Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to add, it is unilateral economic sanctions, so it is even more narrow. This does not apply to sanctions across the board but unilateral economic sanctions. If on a national security basis some of the advisors and the President want to impose the sanction, he would be allowed to. Only when we impose unilateral economic sanctions is this tool taken off the table. I thank my colleague for yielding.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank both the manager and the ranking member for their support. Senator Lieberman and I are very grateful. This was really a technical amendment to correct this situation, and it allows us to continue to qualify, as the Senator said. We appreciate their support very much.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, to do something here in the Senate that will help the farmers back in our State. As the Senate began debating the Agricultural Appropriations Bill for FY1999, it came to our attention that the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station was not eligible for certain federal grants under the 1996 Farm Bill and the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998. The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station was established in 1875 as the first agricultural experiment station in the country. The station's mission is to put science to work for farmers and society. The work of this agriculture experiment station includes research projects on such issues as plant diseases, plant breeding, soil problems, and insects. The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station is the only state based station not affiliated with a land grant university in the nation. Unfortunately, the way the legislative language is written, this station would be excluded from grants available to every other agricultural experiment station in the country. Therefore, I joined with Senator Lieberman today to offer a technical correction amendment that would remedy this situation. This amendment will allow the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station to be eligible for these competitive federal grants. Allowing this station to apply for grants will help our farmers, our citizens and our students who have questions or concerns about such topics as plants, insects, soil and water. I thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture and Rural Development of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran and the ranking member Senator Bumpers for their help with this amendment. I hope that this amendment will be approved by the Senate.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, is there a possibility where there might be a few minutes just to conduct some morning business comments that are unrelated before we move to it? I do not think----

Mr. DODD. I thank the Majority Leader.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as all of our colleagues and most of America know, tragedy has struck once again in Northern Ireland with the untimely deaths of three young Catholic boys--Richard, Mark, and Jason Quinn. The Quinn brothers were burned to death early Sunday morning after their home was firebombed by Protestant extremists. I join with Prime Ministers Blair and Ahern, President Clinton and others in condemning this terrorist act. I also want to extend, and I am sure I am joined in this by all our colleagues, my deepest condolences to the Quinn family. The murder of three innocent children is such a cowardly act that it is incomprehensible. Sadly though for those of us who watched the week- long escalation of violence, after members of the Orange Order were prevented from going forward with a controversial parade through the Catholic neighborhoods, the outcome was predictable. Ironically, the Quinn family had absolutely nothing to do with the standoff between members of the Protestant Orange Order and the Catholic neighborhood of Garvaghy Road over whether a controversial parade route would be followed or whether some compromise plan could be devised. Far too often disputes in Northern Ireland has produced innocent victims--many of them children, and it occurred again on Sunday night. Prime Minister Tony Blair and Northern Ireland's political leaders have called for a halt to the current protest at Drumcree to permit a period of reflection with respect to recent events. I believe that members of the Orange Order should accede to that request. Was the dispute over parade routes really worth the lives of three young boys? I do not believe it was, nor do vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland. It is time for Protestant and Catholic community leaders to put aside their excuses for not having a face to face dialogue. Only they are capable of fashioning a compromise on matters that divide them. Only they can end the senseless violence that threatens to destroy the very foundation of the Northern Ireland Peace Agreement before it even has a chance to become fully operational. Mr. President, The Good Friday Peace Accords were strongly supported by the majority of Northern Ireland's Catholics and Protestants in the May referendum. The agreement contains a workable plan for getting to the root causes of decades of sectarian conflict, but it must be given a fair chance to produce results. The most recent tragedy in Central Belfast has tested the resolve of Northern Ireland's political leaders to stay the course of peace. I hope they will remain resolute in support of peace. I pray as well that no more sons or daughters of Northern Ireland parents lose their lives as a result of sectarian terrorism. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I will be happy to.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in morning business.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very briefly, I see my colleague from Ohio here, I want to add my voice to those who have spoken in praise of Senator Jeffords, the chairman of the committee, his staff, and the wonderful job they did in leading this piece of legislation and working with Senator Kennedy as the leading Democrat on our side. What we witnessed today is a wonderful example of how the legislative process ought to work. It is hard to imagine taking on a piece of legislation that has a 5-year lifespan to it, a higher education bill that affects so many millions of Americans. We did this in one day in large measure because the committee worked very closely together, Mr. President. A lot of work went into trying to resolve issues as a committee. There were a couple we couldn't, so we left those to our colleagues, which is the way it should be here when you can't come to a final resolution. That shows remarkable leadership on the part of the chairman and the ranking Democrat, that they can take a bill as complicated and as comprehensive as this, one as long in duration as this and bring it to the floor and, in the space of virtually 12 hours, provide the kind of unanimous--it may have been unanimous, I don't know what the vote was here--almost unanimous vote in support of the Higher Education Act for our Nation. I want others to know that this is a good example of how we ought to work here. I hope others will heed this example. For Dan Coats, who is not on the floor this evening, our colleague from Indiana, this will be the last higher education bill he will be involved in, as he made the decision to leave the U.S. Senate at the end of his term. Certainly, there will be other bills between now and when the session ends. I am certain Senator Coats feels a sense of pride, as he should, having played a major role in the last higher education bill he will be involved in in the U.S. Senate. I commend him for his efforts. Let me join in commending staff: Mark Powden for his fine work, Susan Hattan, Scott Giles, Jenny Smulson, Corey Heyman. Senator Kennedy's staff: Marianna Pierce did a wonderful job on the Democratic side working on this and keeping us well informed and trying to work out amendments during the committee process and on the floor. Jennifer Kron and Jane Oates did a wonderful job, as did Townsend Lange from Senator Coats' staff. And you will all understand why I pay a special tribute to Suzanne Day of my office who does a fabulous job on these issues, and has for many, many years. She was joined this year by a new member of our staff who did a terrific job, Megan Murray, who is here with us on the floor this evening. I want to thank her, as well, for the tremendous effort she put into making this a successful bill. So, Mr. President, I commend our colleagues, and staff particularly, for really doing a very, very fine job. And in these days of acrimony and partisanship and invective behavior, it is wonderful to know there are examples of where this institution shines and shows its best. It did so under the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. If my friend from Colorado will yield once again, we realize the benefit of having the presence of our colleague form New York in our midst. Once again he was ahead in so many areas, and this is not an exception. As he pointed out, it was almost washed out. We are grateful that he stopped for a libation in Seneca Falls on that day in 1978.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, one hundred and fifty years ago this month, a remarkable group of women and men came together and wrote the single most important document of the nineteenth-century American women's movement and one of the most important writings of American freedom: The Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions. Modeled closely after the Declaration of Independence, this document is a declaration of women's independence. Radical at the time, it expounded such ideas as allowing women to vote, to become educated, and to participate in economic activities. I believe we should take the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Seneca falls convention to celebrate and focus on the rich and courageous history of American women and their struggle for equality. With this in mind, I am introducing the Women's Progress Commemoration Act. I am very happy to be joined in introducing this legislation by my primary cosponsor, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, and the bipartisan group of 17 other original cosponsors: Senators Moynihan and D'Amato from New York, Senator Kennedy, Senator Torricelli, Senator Lieberman, Senator Daschle, Senator Collins, Senator Landrieu, Senator Reid, Senator DeWine, Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Mikulski, Senator Boxer, Senator Snowe, Senator Murray, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Lautenberg. This legislation will establish a commission to identify sites that have been instrumental in the women's movement and help to ensure their historic preservation. The history of American women has barely begun to be recorded. Consider these facts: (1) less than 5 percent of our Nation's historic landmarks chronicle women's achievements, (2) right here in the capitol, of the 197 statues exhibited in statuary hall, only seven are of women leaders, (3) according to a recent study, less than 2 percent of even our contemporary history textbooks are dedicated to women's contributions. And yet, despite the virtual infancy of efforts to record women's history, we are doing even less to preserve the places where that history was made. That is why this bill is so important. If we don't preserve our past, we can lose our way into our future and our opportunity to teach not only girls and women but all students and citizens. As I stand here today, numerous buildings and structures of deep historical significance to the American women's movement are in a state of disrepair--they have peeling paint, flooded basements, and structural deficiencies. For example, the Sewall-Belmont House, just a block from the Capitol, was and still is the headquarters of the National Women's Party, which pressed for woman suffrage. This building was also the residency of Alice Paul, the legendary founder of this party. This is a prime example of a critical site in American women's history that is in need of preservation. Unfortunately, this house is plagued with water problems, deteriorating electrical wiring, and weather-damaged parts of the structure. As we can see, I brought these two photographs, Mr. President, to indicate the condition of the Sewall Belmont Home, which I said is about a block from the Capitol and a house that many of my colleagues have visited over the years. This historic house is where some of the treasures of the women's suffrage movement are located and, sadly, as you can see in these pictures, the house is in desperate need of restoration. Even though, I am happy to report that efforts have begun by the Senate to save this house, there are many more examples of such sites throughout the country that are literally crumbling way. Another example of a site in need of repair is the McClintock House in the Women's Rights Historical Park in upstate New York. This is where the actual Declaration of Sentiments was drafted during the Seneca Falls Convention. Another site that the commission could choose would be the Rankin Ranch in Helena, Montana--the home of the first woman elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. Or perhaps the Harriet Tubman home in Auburn, New York, which is already open to the public but still needs financial support. This commission will highlight sites throughout the country, such as these, that deserve to be preserved. In my home State of Connecticut there are some success stories of efforts to preserve women's sites such as the Prudence Crandall home, the first school for African-American girls in this country, or the home of Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of ``Uncle Tom's Cabin.'' Even though my State of Connecticut has been progressive about the preservation of women's sites, unfortunately, some of these efforts were too late. Sadly, some historic women's sites in Connecticut were not preserved and are relegated to a signpost or a plaque rather than a museum. Hopefully, 150 years after the birth of the women's movement we can create more museums and fewer plaques. Let me take a moment to explain very briefly the structure and goals of the commission. The commission will have 15 members appointed by the majority and minority leaders of the Senate and the House and by the administration. Members will be selected based on a knowledge of women's history and historical preservation. Not later than 1 year after the commission's initial meeting it will provide to the Secretary of the Interior a list of sites deserving recognition and preservation. It will also recommend actions to rehabilitate those sites. Thirty days after the submission of this report, the commission will cease to exist. The commission will not fund preservation but rather highlight the need, and hopefully the publicity will generate funds--whether it be private, public, or nonprofit--that would be used to help in the preservation of these sites. I hope that the sites across this Nation that signify important points in women's history or celebrate remarkable women will be preserved for the public to come and learn. I hope that school children across our Nation will be making field trips to historic women's sites, along with their trips to the White House, the Capitol, Monticello, and the significant memorials here in this city and across our Nation. Let's make women's contributions to our history known to generations yet unborn--their accomplishments an inspiration and their homes and workplaces opportunities where future generations can come and learn. In July of 1848 the Seneca Falls Convention convened to consider the social conditions and civil rights of women. As I have said, this convention signaled the beginning of an admirable and courageous women's movement in this Nation. Today, for the 150th anniversary of this historic meeting, let us take the opportunity to preserve and teach the contributions of women to our Nation's history to future generations of Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, one hundred and fifty years ago this month, a remarkable group of women and men came together and wrote the single most important document of the nineteenth-century American women's movement and one of the most important writings of American freedom: The Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions. Modeled closely after the Declaration of Independence, this document is a declaration of women's independence. Radical at the time, it expounded such ideas as allowing women to vote, to become educated, and to participate in economic activities. I believe we should take the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Seneca falls convention to celebrate and focus on the rich and courageous history of American women and their struggle for equality. With this in mind, I am introducing the Women's Progress Commemoration Act. I am very happy to be joined in introducing this legislation by my primary cosponsor, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, and the bipartisan group of 17 other original cosponsors: Senators Moynihan and D'Amato from New York, Senator Kennedy, Senator Torricelli, Senator Lieberman, Senator Daschle, Senator Collins, Senator Landrieu, Senator Reid, Senator DeWine, Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Mikulski, Senator Boxer, Senator Snowe, Senator Murray, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Lautenberg. This legislation will establish a commission to identify sites that have been instrumental in the women's movement and help to ensure their historic preservation. The history of American women has barely begun to be recorded. Consider these facts: (1) less than 5 percent of our Nation's historic landmarks chronicle women's achievements, (2) right here in the capitol, of the 197 statues exhibited in statuary hall, only seven are of women leaders, (3) according to a recent study, less than 2 percent of even our contemporary history textbooks are dedicated to women's contributions. And yet, despite the virtual infancy of efforts to record women's history, we are doing even less to preserve the places where that history was made. That is why this bill is so important. If we don't preserve our past, we can lose our way into our future and our opportunity to teach not only girls and women but all students and citizens. As I stand here today, numerous buildings and structures of deep historical significance to the American women's movement are in a state of disrepair--they have peeling paint, flooded basements, and structural deficiencies. For example, the Sewall-Belmont House, just a block from the Capitol, was and still is the headquarters of the National Women's Party, which pressed for woman suffrage. This building was also the residency of Alice Paul, the legendary founder of this party. This is a prime example of a critical site in American women's history that is in need of preservation. Unfortunately, this house is plagued with water problems, deteriorating electrical wiring, and weather-damaged parts of the structure. As we can see, I brought these two photographs, Mr. President, to indicate the condition of the Sewall Belmont Home, which I said is about a block from the Capitol and a house that many of my colleagues have visited over the years. This historic house is where some of the treasures of the women's suffrage movement are located and, sadly, as you can see in these pictures, the house is in desperate need of restoration. Even though, I am happy to report that efforts have begun by the Senate to save this house, there are many more examples of such sites throughout the country that are literally crumbling way. Another example of a site in need of repair is the McClintock House in the Women's Rights Historical Park in upstate New York. This is where the actual Declaration of Sentiments was drafted during the Seneca Falls Convention. Another site that the commission could choose would be the Rankin Ranch in Helena, Montana--the home of the first woman elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. Or perhaps the Harriet Tubman home in Auburn, New York, which is already open to the public but still needs financial support. This commission will highlight sites throughout the country, such as these, that deserve to be preserved. In my home State of Connecticut there are some success stories of efforts to preserve women's sites such as the Prudence Crandall home, the first school for African-American girls in this country, or the home of Harriet Beecher Stowe, the author of ``Uncle Tom's Cabin.'' Even though my State of Connecticut has been progressive about the preservation of women's sites, unfortunately, some of these efforts were too late. Sadly, some historic women's sites in Connecticut were not preserved and are relegated to a signpost or a plaque rather than a museum. Hopefully, 150 years after the birth of the women's movement we can create more museums and fewer plaques. Let me take a moment to explain very briefly the structure and goals of the commission. The commission will have 15 members appointed by the majority and minority leaders of the Senate and the House and by the administration. Members will be selected based on a knowledge of women's history and historical preservation. Not later than 1 year after the commission's initial meeting it will provide to the Secretary of the Interior a list of sites deserving recognition and preservation. It will also recommend actions to rehabilitate those sites. Thirty days after the submission of this report, the commission will cease to exist. The commission will not fund preservation but rather highlight the need, and hopefully the publicity will generate funds--whether it be private, public, or nonprofit--that would be used to help in the preservation of these sites. I hope that the sites across this Nation that signify important points in women's history or celebrate remarkable women will be preserved for the public to come and learn. I hope that school children across our Nation will be making field trips to historic women's sites, along with their trips to the White House, the Capitol, Monticello, and the significant memorials here in this city and across our Nation. Let's make women's contributions to our history known to generations yet unborn--their accomplishments an inspiration and their homes and workplaces opportunities where future generations can come and learn. In July of 1848 the Seneca Falls Convention convened to consider the social conditions and civil rights of women. As I have said, this convention signaled the beginning of an admirable and courageous women's movement in this Nation. Today, for the 150th anniversary of this historic meeting, let us take the opportunity to preserve and teach the contributions of women to our Nation's history to future generations of Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. If my friend from Colorado will yield once again, we realize the benefit of having the presence of our colleague form New York in our midst. Once again he was ahead in so many areas, and this is not an exception. As he pointed out, it was almost washed out. We are grateful that he stopped for a libation in Seneca Falls on that day in 1978.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report for H.R. 2676, the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. I commend my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee, namely Chairman Roth and Senator Moynihan for crafting a bill that takes an important step forward in the effort to protect the rights of our nation's taxpayers. The IRS is an agency that has earned widespread, deeply felt, and entirely justified criticism. For too long the IRS has permitted practices that harass rather than help taxpayers. In my view, a full- scale, top-to-bottom overhaul of this agency is long overdue. Recent Congressional hearings have chronicled a litany of official neglect, heavy-handed threats, and outright abuse of innocent citizens. Clearly, Mr. President, no one likes to pay taxes. But that duty should not be made even more difficult by the unacceptable behavior of the agency responsible for collecting those taxes. Many of my constituents in Connecticut have sought assistance from my office in their efforts to remedy what they feel is unhelpful, unpleasant, and at times unfair treatment by officers of the IRS. I heard from one gentleman who went to the IRS to pay several hundred dollars he owed in back taxes--only to be handed a tax bill that, with penalties and interest, totaled upwards of $30,000. Other Connecticut residents have told me stories of the IRS losing their tax payments-- and then charging them interest and penalties on the very funds that the agency lost. They have told of calling the IRS and finding it impossible to locate a person who will simply answer their questions. The list goes on and on, Mr. President, and the more people you talk to, the more nightmares you hear. The problems at the IRS, however, go far beyond the actions of a few agents at the IRS. For years, the agency has fostered a climate where taxpayers feel scorned rather than served, and that is why the IRS reform legislation before us today is so important. This legislation contains more than 50 new taxpayer rights and protections. Most importantly, it will shift the burden of proof away from the taxpayer and onto the IRS. Today, when someone is accused of a crime like bank robbery, they're presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Yet, if the IRS says you didn't pay enough taxes, you're presumed guilty until proven innocent. That, Mr. President, is wrong. For too long we've seen a ``shoot first, ask questions later'' approach to enforcement by the IRS. By shifting the burden of proof, this bill will require that the IRS prove its allegations with evidence. It will help ensure that the IRS exercises appropriate caution and consideration prior to commencing an enforcement action against any taxpayer. This reform bill also protects people from paying penalties and interest that they should never have been required to pay. Under current law, taxpayers must pay penalties and interest whether or not they knew that back taxes are due. As a result, some taxpayers were assessed hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in fines without ever having actually been told by the IRS that money was owed. This bill suspends penalties if the taxpayer has not been appropriately notified of the debt. It also requires that each penalty notice include a computation itemizing the penalties or interest due. It's only fair that a taxpayer should have adequate notice of any financial liability and know exactly why he or she is paying a fine. The bill also offers relief to an innocent spouse who would otherwise become liable for his or her ex-spouse's tax obligations. I'm sure that many of my colleagues have heard stories similar to those I've heard in Connecticut, about people who have become financially wiped out when they find themselves liable for taxes, interest, and penalties because of actions by their then-spouse of which they were unaware. The innocent spouse provisions of the bill would help prevent such scenarios from occurring in the future. It's a matter of simple fairness: a spouse who did not know of an ex-spouse's misdeeds should not be held liable for them. In addition, this legislation requires the IRS Commissioner to fire employees for certain egregious violations--especially those that mistreat taxpayers. This provision will send a clear message to agency employees that neglect and abuse of taxpayers will simply not be tolerated. Lastly, the bill contains a modest tax cut for people who own stocks, bonds, and other assets. I don't object to this provision itself. I do, however, wish that the Congress had considered additional tax relief targeted to working families--such as expanding the child care tax credit. I hope that such relief will be on the Congressional agenda in the future. I would be remiss if I did not comment about the fact that the conferees added a title to this conference report containing the technical corrections to the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, which was signed into law several weeks ago. That law contains a provision affecting Veterans Administration benefits for veterans with smoking-related illnesses. I was concerned that by adopting these technical corrections in the IRS conference report, we would lose a valuable opportunity to restore some or all of these benefits for deserving veterans. It is well known that during their time of active service, many of these individuals received free cigarettes from the federal government and were thereby encouraged to smoke. As a result, many of these individuals developed smoking-related illnesses. For that reason, I supported Senator Murray's motion to remove this extraneous title from the legislation we considered today. Unfortunately, this motion was tabled by a vote of 50 to 48. It is my hope, however, that the Senate will continue to seek ways to ensure that the government fulfills its obligation to help veterans with smoking-related ailments. Overall, Mr. President, I am very pleased to support the legislation before us today which enjoys broad, bipartisan support. In my view, it is a tremendous step forward in our effort to protect the rights of our nation's taxpayers. Our nation's taxpayers deserve an IRS that meets the highest standards of efficiency, competence, and courtesy. This legislation takes a major step forward in achieving that goal.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. This amendment has been cleared by both sides. What it does is, to exempt the sale of medicines and medical equipment from sanctions that would be imposed under this provision of the Arms Export Control Act. Senator Warner, Senator Hagel, Senator Robb, and I feel that just as food should not be used as a weapon against other countries, neither should medicine or medical equipment. I have heard it said now countless times over the last hour and a half or 2 hours on this floor that food shipments ought never to be used as an instrument of sanctions policy. Whatever else we may choose to do to sanction a government, we shouldn't be hurting the average person in that country because they aren't responsible for the actions of their leaders. We shouldn't be victimizing innocent men, women and children with our sanctions policy. I guarantee you that the political leaders who formulate policies of countries get their flu shots, get their medicine; they get their food. It is the general population who are the innocent victims who suffer. So we wanted to add medicine and medical equipment to make a point today, to put them on the same footing as food shipment are treated in this bill, so that we would begin to set the precedent that food shipments and medicine will no longer be used as a tool of our sanctions policy. Our ultimate goal is to lift all sanctions on the sale of food and medicine that currently are included in existing law, and bar the imposition of any future sanctions of this kind. We hope we will accomplish this broader objective before Congress adjourns later this year. But that goes beyond the parameters of the legislation that is being considered today. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in correcting what is clearly an unintended consequence of Congressional enacted sanctions--namely preventing American farmers from being able to export their products abroad. This not only hurts American farm families, but it also ends up hurting innocent populations who in many cases are terribly dependent on American food stuffs in order to stay alive. Moreover, it is unlikely to alter the behavior of the sanctioned government. I do not believe that food should ever be used as a weapon against other governments or people. That is not what the United States should be about. The American people have an enormous humanitarian spirit always reaching to help the weak and defenseless. Surely there are enough weapons in our foreign policy arsenal that we can forswear the use of food as a sanctions tool. Similarly, I believe that we should also forswear denying life saving medicines and medical equipment to innocent women and children, simply because we don't like something their government officials may have done. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking we are denying any high government officials access to all the food or medicine they need-- they'll get it even though there is scarcity with respect to the general public. I am pleased that the Managers have agreed to accept the Dodd/Warner amendment that amends the Arms Export Control Act to make it explicitly clear that medicines and medical supplies will not be withheld under the sanctions provisions of this act. When we impose sanctions against other governments we are at the same time sending a signal to the rest of the world about what the United States stands for and believes in. For that reason I believe we should never be telling the world that we believe in starving innocent people or denying them access to medical care. It is important that throughout the planet everyone understands that the United States operates only on the highest moral standards and will never stoop to the kind of behavior that is the hallmark of petty dictatorships who care nothing for the well being of their people. Mr. President, while I support what we are doing today, I do not believe it goes far enough. It does not resolve the problem that currently confronts the President with respect to sanctions generally and India and Pakistan most immediately. We have done nothing today to give him the flexibility he needs to bring India and Pakistan back within the fold of internationally responsible countries in the realm of nuclear nonproliferation. I would hope that we could get agreement to deal with this issue very quickly so that a bad situation does not become a global tragedy.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, Senator Warner and I have an amendment, on which we have been joined by Senator Hagel and Senator Robb, which I am going to send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Let me join in the chorus of praise of our distinguished colleagues from Kentucky and Delaware, who have worked out this arrangement to allow for the adoption of this resolution that will permit the sale of food shipments to go forward in the case of both Pakistan and India. I also want to take a moment here to commend our colleague from Indiana, who is no longer in the Chamber, but who went beyond the particular legislation in front of us and suggested that there are a number of things we need to be doing on the international level if we are going to continue to have the kind of success economically at home that we have enjoyed over these past several years. The critical elements, of ensuring success at home economically over the long term are that we have a sound education policy, an issue which we have been debating today as part of the higher education reauthorization legislation, in addition to the obvious sound monetary and economic policy. Another important component is to also have responsible global economic policies. Certainly enactment of IMF legislation is a critical element of such a policy. I am hopeful that the other body will follow the Senate in passing the IMF legislation before we adjourn this Fall. Sanctions policy is another part of our global economic policy that certainly demands our attention in this Congress and in this session. I think most Members now have come to the conclusion that our present sanctions policy is not only not working very well, but is actually counter to our own self-interest. Someone suggested the other day that when we adopt unilateral sanctions, what we ought to do is immediately lay off about 5 percent of the workforce in the affected industries, because that is the ultimate effect and we should be honest about it. Senator Hagel, Senator Pat Roberts, Senator Biden, and I, and others introduced legislation before the July 4 recess would fundamentally change how unilateral sanctions are dealt with in this country. I would restore the appropriate balance of power between the Congress and the Executive in the sanctions area by giving the President the authority to delay, suspend, or terminate a particular sanction if he believes it serves an important national interest to do so. But we are not going to debate that today or bring it up, but I am hopeful that before this session ends we will find the time to do so. I am fearful that while there is a keen interest in the sanctions issue now because of recent events in Pakistan and India, we will soon move on to other things without fundamentally addressing the problems with sanctions that the India/Pakistan highlighted so vividly. I hope that doesn't happen. We currently have in place sanctions that effect more than 40% of the world's population. In one year alone, existing sanctions has cost the United States $20 billion in lost export revenues and affected 200,000 jobs in America. And even if you did not pass one new sanction, that $20 billion turns into $100 billion over a five year period, and those 200,000 jobs turn into a million. So I am hopeful that this interest being expressed today by both Democrats and Republicans on this particular issue--and they have gone beyond it to suggest we need to fundamentally change how we impose unilateral sanctions--will bear fruit in terms of some broader legislative steps before this Congress expires. Amendment No. 3113 (Purpose: To exempt medicines and medical equipment from sanctions)

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I am sure your parents recalled quite frequently that you were both at the university. [Laughter.]

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Without interrupting the flow of the debate and without yielding my right to the floor, for the purposes of propounding the unanimous consent agreement, I will yield to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Florida for his graciousness. For the purposes of getting the opening statements out, it is worthwhile to hear those who have worked over the past year or more to put this piece of legislation together. Let me begin by commending the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Jeffords of Vermont, and the distinguished ranking Democrat, Senator Kennedy, and my colleague from Indiana, Senator Coats, for their tremendous efforts here to put this higher education bill together. Mr. President, there are very few pieces of legislation that we will consider in this Congress that are as important to American families as the one we take up today. I see my colleague from Kentucky. Does he wish me to yield?