Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues today in commending our dear friend from South Carolina for achieving the significant mark of having voted on 15,000 occasions as a Member of the Senate. He has been a wonderful friend to me; he was a great friend of my father's, who served with him in this body. I know there have been many kind things said about him today. I just want to add my voice to those accolades. What a great joy it is to serve with this remarkable American. I did not want the day to end without offering my words of congratulations to this fine young man from South Carolina. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Military Construction Subcommittee for their work on this Conference Report. Their efforts are vitally important to this nation's armed forces and the national defense. This Conference Report will benefit military bases and military personnel in Connecticut. The Naval Submarine Base in New London, the planned Army Reserve center in West Hartford, and the National Guard Training Center in Niantic each have projects that will be funded when this report becomes law. The total to be spent on these projects will be approximately $14 million. The Conference Report funds badly needed pier upgrades at the New London Naval Submarine Base. The piers at the base were originally designed to support SSN 637-class submarines, half of which have been decommissioned. The requirements of contemporary submarines have overwhelmed these piers. Power outages on the piers occur, on average, 80 times per year, and the cranes that resupply the submarines outweigh the piers' design capacity. This project affects military readiness, quality of life and the safety of our personnel. The report also includes $1.49 million to take the first step to replace an overwhelmed Army Reserve Center building and free the government of a $100,000 per month lease. Moreover, these funds will begin a much needed expansion that will enhance the training and readiness of eight Army Reserve units. Finally, the report will fund the planning and design of a new National Guard training center in Niantic, Connecticut. The present facility consists of World War II vintage, temporary wooden structures. They do not meet Army standards for classrooms, dining, or billeting. The National Guard, however, relies on this training center to serve troops from six Northeastern states. Troops of all ranks train at the center, and the Army and the Army Reserve use the center as well. The funding of the planning and design of the new center is a welcome sign to thousands of servicemembers, for it signals a strong commitment from the federal government to the National Guard. One Connecticut project would have replaced an Air National Guard complex in Orange. The poor condition of the present facility severely hinders the 103rd Air Control Squadron from accomplishing its mission, and the structure suffers from a variety of building code violations. I thank my colleagues on the Military Construction Subcommittee for including this project in the Senate bill. The project was not funded in conference, but I still appreciate the support of Chairman Burns and Senator Murray, and I look forward to working with them next year to fund this project in Fiscal Year 2000. So, I praise the Conference Committee for their work on this report. They have made some tough choices--this report allocates $759 million less than last year. But they have made those choices with the best interests of the U.S. armed forces in mind.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as we consider the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill today, many of my colleagues may think that by reviewing the provisions of the bill with respect to funding for International Military Education and Training (IMET) they will have a full picture of the total U.S. spending for the training of foreign military personnel that is proposed for fiscal year 1999. Based on that review, they might conclude that the Administration will spend approximately $50 million for training of military personnel from some 113 countries, or roughly the same as has been spent on IMET during the current fiscal year. However, that conclusion would not be accurate. While it is true that the Congress gets a very detailed accounting of the nature and level of IMET spending annually, a recent series of articles that appeared in the Washington Post revealed that a great deal more training of foreign military personnel was ongoing totally outside the framework of IMET programs. The fact of the matter is that training of foreign military personnel is now being undertaken using funds from a variety of other accounts under the control of the State Department or the Defense Department. Some of these accounts have no reporting requirements associated with them and therefore little or no Congressional oversight is possible. What is even more significant, is that more foreign military personnel may be being trained outside of the traditional framework of IMET programs than is within such programs. I do know for example that during Fiscal Year 1997 IMET funds were used to train approximately 192 Mexican Military Personnel--a modest number. During that same time period, so called Section 1004 authorized funds, paid for out of the Fiscal 1997 Defense Appropriations Act, were used to train some 829 Mexican military personnel--roughly four times as many individuals as were trained under the auspices of IMET. Mr. President, I am one who believes that United States National interests can be served by U.S. training foreign military personnel on the appropriate roles for national militaries in civil society. However, I also believe that certain kinds of training are inappropriate for military institutions that may have poor track records with respect to respecting the human rights of their own citizens. It is imperative that the Department of Defense and State work closely together to ensure that the United States is conveying a consistent message with respect to United States policy as it undertakes various programs with foreign military leaders. I do not believe that currently enough consultation takes place in this regard. At the moment, there is no single office or report that one can turn to obtain a comprehensive overview of the training that is ongoing abroad. It is for that reason that I have offered the pending amendment, which requires a detailed report on this issue. The amendment requires the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State to jointly provide to the Congress by January 31, 1999, a report on all overseas military training of foreign military personnel under programs administered by the Department of Defense and the Department of State during fiscal years 1998 and 1999, including those proposed for fiscal year 1999. Specifically, the report would include the following for each such military training activity: a foreign policy justification and purpose for the activity; location and cost; the number of foreign students trained and their units of operation. The report would also identify the United States military units involved in the activities and an explanation of the benefits to United States personnel derived from each such training activity. If deemed necessary and appropriate, the report may include a classified annex. If Congress is going to be able to carry out responsible oversight to taxpayer funded programs, such a report is vital. I also believe that such a report will be beneficial to Executive Branch officials and civilian government authorities in the countries where training is ongoing. It is my understanding that the Administration has no opposition to this amendment. I urge its adoption.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the most passionate and committed political leaders that this country has ever known: Paul O'Dwyer of New York City. Sadly, Mr. O'Dwyer recently died, one day before his 91st birthday. A former New York City Council President, Paul O'Dwyer was the soul of political activism in New York for a half-century. Author Frank McCourt mourned him as ``one of the pure souls'' who ``developed convictions early in life and never wavered.'' And not only did Paul O'Dwyer hold deep convictions, he also acted on them. Mr. O'Dwyer once said, ``Politics is the only machinery around on which you can really straighten things out.'' And hardly a day went by, where Paul O'Dwyer didn't work to ``straighten things out'' for the people of our country and our world who were most in need. He was the quintessential champion of the underdog, and his thick white mane of hair became the symbol of most every significant social movement in New York during the past 50 years. The causes he championed were as diverse as the people and places of our great nation, but at the soul of each of his endeavors was the pursuit of social justice. He immigrated to the United States from Ireland when he was 17, and he worked his entire adult life for a united Ireland. He was the national coordinator for the American League for an Undivided Ireland. He worked very closely with Gerry Adams and fought for his historic trip to the United States so he could plead his case for peace and understanding in his homeland. And he insisted on meeting with Protestant leaders who visited our shores. He fought diligently for the creation of the State of Israel. As chairman of the Lawyer's Committee for Justice in Palestine, he pleaded at the United Nations in the late 1940s for Israeli sovereignty. He was deeply committed to ending segregation in our country. He successfully litigated a critical desegregation suit in 1951, which opened the way for blacks to live in Stuyvesant Town, a large Manhattan housing complex. He also went to the Deep South to register African- American voters, campaign for black candidates, and provide legal assistance. He successfully argued before the Supreme Court for the right of mainland Puerto Ricans to take their voter literacy test in Spanish. His constant support of minority causes helped deny him a mainstream role in American politics. In all his efforts to win elective public office, he succeeded just twice, once as Manhattan's councilman at large and the other time as New York City Council President. He also won the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senator in 1968, but lost the general election to Senator Jacob Javits. But Paul O'Dwyer didn't enter politics to win elections, he did so because he saw injustice in this country, and he was determined to eradicate it. In the end, Paul O'Dwyer may have lost more elections than he won, but his leadership was not based on titles. It was built on principles. Perhaps that is why few individuals have ever earned the level of respect and admiration that Paul O'Dwyer received from both his colleagues and his adversaries. Paul O'Dwyer was truly one of a kind, and he will be dearly missed for his leadership and more importantly for his friendship.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation, along with my distinguished colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett, to help alleviate a serious shortage of students graduating from our nation's colleges and universities with technology-based education and skills. Technology is reshaping our world at a rapid pace. Competition to meet the needs, wants, and expectations of consumers has accelerated the rate of technological progress to a level inconceivable even just a few decades ago. Today, technology is playing an increasingly important role in the lives of every American and is a key ingredient to sustaining America's economic growth. It is the wellspring from which new businesses, high-wage jobs, and a rising quality of life will flow in the 21st century. Today, we are fortunate that our economy is strong. We have created more than 16 million new jobs since 1993. We have the lowest unemployment in 28 years, the smallest welfare rolls in 27 years, and the lowest inflation in 32 years. If we want to build on this progress, we must encourage our people to develop and use emerging technologies. Technological progress is the single most important determining factor in sustaining growth in our economy. It is estimated that technological innovation has accounted for as much as half the nation's long-term economic growth over the past 50 years and is expected to account for an even higher percentage in the next 50 years. And yet, there is mounting evidence that we are not doing enough to help our people make the most of technological change. Our businesses are practically desperate for workers with skills in computers and other technologically advanced systems. More than 350,000 information technology positions are currently unfilled throughout the United States. The number of students graduating from colleges with computer science degrees has declined dramatically. In my home state of Connecticut, public and private colleges combined produced only 299 computer science graduates in 1997, a 50 percent decline from 1987. We are not alone. Nationwide, the number of graduates with bachelor's degrees in computer science dropped 43 percent between 1986 and 1994. The Department of Commerce estimates that 1.3 million new jobs will be created over the next decade for systems analysts, computer engineers and computer scientists. Yet, at a time when our nation is struggling to fill these positions, our colleges are graduating fewer skilled information technology students. At large and mid-sized companies there is one vacancy for every 10 information technology jobs, and eight out of 10 companies expect to hire information technology workers in the year ahead. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, this trend will only continue through 2006. This shortage of skilled and knowledgeable workers is perhaps the most significant threat to our continued economic expansion. Clearly, we must do more as a country to eliminate this shortage. We need to turn our attention to our work force and focus on it as a critical part of our economic development. We must put more emphasis on human capital, and we need to educate more students in the diverse areas of technology. In Connecticut, many businesses are taking initiatives to do so. They are establishing scholarships, donating lab equipment, planning curricula, and sending employees into schools to instruct and help prepare students for technology-based jobs. One Connecticut company, The Pfizer Corporation, recently announced that it will spend $19 million to build an animal vaccine research laboratory at The University of Connecticut. This partnership will not only lead to advancements in gene technology and animal health, but it will also promote joint research projects in which company scientists will work alongside professors and students. Another example in Connecticut is the support provided to the biotechnology program at Middlesex Community-Technical College by The Bristol Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute and the CuraGen Corporation. These companies have established scholarships, donated lab equipment, and encouraged their research scientists to give lectures to the students. And yet, Mr. President, businesses and academic institutions shouldn't have to tackle alone the challenge of helping students obtain the learning and skills they need to succeed in the coming century. The federal government can and should work with our technology-based businesses and places of learning to encourage innovation and education that will create jobs and prosperity for our people. That is why I am pleased to introduce legislation today that will encourage businesses to work in and with educational institutions in order to improve technology-based learning--so that more of our students will be able to win the best jobs of the 21st century economy. This bill will give a tax credit to any business that goes into a university, college, or community-technical school and engages in technology-based educational activities which are directly related to the business of that company. Businesses could claim a tax credit for 40 percent of these educational expenses, up to a maximum of $100,000 for any one company. It is my hope, Mr. President, that this tax credit will provide the incentive for more of our nation's companies to play an active role in the education, training, and skill development of our nation's most valuable resource--its students. If businesses take advantage of this credit, not only will they have a larger pool of skilled workers to draw from, but our nation will have a better-educated population that possesses the knowledge to succeed in the information-based economy of the future. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee--Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, respectively--for finishing work on this appropriations bill. Every year their Subcommittee does the vitally important work of balancing the multitude of priorities that make up this nation's defense. Their work becomes more important every year as our nation leaves behind the more predictable Cold War era. I am pleased that this bill contains full funding for the second New Attack Submarine. This highly capable and relatively inexpensive class of submarines will take a lead role in the defense of this nation well into the 21st century. This submarine is exactly the type of military asset that we will rely on in the years to come. It is multi-mission capable, it will make use of new technology as it develops, and it will be able to remain on station at all corners of the earth. This bill also provides for the helicopter needs of the Army and the National Guard. Both the Blackhawk and the Comanche helicopter programs achieved significant increases beyond the President's request. This year, strong Congressional support brought the number of Blackhawk-type helicopters from the 22 requested by the Administration to 34. I hope that as the Administration develops the Fiscal Year 2000 defense budget, it will take into account the fact that the Army, Navy, and National Guard need these helicopters sooner rather than later. We need 36 helicopters per year to fulfill requirements expeditiously and to trigger the savings that would come from a purchase of that size. The Comanche helicopter, still in development, enjoys a similar level of Congressional support that is matched only by the support it enjoys at the Pentagon. This bill's support for the Comanche is reassuring. I am particularly pleased that two amendments that I offered to this bill were accepted. The first will expand the Defense Department's programs aimed at monitoring and researching Lyme Disease. The disease is a serious problem in the Northeast and is listed by the Defense Department as a militarily significant disease for troops stationed within the United States and deployed worldwide. The sooner we confront this disease with the necessary resources, the sooner the Defense Department and this nation will be able to avoid the significant losses from this terrible disease. Also, I am glad that the Senate included my amendment that will eliminate the delay in processing Army pensions. All military retirees are due a pension and medical benefits beginning at age 60. My amendment will ensure that pensioners receive their payments and benefits on time. Mr. Arthur Greenberg, of Hamden, Connecticut, first brought this problem to my attention several weeks ago. He wrote a letter to me and stated that the Army had told him that he would not receive his pension or medical benefits until nine months after his 60th birthday. To my surprise, Mr. Greenberg's case was not an isolated incident. The Army told me that 40% of its caseload was backlogged. This is absolutely unsatisfactory, and that is why I put this amendment forward. This amendment directs the Secretary of the Army to eliminate the backlog by the end of this calendar year and to submit a report to Congress on the matter. I fully expect that those who put their lives at risk to defend this nation will soon begin to receive their pensions and benefits, as expected, on their 60th birthday. In sum, this bill is a responsible effort to provide for the national defense for Fiscal Year 1999. The New Attack Submarine, Comanche and Blackhawk helicopters, F-22 and F/A-18 fighters, C-17 cargo aircraft, and the many other assets that this bill funds are vitally important to protecting our way of life and our interests throughout the world. As usual, the men and women in my home state of Connecticut, whether they serve in the military or in the defense industry, will play important roles with respect to this bill. Overall, I support this bill, and I am glad that this body has nearly unanimously agreed on it.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute a good friend to me and my family, and a pillar of the Connecticut legal and political community: Leo Flaherty of Vernon, Connecticut. Sadly, Mr. Flaherty recently died at the age of 75. Leo Flaherty was Vernon's elder statesman. For years, young attorneys and political aspirants in town have looked to Leo Flaherty as a role model and for his advice and leadership. He was respected by all who knew him for his integrity as a lawyer, his instincts as a politician, and, in general, his strong moral character. While remembered as possessing a great legal mind, Leo's intelligence was not limited to any one discipline. In 1942, he left Connecticut to attend Georgia Tech. A year later he received an appointment to the United States Naval Academy, where he was a classmate of President Jimmy Carter. After graduating from the Academy, he earned a degree in engineering from the University of Connecticut, and he worked at both Pratt & Whitney and Hamilton Standard. But despite his ventures into engineering, there was always something drawing him to politics. It was in his blood. His father, Leo, Sr. served as a Rockville city alderman and Democratic Town Committee Chairman--a position that Leo, Jr. held for 10 years. He held several positions in Rockville from tax collector to a member of the State Board of Education. In 1960, he became Rockville's mayor. The most significant accomplishment of his tenure in the mayor's office was managing the consolidation of Rockville with the neighboring, more rural town of Vernon. This was a controversial proposal, but Rockville had one of the worst urban poverty rates in the state, and he saw the merger of the two cities as key to Rockville's future prosperity. The Rockville mayor's job was eliminated upon completion of the merger. So, in the end, Leo Flaherty worked himself out of a job. But Leo Flaherty never regretted his actions because he knew that this was the right thing to do, not for him, but for his community. The final political office that he ever held was chairman of Connecticut's members of the Electoral College, which chooses the President. True to form and his principles, his first act in this position was to call for the elimination of the college. He always believed that the popular vote should prevail. His tenure as an attorney lasted even longer than his political career. Leo Flaherty earned a reputation as a lawyer who would help anyone. Oftentimes he found himself representing some of society's undesirables, but he never wavered in his belief that every individual, rich or poor, had certain rights and was entitled to effective legal representation. He never sought the high powered clients, and he never became a millionaire. But, as was said after his passing, Leo Flaherty died a rich man because he owned his soul. In a 1996 interview, Leo Flaherty said that he had no intention of retiring unless he had to. This prophecy was fulfilled. He worked until his body would no longer allow it, as he contracted Lou Gehrig's disease--a terminal degenerative nerve condition. Leo Flaherty was a man whom I looked up to with the highest respect and admiration. He will be dearly missed.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, our nation's struggle against the AIDS virus has been a difficult one. More and more Americans are beginning to learn the facts about this disease that has become the leading killer of U.S. adults between the ages of 25 and 44. And in recent years, we have finally begun to devote significant resources toward quality treatment and the search for a cure. But as my colleagues know, for many years, attention to the disease was severely lacking, and only a handful of people in this country were actively working for better treatment of its victims. I am proud to say that one of the true heroes and pioneers in the fight against AIDS hails from Connecticut: Catherine Kennedy of New Haven. Sadly, Mrs. Kennedy recently died of pancreatic cancer at the age of 51. Catherine Kennedy was active on many fronts in the fight against AIDS, but she is best known for her efforts to establish Connecticut's first nursing home for people afflicted with this disease. A native of England, Catherine Kennedy moved to New Haven in 1983. Shortly after moving to Connecticut, she noticed the lack of nursing centers and services for people in the area living with AIDS. She saw nursing homes that were refusing care to many individuals. Patients were being kept, at enormous expense, at hospitals that were essentially unequipped to treat them. And other patients were in fact homeless. Catherine Kennedy took it upon herself to create a nursing home designed specifically to treat persons living with HIV/AIDS who were too sick to stay at home but too healthy to need hospital care. Her efforts were met with great resistance along the way. But she eventually gained the help of Lucie McKinney, the widow of U.S. Representative Stewart McKinney, who had died of AIDS. Together they were able to convince the Governor and state legislature to support the idea of a treatment center, and a law was passed which provided funding to cover non-hospital care costs for AIDS patients and to convert an old factory in New Haven into a nursing home. She was also able to secure a grant from Yale-New Haven Hospital to help finance the home. In 1995, eight years after Catherine Kennedy began her efforts to establish this center, Leeway, Inc. opened its doors and became the first nursing home in Connecticut for the treatment of persons with AIDS or the HIV virus. Since it opened, Leeway has treated more than 150 individuals. And while Catherine Kennedy's original idea was to create a center to primarily provide quality care for dying patients, today nearly half of their patients are able to go home and resume their everyday lives. Catherine Kennedy is a shining example of what one person can accomplish if they are willing to fully commit themselves to the betterment of their community. She overcame tremendous resistance and even greater odds to open this nursing home. Her determination has resulted in a better life for hundreds of people living with HIV/AIDS in Connecticut, as well as in communities all across the country who look at Leeway as a model for providing quality care. But Catherine Kennedy touched the lives of many more people than just those who struggle with this deadly disease. She was a beloved figure by all who knew her, and she inspired those around her to ask more of themselves and reach out to others in need. She will be dearly missed. She is survived by her husband Paul, her three sons, two brothers and two sisters. I offer my heartfelt condolences to them all.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield, Mr. President? I inquire of the chairman of the committee, are we going to have votes this evening? Why wouldn't we vote on into the evening rather than having votes hanging over until tomorrow?

Mr. DODD. Are we going to have votes then this evening, all into the evening?

Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Robert Bennett, the chairman of the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, to introduce, at the request of the President of the United States, ``The Year 2000 Information Disclosure Act.'' We are joined in this introduction by Senators Moynihan, Kohl, and Robb. It should be clear to even the most disinterested observer that we are facing a serious economic challenge in form of the Year 2000 computer problem. There is little doubt that the millennium conversion will have a significant impact on the economy; the outstanding question is how large that impact will be. One of the most relevant factors in assessing the potential impact of this problem is the expected readiness of small and medium sized businesses to deal with this issue. Many of the nation's largest corporations are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to prepare for Year 2000 conversion: Citibank is spending $600 million, Aetna is spending more than $125 million, and the list goes on and on. However, it is not so clear that small and medium sized businesses are approaching the problem with similar vigor. As a result, it is my opinion that it will become increasingly necessary for those companies that have successfully completed remediation and are now testing to able to share those results with other companies that might not be as far along. It will be an increasing national economic priority to use all the tools available to help businesses and government entities meet the millennium deadline, and encouraging the sharing of information that can cut precious weeks off the time it takes to get ready will be essential. I agree with the statements of President Clinton that companies that make such voluntary disclosures should not be punished for those disclosures with frivolous or abusive lawsuits. It is to address that concern that the President has requested that Senator Bennett and I introduce his legislation. I also agree with the President's analysis that in order for this information-sharing to be effective, it must start to take place as soon as possible. Sharing information about non-compliant systems six, eight, or twelve months from now will be of limited value to all concerned. Some questions have emerged in the press as to the scope of this legislation. The fact is that there are very few weeks left in this session, and therefore the broader the bill, the more difficult it will be to pass. Therefore, if we are intent on providing protection for voluntary disclosures on Year 2000, it will be very hard to add to that provisions dealing with other aspects of Year 2000 liability. While I believe that concerns on underlying liability are real and meaningful, there is little question that dealing with any liability issues is always a controversial and lengthy process. So as we move forward with the concept of a safe harbor for voluntary disclosure, I hope that we can do so without encumbering that legislation with these larger and contentious issues regarding liability. President Clinton has given us an excellent starting point for discussing these important issues. I look forward to working with all my colleagues in the weeks remaining to craft final legislation that addresses these issues in a meaningful and constructive manner.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in support of the Workforce Investment Act Conference Report. This is a truly bipartisan bill. As a conferee, I would like to commend Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, DeWine, and Wellstone, as well as the House conferees, for shepherding this bill through the conference. Few issues that we vote on in Congress are as important to the future of this country as the lifelong education and training of our workforce. We live in an era of a global economy, emerging industries and company downsizing. It is imperative that our delivery of services meets the employment and educational needs of the 21st century. The current maze of more than 160 programs which are administered by 15 separate federal agencies has failed. The Workforce Investment Act streamlines these programs by giving more authority to state and local representatives of government, business, labor, education, and youth activities. The bill establishes a true collaborative process between the state and local representatives to ensure that training and educational services will be held to high standards. This bill also gives more flexibility to individuals seeking training assistance. Individuals will no longer be limited to a predetermined set of services. I am especially pleased that the cornerstone of the Workforce Investment Act is streamlined service delivery through one-stop career centers. My state of Connecticut is nearing completion of implementation of its one-stop system, called Conneticut Works. This network has reformed the delivery of job training services in the state. I have had the privilege of visiting many of these centers and can attest to their success. While I applaud the new system of providing training assistance incorporated in ths bill, I am pleased that the bill retains some direct federal involvement in order to ensure that disadvantaged youth, veterans and displaced workers receive the training assistance and support they need. For many years, the Connecticut economy was dependent on defense- oriented industries. The Workforce Investment Act ensures that employees who are adversely affected by base closures and military downsizing will have access to job training and supportive services in order to acquire the skills needed for employment in the technology- driven economy of the 21st century. This legislation also provides for the coordination of adult education systems, allowing adult education to play a crucial role in a participant's professional training program. In the area of adult education and literacy, this legislation specifically targets those communities that demonstrate significant illiteracy rates to receive adult education programs as a first priority. I am pleased that this legislation also includes a provision that will direct funds designated to support English as a Second Language (ESL) programs to those ESL programs in communities with designated need. This means that ESL programs with waiting lists--those in communities with the greatest need for the valuable services these programs provide--will receive funds on a prioritized basis. Mr. President, in order to better assist nonnative English speakers and fully assimilate them into our society, we must help them become more fluent in English. I can think of few more important factors in determining whether or not someone new to this society will successfully make this difficult transition than their ability to speak English. A clear and effective grasp of the English language is still the best indicator of success for nonnative English speakers. The ability to speak English for anyone in today's marketplace represents an ``open door,'' Mr. President. This ``open door'' can lead to greater employment and advancement opportunities for those whose first language is not English. Additionally, Mr. President, this legislation reauthorizes the Rehabilitation Act. This critically important legislation provides comprehensive vocational rehabilitation services designed to help individuals with disabilities become more employable and achieve greater independence and integration into society. Under the Rehabilitation Act, states, with assistance provided by the federal government in the manner of formula-derived grants, provide a broad array of services to individuals with disabilities that includes assessment, counseling, vocational and other educational services, work related placement services, and rehabilitation technology services. More than 1.25 million Americans with disabilities were served by vocational rehabilitation programs in 1995 alone, Mr. President. I am particularly pleased that a provision dealing with assistive technology was included in this legislation. This provision, Section 508, will require the federal government to provide assistive technology to Federal employees with disabilities. This provision will put into place for the first time regulations requiring the federal government to provide its employees with disabilities access to appropriate technology suited to their individual needs. This legislation would allow the federal government to take the lead in providing critical access to information technology to all federal employees with disabilities in this country. It strengthens the federal requirement that electronic and information technology purchased by federal agencies be accessible to their employees with disabilities. Electronic and information technology accessibility is essential for federal employees to maintain a meaningful employment experience, as well as to meet their full potential. We live in a world where information and technology are synonymous with professional advancement. Increasingly, essential job functions have come to involve the use of technology, and where it is inaccessible, job opportunities that others take for granted are foreclosed to people with disabilities. Presently, there are approximately 145,000 individuals with disabilities in the federal workforce. Roughly 61 percent of these employees hold permanent positions in professional, administrative, or technical occupations. Nationally, there are 49 million Americans who have disabilities, nearly half of them have a severe disability. Yet most mass market information technology is designed without consideration for their needs. Section 508, Mr. President, is the first step in an effort to ensure that all individuals with disabilities have access to the assistive technology providing them the ability to reach their full capability. Though Section 508 will presently only affect federal employees, it is my hope that one day all individuals with disabilities will have the same access to assistive technology now afforded federal employees because of this important legislation. The federal government must truly be an equal opportunity employer, and this equal opportunity must apply fully to individuals with special needs. Finally, Mr. President, I would again like to commend Senators Jeffords, DeWine, Kennedy, and Wellstone, as well as Chairman Goodling, Congressmen Clay, Kildee, and Martinez for the important role they each played in making this conference agreement a reality. They all worked closely with myself and my staff to address numerous concerns and for that I would like to thank them.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to join my colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords and my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Mary Landrieu, in cosponsoring an amendment to require federal child care facilities to lead by example when it comes to child care quality. Up to this point Mr. President, we in the federal government have not shown strong leadership when it comes to child care quality. Many parents of children in federal child care facilities have been surprised to discover that these facilities are exempt from the state and local quality standards that apply to non-federal centers. Many parents have been surprised to find that the federal government does not require its centers to be accredited. With this amendment, for the first time, the more than 200 federal, non-military, child care centers would be required to meet all state licensing standards. For the first time, these centers would be required to demonstrate that they provide high quality child care by becoming accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting body. Child care shouldn't be like going to Las Vegas--where you roll the dice and hope for the best. Parents should be confident that when they are not able to be with their children, their children will still be well cared for. We shouldn't be gambling with our children's health and safety. This legislation will go a long way toward giving parents of children in federal facilities peace of mind. I should point out, Mr. President, that many of the child centers run by the federal government provide an invaluable service and excellent care to the children of federal workers and other families in the community. Many federal centers have even received accreditation from the National Association for the Education of Young Children--an outstanding private, non-profit accrediting entity. But this excellence is not uniform. In some federal agencies, only a minority of child care centers are accredited. Too many centers are falling through the cracks. And too many children are unnecessarily being placed at risk. Mr. President, at a time when we are asking our states and communities to take notice of the important research about brain development in young children--at a time when we all acknowledge how critical high quality child care is to helping children achieve their potential--shouldn't we, as federal government lead the way when it comes to providing the best care possible for our children? Mr. President, this legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support. It was incorporated into the CIDCARE bill that I co-sponsored with Senator Jeffords and was a part of the Child Care ACCESS Act that I offered with 27 of my Democratic colleagues earlier this year. This is an important step in improving the quality of our Nation's child care. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my views on providing tax relief for working families, and more specifically about the marriage penalty. I have always supported efforts to alleviate the tax burden felt by many of our nation's working families. In 1993, I supported tax cuts for millions of working families making less than $30,000 per year through an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. And again, last year, I supported tax cuts targeted toward working families, including the $500 per-child-tax credit, the $1,500 HOPE education tax credit, reinstatement of student loan deductions, full deductibility of health insurance premiums for the self-employed and capital gains and estate tax relief, I was pleased to support these tax cuts, Mr. President, because each was carefully targeted, fully paid for, and consistent with a balanced budget. Today, I continue to support efforts to bring relief to working families, including providing them with substantial relief from the marriage penalty. Yet, despite my support for repealing the marriage penalty which affects more than 20 million American families, I felt compelled to vote against the amendment offered by Senator Brownback, because in my view, the amendment did not provide targeted relief to those who need it most. In fact, Senator Brownback's amendment would offer marriage penalty relief to only about 40 percent of those currently penalized. Moreover, this amendment was both a costly measure--costing $125 billion over five years and $300 billion over the next ten years--and one that was not paid for. Mr. President, because Senator Brownback's amendment was not offset, it would have significantly drained the Treasury and put an incredible strain on the Social Security trust fund. Indeed, had this amendment been adopted without an offset as proposed, we would be forced to make draconian across-the-board spending cuts to all discretionary spending, including many important programs like Head Start, public health programs, and defense. In addition, this amendment threatened to use as its offset, funds from the Social Security reserves, which clearly would jeopardize the solvency of and undermine the strength of the Social Security trust fund. Mr. President, in my view, we could ill afford to pay for this amendment with either option, and that is why I, in good conscience, could not support this amendment. I want to be clear, however, that I support efforts to repeal the marriage penalty. Yet I remain committed to doing so in a way that does not harm the progress we've made in balancing the budget and in a way that targets relief to working families who need it most. That is why I was pleased to support the Democratic alternative, which would have reduced the marriage penalty in the tax code for approximately 90 percent of the families currently penalized. Indeed, this amendment was carefully targeted and would cut the marriage tax penalty more for a greater number of families Furthermore, this proposal would have cost far less than Senator Brownback's proposal--$7 billion over five years and $21 billion over the next ten years. And finally, the Democratic alternative was fully offset without using reserves from the Social Security trust fund, but rather by using a number of widely supported proposals from the President's budget. Although I was disappointed that the Democratic alternative was defeated, I remain hopeful that Congress will continue to work to repeal the marriage penalty in a way that is both fiscally responsible and carefully targeted to the American families who need relief the most.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to waive the 1920 Merchant Marine Act, commonly known as the Jones Act, to allow Coastal Cruisers, LLC to operate the 1983 Singapore-built vessel Amici. Coastal Cruisers, LLC is a family-owned business in Branford, Connecticut that wishes to offer charters of Long Island Sound, Block Island Sound, and the Thimble Islands, among other destinations in the United States. The Amici is equipped to carry only up to six people and, therefore, does not pose any threat to larger U.S. shipping interests. Prior to the Amici's purchase, the owners secured counsel to purchase the vessel and to establish the corporation Coastal Cruisers, LLC. They were aware that the vessel was foreign-built, although they had no knowledge of the Jones Act's restrictions on foreign-built vessels sailing between U.S. ports. Much to the owners' dismay, they were informed by the Coast Guard that their services would be in violation of the Jones Act only after they had applied for a vessel documentation. Coastal Cruisers, LLC clearly presented its intentions to use the boat for cruising purposes to several parties involved in its acquisition, including the insurance company from which it was purchased and the seller, who himself is a captain with an unrestricted operating license. These parties failed to inform Coastal Cruisers, LLC about the Jones Act and the restrictions it would face in its endeavor. Coastal Cruisers, LLC never willfully intended to violate the Jones Act, a law about which it possessed no knowledge. Based upon these facts, Mr. President, I believe a waiver should be granted. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to waive the 1920 Merchant Marine Act, commonly known as the Jones Act, to allow Coastal Cruisers, LLC to operate the 1983 Singapore-built vessel Amici. Coastal Cruisers, LLC is a family-owned business in Branford, Connecticut that wishes to offer charters of Long Island Sound, Block Island Sound, and the Thimble Islands, among other destinations in the United States. The Amici is equipped to carry only up to six people and, therefore, does not pose any threat to larger U.S. shipping interests. Prior to the Amici's purchase, the owners secured counsel to purchase the vessel and to establish the corporation Coastal Cruisers, LLC. They were aware that the vessel was foreign-built, although they had no knowledge of the Jones Act's restrictions on foreign-built vessels sailing between U.S. ports. Much to the owners' dismay, they were informed by the Coast Guard that their services would be in violation of the Jones Act only after they had applied for a vessel documentation. Coastal Cruisers, LLC clearly presented its intentions to use the boat for cruising purposes to several parties involved in its acquisition, including the insurance company from which it was purchased and the seller, who himself is a captain with an unrestricted operating license. These parties failed to inform Coastal Cruisers, LLC about the Jones Act and the restrictions it would face in its endeavor. Coastal Cruisers, LLC never willfully intended to violate the Jones Act, a law about which it possessed no knowledge. Based upon these facts, Mr. President, I believe a waiver should be granted. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am very pleased that today we take up the reauthorization of the the Community Opportunities, Accountability, Training and Educational Services (COATS) Act, which includes Head Start, LIHEAP and the Community Service Block Grant. This bill is sponsored by Chairman Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, Senator Coats, and myself, and was reported unanimously by the Labor and Human Resources Committee a month ago. This strong record of bipartisan support is a clear statement of how we all view these crucial programs. But it is also a testament to the leadership of Senator Coats on this legislation. As a tribute, we on the Committee insisted on naming this important bill after him. This bill is fundamentally about improving the reach of opportunity in America to all of our citizens. Head Start will serve over 830,000 children and their families this year; nearly 6,000 in my home state of Connecticut. These families and their children will receive access to the nation's leading child development program. Head Start focuses on the needs of the whole child. Inherently, we know that a child cannot be successful if he or she has unidentified health needs, if his or her parents are not involved in their education, and if he or she is not well-nourished or well-rested. Head Start is the embodiment of those concerns and works each day to meet children's critical needs. The bill before us today further strengthens the Head Start program: We continue the expansion of the Early Head Start program, increasing the set aside for this program to 10 percent in FY 2002. Anyone who has picked up a magazine or newspaper within the last year knows how vital the first three years of a child's life are to their development. This program, which we established in 1994, extends comprehensive, high- quality services to these young children and their parents, to make sure the most is made of this window of opportunity. We have added new provisions to encourage collaboration within states and local communities as well as within individual Head Start programs to expand the services they offer to families to full-day and full-year services, where appropriate, and to leverage other child care dollars to improve quality and better meet family needs. We emphasize the importance of school readiness and literacy preparation in Head Start. While I think this has always been a critical part of Head Start, this bill ensures that gains will continue to be made in this area. Mr. President, this bill puts Head Start on strong footing as we approach the 21st Century. It is a framework within which Head Start can continue to grow to meet the needs of more children and their families. What is unfortunate is that we cannot guarantee more funding for Head Start--I think it is shameful that there are waiting lists for Head Start and that only 40 percent of eligible children are served by this program. And Early Head Start, which is admittedly a new program, serves just a tiny fraction of the infants and toddlers in need of these services. The President has set a laudable goal to reach 1 million children by 2002. But I say we need to do more. We need a plan to serve 2 million children--all those eligible and in need of services--as soon as possible. Some argue that meeting the goal of fully funding Head Start will be too costly. Yes, it will cost a great deal to get there. But my question is how much more will it cost not to get there? Studies show us that children in quality early childhood development programs, such as Head Start, start school more ready to learn than their non-Head Start counterparts. They are more likely to keep up with their classmates, avoid placement in special education, and graduate from high school. They are also less likely to become teenage mothers and fathers, go on welfare, or become involved in violence or the criminal justice system. How much does it cost when we don't see these benefits? I know this is an issue for another place and another venue. But I am hopeful as we strengthen the program we can also strengthen our resolve to expand this successful program to more children and their families. Mr. President, the bill before us also makes important changes to the Community Services Block Grant program. CSBG makes funds available to states and local communities to assist low-income individuals and help alleviate the causes of poverty. One thousand local service providers-- mainly Community Action Agencies--use these federal funds to address the root causes of poverty within their communities. CSBG dollars are particularly powerful because local communities have substantial flexibility in determining where these dollars are best spent to meet their local circumstances. I have had the pleasure of visiting Community Action Agencies in Connecticut many times. They are exciting, vibrant places at the very center of their communities--filled with adults taking literacy and job training courses, children at Head Start centers, seniors with housing or other concerns, and youths participating in programs or volunteering their time. To see clearly how critical the CSBG program is to the nation's low income families, one only needs to look at the statistics. The CSBG program in 1995 served more than 11.5 million people, or one in three Americans living in poverty. Three-quarters of CSBG clients have incomes that fall below the federal poverty guideline. This bill recognizes the fundamental strength of this program and makes modest changes to encourage broader participation by neighborhood groups. In addition, it improves the accountability of local programs. This bill also reauthorizes the vitally important Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP. Nearly 4.2 million low-income households received LIHEAP assistance during FY1996, more than 70,000 households in Connecticut. One quarter of those assisted by LIHEAP funds are elderly. Another 25 percent are individuals with disabilities. I cannot overvalue the importance of this assistance--it is nearly as necessary as food and water to a low-income senior citizen or family with children seeking help to stay warm in the winter--or as we have seen recently in the Southwest--to stay cool during the summer. This bill makes no fundamental changes to the LIHEAP program. I am very pleased we increase the authorization of the program to $2 billion, which recognizes the great need for this help. I wish House appropriators, who eliminated the program earlier this month, shared this commitment to meeting these most basic needs. We also put into place a system to more accurately and quickly designate natural disasters. Early disaster designation will allow for the more efficient distribution of the critically important emergency LIHEAP funds, aiding States devastated by a natural disaster. This bill contains one new, important program--the Individual Development Accounts, based on a bill offered by Senator Coats and Senator Harkin. Individual Development Accounts, or IDA's, are dedicated savings accounts for very low income families, similar in structure to IRA's, that can be used to pay for post-secondary education, buy a first home, or capitalize a business. This program is a welcome addition to the Human Services Act family. The Assets for Independence title will provide low-income individuals and families with new opportunities to move their families out of poverty through savings. This is strong bill and it is a good bill. And I want to thank Senator Coats again for his committed leadership on this important bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I would like to address the Shelby amendment, which is before this body, and also make reference to the amendment offered by my good friend and colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel. I rise in opposition to the Shelby amendment. The Shelby amendment would exempt, as we all know now, banks of less than $250 million in assets from the requirements of the Community Reinvestment Act. As I stated before when we were debating this issue on Friday, I disagree with the substance of this amendment, but before I turn to the substance, let me suggest what I know the chairman of the Banking Committee and the ranking member, Senator Sarbanes, have said over and over again with regard to this amendment, and that is, to those who might be inclined to support this amendment, the adoption of this amendment will result in the collapse of the credit union bill. That is a fact. A vote for it will certainly achieve that result. The amendment offered by Senator Shelby goes outside the issues at play in the credit union bill and seeks, in a very controversial manner, to reduce the responsibilities of banks to their communities. As a number of my colleagues have noted previously, the administration has already stated very emphatically that it will veto any legislation that has this CRA exemption contained within it. Let there be no mistake, a vote in favor of the Shelby amendment is a vote against the credit union legislation. Let me briefly address a few of the issues that surround this amendment. The supporters of this amendment make two seemingly powerful arguments in its favor. The first argument they make is that the CRA creates a regulatory burden so onerous that the imposition of it on community banks places them at a disadvantage versus the credit unions against whom the banks must compete. The second argument offered by those who support this amendment is that this amendment, the Community Reinvestment Act itself, forces banks to make unprofitable loans and thus constitutes Government interference of the worst kind. Neither of these amendments bears up against careful scrutiny. First, with respect to regulatory burden, the bank regulators, under the leadership of the Comptroller of the Currency, significantly reduced the regulatory burden on banks when the new CRA enforcement rules went into effect on January 1, 1996. At that time, the new rules received extensive breaks from bankers, large and small, as being workable. Richard Mount stated, on behalf of the Independent Bankers Association of America, which represents only small community banks: The new rules should alleviate the paperwork nightmare of CRA for community banks and allow them to concentrate on what they do best--reinvest in their communities. Given the changes made in 1996, there is little reason to believe that a CRA exemption for small banks would result in reduced costs sufficient enough to make a difference in their competition with credit unions. What is perhaps more important, Madam President, is the question of whether CRA actually is a means for the Government to engage in credit allocation and whether CRA forces banks to make unprofitable loans. Again, I do not think the facts bear out these statements. Some have suggested that the Community Reinvestment Act was enacted in 1977 solely because banks enjoyed a protected advantage in communities, that CRA was the tradeoff for continuing those protective statutes. These people argued that with the advent of increased financial competition, and particularly with the passage by Congress of the Interstate Banking and Branching Act that ended the exclusive rights of banks to service particular communities, the basis for CRA no longer exists. While those were important factors in the passage of CRA, the overriding concern, Madam President, was that the banking industry, which enjoyed then and enjoys today the benefit of taxpayer-backed deposit insurance, was using that benefit to make loans available only to affluent communities, and were allowing less affluent communities, from Appalachia to Bridgeport, CT, to wither on the vine. The hearing record in 1977 clearly shows that by most surveys banks were returning only pennies in loans for every dollar of deposit that came from low- and moderate-income areas. The solution to that real and uncontested problem was that regulators take steps to ensure that banks serve their entire communities, not just select parts. However, there is nothing in CRA that allows the regulators to have the banks waive basic fundamental underwriting practices. The regulators cannot permit the banks to jeopardize safety and soundness in order to demonstrate compliance with the act. In other words, Madam President, CRA loans have to make money. They must make money. As bank regulators stated in their joint agency rule on CRA: The agencies firmly believe that institutions can and should expect lending and investments encouraged by CRA to be profitable. . . . As in other areas of bank and thrift operations, unsafe and unsound practices are viewed unfavorably. Or as Mario Antoci, chairman of the American Savings said: Lending in the inner city has turned out to be the most profitable part of our business over the past few years. Madam President, the Community Reinvestment Act has proven, I think, to be one of the most useful financial initiatives enacted by the Federal Government in a generation. Community groups estimate that CRA has brought more than $1 trillion into underserved communities across our Nation from our small rural towns to our largest cities. It is done so in a manner that not only benefits the community in which the investment is made, but also allows the lending institution to expect the same profit that they would receive on other loans. This is a law, Madam President, that works. And it is a law where benefits can be seen in every new home that gets built or new business that gets started in a neighborhood or town that used to be neglected by the banking industry prior to 1977. If there are specific problems with the implementation of CRA, if there are certain activities that should be considered that are not considered, then the appropriate way to address those specific concerns is to work with the regulators to improve the way that the law is being administered. But to exempt 86 percent of America's banks from a requirement to serve their entire community, while still extending them the benefit of deposit insurance which is backed by the dollars of everyone in that community, is simply wrongheaded in the approach to helping the banking industry. At the end of the day, Madam President, the best thing that Congress can do to help community banks is to provide the means for all American communities to grow, thus expanding the demand for bank loans and products. CRA helps all of us achieve that goal and, therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Lastly, Madam President, I will come back to the point I made at the outset. I urge my colleagues to think about this: Even if the idea of CRA should be reworked and redone, even if you think it deserves a legislative approach, if it ends up being adopted on this credit union bill, it will bring down this piece of legislation. That would be a great disservice to the millions of people who are looking to this Chamber to follow what was done in the other Chamber, and that is to pass these reforms that are necessary for credit unions to succeed. For those reasons, Madam President, I urge that this body reject the Shelby amendment. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I join other colleagues of ours who today, and I hope tomorrow as well, will find time to express their deep sense of sorrow over the loss of two of our Capitol Hill police officers last Friday, as well as to express their sincere condolences to the families and friends of these two very fine officers, J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson. The events of last Friday, July 24, certainly will leave an indelible mark on this community--this Capitol community, if you will--and our Nation. The tragic legacy of this incident will not only be the courage displayed opposing this senseless act of savagery but will also be the premature loss of these two fine, brave men. J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson were not just courageous officers, they were fine human beings. They were friends of many here and in the House of Representatives. All of us in this Chamber cannot help but take this loss personally, because Officers Chestnut and Gibson worked every day to ensure the safety of each and every one of us in this Capitol Building. I think that every American should look into their hearts and thank these two men for their sacrifices, because they also worked to protect all of those who visit this great Capitol Building, this symbol of democracy, as well as the freedoms which the Capitol represents. All Americans should give thanks and say a prayer for these two fine men and all of the men and women in uniform throughout our Nation who take that oath to ensure our safety every day. Our police officers are husbands, they are parents and friends, they are neighbors--in many ways, ordinary citizens just like the rest of us. But in one very important way, these individuals are quite extraordinary. Every day when they put on their uniforms, their work clothes, and they say goodbye to their families and go to work, they literally put their lives on the line so that we may enjoy the safety and the freedoms that too often, I think, we take for granted. We describe their actions as heroism, but they simply view them as their duty. President John Kennedy once said: The courage of life is often a less dramatic spectacle than the courage of a final moment; but it is no less a magnificent mixture of triumph and tragedy. A man does what he must--in spite of the personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures--and that is the basis of all morality. While we will forever remember Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson for their actions on July 24, they deserve our respect and admiration not only for the way they performed their duties on that day but for the way they and those who share a similar uniform carry themselves every day throughout their lives--always working in the service of others, with great courage and character. It is important that we remember not only those who gave their lives but also express our gratitude to those who are left to carry on their mission. Officers Chestnut and Gibson's colleagues must put these events behind them and carry on with their everyday lives and continue performing the services that are so important. We are all very grateful for the sacrifices they make every day and the commitment to their communities that these men and women display. It has been ordered that their bodies will lie in state in the Capitol rotunda tomorrow, the same Capitol where they gave their lives in service to their country. This honor is usually reserved for our Nation's most prominent leaders, Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, and Generals. But I know all of us in this Chamber feel that this is an appropriate tribute to the two men whose commitment to their country and their community is surpassed by none. J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson leave behind loving wives and children. I offer my heartfelt condolences to both families and their friends, and, on behalf of this body, I know I speak for all of our colleagues in saying they will long be remembered for their friendship and their courage. Tribute to the Capitol Police Force

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Let me thank my colleagues who are here, and I will keep these remarks brief. I thank my colleagues from Colorado, North Carolina, and Missouri. Briefly, Mr. President, let me, first of all, extend my compliments to the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee and the ranking member, Senator D'Amato and Senator Sarbanes, for their excellent leadership in bringing this bill on credit unions to the floor. This is a very, very important piece of legislation. I think most of my colleagues who have followed this debate hoped we wouldn't have had to come to the floor with a credit union bill. But as a result of Supreme Court decisions, we have been forced to act, and to act expeditiously in this Congress. In fact, as a result of a letter drafted by the chairman, several others, and myself, we have asked the court not to initiate their decision so that there would be time for us legislatively to respond to the Supreme Court decision. This is not just any other bill we are bringing up that may or may not have some importance on the Legislative Calendar. It is critical that before this Congress adjourn this piece of legislation be considered and adopted and signed into law if we are going to provide the kind of relief that must be sought as a result of the AT&T credit union decision. Again, my compliments to the leadership of Senator Domenici, Senator Sarbanes, and other members of the Banking Committee, who voted 16-2, I think was the vote, that brought this bill to the floor of the U.S. Senate. It is critically important. Why is it important? It is important because if we are going to see members of credit unions forced to leave their credit unions as a result of the AT&T credit union decision, the resulting loss of those members could cause a credit union to become insolvent. That is the problem here, and that in itself would create a drain on the taxpayer-backed deposit insurance fund. So, it is very, very important we not allow those credit unions to run the risk of losing its membership as a result of that decision or our inability to act and then causing these credit unions to fail around the America. None of that will happen, obviously, if we move to adopt the legislation. I point out that in the House, the other body, they adopted the legislation, I think, something like 411-8. It was overwhelmingly adopted. I am confident that will be the case here, as well. We will get a good, strong vote provided we don't get sidetracked on some side issues. Whether they have merit or not, there will certainly be other vehicles in the minds of some people, but the idea we would allow it to be attached to this, running the risk--you run the risk of having this credit union legislation collapse. If that does happen, then the resulting consequences of that collapse will have to be borne by those who try to take advantage of this vehicle to add extraneous matters. That is very, very clear to credit union members all across the country. This is an opportunity for us to act on this bill. I have strong views about the amendment of our colleague from Alabama on CRA. I am opposed to what he wants to do. I know there are Members who strongly agree with what he wants to do. But also I will tell you that if you allow that provision to be added to this bill, you are going to cause this bill to fall. If that is the case, then the resulting consequences, I think, are terribly predictable. I am not going to necessarily, today, engage in the debate on the Shelby amendment on the CRA, Community Reinvestment Act, except to say that I know in my State of Connecticut for the literally thousands of members of credit unions, the millions in the State of New York and California and elsewhere all across this country who are watching this debate, knowing if this bill falls because of a desire of some to come up with an amendment here that has some appeal, I think the transparency of the efforts will be quite obvious that, in fact, it is really not the issue of CRA. There are those who, frankly, want to kill this bill, who don't like the credit union bill but don't really want to take it on directly and so will offer an extraneous amendment, hopefully, that might just narrowly get adopted, the bill collapses, and you have been able to sort of smuggle the destruction of this important piece of legislation through. It is extremely important that we deal with this bill in as clean a fashion as possible, no matter how appealing some of these amendments may be. So that is important. The second question obviously we want to still address is whether or not we want the maximum possible number of Americans to have the choice of joining a credit union. I think people ought to be free to make that choice of joining a credit union. The overwhelming majority of credit unions provide affordable financial services to working families all across this country. Let me draw one theme that has been raised during consideration of the bill--that is whether credit unions have lost their mission of serving middle-income Americans and families of modest means, which was written into the original act. The question surfaced because of a campaign of misinformation, in my view, prompted by some industries that compete with credit unions. During the Banking Committee hearing of these issues, back in March, one banking industry representative stated that ``credit union membership had become so compromised that membership was being offered to members of wealthy country clubs.'' I am not making up this example. This one actually happened. Needless to say, those who support credit unions were very upset about that allegation because it would run contrary to the thrust of what credit unions are supposed to do. We examined that allegation and it is was true, in fact, that there were wealthy country club memberships. What they fail to tell you is that the people being solicited to join the credit union were the cooks, janitors, groundskeepers, and others. They weren't members of the country club, they worked at the country club. Yet, if you listened to the allegation, you assumed it was people who paid significant fees to join the club, rather than employees. That is the sort of misinformation that is going on to try to destroy this bill and this important credit union organization across the country. The average credit union is still very small in size. It is limited by the number of people they serve. In my State of Connecticut--an affluent State, a strong middle class State--the average size of a credit union as an institution is $16 million in assets. In fact, if you take all the assets of all of my credit unions in Connecticut and total them up, they don't equal the assets of one of my 10 largest banks in the State of Connecticut. I know that is not true in every State, but in Connecticut, which is a fairly affluent State and has an aggressive, strong credit union organization, total assets of all of my credit union members don't equal the size of any one of the 10 largest banks. In fact, assets of all the 11,392 federally insured credit unions was $327 billion, or less than the size of Chase Manhattan Bank or Citibank. The asset size of the 11,452 federally insured banks is $5.2 trillion, compared to $327 billion for all the credit unions. So the notion that somehow this is some great threat to commercial banking in this country, I think, is unwarranted, it is not credible at all. Small banks and thrifts are threatened in many ways in this country, but I suggest that they are much more threatened by aggressive banking giants like NationsBank than by any credit union. The loss of banking services in many communities that I visited has much more to do with aggressive takeovers and consolidations practiced by large national financial institutions or large regional institutions than it does competition from credit unions. That is the least of these smaller banks' and community banks' threats. The facts show that while credit unions have experienced modest growth since the implementation of the multiple common bond, that growth is dwarfed by the growth in the banking industry. Ultimately, the complaints of the bank and thrift industry boil down not so much to a loss of market share but to the fact that credit unions offer customers a pretty good deal. They offer customers higher interest rates on savings and checking, as well as lower interest rates on credit cards and certain kinds of loans; credit unions don't charge their customers a fee for every conceivable type of transaction. We have reached a point in the banking industry where seeking out a new fee income has replaced seeking out new loan business as the way to make profits. Not only are banks generating $3 billion a year in ATM fees--a subject matter that the chairman of the committee cares deeply about-- $3 billion a year in ATM fees in excess of their costs, but some banks even started charging customers for using a deposit slip at branches, or for having the temerity to actually call a live person--if you can ever find one--on the phone during normal business hours. While the banks claim that credit unions offer a better deal because they don't pay taxes, that is also a fiction. Credit unions have no access to capital markets to raise funds; they keep the capital needed to stay in business only through retained earnings. That is vastly different from what the banks do. Moreover, the banks also don't acknowledge the many tax advantages they enjoy, such as being able to write off billions in taxes every year for loan losses that never occur, or for receiving a tax credit for any minimal premium they must pay toward maintaining taxpayer-guaranteed deposit insurance. Credit unions are nonprofit organizations that put their earnings into both creating capital and keeping costs down for their customers, the actions that were precisely envisioned by Congress in establishing the Federal credit unions of 1934. So, Mr. President, I think there is an important role that our credit unions play. There is good, healthy competition out there. Let me end where I began. That is, I urge my colleagues--those of you who truly care about allowing the Supreme Court decision to be dealt with legislatively--there is only one window where we are going to get a chance to do this. Even if you find yourself attracted to a standing- alone provision on the CRA issue--which I don't, but some do--even if you are slightly attracted to that amendment, by supporting that amendment you will bring down this bill, and then people are going to understand what happened here. So I certainly endorse and support the comments of our colleague from Illinois, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, who speaks eloquently on the issue of the Community Reinvestment Act--the strength of it, how well it has worked, and how well it is working in reaching sectors of our society that have been too often in years past denied access to financial services in our country. I think it would be a mistake to jeopardize this credit union bill, which has come out of our committee with such a strong vote and such a strong vote in the other body. I think on Monday we can certainly do a great deal to relieve the anxiety and fears of literally millions of people across the country who utilize credit unions for their financial security and their futures. They are going to be terribly disappointed in this body if we get involved in extraneous matters and bring this bill down. So over the weekend, I urge that members of credit unions across the country certainly let their Members of Congress know how important this bill is to them and how important it would be to keep off amendments that could destroy our ability to pass this legislation. I thank my colleagues for their graciousness. I compliment the chairman and Senator Sarbanes for their fine work on this bill. Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment designed to give parents a tool to help protect their children from pornography and sexual predators on the Internet. According to Wired magazine, there are currently some 28,000 web sites containing hard- and soft-core pornography. And that number is growing at an alarming rate, it is estimated that 50 pornographic sites are added to the Internet each day. Sadly, many of out children are, out of curiosity or by accident, exposed to such sites while surfing the web. They type in search terms as innocuous as ``toys''--only to find graphic images and language on their display terminal. Mr. President, the Internet is profoundly changing the way we learn and communicate with people. Today, our children have unprecedented access to educational material through the Internet. It provides children with vast opportunities to learn about art, culture and history--the possibilities are endless. However, this advanced technology also brings with it a dark side for our children. Many children who are browsing the net--often unaccompanied by an adult--come across material that is unsuitable for them, and is oftentimes sexually explicit. Mr. President, every parent worries about strangers approaching their children in their neighborhood or on the playground at school. And they teach their children how to avoid these strangers. But, today, these strangers are literally inside our homes. They are only a mouse click away from our children. In our libraries and bookstores, we store reading material that is harmful to minors in areas accessible only to adults. Yet, in cyberspace, these same materials are as accessible to a child as his or her favorite bedtime story. Pornography and predators are now reaching our children, via the Internet, in the privacy and safety of their own homes and classrooms. This kind of access to our children is alarming, and this invasion of our children's privacy and innocence is unconscionable. We, as a nation, have an obligation to ensure that surfing the web remains a safe and viable option for our children. We have a responsibility to make sure that they are able to learn and grow in an environment free of sexual predators and pornographic images. Clearly, there is no substitute for parental supervision. Yet, I think we can all agree that many parents know less about the Internet than their children. Parents are convinced of the Internet's educational value, but they feel anxious about their ability to supervise children while they use it. In my view, it is important that we encourage parents and children to use the Internet together. But clearly, it is difficult for any adult to monitor children online all of the time. Therefore, I believe we need to provide our parents with the tools to protect and guide our children. The amendment I offer today is a modest measure designed to provide one such tool. It would ensure that Internet access providers make screening software available to customers purchasing Internet access services. The amendment would allow customers to have the opportunity to obtain--either for a fee or no charge, as determined by the provider-- screening software that permits customers to limit access to material on the Internet that is harmful to minors. Like going to the pharmacy and being asked if you want a child-proof lid for a prescription medication, my bill would require that Internet access providers ask parents whether they would like to obtain screening software. It is not a guarantee that children using the Internet would be protected from pornography and predators. And it is not a substitute for parental supervision. But it can be an extension of parental supervision--a tool we put in their hands to help protect their kids-- much as we did when we voted to give parents the v-chip. I hope my colleagues will endorse this amendment, and I urge its adoption. amendment no. 3287 (Purpose: To move Schuylkill County, PA from the Eastern District to the Middle District of Pennsylvania)

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, let me say, I thank both the distinguished Senator from Missouri and the distinguished Senator from Maryland for their comments. As I said, I think it is a complicated issue. I don't mean to suggest it is simple. But I really do appreciate--I know the nurses all across the country who work in our veterans hospitals really appreciate the attention I know our colleagues will give to this issue, to see if some mechanism can be offered to try to address this issue. I am very grateful to both of them. I know the nurses in the hospital in West Haven, CT, are, and I am certain they are in other parts of the country as well.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, had I been present for the vote regarding waiving the Budget Act for Senator Wellstone's amendment, I would have voted to waive the Budget Act. Senator Wellstone's amendment addresses the same issue as the point of order Senator Murray raised earlier this week. I supported Senator Murray then in her effort to ensure that veterans receive the compensation they are due, and I support Senator Wellstone. Although the Budget Act was not waived by a vote of 54-40, Senator Wellstone's effort was fitting and praiseworthy. Veterans who suffer from smoking-related illnesses must be compensated by the government that encouraged them to smoke during their military service. During World War II, the government included cigarettes in the rations it issued to troops. Long after the government stopped issuing cigarettes, a ``smoke `em if you got `em'' culture pervaded military life. That culture led troops to begin and continue smoking, so this government has an obligation to do right by the men and women who once fought this nation's enemies. Many of those men and women are now locked in a different sort of combat. They battle against life-threatening, smoking-related illnesses, and in the meantime, this government is shifting funds away from veterans to pay for roads. Today, the addictive nature of cigarettes is well known. Many veterans now smoke because they started during their military service. The government cannot deny this fact, nor can it walk away from veterans by denying them the compensation they are due. I will continue to stand with my colleagues who support providing for our veterans' needs. Prostate Cancer Research