Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I had some time allocated for another amendment here that addresses Lyme disease, which we in Connecticut are painfully aware of since the name ``Lyme disease" comes from Lyme, CT, the town where it first achieved prominence. But I am going to defer on that and allow the Senate to consider the amendment at a later time.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleagues, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Michigan. And I realize they are waiting for a couple of amendments to come over and be dealt with on this bill. So as soon as I see someone walk in with an amendment, I will truncate these remarks so as not to interrupt. I know they have the important business of the Department of Defense authorization bill. (The remarks of Mr. Dodd pertaining to the introduction of S.2224 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the conference report for H.R. 2646, the Education Savings Account bill. I regret that I cannot support this legislation because it contains several provisions that I do, in fact, support. In particular, I support the provision which would expand the tax benefits of qualified state-sponsored prepaid tuition plans to include tax-free withdrawals for qualified educational expenses. In fact, the Conference Agreement goes beyond the Senate bill, and would allow private educational institutions to establish tax-favored prepaid tuition plans beginning in 2006. I was also pleased that the Conference Report extends by 30 months Section 127 of the tax code to allow the income exclusion for employer- provided educational assistance for undergraduates until December 31, 2002. This measure is critically important to improving the knowledge and skills of our work force. These particular provisions were adopted in a spirit of bipartisanship and with an understanding that they would provide clear benefits to college-bound students. Unfortunately, these provisions are just a small part of a much larger package which marks a step in the wrong direction for federal education policy. At the heart of this bill is a proposal to provide tax-free savings accounts, funds from which can be used to meet the educational needs of elementary and secondary school students. Under the guise of ``increased choice,'' this proposal turns its back on our nation's long-standing commitment to our public schools. These so-called education savings accounts would cost taxpayers $1.5 billion over ten years. In return for this significant expenditure, families will receive very little benefit. Families whose children attend public schools--which is to say 90 percent of all students-- would receive just $7 annually. Families whose children attend private schools would receive just $37 per year. Let me put that into context. In the Washington area, on average, one year of private school costs between $10,000 and $14,000. At those costs, this legislation provides very little assistance to the parents who would choose these schools for their children. Clearly, we are in need of education reforms in this country that will create better educational opportunities for more children. But I don't believe that draining resources away from our public schools will advance the cause of reform one bit. As we consider this legislation, I think that there is one important question that each member of this body should ask themselves. Aren't there better ways to spend $1.5 billion for our children's education than providing seven dollars a year to public school students? I believe that there are. We could use that money to help hire new teachers and reduce class sizes across the country. If a teacher has 25, 30, or 35 students in his or her class, those students are not going to learn as well as they could in a class with a lower student-teacher ratio. If we can make these classes smaller, we can greatly increase the learning potential of our children. The Democratic leadership has proposed committing resources to help hire 100,000 new teachers for kindergarten through third grade. If we made this investment, it is estimated that every K through 3 classroom in this country would have no more than 18 students. Unfortunately, the conference report we consider today does absolutely nothing to help hire these teachers and significantly reduce class sizes in this country. We could use this money to help local communities meet the rising costs of special education. In fact, I introduced an amendment during the Senate debate on this bill to redirect its $1.5 billion cost to help state and local school districts meet the costs of special education. When Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1975, the federal government committed to state and local school districts that it would contribute 40 percent of the funds needed for special education. However, the federal contribution has never risen above 10 percent. It is estimated that states now provide 56 percent of the financial support for special education programs and services, 36 percent comes from local sources, and only eight percent comes from the federal government. The burden on local taxpayers is increasing dramatically with each passing day, and it will continue to increase as long as we continue failing to meet the federal commitment to fairly share these costs. I have spoken with many mayors, school superintendents, and other local officials seeking relief and assistance in meeting the expenses associated with providing the valuable services required by children who have special needs. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated and these local officials are still in search of relief. We could, additionally, invest the resources used by this legislation in school construction so children who currently attend schools in dilapidated and sometimes unsafe buildings could have a quality learning environment. In the richest nation in the world, we have schools that are literally falling apart. We have schools with broken heaters, bursting pipes, and leaky roofs. And beyond basic repairs, schools are also lacking electrical and telephone capabilities necessary to install computers in our classrooms. One-third of all students in this country go to school in buildings that are considered structurally inadequate, and 60 percent of American students attend school in buildings that are in need of repair. In fact, the General Accounting Office has estimated that more than $110 billion is needed to repair our schools. Clearly, this is an issue that should be addressed. This legislation is little more than a policy sleight of hand. It creates the illusion of reform without its essence. It offers a hollow promise of greater choice, and it delivers negligible benefits to American parents. The bottom line is that this bill is bad education policy, and it is also bad tax policy. I realize that this conference report will likely be adopted by this body and by the House of Representatives. But it is my hope that it will be vetoed. I appreciate that my colleagues are working to find solutions to create better educational opportunities for our children. Unfortunately, I believe that the proposal before us is a misguided one that creates false hopes instead of real opportunities. This legislation would have a devastating impact on our public schools, upon which 90 percent of American children rely on for their education, and it would mark a missed opportunity to seriously address the education needs of this nation. I hope that this conference report does not mark the end of our efforts this year to improve education in this country, and that the Senate will be willing to work in a bipartisan spirit to develop more substantial and innovative education reform policies that support our public schools.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the nomination of Dr. Jane Henney for the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. In November, 1997, President Clinton signed legislation charging the Food and Drug Administration with the responsibility for bringing lifesaving drugs and medical devices to the American people more quickly and efficiently, without compromising safety or effectiveness. This legislation requires the FDA to rethink many of its old models and to work collaboratively with the public and with drug and device manufacturers to improve the certainty of the product review process, to provide patients with better access to investigational therapies, and to encourage manufacturers to test the safety and efficacy of their products for children. Such responsibilities require strong, innovative leadership--leadership that Dr. Henney can clearly provide. Dr. Henney is a distinguished physician, a cancer specialist, and a nationally recognized academic leader and public health administrator who has served in the Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton Administrations. She served as Deputy Commissioner for Operations at the FDA from 1992 to 1994 and is thoroughly familiar with FDA's responsibilities, having managed the agency's daily activities and six operating centers. Dr. Henney has also proven her ability to manage in a challenging environment. At the University of New Mexico, she led the Health Sciences Center to increase its efforts to stabilize local health care delivery systems and to engage in extensive reorganization initiatives. Earlier, as a Deputy Commissioner at the FDA, Dr. Henney reorganized and improved the efficiency of the FDA's centers, recruiting new directors for five of the six centers. She also played a principal role in the enactment of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992, which revitalized the agency's drug and biologics review system. The position of Commissioner of Food and Drugs has been vacant for more than 14 months, leaving without leadership a federal agency that arguably has a more direct and significant impact on the lives of the American people that any other. The foods we serve our family, the medicines we take when we're sick, and even the drugs we give our pets, are all approved and monitored by the FDA. One quarter of every dollar spent by consumers goes to products regulated by the FDA. Jane Henney's innovative managing skills as well as her medical reputation make her the ideal candidate to shoulder the responsibility for leading the Food and Drug Administration into the next century. I encourage the Senate to act expeditiously and support Dr. Henney's well-deserved nomination.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, with this week's defeat of S. 1415, the National Tobacco Policy and Youth Smoking Reduction Act of 1998, the Senate has for the time being lost a unique opportunity to create a better future for our nation's children. Cloaked in a procedural vote, the Republican leadership of this body voted to override the will of a majority of our colleagues and scuttle an historic effort to protect our children from the ravages of tobacco. In the end, a determined minority of Republican Senators was more responsible to the wishes of the tobacco industry than the need's of America's children. Preventing the devastation that tobacco wreaks on our children was the impetus for the considerable work that went into the drafting of this bill over the past several months. It is also the reason why many of us have been willing to devote a significant portion of the Senate's time--almost four weeks--to this cause. We know that ninety-five percent of all adult smokers begin smoking as children. An estimated 3,000 youth start to smoke each day--a number that has been increasing for the last five years. One thousand of those children will die early as a result of taking up this deadly habit. Provisions in this legislation would have reduced by two-thirds the number of children who smoke. Those who voted to abandon this effort have chosen to allow our children to continue purchasing over 256 million packs of cigarettes per year, providing over $500 million in revenues to tobacco companies. They have chosen to do nothing to prevent sickness and death that are certain to befall millions of children who become addicted to tobacco. This bill would have been a tremendous step in the right direction. As originally drafted it would have comprehensively addressed the epidemic of youth smoking by funding anti-smoking campaigns and smoking cessation programs, reducing the ability of young people to buy cigarettes, and limiting the ability of tobacco manufacturers to market to children. There were also a number of other improvements offered to the bill during debate on the floor, which I was proud to support. In particular, I was pleased to see two amendments incorporated into the bill that would have provided strong disincentives for tobacco manufacturers to continue to market to America's children. The first provision would have ensured that tobacco companies would be penalized if they marketed to children by denying them the ability to claim a tax deduction for those advertising expenses. A second amendment would require the tobacco industry to pay stiffer lookback penalties if youth smoking reduction targets were not met. Public health and economic experts agree that the cornerstone of any effort to reduce youth smoking is a steep increase in the price of tobacco over a short time. That is why I strongly supported an amendment to increase the price of cigarettes by $1.50 per pack, the minimum amount of increase that experts agree is needed to reduce youth smoking. This price increase would have reduced the number of children smoking by 60% in one year, kept 2.7 million kids from starting smoking, and would have saved 800,000 lives. While I was disappointed that the proposal was defeated, I was encouraged that a majority of the Senate resoundingly rejected an attempt to strip from the bill the original $1.10 per pack increase--one of the bill's strongest weapons against youth smoking. I was also proud to support a provision that would have improved the quality of child care and made it more affordable and accessible to all Americans. By setting aside for child care 50 percent of the federal portion of tobacco funds going to states, this provision would have provided a solid foundation and a concrete committment to the future health and safety of our children. There were also a number of amendments to this legislation which I opposed out of concern that they would have significantly weakened its impact. First, I was unable to support an amendment that would have denied tobacco manufacturers any limitation on annual liabilities. Like the Administration, I believe that some limitations on liability were necessary in order to maximize our chances of passing a bill that would actually succeed in curbing youth smoking. Without such provisions, members of the industry were prepared to argue that their First Amendment rights were violated. They would have tied the legislation up in courts for decades, while leaving America's children unprotected. Several amendments concerning limits on lawyers fees were also considered as part of the debate on this bill. While the lowest proposed limit would have perhaps inadvertently limited access by individuals to attorneys willing to take their cases, I supported subsequent amendments which offered less onerous limitations on the amount attorneys can charge to bring suit against the misdeeds of the tobacco industry. I was troubled by efforts of some Members to divert the funds dedicated in this bill for public health purposes. For instance, while I have been a staunch supporter of anti-drug legislation, I was unable to support an amendment that would have gutted anti-tobacco public health programs in the bill in favor of poorly crafted anti-drug provisions. This amendment would have diverted public education funds to private-school vouchers for victims of school violence. A main flaw in this concept is that it offers assistance only after a student has been victimized, but does nothing to prevent crimes against children before they happen. This amendment would have also overridden the collective bargaining rights of employees of the Customs Service, undermining a successful anti-drug program developed through cooperative labor-management relations. It would have also barred Federal funds and limited non-federal funds for needle exchange programs--programs that have effectively helped control the spread of the deadly AIDS virus in our communities. Not surprisingly, this amendment was opposed by several law enforcement entities. In contrast, the Democratic alternative, which I did support, would not have jeopardized funding for public health. This alternative would have included tough money laundering provisions, not present in the Coverdell amendment, which would have provided critical assistance to law enforcement to combat drug problems. Rather than weakening the Customs Service, it would have increased the drug interdiction budget for the agency as well as for the Coast Guard and the Department of Defense, using general revenues. In addition, the Democratic alternative would have created financial incentives for states to report on and improve the safety of schools. I also felt compelled to vote against the marriage penalty amendment offered by the Republicans because, in my view, the amendment did not provide targeted relief to those who need it most. In fact, 60 percent of the tax cut in the provision would have gone to couples who currently enjoy a marriage bonus. Moreover, this amendment was a costly measure--costing 50 percent more in the first 10 years than the Democratic alternative that was offered, which I was pleased to support. In addition, the Republican amendment would have been partially funded in the out-years by tapping into the projected budget surplus, potentially leaving fewer funds available for long-term Social Security reform. The Democratic alternative to this amendment would have reduced the marriage penalty in the tax code by a much greater extent than the Republican proposal for most couples with incomes below $60,000. 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 the Republican proposal, while preserving the capacity of the tobacco bill to fulfill its fundamental purposes: cutting youth smoking, recompensing states and tobacco farmers, and improving the medical knowledge about the treatment of tobacco-related illnesses. Mr. President, this was not a perfect bill. However, even with its flaws, it would have marked a dramatic step forward in the effort to protect children from the dangers of smoking. I was disappointed by its demise. But I firmly believe that its defeat is only a temporary one. The health of our children is simply too important for this Congress to ignore. I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the days to come to address this critical issue.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Cross Street African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church on the occasion of its 175th anniversary. This church, located in Middletown, Connecticut, has been a beacon of spiritual guidance in the community for many generations. In fact, Cross Street is the second oldest A.M.E. Zion Church in Connecticut and the seventh oldest in the world. The church's tradition of moral leadership and service to its community dates back to its earliest years. The Reverend Jehiel Beamon, the son of a former slave from Colchester, Connecticut, was the first pastor at the church. Not only was he a leader within the church, but he was also an active abolitionist who helped found the Middletown Anti-Slavery Society. He was also president of the Connecticut State Convention of Colored Men, which worked to secure voting rights for African-Americans. Due to his involvement and activities in the community, this church was called ``The Freedom Church'' by many people. Since that time, the church has been rebuilt and it has also moved. But while it has undergone physical changes, there has never been any wavering in the importance that this church holds for its congregation and surrounding community. In the church's written history, it is said that ``the sole purpose for the church's formation was to secure a place for people of color to worship freely.'' But Cross Street A.M.E. Zion Church has become far more than simply a place of worship. The members of Cross Street A.M.E. Zion have carried their message of hope beyond the church's walls and into the neighboring community. They are helping people in and around Middletown to deal with the difficult social problems of the modern day. They have initiated various projects to deal with issues ranging from homelessness to HIV. The people of Cross Street A.M.E. Zion Church are acting on their faith and they are reaching out to those in need to make their community a better place to live. This past April, I had the opportunity to attend Cross Street A.M.E. Zion Church for its Palm Sunday services. I was struck by the deep sense of faith and hope among the congregation, and I was pleased to share in their worship on that day. I offer my heartfelt congratulations to the Cross Street A.M.E. Zion Church on its 175th anniversary. Theirs has been a very rich history, and I hope that the church will continue to play a positive role in the lives of its congregation and surrounding community for many years to come.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to today in honor of the tenth anniversary of the founding of Greenwich School Age Child Care in my home state of Connecticut. As you know, child care has been a top legislative priority for me during my tenure in the Senate. After numerous hearings, debates, forums, and even passage of the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act that I authored in 1990, I know that our country's working families continue to struggle with the issue of child care. Thousands of low-income children are on waiting lists for affordable child care, and much of what is available is of poor quality. Every day, parents face tough decisions about how their children will be cared for when they can't be with them. Ten years ago, in response to the child care needs expressed by the community, Greenwich School Age Child Care was created by a small, dedicated group of parents who understood the importance of safe, high quality child care services. At that time, there were no available services for before- and after-school child care within the community's schools. Since that time, the effort has grown from one school-age child care program in North Mianus Elementary School, to programs in all 10 public elementary schools. All of these programs accept children in grades kindergarten through fifth grade, in most instances offer both before- and after-school programs, and are open for the entire school year. This enables working parents to leave their child at 7:30 a.m. and return up to 6:00 p.m., knowing that their child will receive healthy snacks and loving care in a stimulating environment right in the school. I share the belief of Greenwich School Age Child Care that quality child care should be available to all low income and disadvantaged families who need it. Greenwich School Age Child Care is to be commended for their innovative efforts to make available quality child care affordable. The scholarship fund they established through the Board of Education, private donations, and CCDBG dollars is critical for low-income families who otherwise could not afford a safe and educational environment for their children. I am proud to be a member of the Greenwich School Age Child Care advisory board. I cannot emphasize strongly enough that their investment in quality child care pays off many times over, in terms of both the employment productivity of parents and the safety and well- being of children. I congratulate Greenwich School Age Child Care on the huge success of their first ten years, and wish them continued, long lasting success in the years to come.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. What is the pending business?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I think this is a very fine amendment. I want to commend our colleagues, Senator Kerry and Senator Bond, for offering this amendment. I strongly support it. This amendment is designed to invest in the well-being of our children in this country. It is a measure that ensures that the children of our Nation will get the right start for a far brighter tomorrow. As our colleagues have already discussed, the amendment will earmark 50 percent of the Federal share of the tobacco funds going to the States for child care. Specifically, Mr. President, these funds will be used to increase our investment in child care and development block grants--a piece of legislation we were very proud to offer with my good friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, some 8 years ago. The idea, Mr. President, is not to create here a new Federal child care program, but rather to do a better job with the well-established program that enjoys wide support from our States and Governors, Republicans and Democrats alike, across this Nation. The child care and development block grant was created in 1990, as a partnership between the States and the Federal Government, to improve the availability and affordability and quality of child care. The block grant is a very efficient and popular way of providing States with sorely needed child care funds, and the States enjoy it. The reason is because it is so flexible. Perhaps most important, this is why parents also support the program. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in some cases, raised concerns during the child care debates that somehow our intent with this child care legislation is to limit the ability of parents to choose how their children would be cared for, that somehow we would like to see the Federal Government deciding how to raise them. Of course, Mr. President, this rhetoric could not be further from the truth. The child care and development block grant is predicated upon parental choice. With assistance from the block grant, parents can choose to enroll their children in church-based care, they can choose to have their children cared for by a neighbor down the street, or they can choose to have a family member care for their child. If they wish, they can choose to enroll their child in a child development center. But the benefits of this program are offered to far too few families. It is terribly underfunded. Only 1 out of 10 children in America who are eligible for child care assistance receives it. That still leaves far too many families without the help they need in child care. Full day care can easily cost $4,000 to $10,000 per child per year, which is equal to what some families pay for college tuition plus room and board in a public university in America. I know concerns have been raised and are apt to be raised about giving any direction to the States in their use of these funds. I would like to remind our colleagues that half of the tobacco funds that would go to the States are unrestricted. These are the funds that reimburse States for their tobacco-related Medicaid expenses. Many States do with this money what they will, and they should be able to do so. However, since the other half of the funds to the States represents the Federal contribution, we feel we should have something to say about how those dollars are spent. As this bill is currently written, the Federal share of the money earmarked for States would be restricted to a list of six programs. While child care is on the list, there is no guarantee that any of the funds would be used for that care. There is no guarantee that child care would get a single dime of these dollars. I think that would be unfortunate, Mr. President. We have talked a lot about child care, about caring for children during this debate on tobacco. We have talked a lot over the past weeks about things that, frankly, have little or nothing to do with the well-being of children in this country. Affordable, accessible, high-quality child care is about the well-being of children. The tobacco industry has preyed on America's children -- all of us agree on that--stunting their growth and stealing their futures. This amendment is about turning the tide and making an investment in children and their families from the very beginning. Mr. President, experts tell us that the first 3 years of the life of a child are critical to brain development and to laying the ground for self-confidence--a sound foundation for a healthy future. Investing early in childhood development is the best prevention against a whole host of problems, not the least of which is teenage smoking. Experts, again, including Fight Crime, Invest in Kids, an organization representing law enforcement officials from around the country, tell us time and time again that quality after-school activities are extremely important to preventing problem behaviors and criminal activity. Scientific studies support their claims that nearly 5 million children left home alone in the afternoon are much more likely to engage in at-risk behavior, from smoking to drugs and sex than their peers who are engaged in stimulating, productive activities. Mr. President, the Senate has an opportunity in the next few hours to ensure that we make a concrete commitment to investing in the health and safety of America's children. Setting aside a specified percentage of funds--funds that we have already agreed to spend for the child care needs in this country--says to the American public that we will provide for a solid foundation for the future good health of America's children. Many of my colleagues know that I have introduced a comprehensive child care bill along with 26 other colleagues, including the sponsor of this amendment. This amendment is an important first step that I think we can take in making good and fulfilling the promise of that bill. Is this all we need to do? Obviously not, but it is a good beginning. I hope that our colleagues, in considering this amendment offered by Senators Kerry and Bond, in a bipartisan way, would find a way to support expanding this block grant. It doesn't create any new programs. It is designed to give maximum flexibility to families across this country. It can make a huge difference for those parents, who don't have the choice about whether or not to be at home, to be able to afford that needed child care. That $10,000, as I said a moment ago, is equivalent to the cost of a higher education and room and board. It is expensive. Child care is very expensive. If we can assist in the cost of that and relieve the financial burden and the tremendous anxiety the parents feel about wondering where their child is as they must work, then, in addition to doing something about reducing smoking among young people in this bill, that will be amplified by providing assistance to these families and seeing to it that their child care needs are going to be met, or at least it will take a significant step in meeting those needs. I commend my colleagues for offering this amendment and urge colleagues to support it. I yield the floor. Ms. LANDRIEU addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, later this month the State of Connecticut will say good-bye to one of its strongest and most respected voices on women's issues: Patricia Russo. Known by her friends as Pat, Ms. Russo has worked for the past 18 years to promote civil rights for women, assure equality in education for girls, and help women achieve economic parity in the workplace. This July, Pat will be moving with her family to Tokyo, and she will be dearly missed. Pat Russo has served on the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women (PCSW) for the past 15 years. She currently serves as the Chairperson of this agency, which provides research and analysis to legislators and state leaders on issues such as sex discrimination, child care, sexual harassment, child support enforcement and the economic status of women. On behalf of the PCSW, Ms. Russo is the founder of the Connecticut Women's Agenda, a state-wide coalition of key women's organizations in Connecticut. She also chairs the PCSW's Congressional District Advisory Council (CDAC) in the fourth congressional district. Ms. Russo's work on behalf of ending violence against women earned her a seat on the 1997 Task Force to Study Domestic Violence, along with the Attorney General and other state leaders. In addition to her work at the PCSW, Ms. Russo also serves on the Advisory Board of Woman magazine and the Advisory Council of the Rape and Sexual Abuse Crisis Center. She was recently appointed to the Board of Directors of the National Association of Commissions for Women (NACW). She is also President of the Women's Business Development Center of Connecticut, a new agency that moves women from welfare to work. Pat Russo's leadership has earned her numerous awards, including the prestigious Hannah G. Solomon award, given by the National Council of Jewish Women, and the distinction of ``Woman of the Year'' by the Business and Professional Women of Connecticut. In 1997, Ms. Russo was named to the Racial Justice Committee of the YWCA of Greenwich, and is an honorary member of the American Association of University Women, in celebration of her 20 years of activism on behalf of Connecticut women. I have known Pat personally for many years and worked with her on many important issues. I have always found her to be extremely capable and completely dedicated to improving the quality of justice for women in this country. She is truly a remarkable individual, and I am sad to see her go. I wish her only the best as she leaves for Japan and in all of her future endeavors.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my views on the ISTEA conference report. I commend the work of the Conference Committee on the job it has done. This is landmark legislation. It represents the most substantial transportation legislation ever considered by the Congress. The bill provides much needed funds for both the construction and repair of our nation's roads, bridges and rails. This legislation will provide the additional resources for our states to meet their compelling transportation needs. I am particularly pleased that the bill preserves the concept of intermodalism. After completing the nation's interstate highway system several years ago, we decided in the ISTEA bill adopted in 1991 that transportation was not just about highway construction. We committed ourselves to investing funds in other modes of transportation, such as light rail, bus and ferries. If our nation is to move people and goods safely and efficiently in the 21st century, we must diversify our transportation system. This legislation continues on that course. We have also preserved our commitment to mass transit, which is extremely important in densely-populated states like Connecticut. I was particularly pleased to join Senators D'Amato and Sarbanes in a successful effort to increase funding for mass transit by $2.4 billion dollars during deliberations between the House and the Senate conferees. I want to commend my two colleagues for their vigilance in this effort. This legislation also furthers environmentally-sound principles such as congestion mitigation, air quality improvement and alternative fuel technologies. I believe that energy-efficient and environmentally- friendly means of transportation are not only possible, but essential if our nation is going to remain strong, competitive and environmentally healthy into the next century. In this regard, I am particularly pleased that the conference report retains the Senate- passed level of funding for the development and deployment of maglev high speed rail. This is an extraordinary technology that can move people and goods on a fixed guideway at speeds of up to 300 mph. I believe that this mode of transportation can be to the 21st century what airplanes were to the 20th century, and trains were to the 19th-- namely, a dramatic step forward in safe, efficient and reliable transportation. I applaud Senator Moynihan for his stalwart efforts to support maglev technology. In summary, Mr. President, this is good and important legislation. It will improve transportation safety, reduce congestion, diminish pollution, increase efficiency and create jobs for the people of America. For these reasons, the conference report has my support. That is not to say, however, that this is a perfect piece of legislation. I have a number of concerns, as I know that my colleagues do, that I hope will be addressed as we go forward. I am disappointed that the conference report did not include the Senate provision that would penalize states if they failed to change the legal definition of intoxication to .08 nationally. Although I am pleased that the conference report contains incentives for states to move in this direction. I am also concerned that the bill offsets some of its spending with a reduction in expenditures for veterans in need of treatment for smoking-related illnesses. For years the United States military effectively encouraged active duty forces to smoke by providing them with free cigarettes. Therefore, it is only fair that the federal government bear its fair share of responsibility for treating veterans with illnesses contracted as a result of addiction to those cigarettes. I intend to work with my colleagues, including Minority Leader Daschle and Senators Lieberman and Rockefeller, to insure that as Congress continues consideration of tobacco legislation, we provide for the needs of our veterans. I am also concerned about the reduction in the Social Services Block Grant. This block grant is important to children and families of modest means throughout the country. We must not compromise on our commitment to provide better health care, child care and nutritional assistance to these needy Americans. As a member of the Labor Committee, I intend to work with members of the appropriations committees to made sure that we find the resources to provide for these families.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the greatest leaders and supporters of public education that the State of Connecticut has ever known: Thomas P. Mondani. This past March, the State of Connecticut was saddened by his passing at the age of 63. Tom Mondani served as executive director of the Connecticut Education Association (CEA), the State's largest teacher organization, for longer than any individual in the organization's 150-year history. Mr. Mondani began his career in public education as a social studies and English teacher in Moodus, CT in 1959. He joined the CEA staff in 1963 as a research consultant and was promoted to director of research 2 years later. As director of research, he compiled and published numerous studies of statistical data related to educational expenditures in Connecticut. When Tom Mondani was appointed executive director in 1971, his work in school finance made him a recognized authority on research and education legislation in the State. Mr. Mondani also served in Connecticut's State legislature. In 1965, he was elected to the first of his two terms as a State representative, and in 1970, he moved from the House to the State Senate. As a State legislator, Tom Mondani worked diligently on education issues, and he authored legislation that provided maintenance of all accumulated tenure and sick leave rights for teachers who had been incorporated into recently formed regional school districts. Tom Mondani left public office in 1971 when he accepted his appointment as CEA executive director, and he often utilized the political skills that he developed in the General Assembly during his 22-year tenure. He worked with teachers as well as political leaders to secure the passage of many laws to help Connecticut's teachers, including improvements in teacher freedom of residency and the establishment of binding arbitration for teacher-board of education negotiations. During his tenure from 1972 to 1994, he helped develop major advancements for students and teachers in the areas of teacher standards, public school finance, and collective bargaining. Most recently, Tom Mondani served as vice chair of the State Board of Governors for Higher Education. In 1994, the CEA Board of Directors voted unanimously to recognize Tom Mondani's contributions by bestowing him with the organization's most prestigious award: the CEA Friend of Education Award. And not only did CEA present him with the award, but they also renamed the award in his honor. Upon his passing, countless people, including teachers, parents, and former Governors spoke out in praise of this remarkable man. They spoke of his commitment to the children of Connecticut. They remembered his leadership, wisdom, integrity, intellect and fairness. They said that he elevated the thinking in the State about children, teachers, and public education. I would like to join the chorus of voices singing the praises of this honorable man. I knew Tom Mondani, and I saw first-hand his commitment and dedication to helping others and improving the quality of our public schools. The people of Connecticut will miss him dearly.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there are many things about my home state of Connecticut that are a source of great pride to its people, but few are greater than the overall quality of our state's public schools. Connecticut students are performing at the highest levels in the nation on federally sponsored standardized tests. Three out of four Connecticut public school students go on to pursue higher education. And our public school students have outperformed students from private and parochial schools in our state. Many people have contributed to the quality of our public schools, in particular our parents and students. But the backbone of Connecticut's public schools is its teachers. In my view, they are the finest in the country, and there are numbers that back me up. More than 80 percent of Connecticut's public school teachers have advanced degrees, the highest percentage in the country. They are among the nation's most experienced teachers, with the average teacher having taught for more than 15 years. And the greatest testament to the quality of their teaching is the accomplishments of Connecticut's students. One organization, more than any other, has worked to ensure that Connecticut's children are taught by the finest teachers in the country, and that organization is the Connecticut Education Association (CEA). The CEA is a membership organization that represents nearly 30,000 elementary and secondary public school teachers in our state. Through the years, the CEA has consistently promoted the value of public education, encouraged public awareness of the resources needed to provide quality education, and emphasized the importance of the teacher in the education process. This is a significant year for the CEA: it celebrates its 150th anniversary. Over the past century and a half, the Association has been a consistent champion of children, teachers, and public education, and today, its voice on education issues is as strong as ever. There is no job more important than teaching our children, and I would like to thank and congratulate the Connecticut Education Association for a job well done. I wish them all the best as they celebrate this anniversary and continued success in the future.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a man who has worked tirelessly throughout his career to create economic opportunities in the northeastern region of this country: John E. Corrigan. Known by his friends as Jack, Mr. Corrigan has served for 23 years as Regional Director of the U.S. Commerce Department's Economic Development Administration. On Tuesday, May 26, 1998, in my home state of Connecticut, friends, family and admirers of this remarkable man will gather to celebrate his retirement after nearly three decades of service to his country as a public official. This celebration, sponsored by the Connecticut chapter of the Northeastern Economic Development Association, will be a fitting tribute to an outstanding public servant. Jack Corrigan makes things happen. Throughout his career with the EDA, he worked to make dreams a reality. His success is evident across the Northeast where he contributed to the creation of thousands of jobs and economic opportunities during his career. Indeed, Mr. Corrigan brought new meaning to the term economic development. He looked not only at specific applications, but enjoyed the foresight and vision to appreciate the domino effect which federal assistance could have on entire towns, cities, and regions. As Regional Director of the EDA, Jack Corrigan administered a multi- million dollar grant program. These resources were allocated throughout the region under his watchful eye, always ensuring that the money would provide an economic stimulus for many individuals and businesses. Jack's gentle style, measured approach, and good judgement helped many people to turn their dreams into reality. In addition to his service as Regional Director, Jack spent three years as Director of the Office of Civil Rights for the EDA. In this position, he distinguished himself as an effective advocate for civil rights and received the silver medal of the Department of Commerce for his outstanding performance in this field. From 1982 to 1985, Mr. Corrigan took a temporary reprieve from his Regional Director post to serve as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations of the EDA. In this position, he was responsible for the agency's grant program and for coordinating the related activities of the agency's six regional offices. Jack Corrigan will be deeply missed at the Economic Development Administration and throughout the northeast. His legacy, however, will continue as his exemplary public service is remembered and revered for years to come. I applaud the lifetime achievements of a special man and wish him continued success in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Is it the intention of the sponsor of amendment No. 2397 to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act that it should apply solely to States, their political subdivisions, and their pension plans?

Mr. DODD. And is it the Senator's intention that the amendment not be used by plaintiff's lawyers to piggy-back class action suits onto suits brought by the entities mentioned in the amendment?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, S. 1260, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, is intended to create a uniform national standard for securities fraud class actions involving nationally-traded securities. In advocating enactment of uniform national standards for such actions, I firmly believe that the national standards must be fair ones that adequately protect investors. I hope that Senator D'Amato, one of the architects of the Banking Committee's substitute, would engage in a colloquy with me on this point?

Mr. DODD. I will be very brief on this. And we have been through this. The last time it was a 5-day debate. We ought to take some solace in the fact that we have done this in half a day. And let me commend my colleagues, all of them, who have been involved in this and over some period of time. But I say, Mr. President, this is a very sound piece of legislation that can make a huge difference today. That investor that my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Nevada, talks about, that is the investor that deposits their hard-earned money in the securities of struggling businesses, high-tech companies that are the primary targets of these lawsuits. And it is these industries that represent the knowledge-based economy of our 21st century. Too often we have seen predator lawyers out there go after them. What we are trying to do with this bill is to tighten up the loophole, to make it possible for these companies to grow while simultaneously-- simultaneously--seeing to it that investors can bring a rightful cause of action, as plaintiffs, where fraud has been committed. This is going to make for a far sounder system for people in this country. And I predict to my colleagues that we will see economic growth in these firms and businesses, where they can avoid the kind of tremendous expenditures that have had to be laid out to fight frivolous lawsuits and end up as settlements, costing fortunes with, of course, cases being thrown out of court. So I predict to my colleagues, this will be a vote they will be very proud of in the years ahead to avoid these frivolous lawsuits we have seen in the past. I urge passage of the legislation.

Mr. DODD. Very briefly, the essence of this comes down to this, because this is very complicated. How does this work? It is a State court judge that has to make this determination as to whether or not these individual suits get consolidated. It is not a Federal judge; it is a State court judge. Obviously, a State court judge has broad discretion in making that determination. Even if he does do that, if an individual feels he does not belong in that grouping--obviously, we are trying to avoid a case where there are 50 or more individual actions that effectively operate as a single action, which would thus gut the bill and the uniform way in which we are attempting to deal with litigation issues. As I said, the decision to consolidate these individual actions must be with a State court judge, and then if the individual feels as though they really don't belong in that case, the State court judge has broad discretion to take that individual out. There are a lot of protections here. This is not heavy handed at all. It is a way to try and avoid exactly creating new loopholes where plaintiffs seek to consolidate individual cases and thus evade the provisions of this legislation. But that decision is the State court judges' decision and to their broad discretion. And secondly, the individual has the opportunity to go to that State court judge and make the case that they don't really belong in that class action. That State court judge has the broad discretion of keeping that person out of that class. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this is a very complicated area of law. I know our colleagues are going to come to the floor and want to know what this is all about. In effect, this amendment would have the impact of creating even further uncertainty in the definition of a class action. It does not provide more certainty; it is less certainty. I think it would upset the very carefully crafted and very balanced definition worked out with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The reason it took us a little time to get this bill to our colleagues was because we took so much time working with the SEC to try and define these areas. What our colleagues are offering is an amendment that would disrupt the definition worked out with the SEC in this area. Clearly, with all due respect, the tremendous amount of expertise in crafting it--I am not going to suggest to my colleagues that we have a perfect definition in the bill. But certainly this one is not perfect either. But if you are going to trust one or the other, it seems to me the one worked out with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I urge my colleagues, makes a lot more sense. Neither of these definitions tracks word for word what is in rule 23. Rule 23--trust me when I tell you this rule 23 goes on for pages, pages. It is one of the more lengthy definitions of class actions that there is. So, we are not tracking that word for word. We are trying to pick up the essence of it. It is tremendously complicated. We think this definition we have worked out with the Securities and Exchange Commission provides the right kind of balance. The bill originally had a limit of 25 plaintiffs, now raised to 50 for a single lawsuit. This is by no means an exact science. I am the first to say that if we find shortly that number is not working as well as we would like, we would change it. Anybody who claims they have a word on high as to what is the perfect number here is deluding themselves. It is a number we chose because we thought it made sense based, again, on our discussions with the SEC. With all due respect to the authors of this amendment, it does undercut what we have tried to achieve here. I want to emphasize to our colleagues, you don't have to agree with every agency and what it suggests and does. But on this definition worked out with the Securities and Exchange Commission, if you want some predictability and some knowledge-based definition, the one we have in the bill is the way to go. To come up all of a sudden with a new one here that I don't think enjoys the kind of expertise that we have been able to achieve through working with the SEC would be unfortunate and could create a lot more problems. For those reasons, I urge the defeat of this amendment.

Mr. DODD. Then in 1996--we passed a law in 1995--59 cases were filed in State court; and in 1997, 1998, the number did drop down to about 38. But you compare that--they want to talk about how the number fell off to 38 from 59. What they do not want to mention to you is, in 1994 and 1993 and 1992 you had a total of six cases; in 1993 and 1994, one case--one case. And then it jumps, as we see in these other examples of where it moves to. So I say to my colleague and the chairman of the committee, this is quite clear. And if they wanted to get to statute of limitations problems, why didn't they file more of those cases in that period?

Mr. DODD. Our colleagues have made much of this notion that there has not been this great degree of activity. Try, if you will, to just keep these numbers in mind. These are the actions filed in State court for fraud in class actions against publicly traded companies. In 1992, there were four cases filed all across the country. In 1993, there was one case filed all across the country. In 1994, there was one case filed all across the country. I do not have numbers for 1995. But they are four, one, and one.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague would yield.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.