case, or whether or not it is being duplicated by others. For those who may not have heard this, we have come across a memo which details a number of different kinds of health care policies that would be significantly affected. In fact, they would be excluded from payment if, in fact, the damages occur ``as a result of failure of any machine, equipment, device, system, or component thereof, whether it is used for the purposes or whether or not the property of the insurer to correctly recognize, accept, and process or reform any function: any date or any time after September 8, 1999, to January 1.'' Clearly, this is the insurance companies saying ``we are not covering you here on this one,'' which is a very important piece of information. I think we ought to examine and look at that. This is an early version of OMB's March report that we have been given which rates the Federal agencies in terms of their year 2000 compliance. Basically, there is good news here, Mr. President. An awful lot of agencies are doing pretty well. Some have a long way to go here. I think this may be a worthwhile item to be included in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that Predictions by Country and Worldside Predictions by Industry be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, let me begin these remarks by seconding everything that my colleague from Utah has said about the other members of this committee. I will add, as I know he has expressed on numerous occasions, the tremendous work done by our respective staffs. They have done a tremendous amount of work in providing us with the kind of detailed information that we have been able to produce at this juncture in our interim report, which we released today. Let me also, on behalf of other members of the committee, say to you and to our colleagues here that we have been truly fortunate to have Bob Bennett lead this effort. I have said this on numerous occasions. He has literally been the leader on this in the Senate. He began early on and insisted that the Banking Committee have a subcommittee that would look at the implications of this year 2000 ``bug,'' as it is affectionately referred to, on financial institutions. It was as a result of his efforts that my curiosity was piqued. As a member of that committee--not as the ranking Democrat, but as a member of that committee--I attended a number of hearings we had on financial services, and I quickly learned through that process that this issue went far beyond the individual institutions that had to do their own assessments. What Senator Bennett discovered very early on and what others of us who sat in on those committee hearings soon learned, was that it wasn't enough to be a financial service and have your own house in shape when it came to the Y2K issue, and that the bank, or the savings and loan, or the stock brokerage, or any other financial service, insurance agent, or company--if they were in good shape internally, that wasn't enough. They had to also determine whether or not suppliers and customers, all sorts of contractors with whom they do business, would also have to be in good shape. That obviously drew us to the conclusion that this was an issue that deserved broader attention than just looking at the financial services sector. As a result, Senator Bennett and I went to our respective leaders and asked and urged them to support this special committee that has no legislative authority. We have no authority to pass any laws or do anything, but merely try to make an assessment as we now approach the millennium date 304 days from today. As a result of those efforts, beginning last year, Trent Lott, our majority leader, and Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader in the Senate, supported our efforts to form this committee. We owe them a great debt of gratitude, as well, as leaders for giving us the kind of support that has been necessary to do our jobs. Today, at the conclusion of this discussion, there will be a vote on a matter that would provide an additional $300,000 over the next year for us to complete our work as we now enter this second phase of this assessment of how the Nation and the world is responding to this issue. So we hope that our colleagues will be supportive of that effort to allow us to complete our work. Again, at the outset, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Utah whose own background in business--and a successful business, I might add--has brought some wonderful awareness and knowledge to all of this. It has been truly enjoyable to work with him and his staff over these past number of months which has brought us to the place we are today. The Senate special committee, which formed in April, as I have said, has been working hard to assess a variety of industry sectors. Some sectors have been very cooperative. We should tell you that in this kind of effort so much information and so much news is focused on what is wrong. We need to take some time to tell you about what is right, too. There is a lot that is going on that is right when it comes to this issue. It doesn't get the same attention. The old axiom that the media doesn't report about planes that fly is certainly true in the Y2K issue. The headlines are going to tell you about where the problems are. That is the nature of the news media and what gets covered. But there are a lot of planes that are flying, if you will, both literally and figuratively when it comes to the year 2000 issue. Those that have been doing the work getting the job done deserve to be recognized as well. Others have needed more persuasion, unfortunately. We will get to that. After 10 months of research, we have now completed our report, which I have referred to already, which gives you the status on seven major sectors. It is not an all-conclusive list. But we came up with this list. Senator Bennett did. He came up with a list of seven critical areas that we thought most people would have questions about and legitimate concerns. I will get to that in a second. I know Senator Bennett has already discussed that to some degree. The report was intended to provide as comprehensive as we could an analysis, and described as thoroughly as we could in a single document how ready we are to face this millennium issue that is going to be upon us in 304 days; in some cases before. Reflecting on what we have learned from our research and hearings, I think it would be an understatement to say that Y2K is an important issue. Expert opinions on the subject have ranged from denial to the coming of Armageddon. While we don't foresee any major disruptions, anyone who hasn't begun to consider the ramifications of this problem should do so immediately, in our opinion. Some businesses within different industries have been extremely forward thinking in their year 2000 preparation efforts. George Washington Memorial Hospital, right in our own Nation's Capital in the city of Washington, began its remediation efforts a half a decade ago in order to be ready for the year 2000 issue. State Street, an international financial service in Boston, MA, began fixing its year 2000 problem 6 years ago and is projected to spend some $200 million on remediation efforts. The cost has been significant. For some it will continue to rise as companies continue to discover problems and work through them. Consider for a moment, if you would, Mr. President, the cost of not being ready, especially with regard to exposure to litigation. Projected litigation costs have ranged from $500 billion to $1 trillion. You can be sure that these costs in one way or another will be passed on to consumers in other groups. Let me just mention the litigation issue. As my colleague from Utah knows, and others know, I have been a strong advocate of litigation reform. Senator Gramm of Texas, Senator Domenici, myself, and others authored the securities litigation reform bill, and then last year we passed the uniform standards legislation to reduce the proliferation of computer-driven complaints where mere stock fluctuations would generate lawsuits. I think it was a good effort and was endorsed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and overwhelmingly supported by our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I am a supporter of litigation reform in this area, too. I think it is going to be very important that we do something in this area to reduce the potential costs of unwarranted litigation. Having said that, however, Mr. President, I also want to say that there should be no mistake out there that this committee and this Congress are not about to create some firewall that protects businesses or industries when they should have known better and done better and didn't do so. If you are sitting back and saying, I hear Congress is about to pass some legislation that is going to insulate me and protect me from consumers and businesses and others that would have a legitimate complaint against a company that did not do its Y2K work, you would be mistaken. I think I am speaking for most of us here who feel that way. That is not to say we will not be able to pass a bill. I hope we can. But we shouldn't leave the impression that this is going to be somehow an abolition of tort law in this country. There is a reason why we call these problems bugs or viruses. Like a disease, this issue can corrupt the functioning of vital systems, can cause damage, shutdown, and can bring the flow of work to a halt. They can take a business out of business very quickly. They can stop the flow of information and communication. As concerned as I am, let me make the point that we believe the United States is one of the most prepared nations in the world. We have the resources we need both in terms of economics and expertise. However, most countries lag behind the United States in the year 2000 preparation. I cannot stress to you enough, Mr. President, the serious nature of this topic. This is not an imaginary problem just because we can't at this time quantify as exactly as we would like, or forecast as exactly as we would like, the extent of this problem. We don't know for sure what is going to happen, and where it is going to happen. So we must prepare, in our view, for a bad situation. We hope it doesn't occur. There is no information we have that it is likely to occur. But we don't know. We just don't know with the kind of certainty we would like to share with our colleagues and share with the Nation. Some chief executive officers and government leaders assume because this is a technical problem and they lack technical expertise that their hands are somehow tied. This is not the case. There is no singlehanded resolution to this crisis. A successful resolution will call for cooperation across the board. This is not just a technology problem. It will require managers who are willing to get involved at all levels. It will take leaders in business, in the U.S. Congress, and at the executive branch level to take the initiative and find out where companies and organizations, nonprofits and for-profits, are in their Y2K remediation and contingency planning. Large, medium and small businesses must cooperate to find solutions. Chief executive officers must be aware of the extent of their companies' Y2K exposure. Companies must develop contingency plans. In fact, this is a critical issue right now. It doesn't mean you ought to stop remediation, but if you are concerned that you are not going to be able to get ready in 304 days, you ought to be actively involved in looking at contingency planning. If there were no other message I could leave our colleagues with, or others who may be following this discussion today, the most important point I would like to make is the need for contingency planning. I can't think of anything more important. You ought to know how important contingency planning will be. They also must insist that vital suppliers and vendors resolve their own problems and have their own contingency plans in place. The true heroes on January 1, 2000, will be those organizations, private and public companies--small, medium and large--that have found a way to adapt to this potential problem. A business owner who wants to prosper in the new millennium must prepare for the Y2K problem in such a way that the business--that their business, his or her business--does not skip a beat come New Year's Day. As of today, as I have said repeatedly now today, we have 304 days remaining, but much can still be done in that time, as short as it is. If you have lived in the Southeast of our country where there are hurricanes on almost an annual basis, or the Midwest and South where tornadoes are common, you may have heard warnings that gave you little time to make survival decisions. The year 2000 is a storm on the not- too-distant future horizon. It is a disaster, in some cases pervasive throughout the First World and beyond, but is one for which we can prepare. It is one that we can work to neutralize. We on this committee have been assessing all that we can to understand more about this coming storm, and we have learned a great deal. Small businesses do not have any compliance plans in place. Preparation for the continued health of our Nation's businesses and industries is vital, but paramount is the health of our health care. It is not an exaggeration to say that lives could be lost as a result of this crisis. I point to disturbing examples of what could happen relative to health care and the Y2K issue not to be an alarmist, quite the contrary, but to shed light on something that needs the attention of everyone in this country. Sixty million people are dependent on medication for the treatment of health problems from cancer to heart disease. Some require daily doses of life-sustaining medicines to keep their bodies from rejecting transplanted organs or to prevent cancers from spreading. Let me just cite one example of what I am talking about of which this committee has become keenly aware. Laurene West is a registered nurse and a computer expert. She brings together some wonderful talents. And if you were to meet her, you would see a seemingly healthy woman. Were it not for the fact that I tell you now, you would never guess that her state of health will put her more at risk than any of us when the year 2000 arrives. Ms. West had a tumor removed from her brain and requires daily medication to prevent the regrowth of that tumor. During her first of 13 surgeries, she developed a staph infection that does not respond to any known oral antibiotic. She is dependent on IV antibiotics which she cannot store because they have no shelf life. Any disruption to the supply of these antibiotics could be fatal to her. She knows health care. She knows computers. And she knows all too well the impact that the year 2000 could have on her health care. Ms. West has been the most proactive voice calling upon us to take action. She worries that HMOs and physicians, to a certain extent, view the impending crisis with a degree of disbelief and apathy. Many health insurance organizations will not pay for the storage of even the most critical of drugs. We now are aware that as much as 80 percent--80 percent--of the ingredients of drugs manufactured in the United States of America come from overseas. Let me repeat that. As much as 80 percent of the ingredients of drugs manufactured in this country come from overseas. Foreign companies account for 70 percent of the insulin market in the United States. Unfortunately, patients have been prevented from stocking lifesaving drugs because of restrictions placed on pharmacists by insurers and physicians who may not fully understand the magnitude of this problem. Ms. West has brought this to our attention. We applaud her efforts, and we are going to try to do something about her case and cases like it. Health care is this Nation's single largest industry. It generates $1.5 trillion annually. There are 6,000 hospitals in America, 800,000 physicians, and 50,000 nursing homes, as well as hundreds of biomedical equipment manufacturers, health care insurers, suppliers of drugs and bandages that may be unprepared for the year 2000. According to the Gartner Group, 64 percent of our Nation's 6,000 hospitals have no plans to test their Y2K preparedness. About 80 to 85 percent of doctors' offices are said to be unaware of the Y2K problem. Struggling compliance efforts by the Health Care Finance Administration and unaddressed concerns about medical devices are major roadblocks to the industry's year 2000 readiness. In short, the health care industry is one of the least prepared with 304 days to go for dealing with the Y2K problem and carries, in my opinion, the greatest potential for harm at this juncture. Due to limited resources and a lack of awareness, rural and inner-city hospitals are particularly at high risk. Each industry we have examined is critical to the functioning of our society. We have all heard the analogies about making a phone call on December 31 around midnight and getting the bill the next month with a charge for 100 years of long-distance calls. But what if the phone doesn't work at all; what if you lose contact with your work, your family doctor, your 911 dispatcher. Think what would happen if the ability to communicate was taken from governments, militaries, businesses and people. The U.S. has never experienced a widespread telecommunications outage, yet the telecom network is one of the most Y2K-vulnerable systems. And while 95 percent of telephone systems are expected to be compliant in time, there is no industry-wide effort to test data networks, cellular and satellite communications systems or the Nation's 1,400 regional telecom carriers. Despite telecom infrastructure readiness, customer equipment and company switchboards may experience some problems, leaving no guarantee of getting a dial tone on January 1. A forum that included the Nation's largest telecom companies was formed in 1997 to address the year 2000 concerns and was early, to their credit, in formulating a compliance plan. We are awaiting a final industry report which is expected early this year. With all of our assessment, research and hearings, we have learned a great deal about many sectors of our infrastructure. We have learned who is compliant and who is making headway, who is lagging behind, and who has failed to disclose their status. We discuss and recommend legislation to move the process forward, and we must look hard into the mirror. The Federal Government should be setting an example, in our view, for the rest of our country in preparing for the Y2K issue, yet the Federal Government's Y2K preparations vary widely. The Social Security Administration, for instance, got an early start and is well prepared--we commend them for their efforts--while other agencies such as the Department of Defense and the Health Care Finance Administration are lagging somewhat behind. The Federal Government will spend somewhere, we are told, between $7.5 billion--and I apologize for the disparity --and $20 billion. I would like to make that number more definitive for you, but we are getting wide-ranging cost figures here. Those are the numbers we are being told just for the remediation at the Federal agencies, but it will not be able to renovate, test, and implement all of its critical missions in time. After a late start, the Federal Emergency Management Administration is now engaged in national emergency planning in the event of year 2000 disruptions, but many State and local governments are not prepared to deliver critical services such as benefit payments, 911, and emergency services. Both Senator Bennett and I have had a particular interest in small businesses. This is because small businesses fulfill such a crucial role in our Nation's economy, providing 51 percent of the total private sector output. Small businesses are absolutely vital to the economic well-being of our Nation. There are approximately 14 million small businesses in the United States today and, according to the NFIB Education Foundation, nearly a quarter of these 14 million businesses haven't spent a dime on year 2000 remediation. Fifty-five percent of them correspond with suppliers via electronic interaction and 17 percent say that they would lose at least half their sales or production if automated processes were to fail. Many of these companies are playing wait and see--in reality, gambling that the problems are small, or at least they will be able to repair the damage before they go out of business. In our February 5 hearing, we heard testimony from Mr. Ken Evans, president of the Arizona Farm Bureau Federation. Part of the responsibility of his organization is to look out for a type of small business that is literally the bread and butter of our country--the family farm. Some reports have indicated that these small businesses may not be affected by the year 2000 problem since few of the systems used by family farms are automated. However, as Mr. Evans pointed out before our committee hearing, smaller farms rely heavily on vendors, telecommunications services, bankers, and transportation companies that are all highly automated. I know the Presiding Officer in the Chair comes from one of our rural States and knows better than most about just what I have said here, that people have sort of a mythological perception about the family farm and how it works. But today to succeed as a family farmer you have to be connected with these other vehicles to provide the services you need and to get your products and produce to the consumers. The smooth functioning, as Mr. Evans pointed out, of day-to-day business on the small farm requires that phones work, the refrigeration is in service, and the transportation services are available. In general, we think the level of preparedness seems to be determined by the relative size of the business or by how much the business is regulated by State and Federal agencies. While the heavily regulated insurance, investment, and banking industries are the furthest ahead in the Y2K compliance efforts, health care, oil, education, agriculture, farming, food processing, and the construction industries are lagging behind. The cost to regain lost operational capability for mission-critical failures will range, we are told, from $20,000 to $3.5 million per business, depending upon the size of your company. It is estimated that it will take an average of 3 to 15 days to fix the problems. Large companies with greater resources, of course, are better able to deal with the year 2000 problem. Small and medium-sized businesses, however, are the most vulnerable to the year 2000 disruptions. One survey shows that more than 40 percent of 14 million small businesses do not have any compliance plans in place. Mr. President, I am only going to speak briefly about the problem of litigation. I already mentioned my concerns about this and my desire for legislation. I think the price tag of $500 billion to $1 trillion speaks for itself. That would be a staggering cost to our Nation, not to mention to the individual businesses that may be the subject of litigation. It would be contrary, in my view, to our goal of preparation, to walk blindly into the next year without taking into consideration the question of litigation reform. Any reform would have to be, in my view, specific. It ought to be bipartisan, especially considering this is a very unusual circumstance. There is no established precedent upon which to rely in making recommendations for reform. Reform would have to be narrowly tailored, in my view, for a very specific purpose. It would have to encourage businesses and organizations to seek solutions and disclose progress without fear of litigious retribution. At the same time, companies and organizations must not be allowed to choose to do nothing and escape responsibility. We will be looking at this in the coming weeks. Clearly, much is left to be resolved. Again, Senator Bennett has spoken about the interconnected relationships of governments, all organizations, all companies and people. To say that everything is connected is to put simple words to a very complex reality. To those chief executive officers who have told us that their Y2K exposure is nonexistent, due to early planning and remediation efforts, I would only ask: What will you do if power is disrupted on the grids? What will you do if you cannot ship products? What will you do if your vendors are not Y2K compliant? To government leaders at the local and State level who have not planned for this, we would ask: What will you tell the people you serve if their government cannot function? To those HMOs and physicians who are not anticipating a Y2K-related problem, my question to you is: What will happen if you are wrong and you do nothing? Even if our country solves this problem, the fact that many of our industry sectors are tied closely to international businesses and economies will have an unknown effect on all of us. Plants grown overseas affect the supply of pharmaceuticals here. America imports goods ranging from produce to electronic equipment. How will our economy be affected if some of these products do not arrive on our shores? The fact is, what I am saying here, and what Senator Bennett has said over and over again, is we are all in this together. You are not protected by geographical boundaries, by political entities, or by lamenting what is not happening offshore. There is a storm on the horizon. We have seen the warning signs. The question is, do we have the ability to weather this storm? We think we do, but we have to work hard and all of us need to work together. In weathering this potential storm, we need to continue to look closely at the sectors of infrastructure that we have reported on in this interim report. We need to work closely with our international neighbors who are of particular interest to the United States, both economically and politically, in order to better assess their problems and better anticipate the effect that problems in their countries will have on us. Our list of priorities for the coming months include the following: We need to revisit the domestic industry and infrastructure sectors first examined last year. As I indicated, we need to place increased emphasis on international Y2K preparedness. We hope to identify national and international security issues and concerns, some of which we have been briefed on even as late as today, as Members of this body, by the respective agencies of our Federal Government. We will continue to monitor Federal Government preparedness, but also turn our attention more to State and local government preparedness. Evaluating contingency emergency preparedness and planning is a high priority for this year. We need to determine the need for additional Y2K implementation or delaying implementation dates of new regulations. I should have made note, by the way, when speaking about our paying attention to local governments and to municipalities, our colleague from New York, who I think is going to come shortly to the floor, has raised the issue. Here he is. He has already raised the issue of how we might help the municipalities and State governments, and I commend him once again for bringing to this chamber the kind of vision he historically has brought on so many other matters. I leave it to the Senator from New York to discuss his ideas in that regard, and I leave him to comment on those matters. In closing, I want to reiterate the words of our colleagues when they said we must work together. We must not let our differences keep us apart. If we are going to cooperate, if we are going to keep this from becoming a larger problem than it has to become, then the finger- pointing and name-calling and recriminations that can often be associated with this kind of an issue need to be eliminated entirely. Again, I commend my colleague from Utah who has led this effort so well over the past year or two--several years, now. I am very, very confident that, whatever else may happen, we will be doing our very best in these coming 10 months to keep our colleagues and the American public well informed about this issue, raising concerns where we think they are legitimate, not engaging in the hyperbolic kind of rhetoric that can create a panic which poses its own set of problems, but to be realistic with people, backup what we say with the kind of evidence we think is important for the American public and others to have as we try to work our way through this issue. With that, I reserve the remainder of my time and am glad to yield to my colleague from New York. I apologize, I didn't see him come in earlier or I would have yielded to him earlier.