Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this month, the world's eyes are on the State of Israel as it celebrates the 50th Anniversary of its independence. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate and praise the people of Israel on this historic occasion. Many centuries ago, Isaiah prophesied that Israel would become ``a light unto the nations.'' Today, Israel's light is shining brightly-- not only for its citizens, but for people throughout the world. This nation arose from the ashes of the Holocaust and has given the Jewish people of the world a permanent homeland. The modern State of Israel has faced many obstacles in its short life, but it has survived them all, and in fact excelled in spite of them. Its population has grown from 600,000 in 1948 to nearly 6 million today as it has absorbed waves of immigrants from all over the globe. It is a vibrant democracy, with free and open elections and a free press. Despite a shortage of natural resources and many other obstacles, it has developed a thriving economy. And from this small nation, we have seen countless acclaimed writers, artists, and musicians. Israel has also shared a special relationship with the United States. Over the years, our nations have stood together to preserve Israel's safety and security, and I want to take this opportunity to join my fellow Americans in pledging our continued support for this trusted ally. This is also a time of celebration for members of the American Jewish population. Festivities are being held all across the country, and in my state of Connecticut, the United Jewish Federation and the Jewish Community Center of Stamford will hold a community-wide festival to commemorate the 50th anniversary on Sunday, May 17th. There will actually be another special event in Stamford the previous Thursday. On May 14th, the United Jewish Federation of Stamford will celebrate its 25th Anniversary. Throughout the years, the UJF has played a vital role in building and maintaining a sense of unity among Stamford's Jewish community. They have helped to promote and enrich Jewish life in the area by coordinating educational, social and philanthropic activities. They have also worked to defend the political and religious rights of the Jewish people, not only in Connecticut, but around the Nation, in Israel, and throughout the world. The UJF of Stamford's stated mission is to create a community based on the Jewish ideal of ``tzedakah'': charity, righteousness and social justice. Well, I would say that their works and actions have clearly embodied these three principles. I want to personally thank them for all that they have done to strengthen and improve both their community and our state, and I offer my sincere congratulations to them on this joyous anniversary.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Lyme Disease Initiative Act of 1998, companion legislation to a bill being introduced today by Representative Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey. The objective of this bill is to put us on the path toward eradicating Lyme disease--a disease that is unfamiliar to some Americans, but one that those of us from Connecticut and the Northeast know all too well. Almost everyone in my state, including myself, has seen the devastating impact that this disease can have on its victims. Lyme disease can cause serious health problems, both physical and psychiatric, and can ruin a family's life. Some damage due to the disease, especially memory loss and other brain damage, is permanent. And we have also seen that, in many ways, efforts to educate people about this disease and to find a cure have come up short. The number of cases reported to the CDC increased from 500 cases in 1982 to 16,000 cases in 1996. And some reports suggest that these cases only represent the tip of the iceberg--that there are in fact tens of thousands more cases that have gone unreported or undiagnosed, due in part to the lack of a standardized diagnostic test. Studies indicate that long term treatment of infected individuals often exceeds $100,000 per person--a phenomenal cost to society. Because Lyme disease mimics other health conditions, patients often must visit multiple doctors before a proper diagnosis is made. This results in prolonged pain and suffering, unnecessary tests, and costly and futile treatments. But an even greater price is paid by the victims and their families--we can put no price tag on the emotional costs associated with this disease. But there is hope. We are close to the approval of vaccines to prevent this disease--perhaps as soon as next spring. And combined with a strong commitment to public education, we can hope that the numbers of new families affected by this terrible disease will finally begin to diminish. But we can't let down our guard. We can't let the promise of a vaccine to prevent Lyme disease distract us from seeking more effective ways to diagnose an treat those individuals who are already infected. The Lyme Disease Initiative is a $100 million federal initiative which will, for the first time, establish prominent, coordinated, federal role in Lyme disease research, treatment, and education. Various agencies within the federal government have made a good start in addressing Lyme disease concerns. These efforts have been hampered, however, by a lack of interagency coordination, inconsistent funding, and limited agency staff attention. The Lyme Disease Initiative will correct these problems. First, my bill calls for a 5 year plan to be established by the Secretary of Health and Human and Services, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and outside experts, to advance the treatment of and a cure for Lyme disease. This legislation also sets out four critical public health goals for advancing Lyme disease research efforts which include: the development of standardized diagnostic tests; a review of current systems for reporting cases; a study on how to improve the accuracy of diagnoses; and a campaign to educate physicians how to properly diagnose and treat Lyme disease. Other major provisions of the bill include establishing a Lyme Disease Taskforce to provide advice and expertise to Congress and federal agencies on all areas of Lyme disease policy; requiring that annual reports be submitted to Congress on the progress of NIH, CDC, and DoD with respect to the goals and programs funded in this bill; an authorization of $100 million over five years to ensure sufficient resources for critical, scientific research; and a request to the FDA rapidly and thoroughly review pending Lyme disease vaccine applications. Summer is just around the corner. My hope is that the Lyme Disease Initiative Act of 1998 will help to ensure a future where children and their families can engage in outdoor activities without the fear of contracting this dreaded disease. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Lyme Disease Initiative Act of 1998, companion legislation to a bill being introduced today by Representative Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey. The objective of this bill is to put us on the path toward eradicating Lyme disease--a disease that is unfamiliar to some Americans, but one that those of us from Connecticut and the Northeast know all too well. Almost everyone in my state, including myself, has seen the devastating impact that this disease can have on its victims. Lyme disease can cause serious health problems, both physical and psychiatric, and can ruin a family's life. Some damage due to the disease, especially memory loss and other brain damage, is permanent. And we have also seen that, in many ways, efforts to educate people about this disease and to find a cure have come up short. The number of cases reported to the CDC increased from 500 cases in 1982 to 16,000 cases in 1996. And some reports suggest that these cases only represent the tip of the iceberg--that there are in fact tens of thousands more cases that have gone unreported or undiagnosed, due in part to the lack of a standardized diagnostic test. Studies indicate that long term treatment of infected individuals often exceeds $100,000 per person--a phenomenal cost to society. Because Lyme disease mimics other health conditions, patients often must visit multiple doctors before a proper diagnosis is made. This results in prolonged pain and suffering, unnecessary tests, and costly and futile treatments. But an even greater price is paid by the victims and their families--we can put no price tag on the emotional costs associated with this disease. But there is hope. We are close to the approval of vaccines to prevent this disease--perhaps as soon as next spring. And combined with a strong commitment to public education, we can hope that the numbers of new families affected by this terrible disease will finally begin to diminish. But we can't let down our guard. We can't let the promise of a vaccine to prevent Lyme disease distract us from seeking more effective ways to diagnose an treat those individuals who are already infected. The Lyme Disease Initiative is a $100 million federal initiative which will, for the first time, establish prominent, coordinated, federal role in Lyme disease research, treatment, and education. Various agencies within the federal government have made a good start in addressing Lyme disease concerns. These efforts have been hampered, however, by a lack of interagency coordination, inconsistent funding, and limited agency staff attention. The Lyme Disease Initiative will correct these problems. First, my bill calls for a 5 year plan to be established by the Secretary of Health and Human and Services, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and outside experts, to advance the treatment of and a cure for Lyme disease. This legislation also sets out four critical public health goals for advancing Lyme disease research efforts which include: the development of standardized diagnostic tests; a review of current systems for reporting cases; a study on how to improve the accuracy of diagnoses; and a campaign to educate physicians how to properly diagnose and treat Lyme disease. Other major provisions of the bill include establishing a Lyme Disease Taskforce to provide advice and expertise to Congress and federal agencies on all areas of Lyme disease policy; requiring that annual reports be submitted to Congress on the progress of NIH, CDC, and DoD with respect to the goals and programs funded in this bill; an authorization of $100 million over five years to ensure sufficient resources for critical, scientific research; and a request to the FDA rapidly and thoroughly review pending Lyme disease vaccine applications. Summer is just around the corner. My hope is that the Lyme Disease Initiative Act of 1998 will help to ensure a future where children and their families can engage in outdoor activities without the fear of contracting this dreaded disease. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the sixty-fifth anniversary of the Civilian Conservation Corps, and to pay tribute to the commendable service its members offered our nation. Created by President Franklin Roosevelt on March 31, 1933, the Civilian Conservation Corps had a profound impact on this nation, helping to sustain the United States through the depths of the Depression, and setting a precedent for other federal agencies to carry on the diverse missions of the Civilian Conservation Corps. Within days after his presidential inauguration, Franklin Roosevelt initiated plans for the Civilian Conservation Corps, citing the need for an organization that would provide jobs for hundreds of thousands unemployed young men ages 18 to 25. President Roosevelt declared that the Civilian Conservation Corps would ``conserve our precious natural resources and pay dividends to the present and future generations. More important, we can take a vast army of the unemployed out into healthful surroundings.'' The Civilian Conservation Corps' intention was not only to provide services to the United States but also to give the unemployed an opportunity to live in healthful surroundings with a steady pay, room, board, and clothing. By July 1, 1933, a quarter of a million enrollees had enlisted in the Civilian Conservation Corps, making it the fastest large-scale mobilization of men in U.S. history. The enrollees enlisted for six months with the option to re-enroll for another six months or a maximum of two years. They worked forty-hour weeks and received thirty dollars a month. Each month, they required the men to send twenty-five dollars to their families to help them through the difficulties of the Depression. The Civilian Conservation Corps provided members with the opportunity to learn a new skill and allowed them to attend classes to further their education. More than 100,000 men were taught to read and write with the aid of the Civilian Conservation Corps's education classes. The accomplishments the Civilian Conservation Corps achieved in its nine year existence are impressive. Historical areas in Jamestown, Williamsburg, Yorktown, Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania were restored and developed by the Corps members. At the program's peak, there were over 500 Civilian Conservation Corps camps in national, state, and local parks. Civilian Conservation Corps workers cleared trails, built buildings and shelters, fought forest fires, planted trees, and made other improvements to parks in all the states, territories, and possessions. The three million men planted a total of 2.3 billion trees, spent 6.4 million days fighting forest fires and eradicated diseases and pests. These accomplishments contributed to the Civilian Conservation Corps' lasting environmental legacy. Today, agencies such as President Clinton's Americorps, the Park Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service are continuing the tradition of the Civilian Conservation Corps by instilling a sense of value for our natural environment as well as for national service. Communities across the country benefitted from the hard toil of the Civilian Conservation Corps. The camps helped local economies, bringing large numbers of consumers to the towns' stores and industries. More importantly, they aided the communities in times of crisis, searching for missing persons, fighting fires, and offering assistance to residents during snow and ice storms. The state of Connecticut received such services from the twenty forest camps located within the state during the peak of the Corps program. Besides offering the members an opportunity to work, the Civilian Conservation Corps provided long-lasting friendships and ties that have endured over the sixty-five years since the Corps' inception. This sense of loyalty and pride extended to an unquestionable sense of pride for our country that is almost unparalleled. The work of the Civilian Conservation Corps remains as a monument to the young men who dedicated their lives to mending and preserving our natural resources. These men have earned the respect and honor of our nation. I offer my heartfelt thanks to the members of the Civilian Conservation Corps and congratulations on their sixty-fifth anniversary.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues, Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, Wellstone and DeWine for their tireless efforts to bring this bipartisan bill to the Senate floor. I hope that any remaining disagreements can be worked out in Conference. Few issues that we have a chance to debate and vote on are as critically important to the future of this country as the one before us today. The strength of our workforce is directly linked to a lifetime of quality education and training. And never have the challenges been greater. We must remain steadfast in our efforts to continue educating and training our workforce so that more of our companies can successfully adapt to the rapid developments of modern technology. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act is the culmination of many years of hard work. The current maze of more than 160 separate programs which are administered by 15 separate federal agencies has become unnecessarily cumbersome for both those in need of training assistance and those employers seeking to hire skilled workers. This bill streamlines these programs by giving more authority to state and local governments, but retaining crucial federal requirements in order to ensure that the most vulnerable and deserving members of our population, including disadvantaged youth and displaced workers, receive the support and training assistance they need. This focus will ensure that these individuals have a chance to share in our nation's continued economic prosperity and growth. In addition, by emphasizing results and accountability from job training programs, our workers will be better equipped with the skills they need to land high-wage and high-skilled jobs. I know firsthand the struggle many hard-working individuals face as their company downsizes or scales back production. For many years, the Connecticut economy was dependent on defense-oriented industries. In the past few years, many qualified, highly skilled workers in Connecticut have lost their jobs as a result of military downsizing. In the last 12 months, more than 1,500 defense related jobs were lost in my state. The Workforce Investment Partnership Act ensures that defense employees who are adversely affected by base closings and military downsizing will have access to job training and supportive services through the National Reserve Account in title III of the Job Training Partnership Act. If these workers receive access to training, they can acquire the skills needed for employment in the technology driven economy of the 21st century. The Connecticut economy is changing. In February, a group of 120 business leaders stated that a highly educated and trained work force is the only way that Connecticut can capitalize on the promises of the new technology driven sectors such as software development, information technology and photonics. For too long, we were focused on job loss. It is now time to focus on the rebuilding of our economy and ensure that all potential employees, including former welfare recipients and displaced workers, receive the training and skills they need. I am especially pleased that a cornerstone of the job training bill will be streamlined service delivery. The bill accomplishes this integration by building on the One-Stop system to unify the patchwork of fragmented job training and employment programs into a single, customer-friendly environment. The proposed legislation would expand the concept of universal access to services for job seekers and businesses without eligibility criteria. Connecticut is nearing completion of implementation of its One-Stop Career Center System, Connecticut Works, which is being financed through a grant from the U.S. Department of Labor. This network has reformed the delivery of job training services in Connecticut. To date, a total of 16 centers have been created across the state and I have had the privilege of visiting many of them. Gone are the dreary unemployment centers of the past. Each of the centers in Connecticut offers a broad array of services including a variety of job search workshops and self-service research rooms with computer and Internet access. A wide range of written material is provided in the research rooms, and customers have access to fax machines and telephones to assist them in their job search. Enhanced and coordinated services to businesses are provided through the use of an Employer Contact Management System. Customer surveys and performance measurements ensure that customer needs are addressed. The partnership with the State library has brought access to electronic labor market and job search services through local libraries to over one hundred sites throughout Connecticut, bringing services to more customers with expanded days and hours of operation. Mr. President, vocational educational activities are also provided for within the Workforce legislation. Significantly, WIPA will put into place challenging performance measures to gauge the efficiency of the educational programs it oversees. These measures will require proficient training in the areas of job readiness skills, vocational skills, and placement, retention, and completion of educational opportunities. The Carl D. Perkins vocational educational title, which will separately appropriate and administer all vocational educational programs, will teach participants computer skills and new technologies to prepare them for the burgeoning high-tech labor market. WIPA further provides for the coordination of adult education and job training systems, allowing adult education to play a crucial role in a participant's job training program. In the area of adult education and literacy, WIPA specifically targets those communities demonstrating significant illiteracy rates to receive adult education programs on a priority basis. I am pleased that the Workforce legislation also includes a provision that will direct funds designated to support English as a Second Language (ESL) programs to those ESL programs in communities with designated need. This means that ESL programs with waiting lists--those in communities with the greatest need for the valuable services these programs provide--will receive funds on a prioritized basis. Mr. President, in order to better assist non-native English speakers and fully assimilate them into our society, we must help them become more fluent in English. I can think of few more important factors in determining whether or not someone new to this society will successfully make this difficult transition than their ability to speak English. A clear and effective grasp of the English language is still the best indicator of success for non-native English speakers. The ability to speak English for anyone in today's marketplace represents an ``open door,'' Mr. President. This ``open door'' can lead to greater employment and advancement opportunities for those whose first language is not English. The reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act, offered as an amendment to the Workforce legislation, is critically important legislation that I am proud to cosponsor. The Rehabilitation Act provides comprehensive vocational rehabilitation services designed to help individuals with disabilities become more employable and achieve greater independence and integration into society. Under the Rehabilitation Act, States, with assistance provided by the federal government in the manner of formula-derived grants, provide a broad array of services to individuals with disabilities that includes assessment, counseling, vocational and other educational services, work related placement services, and rehabilitation technology services. In 1995 alone, Mr. President, more than 1.25 million Americans with disabilities were served by vocational rehabilitation programs. I am particularly pleased that a provision dealing with assistive technology was included in the reauthorization legislation. This provision, Section 508, will require the federal government to provide assistive technology to Federal employees with disabilities. This provision will put into place for the first time regulations requiring the federal government to provide its employees with disabilities with access to appropriate technology suited to their individual needs. This legislation would allow the federal government to take the lead in providing critical access to information technology to all federal employees with disabilities in this country. It strengthens the federal requirement that electronic and information technology purchased by federal agencies be accessible to their employees with disabilities. Electronic and information technology accessibility is essential for federal employees to maintain a meaningful employment experience, as well as to meet their full potential. We live in a world where information and technology are synonymous with professional advancement. Increasingly, essential job functions have come to involve the use of technology, and where it is inaccessible, job opportunities that others take for granted are foreclosed to people with disabilities. Presently, there are approximately 145,000 individuals with disabilities in the federal workforce. Roughly 61 percent of these employees hold permanent positions in professional, administrative, or technical occupations. Nationally, there are 49 million Americans who have disabilities, nearly half of them have a severe disability. Yet most mass market information technology is designed without consideration for their needs. It is critical, Mr. President, given the rapid introduction into the workforce of novel technologically-advanced products, that persons with disabilities not be allowed to fall behind. The federal government must truly be an equal opportunity employer, and this equal opportunity must apply fully to individuals with special needs. I view Section 508 as a hopeful first step in an effort to ensure that all individuals with disabilities have access to the assistive technology providing them the ability to reach their full ability. Though Section 508 will presently only affect federal employees, it is my hope that one day all individuals with disabilities will have the same access to assistive technology now afforded federal employees because of Section 508. Lastly, Mr. President, I would like to commend Senators Jeffords, DeWine, Kennedy and Wellstone for the important role they each played in making the Workforce legislation and the reauthorization of the Rehabilitation Act a reality. They worked closely with myself and my staff to address numerous concerns and for that I wish to thank them.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, later this evening the Senate will conclude debate on a resolution of ratification authorizing the United States to support the entry of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The decision that the Senate takes with respect to this resolution will have an historic impact on the future of Europe and the nature of the Transatlantic partnership that will take us into the next millennium. Without question, NATO has been the singularly most successful alliance for mutual defense in modern history since its establishment in 1949. For nearly fifty years it has served as a bulwark against communism, and as a deterrent against threats posed by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact satellites. Today the world has changed. The Soviet Union no longer exists, and the Warsaw Pact is fast becoming a mere footnote in our history books. In that context, it seems to me to be a particularly appropriate moment to review whether and how NATO's role should evolve, to keep pace with the changing political landscape. Some changes have already been undertaken by NATO. For example, not too long ago NATO members agreed that it was an appropriate mission for NATO forces to assist with efforts to implement the Dayton Peace accords in war torn Bosnia. Certainly the debate this week is as much about such matters as it is whether Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic will be good NATO partners. The debate is also about the merits of admitting additional members beyond these three--and the order and timing for doing so. And, it is about the budgetary implications of an enlarged organization with an expanded land area requiring collective defense. Finally, it is about the impact on U.S. and NATO's relations with Russia and other NIS countries and the implications for internal Russian political stability. These are all important and legitimate areas for discussion. The Senate's debate on these questions has been thoughtful and constructive. Senators Warner, Moynihan, Harkin and others have asked some very important questions that deserve answers before moving forward to take NATO from 16 to nineteen members and beyond. It would be foolhardy not to carefully assess these matters before making changes to NATO. I agree with those who have held up a yellow flag urging caution. Certainly it behooves us to act judiciously in reshaping NATO to ensure that whatever we do does not undermine the effectiveness or efficiency of the current organization. Nor should we foster expectations in Eastern and Central Europe that cannot be fulfilled--or create additional and unnecessary financial burdens on existing or new members. I also believe that it is important that we take into account the implications for our current and future relations with Russia and other former Soviet states. And particularly with respect to Russia's continued willingness to move forward to ratify Start II and other future arms control agreements. While I agree with those who suggest it would be wrong to give Moscow veto power over NATO decisions--on the other hand, I see nothing to be gained from causing unnecessary uncertainty or anxiety with respect to our intentions toward Russia. After the many hours of debate we have had on the pending measure, I believe a strong case has been made in favor of admitting these three new members. Foreign policy experts and scholars who have spent a great deal of time studying NATO over the years make a persuasive case in support of expansion. I also believe that Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen, together with other Clinton Administration officials, have during hours and hours of Congressional testimony made a very compelling case in favor of ratification of the pending protocols. Former Presidents Bush and Carter have endorsed the President's decision. As have a number of our distinguished former Secretaries of State and former members of the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff. They have also adequately addressed concerns that have been raised with respect to NATO expansion. During the July 8, 1997 Madrid Summit, NATO heads of state, including President Clinton reached common agreement at that time to invite Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to join the organization, while leaving open the door to other interested governments. However, no commitment was made with respect to the sequence or timing of such additions. That was appropriate in my view. It goes without saying that we must assess any impact of enlarging NATO by three on that organization's ability to continue to fulfill its primary mission--namely collective self-defense--before moving forward to consider additional new members. Realistically, such an assessment is likely to take three or more years by my estimation--in line with the time frame fame Senators Warner and Moynihan have included in their so called pause reservation. Having said that, I really do not think it necessary to codify this time frame into a binding proposition. In fact, the time period could even turn out to be longer than three years. Were we to codify the time period, we might in fact be creating false expectations in the minds of countries waiting to join that invitations will automatically be forthcoming once three years have elapsed. It was for those reasons that I voted against this amendment earlier today. It is important as we review the current structure, purpose, and membership of this important organization that we remain mindful of the central proposition--the organization's relevance to today's and tomorrow's realities. We should ask as well whether and what changes best further U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. Only after such questions have been fully explored should we move forward to alter NATO. I believe that during the course of the current debate we have exhaustively reviewed the implications and U.S. interests at stake with respect to the pending protocols. I am satisfied that the addition of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to NATO will enhance U.S. national security and foreign policy interests by strengthening and fostering European unity and security. There is little doubt in my mind, Mr. President, about the likely outcome of the final vote on this matter. In my judgement the United States Senate will give its advice and consent to ratification, and thereby authorize the United States to consent to the admission of these three members. Mr. President, I will join my colleagues in voting aye on this matter. To do otherwise would severely undermine the cohesive support that has existed for NATO since its establishment in 1949 and leave us ill prepared to promote a strong, secure, and united Europe in the 21st century. the cost of nato enlargement

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the conference report on H.R. 1757--The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998. As is the case with many of my colleagues who have already spoken on this matter, I believe that it is fundamentally wrong to be holding the payment of U.N. arrears and the structural reform of U.S. foreign affairs organization hostage to a single issue related to international family planning--an issue by the way which was never even discussed during Senate consideration of this legislation. I am speaking of course of the so called Mexico City restrictions on U.S. international population programs that have been included in the legislation pending before us today--Section 1816 of the bill. These restrictions not only prohibit foreign non-governmental organizations that accept U.S. funding from using their own funds to perform abortions, but also bar them from lobbying their own governments, with their own money, on abortion related public policy issues. Without doubt, Section 1816 is going to result in all of the other sections in the bill, over 160 of them--not becoming law. That means that nearly two years of work on this bill will have been for naught. That is unfortunate in my view, because many of the other provisions are meritorious and should become law. Mr. President, how did we get to where we find ourselves with respect to this legislation? Mr. President, let's be clear about who is responsible. It was not the President who created the current dynamic-- he and officials in his administration have worked in good faith for months with House and Senate conferees on the legislation before us today. It certainly wasn't the Senate conferees who working together had come up with an acceptable package of compromises on the various difference between the House and Senate passed bills --a package that we all more or less agreed to and would have supported. A package that did not include Mexico City language. The responsibility for putting U.S. leadership at the U.N. in jeopardy and delaying foreign affairs reorganization rests solely with the House Republican leadership. The Republican leadership knew full well that this entire bill was being put at risk with the inclusion of Section 1816 in this bill--a provision which, incidentally, would never become law if it were to be applied to domestic non-governmental organizations because it is so fundamentally a violation of the first amendment constitutional protections of free speech. I know our Democratic colleagues in the House warned them of what was likely to happen. I know Senator Biden did as well. Certainly the President has made no secret of his fundamental opposition to the so called Mexico City language and most especially the ``global gag rule'' aspect of it. Despite these warnings, the House leadership instructed House Republican conferees to include this provision in the final version of the bill. Not a single Democratic conferee from either the House or Senate supported the final conference report that we have before us today. I was one of those conferees who refused to sign onto this legislation. I certainly agree with those who are strongly opposed to the codification of the Mexico City language into law. I think it is reprehensible to attempt to restrict the free speech of foreign non-governmental organizations and their members. I happen to believe that these organizations do very important work-- work that is making a real difference to the health and over all quality of life for hundreds of millions of women and children living in developing countries throughout Asia, Africa, and Latin America. But my objections with respect to this matter go beyond the substance of the provision to that of the tactics that are being used here and for an unwillingness to take into account U.S. national and foreign policy interests that may be at stake. Proponents of this measure have made no effort to balance these overarching interests against the narrower ones of wanting to score partisan political points by promoting a very controversial agenda that clearly does not have the support of the majority of the American people. Mr. President, it is my hope that the Senate will vote to reject the pending conference report and thereby send a signal that, at least in the Senate, we aren't in the practice of ``legislative hostage taking''--that is not the way the Senate conducts its business. In doing so, we will also be sending a signal to the American people that we are here to do their business, the business that we were elected to look out for, and not to play games of ``partisan one upmanship.'' I would urge my colleagues to join me in sending such a message by voting no on this measure.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there are few issues as important as protecting our citizens and keeping our communities free of crime. Americans should feel secure in their homes, at their schools, and in their neighborhoods, and in recent years we have made tremendous progress in this area, reducing the crime rate for a record five years in a row. But more work needs to be done. One of the most effective ways to make our streets safer is attracting talented and committed individuals to work in law enforcement. That is why I am so pleased that my Senate colleagues have displayed great wisdom and unanimously confirmed Stephen C. Robinson to serve as U.S. Attorney for the State of Connecticut. Mr. Robinson has extensive and varied law enforcement experience in the public sector and his legal and investigative work for the private sector well qualify him to serve in this position. I was proud to recommend his nomination to the President, and I believe that he will bring a sense of intelligence, integrity, and energy to this office. After graduating from Cornell University and Cornell Law School, Mr. Robinson was in private practice for several years. He then became an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York where he directed the prosecution of narcotics cases and tax fraud and securities fraud cases. He also argued appeals in the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Second Circuit. In 1990, Mr. Robinson received the Department of Justice's Director Award for Superior Performance as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. Mr. Robinson also has served as Associate General Counsel and Managing Director at Kroll Associates, the world's largest private investigation firm. In 1993, FBI Director Louis Freeh asked Mr. Robinson to join the Bureau as his Special Assistant and General Counsel. At the FBI, he oversaw counter-terrorism and counter-espionage policy and investigation; revision of the selection and promotion process for Special Agents; and FBI undercover investigation proposals. Mr. Robinson has most recently worked as Chief Compliance Officer for Aetna U.S. Healthcare in Middletown, Connecticut, and he is also an instructor of Trial Practice Law at Yale Law School. Mr. Robinson's confirmation is particularly significant in Connecticut, because he is the first African-American to ever serve as our State's top federal prosecutor. He has spoken publicly about the sense of hopelessness amongst young blacks throughout the country. And having grown up in the Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn, Mr. Robinson hopes that young people from inner cities will look at him and see someone who can not only relate to their circumstances, but who also illustrates that if you get your education and work hard you can attain your goals, regardless of where you come from. Mr. Robinson stands as a positive role model for African-American youths, and in fact all young people. By taking the post of Connecticut's U.S. Attorney, Mr. Robinson is renewing his connection to public service. But this may have never been possible were it not for a conversation between Steve and his mother in 1996. During the Thanksgiving holidays, his mother encouraged him to return to public service and give more back to his community. Mr. Robinson has frequently stated that this conversation prompted him to reevaluate what he wanted to do with his life. Upon reflection, he decided to take his mother's advice, and he decided that he should return to public service. On behalf of the people of Connecticut, I would like to thank Steve's mother. Steve Robinson is a man of outstanding character and intelligence, and we are fortunate to have him serve as our next U.S. Attorney. I offer my sincere congratulations to Steve, his wife Kathleen Sullivan, his daughter Victoria, and all of his family and friends on his well-deserved confirmation. I have every confidence that he will flourish in this position.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I had not intended to speak on this amendment. I have an amendment coming up that I will be addressing. But I think it is such an important amendment that our colleague from Michigan has raised here. I think all of us have become much more highly sensitized to the critical importance of the generation of students in our country who are computer literate. It is no longer a question of whether or not that technology and the awareness of it is going to be important. It is critical. I have made the assertion that what keyboards and computers bring to this generation is tantamount to what a ballpoint pen brought to my generation. Any child today not completing elementary and secondary school without being computer literate is going to be totally unprepared for the 21st century economy. Our colleague from Michigan has made it possible for the teachers of our Nation, who truly would like to become better prepared to instruct young people in the importance of this technology, to have the wherewithal to do so. This ought not to be a partisan debate in any way. It is a very thoughtful amendment, one that we all can be deeply proud of. We are only some 500 days away from a new millennium, and Senator Levin has offered us a chance to make a difference for young people so that they might be able to acquire these skills. I commend him for the amendment and hope our colleagues will support it. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act so that the amendment may be considered. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. I thank my good friend from Rhode Island. Mr. President, I understand there will be a point of order raised against this amendment. I regret that, because I am not asking to spend any more money than the underlying amendment does, but I realize this is a point of order that will be sustained. I will make an appropriate motion to vote on that. I am sorry that is going to be the case, because I really do believe that this is the one opportunity, a chance, after we all talked about trying to do something, about reducing the cost to communities, to make the choice to do so. But I need 60 votes, I am afraid, to prevail on all of that. When the appropriate motion is made, I will respond to it. I hope that will not be the case. I hope we can have an up-or-down vote as we have had on every other amendment. I believe my time has expired, and if it has, I believe my colleague wants to make an appropriate motion.

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

Mr. DODD. I yield a minute to my good friend from Rhode Island, and I ask unanimous consent that he be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. DODD. I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have in front of me a chart which demonstrates what I think most Members of this body are familiar with; that is, the rising cost of special education in our country and the rising population of students who are requiring special education services. Presently, for the special education needs of America, 55 percent of the cost is being borne by our States, and 35 percent is being borne by local governments and local property taxes, and roughly 10 percent by the Federal Government. It is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), endorsed and supported by those of us here in Congress, which rightly encourages and provides for the inclusion of all children who require special education services in the educational process of this Nation. It is worthy of note that at the time the U.S. Congress passed the IDEA legislation, it was recommended that the Federal Government would provide 40 percent of the costs of special education services. Several decades later, the Federal Government is presently only contributing 10 percent of the costs of special education. Mr. President, special education costs are rising. We are told nationally that these numbers are moving up. In 1991, special education costs were 17 percent of the overall education budget; they are now 19 percent of the overall education budget. I might also point out that the amount being spent on regular education has dropped to 56 percent, down from 58 percent. Also, the population of special needs children is on the increase. The overall population of children in elementary and secondary schools has gone up about 7.3 percent in the last few years, whereas the number of children requiring special education services has jumped over 12 percent in the same period of time. We have rising costs, rising population, and the Federal commitment to special education has remained static. I mention this because I am offering an amendment that, with all due respect to my colleague from Georgia, would take the $1.6 billion from tax proposal that would provide $37 or $7 in tax relief for private and public school families, respectively, and use that money to lower the cost at the local and State level for special education services. If the Federal Government is to meet its full commitment of 40 percent to special education, it would need to provide $16 billion to state and local school districts, more than four times the current funding. Let me quickly add that I commend the Budget Committee and others in recent weeks and months who have actually increased spending on special education. The total commitment to States is slightly lower than $4 billion but is still substantially less than the $16 billion needed to meet the 40-percent commitment. I believe, given the scarce funding available to us, is that we would be far wiser, with all due respect to the authors of this underlying proposal, to take that $1.6 billion and give it back to the States and local governments to reduce the rising cost of special education in this country. We are told that the underlying bill is about choice. I argue there should be no choice when the needs of children with disabilities are involved. Private schools can simply accept or reject students that they want or don't want. If your child is a special needs child, you don't have a choice whether you would like to go to a private school. The only school system that has to take you is a public school system. Parents with children with special needs don't have those choices. Property taxpayers, sales taxpayers, and State income taxpayers don't have any choice; they have to pay their tax bills. The only people I know of at this very moment who have a choice about education are the 100 of us in this body. We have a choice to take $1.6 billion and provide a $37 tax break for private school students and their families, a $7 tax break for the public school students and their families, or we can help state and local school districts by providing them with $320 per special needs child so that they can provide valuable special education services. That is what my amendment does. It is saying, let's make a choice with rare funding dollars and apply them to help special needs children. Let me share how big a cost this is and point out the situation in a number of States. In Colorado, the State must pay a 60-percent share for special education services. In Connecticut, the State provides 59 percent of special education funding. In Maine, 33 percent; Michigan, 60 percent; Missouri, 60 percent; Rhode Island, 59 percent; Virginia, 68 percent. These are huge costs at the State and local level. I have one community in my State, Torrington, CT, where 2 years ago the bill was $635,000 for special education services. Two years later, it has risen to $1.3 million. Mr. President, the costs associated with special education can often be staggering. What I am saying is, if we think this is a national goal, to do something about special education, then we ought to be willing to help our local towns and our States to reduce their share of special education costs. The $1.6 billion that my amendment would provide is not going to pay the entire bill. It is, however, a move in the right direction. But when you have very scarce funding, wouldn't it be wiser for us to make the choice here today to reduce property and State taxes, by saying here is $1.6 billion, which we know is not going to solve the whole problem, but I want to give that money back to the States, back to the local governments, to bring down the cost of special education services. We made that promise, Mr. President. We said decades ago we would provide 40 percent of the cost of special education, and we have never provided more than 10 percent. There is a chance for us today to provide, not $37, not $7 after taxes, but a $320 per child tax break in terms of reducing the cost of providing special education services. It seems to me this would be a far wiser way for us to spend our money. I say after-tax dollars because I think there is some confusion. Again, I say this with all due respect to the authors of the underlying bill. But the $2,000 IRA contained in Senator Coverdell's legislation is an after-tax proposal. It provides as much as if you put $2,000 in a savings account and the interest that it earns, that is the money you get the tax break on, not the $2,000 principle. So when I say it provides a $37 and $7 tax break, those are real numbers. Recently, I looked at what the cost of private schools is in the greater Washington, DC, area. They run anywhere from $10,000 to $17,000 annually. Why are we providing a $37 tax break for families who are already sending their children to schools that expensive when the $1.6 billion specified in this legislation could help lower property taxes and assist with special education? Recently, when speaking with mayors in Connecticut, they often mentioned the high cost of special education services. By not contributing 40 percent of special education costs, we are pitting families against each other in these communities. I think every one of us probably knows someone, maybe in our own families, that has a special needs child. We know the concern, the fear, that a family goes through in discovering that a child requires special education services. It is a critically important issue. But I am also aware of what happens in a community where you only have a handful of special needs students and all of a sudden their services cost a bit more and people get upset because it is their tax dollars that are paying for that education. The school systems in our states need our assistance. What we are offering here is some relief to State and local school systems. It is not total relief. We have $1.6 billion over 10 years, what are we going to do with the taxpayers' money of this country? Do we give it back to the communities in Connecticut and elsewhere that are struggling to meet the cost of special education? Or do I write a $37 check to someone who is sending their child to a school that is costing $10,000 or $13,000 or $14,000 a year? I don't know how you justify it. I don't know how I can explain to my constituents not providing some relief to their school systems for an area of great concern and importance--special education. That is the choice I get to make here in the next few minutes. Do we take these dollars and return them to our States, return them to our towns, trying to make a real difference for special education, or do we take them to provide minor tax relief. Now, again, let me mention briefly the role of public and private education. At this very hour, all across our country, even on the west coast where the Presiding Officer is from, children have started school. There are 53 million children in elementary and secondary schools at this very hour all across our country; 48 million of them are in public schools and 5 million are in private schools. So we are talking about $1.6 billion, $37 of which goes to students in those private schools, $7 of which goes for those in public schools. I am a product in many ways of private education. My parents made that choice. I respect them for having made it. However, my parents never thought they should get a tax break for doing so. They understood that this Nation had a special obligation to public education and particularly the families with special needs children. I had to be accepted to the private schools I attended. They didn't have to take me. Private schools can reject anyone they want. Public schools cannot. Public schools must accept these children. And you have that family that has done everything right and, unfortunately, has a situation with a child who requires special education services, and they, of course, want that child to succeed. They don't have the choice of going to a private school. Private school is not going to take that cost on. They have to attend a public school. Let us try to provide the valuable resources specified by this legislation to our local communities to help that family receive special education services for their child, to say to the other property taxpayers in that town that we are going to provide the 40 percent of special education costs we promised we would and never have. One hundred of us here in the next 20 minutes or 15 minutes will be given the choice of deciding which is a higher priority. It is not a question of we would like to do everything. We can't do everything. But, we have $1.6 billion and we are going to decide in the next 15 minutes where it is going to go. Does it go toward a $37 tax break for someone who has their child enrolled in a private school, or does it come back to that community in my State and other States all across this country to provide some needed tax relief--at $320 per child--to begin the process of lowering the cost of special education services and making a difference in our towns and for these families. That is really the choice. That's the real choice we have before us today. Mr. President, let me ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that our colleagues, Senators Leahy, Harkin, Kennedy, Wellstone, and Boxer, be included as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield, I also thank the majority leader. I know the pressures he is under. Everything is terribly important. As my colleague from Massachusetts said, he is gracious to allow us to bring this up at this particular time. I ask--I know there are others, including our colleagues from Florida, New York and others, who want to be heard on this issue who may not be able to make it over to speak--that the Record be left open so their comments on the resolution appear prior to the adoption of the resolution. If it is appropriate, I ask for the yeas and nays on this resolution.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I offer this resolution on behalf of myself, Senators Kennedy, Moynihan; the Democrat leader, Senator Daschle; Senator Leahy; Senator Lautenberg; Senator Kerry; Senator Mack; Senator D'Amato; Senator Harkin; and Senator Biden. Mr. President, today we are here considering this resolution when there are renewed hopes for peace in Northern Ireland, hopes that spring from the successful conclusion of 22 months of negotiations on April 10, Good Friday. I do not think it was mere coincidence that it was during Holy Week, one of the most sacred periods in the Christian calendar, that this small miracle occurred, the possibility of peace, political stability, and reconciliation for the 1.6 million people who reside in the six counties of Northern Ireland. Many people deserve credit and congratulations for making this small miracle possible. First, we should commend the individuals who participated in the peace process for more than 3 years and stayed the course. It took courage on their parts, as Senator Mitchell noted, ``to compete in the arena of democracy.'' I think it is fair to say that one of the giants over the years in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland peace efforts has been John Hume of Derry, a long-time civil rights crusader and respected leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party. John Hume deserves great praise for his tireless efforts over the past 30 years to bring peace to his people. David Trimble, president of the Ulster Unionist Party, and Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Fein, were also indispensable in making a final agreement possible. They, along with other participants, deserve enormous credit for their persistence and determination, for their willingness to make honorable compromises so that the people of Ireland can look forward to a day when hatred and bloodshed are not part of their daily landscape. Let me also take a moment, if I may, to mention a few of the other key actors in this drama who warrant special recognition. First, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who made the search for peace one of his first priorities upon assuming office last year. He did so because he believed that the people of Belfast ``deserve a better future than a life of bloodshed, murder and disharmony.'' Equally important to the success of the process was the Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, also was new to the office, who inspired trust and confidence in the nationalist community. They knew of his commitment to ensuring that any final agreement would protect and guarantee the rights, freedoms, and traditions of the Irish Catholic minority in the north. It goes without saying that the American people can be justifiably proud of the role played by President Clinton throughout the process. Were it not for the President's vision, perseverance, and unwillingness to give up on the negotiations, we would not be here today talking about a new chapter in the history of Northern Ireland. Perhaps President Clinton refused to be discouraged because he had looked into the eyes of so many men and women during his visit to Belfast in 1995 and saw how deeply they yearned for peace, most especially peace for their children. Last but not least, there was Senator George Mitchell, our former colleague, who shepherded the parties to an agreement. As someone who served with Senator Mitchell, it came as no surprise to me that George found a way to overcome what at times appeared to be insurmountable differences among the parties. With patience, evenhandedness and acute political skills, Senator Mitchell guided and empowered the parties to find common ground and finalize an agreement. The tireless efforts of Ambassador Jean Kennedy Smith should also be acknowledged. She was there at every turn to keep everyone focused on what was happening throughout the process, and to ensure that at appropriate moments, the necessary encouragement from the United States was forthcoming. I should mention as well that our own colleague, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, played a very, very important role over many years to encourage a political and peaceful resolution of the problems in the north. There have been others of our colleagues here in this Chamber, Senator Moynihan of New York, Senator Leahy of Vermont, Senator Mack of Florida, and in the other body Peter King of New York, Congressman Neal of Massachusetts, Ben Gilman, of New York, Joe Kennedy of Massachusetts all of whom have been deeply committed to finding a peaceful solution to Ireland's Troubles. I know there are others as well, but these are the names that come to mind immediately who, for many, many years sought to bring about a political and peaceful resolution to the violence in the north. The 67-page final document is a complex mosaic of provisions that endeavors to address the interests and concerns of the two Northern Ireland communities, Protestant and Catholic, within a framework of democracy, justice and equal rights. The April 10 agreement is in many ways the culmination of more than a decade of efforts by the British and Irish governments to broker peace in the conflicted North. The 1985 Anglo-Irish Accord, the 1993 Joint Declaration, and the 1995 New Framework for Agreement were all important milestones on the road to peace. Perhaps the secret of success on this occasion was that all of the parties to the conflict were represented in the negotiations--each side setting forth for itself its concerns and aspirations. Those concerns and aspirations have in turn been interwoven into the final text of the accord. The August 1994, IRA cease-fire and the cease-fire by the Combined Loyalist Military Command that followed shortly thereafter created the opportunity for these all inclusive negotiations to take place. There were clearly anxious moments over the last several years during the quest for peace. To be sure, at times the setbacks and disappointments that followed the promise of the 1994 cease-fire announcements, left all of us despairing that the situation was without hope. You will recall, for example, that the peace process was dealt a near fatal blow on February 9, 1996, with the detonation of an IRA bomb in London--a blast that injured scores of innocent people. Frankly, until the restoration of the IRA cease-fire last July, the Northern Ireland peace process had hit bottom, it had reached the point where, in the words of Irish poet Seamus Heaney, ``bad news is no longer news.'' We are now once again at a turning point in the history of Northern Ireland. The possibility of peace is as real as it has ever been. As President Clinton has so aptly observed, ``to engage in serious negotiations, to be willing to make principled compromises, requires courage and creativity.'' The political leaders of Northern Ireland demonstrated that courage and creativity in finalizing this agreement. It is now up to the people of Ireland--North and South--to ratify that agreement in the upcoming referendums. More importantly, it rests in their hands and hearts to make the words on that 67-page peace accord make a difference in the daily lives of every man, woman and child who calls Northern Ireland home. On this day and in this Chamber, with what I hope will be the unanimous endorsement of every one of our colleagues, I pray, as everyone else does, that the people of Northern Ireland will have the courage, wisdom and foresight to do that. Mr. President, I know my colleague, Senator Kennedy, is here on the floor. If there is additional time, I ask unanimous consent for another 5 or 10 additional minutes for people to be heard on this issue if it is appropriate.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, several days ago, our colleague in the other body, Representative Joseph P. Kennedy II, announced his retirement after 12 years of service. Representative Kennedy has been a tremendous advocate on behalf of the nation's working families, and I want to take this opportunity to say a few words about my friend from Massachusetts. Joe Kennedy has brought an uncommon enthusiasm and an intensity to his work here in the Congress. As a member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, he mastered the arcane details of banking, insurance, securities, and housing law to achieve great success in reforming our nation's financial institutions to be more responsive to the needs of working families. In 1989, he authored amendments to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and the Community Reinvestment Act. These amendments have been responsible for leveraging hundreds of millions of dollars in credit to help people of modest means purchase a home. As the Chairman of the former Subcommittee on Consumer Credit and Insurance, he worked on legislation to reform the Fair Credit Reporting Act, so that consumers will be better protected from unwarranted uses of their most private financial information and will have a greater ability to safeguard the confidentiality and accuracy of that information. More recently, as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, he has continued to champion affordable housing for the elderly and others on fixed incomes. Thanks to his efforts, many more Americans own a home and have a decent, affordable place to live. Congressman Kennedy has distinguished himself in other ways, as well. He has been a consistent and articulate voice for peace and justice in places like Northern Ireland, Haiti, and the Mexican state of Chiapas. He has been a staunch supporter of civil rights for women, the disabled, and minorities. He has also worked hard to balance our nation's budget without compromising our commitment to protect our most vulnerable citizens. Prior to his election to the House, Congressman Kennedy built a successful company that provides low-cost heating oil and other services to low and moderate income Americans. It is to that company that he will soon return. I have no doubt that although he is leaving public office, Joe Kennedy will continue to serve the public interest. I know I speak for many of my colleagues in wishing him and his family well in this new endeavor, and in saying that, we in the Congress will miss his vitality and vision of a more just and prosperous America.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my views on the budget resolution. I commend the Budget Committee on the job it has done. Chairman Domenici and Senator Lautenberg should be praised for their efforts to bring a bill to the floor that balances the budget for the first time in 30 years. And yet, this resolution fails to adequately address some of our nation's most pressing priorities, including child care, education, and health care. First, however, I would like to take a moment to discuss how we reached this historic moment when, for the first time since 1969, we present the American people with a budget that is in balance. The balanced budget we have today is a result of the hard work and progress we have made over the past few years to reduce the deficit. The effort dates back to 1990 when President Bush--despite strong opposition from his own party--boldly endorsed a plan that lowered the deficit by $500 billion and started us down the road to fiscal responsibility. This effort was then continued by President Clinton in 1993 when he proposed a far-reaching economic plan, which is more appropriately called the Balanced Budget Plan of 1993. This balanced budget plan, which I supported, was enacted into law without a single Republican vote and has helped to reduce the deficit from $290 billion at the beginning of 1993 to an anticipated surplus this year. Despite the claims by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that President Clinton's plan would doom our economy, this economic plan has put us on a road to solid recovery. It has reduced deficits by more than $1 trillion, led us to the lowest unemployment rate in 24 years, created 15 million new jobs, and resulted in the greatest number of Americans owning homes ever. Most recently, Mr. President, we finished the job of balancing the budget when we enacted the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which I supported, not only reduced spending, but also cut taxes for the first time in 16 years, providing much-needed tax relief for working families. I was very pleased to support the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 because it protected our priorities such as fiscal discipline, child care, education, health care, and the environment. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the resolution before us today fails to protect these priorities and turns its back on America's families and children. It fails to recognize many initiatives important to our children and families including quality child care, reducing class sizes, renovating and modernizing our children's schools, and promoting after-school learning. The resolution provides no mandatory funding for either child care or early childhood education. Moreover, it explicitly excludes President Clinton's proposals to use any revenues from comprehensive tobacco legislation to pay for initiatives for children, including child care, anti-smoking education, children's health care, and improvements in education. Clearly, the resolution before us shortchanges children, and that is why I offered an amendment to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund which could be used to fund legislation designed to improve the affordability, availability and quality of child care, and to support families' choices in caring for their children. I was disappointed, obviously, when my amendment was defeated, but was pleased that the amendment had the support of fifty of my colleagues. The resolution also reduces funding for the Administration's education priorities by $2 billion, and as a result, about 450,000 students could be denied safe after-school care in 1999, some 30,000 new children could be denied access to the Head Start program, and 6,500 middle schools would not have drug and violence prevention coordinators. And yet, while Republican budget increases funding above the President's request for Impact Aid, Special Education, and the title VI block grant, these increases come at the expense of many other priorities that also strengthen our commitment to children and education. Mr. President, this budget as a whole ill-serves children and families, and that is why I was pleased to support the Democratic alternative budget offered by Senator Lautenberg. The Democratic alternative would strengthen our commitment to our priorities by providing funding for key initiatives such as hiring an additional 100,000 teachers, creating more after-school programs, and doubling the number of children who receive child care assistance. Further, the Democratic alternative moves us toward our goal of one million children in Head Start by 2002, doubles the number of children in early Head Start, and places up to 500,000 children in after school learning centers. In addition, Mr. President, the Democratic alternative maintains our commitment to other Democratic priorities such as cleaning up the environment and investing in our transportation infrastructure. Moreover, it would expand Medicare coverage to Americans ages 55-65. And not least, Mr. President, the Democratic alternative strengthens Social Security by reserving the entire unified budget surplus, while maintaining strict fiscal discipline by meeting the discretionary caps in all years. I regret, Mr. President, that the Democratic alternative was defeated. And I regret that the resolution before us today is not one that I, in good conscience, can support. In my view, the Republican budget shortchanges America's working families. I am, however, hopeful that as we move forward in the budget process, we will craft legislation that focuses on priorities like child care, education, health care, and the environment. Finally, Mr. President, in our efforts to craft a budget that targets the needs of working families, it is imperative that we remain vigilant in our efforts to maintain fiscal responsibility.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a remarkable woman who was hailed as the ``grand dame of community action'' by her local paper upon her passing: Willene Everett of Meriden, Connecticut. Sadly, Mrs. Everett died this past summer at the age of 74. For 31 years, Mrs. Everett worked at the Meriden Community Action Agency, where she headed the Elderly Nutrition Program for 15 years and the children's Summer Lunch Program for 10 years. She packed a lifetime worth of achievement into her tenure at the Agency, but her life was filled with many great experiences and accomplishments before she took this job. Her job experience ranged from working as a beautician to a mortician. And perhaps the most noteworthy of these was her experience in the military, where she served in France, Germany and England during World War II as a Staff Sergeant in the U.S. Army. But most of us in Connecticut will always associate Willene Everett with her work at the Community Action Center in Meriden. During her 31 year tenure, she made countless contributions. She helped to feed 1,500 people a day--both young and old. She also took the time to do the little things that brighten people's lives: sending birthday or get well cards to patrons of the Center, setting up a recipe exchange at work, traveling through snow storms to make sure that people at the Center had their breakfast and coffee. Her work extended far beyond the Senior Center. She was President of ``The Laurel Club,'' a social club known for its charitable work and efforts to provide scholarship funds for young African-Americans in the Meriden area. She was also active in the local NAACP and YWCA. Her efforts did not go unrecognized. She was invited to and attended a White House Conference on Aging African-Americans during the Carter Administration. Among her awards, she received the YWCA's ``Woman in Leadership Award,'' the ``Woman of the Year'' by the Girls' Club, and the ``State of Connecticut General Assembly Award'' in recognition of her civic and charitable work. In addition, the dining hall at the Seniors Center in Meriden has been named ``Willene's Place'' and a scholarship fund bearing her name is being established in her honor. By renaming the dining hall and creating this scholarship fund, Willene Everett's name will carry on. But for those who knew her, there is no need for any form of tribute to ensure her remembrance. She was a caring and compassionate person, and she will never be forgotten by the people of Meriden, whose lives she touched and brightened. Willene Everett is survived by her husband Edward and her children JoAnn and Steven. She was a loving wife and mother, and this year would have actually marked her 50th wedding anniversary. She is dearly missed, and I offer my heartfelt condolences to her family.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to sadly acknowledge the passing of a friend, former colleague, and one of the most passionate, committed, and colorful individuals that the Congress and this country has ever known: Bella Abzug. Many people view 1920 as one of the most important years in the history of women in America, not only because it was the year that women finally gained the right to vote, but also because it's the year that Bella Abzug was born. When we think of the struggle for women's equality in this country, one of the first images that comes to mind is that of Bella Abzug's wide-brimmed hat bobbing up and down at some march or rally. Through her flamboyant personality, she truly became an icon and a giant in the American and worldwide political landscape. Bella Abzug was a trailblazer. She graduated from law school at a time when only 2 percent of all lawyers were women. She was the first Jewish woman ever elected to Congress and one of only 12 women in the House when she was elected. She helped pave the way for other women in Congress and in all walks of life. In fact, just the other day, my good friend and colleague from Connecticut, Barbara Kennelly, spoke on the House floor about how Bella Abzug inspired her to run for Congress. One can only imagine how many other women took a chance and sought to achieve great things because they were inspired by Bella Abzug. An important thing to note about Bella is that her work was by no means limited to the cause of women's equality. Her titles ranged from civil rights lawyer to anti-war activist, just to name a few. Just three years out of law school, she went to Mississippi and weathered threats from white-supremacist groups to defend a black man in a highly contentious trial. In the 1950s, she shouted down former Senator Joseph McCarthy's anti-communist witch hunts. On her first day as a Congresswoman, she introduced a resolution to withdraw all U.S. troops from Southeast Asia. In 1975, she introduced legislation in Congress to prohibit discrimination against homosexuals. Bella Abzug was committed to eradicating all forms of injustice in this country and around the world. Hers was not solely the cause of women; hers was the cause she believed to be right and believed to be just. I was fortunate to see a side of Bella Abzug that most people never saw. I served in the House with Bella during her last term, and I came to know her as a person of great kindness. Beneath the persona of a blustery and irascible New York City politician was a woman of great decency and warmth. While we only served together for one term, I have had numerous occasions over the years to visit with Bella, and I truly appreciated her kindness and her friendship. Bella Abzug was truly one of a kind, and she will be dearly missed by friends, family, and those whose causes she championed over the years.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Jeffords, in introducing the Health Care Personal Information Nondisclosure (PIN) Act of 1998. This legislation is designed to offer Americans the peace of mind that comes with knowing that their most personal and private medical information is protected from misuse and exploitation. Medicine has changed dramatically since the time Norman Rockwell painted the scene of a doctor examining his young patient's doll. The flow of medical information is no longer confined to doctor-patient conversations and hospital charts. Recent technological advances have introduced more efficient methods of organizing data that allow information to be shared instantaneously--helping to contain costs--and even save lives. The national database of medical information provides a prime example of the benefits of these advances. Through the use of a simple computer, emergency room doctors are now equipped with a quick and inexpensive means of accessing the medical records needed to properly treat unconscious patients. Unfortunately, as we saw all too clearly just a few months ago, our laws have not kept pace with technology. In February the Washington Post exposed the activities of two pharmacies that were sharing personal medical information about prescription drug use with unauthorized third parties. And, most disturbingly, these actions were perfectly legal. Clearly, the existing patchwork of state laws protecting medical records are proving to be inadequate to address the public's concerns. These concerns are so strong that in some cases they threaten to actually negate the benefits of advances in medicine and technology. The fear of discrimination and exploitation has led some ethnic communities with susceptibility to certain conditions to urge their members to avoid genetic testing. The fear that sensitive medical information might be released without authorization has led patients to avoid full disclosure of mental health concerns to their physicians and to unnecessarily forego opportunities for treatment. I believe that the Health Care PIN Act offers the privacy protections that the public demands. This legislation sets clear guidelines for the use and disclosure of medical information by health care providers, researchers, insurers, employers and others. The Health Care PIN Act provides individuals with control over their most personal information, yet promotes the efficient exchange of health data for the purposes of treatment, payment, research and oversight. To ensure the accountability of entities and individuals with access to personal medical information, the legislation imposes stiff penalties for unauthorized disclosures. The Health Care PIN Act provides consumers with a strong, nationally uniform set of privacy protections. However, in areas of privacy law in which states have been the most active--namely in the confidentiality of sensitive mental health and public health records--states could continue to establish additional protections. I would also like to indicate my intent to work with Senator Jeffords to incorporate into this legislation protections against genetic discrimination in both employment and health insurance. Although we were unable to resolve this issue before introduction of this legislation, I am confident that we can reach consensus on this critical and timely issue. This legislation represents common-sense middle ground in the range of proposals that have been offered both this and the previous Congress. I look forward to working with Senator Jeffords, as well as with Senators Bennett, Leahy, and Kennedy, who have contributed so much to this debate, to move forward quickly to enact comprehensive, bipartisan legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my views on the budget resolution. I commend the Budget Committee on the job it has done. Chairman Domenici and Senator Lautenberg should be praised for their efforts to bring a bill to the floor that balances the budget for the first time in 30 years. And yet, this resolution fails to adequately address some of our nation's most pressing priorities, including child care, education, and health care. First, however, I would like to take a moment to discuss how we reached this historic moment when, for the first time since 1969, we present the American people with a budget that is in balance. The balanced budget we have today is a result of the hard work and progress we have made over the past few years to reduce the deficit. The effort dates back to 1990 when President Bush--despite strong opposition from his own party--boldly endorsed a plan that lowered the deficit by $500 billion and started us down the road to fiscal responsibility. This effort was then continued by President Clinton in 1993 when he proposed a far-reaching economic plan, which is more appropriately called the Balanced Budget Plan of 1993. This balanced budget plan, which I supported, was enacted into law without a single Republican vote and has helped to reduce the deficit from $290 billion at the beginning of 1993 to an anticipated surplus this year. Despite the claims by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that President Clinton's plan would doom our economy, this economic plan has put us on a road to solid recovery. It has reduced deficits by more than $1 trillion, led us to the lowest unemployment rate in 24 years, created 15 million new jobs, and resulted in the greatest number of Americans owning homes ever. Most recently, Mr. President, we finished the job of balancing the budget when we enacted the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which I supported, not only reduced spending, but also cut taxes for the first time in 16 years, providing much-needed tax relief for working families. I was very pleased to support the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 because it protected our priorities such as fiscal discipline, child care, education, health care, and the environment. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the resolution before us today fails to protect these priorities and turns its back on America's families and children. It fails to recognize many initiatives important to our children and families including quality child care, reducing class sizes, renovating and modernizing our children's schools, and promoting after-school learning. The resolution provides no mandatory funding for either child care or early childhood education. Moreover, it explicitly excludes President Clinton's proposals to use any revenues from comprehensive tobacco legislation to pay for initiatives for children, including child care, anti-smoking education, children's health care, and improvements in education. Clearly, the resolution before us shortchanges children, and that is why I offered an amendment to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund. The resolution also reduces funding for the Administration's education priorities by $2 billion, and as a result, about 450,000 students could be denied safe after-school care in 1999, some 30,000 new children could be denied access to the Head Start program, and 6,500 middle schools would not have drug and violence prevention coordinators. And yet, while Republican budget increases funding above the President's request for Impact Aid, Special Education, and the title VI block grant, these increases come at the expense of many other priorities that also strengthen our commitment to children and education. Mr. President, this budget as a whole ill-serves children and families, and that is why I was pleased to support the Democratic alternative budget offered by Senator Lautenberg. The Democratic alternative would strengthen our commitment to our priorities by providing funding for key initiatives such as hiring an additional 100,000 teachers, creating more after-school programs, and doubling the number of children who receive child care assistance. Further, the Democratic alternative moves us toward our goal of one million children in Head Start by 2002, doubles the number of children in early Head Start, and places up to 500,000 children in after school learning centers. In addition, Mr. President, the Democratic alternative maintains our commitment to other Democratic priorities such as cleaning up the environment and investing in our transportation infrastructure. Moreover, it would expand Medicare coverage to Americans ages 55-65. And not least, Mr. President, the Democratic alternative strengthens Social Security by reserving the entire unified budget surplus, while maintaining strict fiscal discipline by meeting the discretionary caps in all years. I regret, Mr. President, that the Democratic alternative was defeated. And I regret that the resolution before us today is not one that I, in good conscience, can support. In my view, the Republican budget shortchanges America's working families. I am, however, hopeful that as we move forward in the budget process, we will craft legislation that focuses on priorities like child care, education, health care, and the environment. Finally, Mr. President, in our efforts to craft a budget that targets the needs of working families, it is imperative that we remain vigilant in our efforts to maintain fiscal responsibility.