Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank the leader for yielding. I don't believe I heard one of the amendments being potentially allowed to be raised as one on the early education issues of child care alternatives which would promote public and private sector construction and improving the quality of early education. I do not believe I heard a proposal I had suggested on special education, which I might point out, by the way, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi cares deeply about. In fact, he and I worked years ago, I would say to the Democratic leader, on the Budget Committee on the issue. But I would like to be able to raise that issue, I say to the Democratic leader, so the $1.6 billion specified in the Coverdell bill goes towards special education. I think it is a very important issue. I hope, and I inquire of the distinguished Democratic leader as to whether or not those two proposals would, under the present agreement, be allowed to be raised?

Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. What we are talking about today, when we say we would like to take this $1.6 billion and maybe apply it to the programs I have mentioned, not to suggest we will pay for all of it, but if you have limited resources, it will at least provide meaningful resources to these communities. Senator Coverdell's legislation is a tax break that goes to individuals, and parents who send their children to private schools get the bulk of it. Remember, 7 percent of the families in this country send their children to private schools. Ten percent of the children--93 percent of the families send their kids to public schools. Has anyone asked the families of children attending public schools how they feel about subsidizing the children who go to private schools? With all due respect, those parents made a choice. I respect that choice, but I don't necessarily believe that we ought to subsidize it with $37 a year when that $1.6 billion might go to the very issue the Senator from Massachusetts raised.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I say to my colleague from Massachusetts, absolutely not. In fact, as the Senator knows, our distinguished colleague from Illinois, Carol Moseley-Braun, has offered legislation to try and do something that would allow for these schools to be repaired. The estimated cost of that, the estimated cost nationwide from Maine to California I think is $22 billion.

Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague, absolutely nothing.

Mr. DODD. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on a happier note, I was up until about 12:30 this morning, along with some other people from the Nutmeg State. It was not Minnesota that we were facing on a wooden floor in Greensboro, NC, but it was a dogfight--Huskies versus Huskies, the University of Washington versus the University of Connecticut basketball team. I know none of these young people I see here today were up that late. They were studying very hard, if they were up that late. The March Madness that we talked about last night watched Richard Hamilton, with zero time left on the clock, fade back and, over the outstretched arms of a 7-foot center from the University of Washington, hit a shot that was nothing but net. I know I speak for all 3.5 million people in Connecticut when I say we are proud of our Connecticut Huskies and the job they did. If Senator Helms and Senator Faircloth, my colleagues from North Carolina, were here, I would challenge them, because on Saturday we are going to beat that No. 1 team and go to the Final Four in San Antonio, TX. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a true champion of public education and the arts: June K. Goodman of Danbury, Connecticut. Sadly, Mrs. Goodman recently died at the age of 77. One of the greatest gifts that June Goodman's parents gave her was an appreciation and a passion for opera and the performing arts. Just as they also provided her with a sense of community and an unfailing commitment to helping others. She had many jobs, including teaching, but what set her apart from others was her volunteer work. She directed the Danbury Music Center for 20 years and helped found the Charles Ives Center for the Performing Arts in Danbury. She also served on the board for the National Theater of the Deaf in Chester. In Hartford, she was best known for her unpaid service as Chairwoman of the State Board of Education and the Commission on the Arts. During the 1970s and 1980s she would actually make the 100 mile round-trip to Hartford several times each week to serve in these posts. June Goodman attained a national reputation for her expertise and work in the arts. In fact, President Carter often called on her for her advice and ideas. But the focus of her work always shone brightest on her home town and the state. For more than 40 years, Mrs. Goodman was a close friend to the famed opera singer Marian Anderson, who also hailed from Danbury. In 1990, Mrs. Goodman established the Marian Anderson Award fund, which provides grant assistance for talented opera singers throughout the country. After her passing, Mrs. Goodman's family asked that donations be made to the Anderson Award fund. This fund will serve as living testament to both of their legacies. June Goodman was an extraordinary woman and a true treasure. She will be dearly missed. She is survived by her husband, William, her five children, her six grandchildren, her sister and her brother. I offer my heartfelt condolences to them all.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who, like me, called East Haddam, Connecticut home and who demonstrated a great passion and love for this little town along the Connecticut River: Raymond Schmitt, who recently died at his home in Florida. Raymond Schmitt was a successful businessman who owned several companies that manufactured components for the aircraft industry. He was very generous with his wealth, donating money to the school system, the local historical society and many other organizations. He will be best remembered for his association with a Victorian-era mill village in Connecticut known as Johnsonville. In 1965, he purchased the mill village and restored the old schoolhouse, general store, and carriage house. In the windows of the buildings, there were whimsical mechanized scenes that delighted all visitors. Johnsonville would open during Christmas and other special occasions, and thousands of people delighted in visiting the village. It became part of the holiday tradition for many Connecticut families. Johnsonville has been closed for almost a decade, but Mr. Schmitt would still open it for certain events such as a fund-raiser for music students at an area high school. Mr. Schmitt was known not only for his commitment to his community, but also to his ideas for making it better. In recent years, he came to believe that the town's selectman style of government, which has been in place since the town's inception, was too antiquated and in need of reform. As a result, he wrote his own town charter, which called for a 7-member town council and town government. His charter was never adopted. But no one doubted that Raymond Schmitt loved the town of East Haddam. And it is this passion for his hometown for which Raymond Schmitt should and will be remembered.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great journalist, but more important, a good friend: Kenneth Eugene Grube of Groton, Connecticut. Sadly, Mr. Grube recently died at the age of 76. Ken Grube worked for 44 years as a newspaper editor and reporter, and he spent the last 25 years of his career in Southeastern Connecticut at The New London Day, where he was a managing editor and the long-time editorial page editor. While he was at The Day, he was renowned for his emphasis on local topics, but he earned a regional and national reputation for his work. He served as President of the New England Society of Newspaper Editors and the Connecticut Circuit of the Associated Press. He was also a longtime member of the National Conference of Editorial Writers, and he edited the group's quarterly publication and served on its Professional Standards Committee. In recognition of his outstanding career of newspaper achievement, he received the prestigious Yankee Quill Award from the New England Academy of Journalists. The strong reputation that Ken Grube earned was based not only his journalistic talent, but also on his good will and commitment to serving his community. In 1976, the New London County Bar Association gave him its award for outstanding public service. People don't necessarily think of journalists as public servants, but Mr. Grube showed an uncommon devotion to his community and he used his position to affect social change. During his 15 years as editorial page editor, he would consistently focus on a particular topic, often on behalf of the poor and less fortunate, writing editorial after editorial until he had achieved the ends that he thought were best for his community and its people. He also spent a great deal of his time away from the newspaper working with various organizations in the New London/Groton area. He was President of the Family Service Association of Southern New London County. He served on the board for Waterford Country School. And he helped found the local Martin Luther King, Jr. Scholarship Fund. He was also Chairman of the State Freedom of Information Commission, which is fitting because he was one of the leading journalists in the state who fought to pass a state law that would protect the availability of public information. But aside from his many accolades and accomplishments, Ken Grube will be remembered as a newspaper man with a huge heart who genuinely cared about his readers. Everyone in town knew him, and he could often be seen in the restaurants and pubs in town striking up conversation with whomever was around. For Mr. Grube, the most exciting stories didn't come from City Hall or the Capital, they came from Main Street. He believed that the primary role of any good reporter was to note the everyday events in people's lives, and he stayed true to this principle through his entire career. Ken Grube performed countless good deeds in order to lift up others, and for that, we thank him. He was also a kind man and a good friend, and for that, we will miss him. He is survived by four children and four grandchildren. I offer my heartfelt condolences to them all.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, when my father served in the Senate, he felt that one of his most important responsibilities was recommending individuals to serve on the federal bench. He took great care in choosing the most qualified individuals to serve these lifelong appointments. His selections were a source of pride, but none greater than Judge T. Emmet Clarie. Judge Clarie was appointed to the federal bench in 1961, and he served our state and the country honorably for more than three decades as a U.S. District Judge. Sadly, Judge Clarie recently died at the age of 84. Upon his passing, Judge Clarie was praised by all those who knew him. One of his clerks referred to him as ``a second father.'' Another said that they ``learned much more working for him than they ever did in law school.'' A third called him ``the best teacher of lawyering you could imagine.'' This admiration was shared by his colleagues on the bench. He was described by his peers as ``a judge's judge'' and ``a model and an inspiration to all his judicial colleagues.'' Judge Clarie's career of public service extended far beyond the federal bench. He taught high school to help pay his way through law school. He served as chairman of the Killingly Board of Education from 1938 to 1961. He was a state legislator for six years. He also served as clerk of the Connecticut Senate, prosecutor of the Killingly Town Court, and Commissioner of State Liquor Control Commission. The Judge was a skilled legal thinker, and he presided over perhaps the most complex criminal case in Connecticut history: the armed robbery of a Wells Fargo truck by foreign nationalists. But he will always be remembered for his common sense, his no-nonsense style, his fundamental fairness, more than anything else. When presiding over the case that involved the theft of millions of dollars and terrorists who were trying to fund a revolution, Judge Clarie saw beyond the defendants' hype and insisted all the while that they would be tried as simple robbers. He said, ``Common crimes do not become political crimes simply because the criminal is a would-be politician.'' Judge Clarie may have sat on one of the highest courts in the land, but he never forgot his roots. He lived in eastern Connecticut for practically his entire life, and he commuted more than 100 miles round- trip every day from his farm home in Danielson to his courtroom in Hartford. The Judge said that he needed to return to the country to be ``refreshed'' every night. His roots helped shape his philosophy toward the law. He said: ``If the law is to mean anything, it means that all people--little and big--must comply with it.'' T. Emmet Clarie was a straightforward jurist who brought a tremendous sense of fairness and equity to the bench. He was also a caring and honorable man who dedicated his entire life to public service and went out of his way to help others. The State of Connecticut is better for his service, and all those who were fortunate to know this great man will miss him dearly.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. The Senator from Massachusetts has said it very well. I couldn't agree with him more. The great irony, you know, is that most people do not follow the activities of the Senate budget committee. If you want your eyes to glaze over, try to follow a budget debate, whether you are talking about local, State, or national budgets. It can get pretty arcane--budget stories get buried away in the back of your local newspaper. But what the Senator from Massachusetts just told you is absolutely the truth. There was a budget agreement reached that will set the priorities for education for the coming months and years in this country. This agreement has just cut $1.6 billion out of priorities like Head Start, Title I, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools. This agreement failed to provide funding to reduce classroom size, to train teachers and to provide early education. All of these programs are being cut, and simultaneously we are being asked to provide an additional $1.6 billion in tax breaks--$7 to a public school family and $37 to a private school family--as if by doing so, we were making some great commitment to education. I have spoken to students from every single public high school in my State in the last 10 or 12 years, and I try to make it to my inner-city public high schools every year. I spoke at Manchester High School last week, the week before at Harding, a public high school in Bridgeport, CT. I try to listen to what is going on in these schools. I have some wonderful schools in my State that have tremendous resources and great commitment by the local communities to support them. I am very excited when I go and visit those schools. I just wish I could take people with me on these visits because, unfortunately, in this country the only time we hear about public schools is when something goes wrong--when a violent act occurs or something falls apart. It is the old adage that the only planes that the media reports about are the ones that don't fly. We rarely hear about the planes that fly. And every day in this country there are teachers and students and families that are doing a terrific job in providing for the educational needs of their families. But, I also have other schools that are not doing as well, that are suffering financially, that have encountered tremendous obstacles in trying to meet the special problems that large inner-city schools and rural schools can face. Clearly, there are needs in these schools. My concern here, as the Senator from Massachusetts has expressed, is that on Tuesday we are going to vote to limit debate, that we will not be allowed to bring up amendments that we think would offer some alternatives for meeting these needs and for creating real choices for families. The irony of this bill is it is called a choice bill, a bill to give people choices about education. I would like the choice to represent the millions of families who think maybe the special-education needs are larger than a $7 tax break. And I have a lot of mayors and a lot of taxpayers in my communities who watch their property taxes go up because of the cost of special-educational needs. Why not give me a chance to offer an amendment that would allow this body to vote on whether or not they think that priority is higher than a $7 tax break? How about early education needs? I would like the opportunity to offer an amendment on early childhood education. There are 13 million children every day in this country that are in child care settings. There are 5 million kids in this country who don't have anywhere to go after school. You tell me what you think is more important--that I try to do something for those 13 million kids who are in child care, much of it of appalling quality, or the 5 million children who are home alone or wandering around in malls getting involved in trouble after school? You tell me where you want your money to go--a $7 tax break or a $37 tax break if you are in a private school, or would you like to see me as your Senator put some resources into after-school care to get these kids off the street? We would like to offer an amendment on school construction to improve the quality of public schools. We have schools falling apart across this country, as the Senator from Massachusetts has pointed out. You tell me where you want your money to go--toward improving these facilities so these kids have a decent place to learn, or do you want a $7 tax break? I happen to believe most people in this country, if given the choice to be here to vote on Tuesday, would want their tax dollars to go for things like early childhood education, school construction, classroom size, and special education. They may differ on the priority they would give to those different issues, but I would be willing to wager that given the choice of voting for any one of those options over the choice of spending $1.6 billion over the next 10 years for a $7 tax break, they would say that those issues are higher priorities. So I am hopeful that over this weekend and on Monday, people across this country will be heard on this issue. After Tuesday it will be too late. We won't get the chance to bring up the issue of choice again. This may be the only significant debate we are able to have on the quality of education in this country. So the Senator from Massachusetts and I and others are taking to the floor here today to try to raise the level of awareness so that the public will know what is at stake. It is an important debate and one that should be aired fully and thoroughly. We ought to have the chance to bring up school construction, classroom size, early education, special education and other ideas. This procedural debate is over whether or not we are going to be allowed to even raise these issues, to even discuss them and ask our colleagues to vote for them. Whether or not you agree with each and every one of these other priorities, shouldn't I be allowed to raise the concerns of my constituents? Mr. President, when I traveled across my State a few weeks ago and met with all my mayors, 169 cities and towns, and traveled to various parts of my State and asked them to tell me what they thought the priorities should be in this coming session of Congress, almost without exception, special education was on the mind of every single mayor in every town. Shouldn't I have the opportunity to raise that issue? I have communities in my State, Mr. President, that are small communities that have small populations, and yet it is not uncommon for those people and those towns to spend $50,000 or $100,000 on the special-educational needs of a child or two children in that community. And we all understands the value of doing so. We made a commitment years ago that the Federal Government would meet at least 40 percent of the costs of special education. But we have never contributed more than 8 percent--we have never kept our promise. So, if you said to me, What do you think is more important, what do your constituents care more about, lowering their taxes and providing some help from the Federal Government to educate a child with special needs or giving a $7 or $37 tax break? I would have to say that a $7 or $37 tax break misses the mark. Proponents of this bill will argue that this bill will give families more choices, that it will give them the option to enroll their children in private schools. There are many fine private schools in this nation and they do provide an important choice for families. But, Mr. President, I recently took a look around the Washington, DC, area to try to determine what the cost of a private school was just in this city, northern Virginia, and Maryland. The average cost is somewhere between $10,000 and $17,000 a year. Does anyone honestly believe that a $37 tax break is going to make any difference to a family trying to make a choice whether or not to send its child to a private school or a public school--$37? I am not making up these numbers. These numbers come from the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee that did an analysis of this bill. And the Joint Tax Committee said that the average benefit for private school families is only $37. Where is the logic in this? Where is the logic in this, with the limited resources we have? And our resources are limited. The days are far gone and over when we could just write checks and spend money without any consideration of the fiscal implications for our Nation. Limited dollars are all we have. So with these limited dollars, what do we do with them? Do we spend $1.6 billion to give a $7 or a $37 tax break? With $1.6 billion, I may not solve every one of the issues I raised here. School construction needs top $112 billion nationwide; finding 100,000 teachers to reduce class size is expensive; early education and afterschool care is expensive; special education is expensive. I am not suggesting that the $1.6 billion would in every way solve these four problems I have mentioned, but I would rather spend $1.6 billion on improving the school facilities where we send our kids, reducing class size so the kid can learn better, reducing taxpayer costs on special education, and providing early childhood and afterschool care for families, than spend it providing a $37 tax break for someone going to a private school or a $7 tax break for someone going to a public school. What am I missing? The math here just does not add up. We have limited resources, we have limited financial capacity, we all know this. We are being told that we have a staggering problem in the quality of school facilities. We have a significant problem in special education. We have a significant problem in early education and afterschool needs in this country. We have a significant problem in the size of classrooms. Everyone understands these are legitimate problems. So, do I take that $1.6 billion and try to do something about school construction, special ed, class size, and early education and afterschool care, among others? Mr. President, over the next few days there will be a lot of TV talk shows about other issues that seem to have captured the attention of the American public. It will be interesting to see, come Sunday, whether the national talk shows think that the quality of the education of our children is of interest to the public. Even if you disagree with me on where our educational priorities should be, I expect you would agree that this would be healthier debate to have on national TV shows--about what we ought to be doing with our tax dollars and educational system--than what I suspect will be the topic of some of the talk shows. But without debate and without the discussion, this notion of choice will be lost. I am not going to have the choice on Tuesday, as it stands right now, to offer any of the ideas that I have raised here today. I think I ought to have that right, as one Member of this body. I think my constituency in Connecticut cares, at the very least as much and I would argue significantly more, about special education, early education, school construction and class size as they do whether or not someone gets a $37 or a $7 tax break or a $7 tax break. I think they care about these issues. Even the ones who disagree with me, I wager, Mr. President, think I ought to have the right to raise them and ask the 99 other Members of this body whether or not they want to vote for these ideas or against them. But as it stands right now, I am going to be denied that opportunity. That may be the only opportunity this year to raise these issues in a meaningful debate. We spent 5 days here discussing whether or not we should to name the national airport for Ronald Reagan. I voted for this proposal. But to spend five days--five days--on whether or not to rename an airport and then to be told I cannot get an hour on an education bill to talk about school construction. I do not get 5 minutes to talk about early education and afterschool care. I don't get 5 minutes to talk about special education. But I get 5 days to talk about whether or not we rename an airport. You tell me what the priorities are around here. If you wonder why I am frustrated and sound a little angry, it is because I am, because I hear people all across this country saying education is key to our nation's future. This country cannot meet its obligations and the challenges in front of it unless our young people get a proper education. And 53 million of them are sitting today in a classroom studying and trying to learn, with teachers who are trying to help them, and parents who are worried about them. I do not understand how we think we are going to convince them we are doing something worthwhile in giving a private-school child a $37 tax break and a public-school child a $7 tax break. That is what this debate comes down to. I plead with the public, please let your Members know that at the very least you think these ideas ought to be raised for debate and discussion and we ought to have the right to decide in a democratic fashion whether or not their votes, representing your ideas, are going to be cast in favor of a tax break for a few or trying to do something with that $1.6 billion that could affect the quality of public education in this country for years to come. I urge you over this weekend, and I urge the media, to spend at least as much time between now and Monday venting this issue as we have on an issue that, frankly, has very little to do with the quality of life in this country. We need that kind of debate. We need the opportunity to cast some votes that offer real choices--real choices--about the educational priorities of this country.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all let me thank my colleague from Massachusetts for joining me in speaking on this issue. With just a few hours remaining between now and Tuesday when this matter may be very well decided, the very questions he is raising may never have another opportunity to be aired and discussed--certainly not in this Congress and maybe not again for some time. So I thank him for providing a valuable opportunity to raise some tremendously important issues. My fervent hope is that people all across this country between now and Tuesday will listen to what is going on here and will raise their voices and address the American Congress. My hope is that they will say--this is my money you are talking about, this $1.6 billion over the next 10 years that you want to go for a tax break that gives only $7 to public school parents, and maybe $37 a year to private school parents. My hope is that they will tell us clearly that this is not exactly our nation's highest priority when it comes to the education of our children. That instead we should be talking about school construction, about the need for smaller class size, about the need for early childhood education, and the need for funding for special education. These next few days may be the only time for the remainder of this year that we are going to have to talk about the educational priorities of this country. So I am hopeful that the questions that the Senator from Massachusetts has raised will raise the temperature of this debate. I am hopeful that the nation will focus its attention on this issue. The education of our children is one subject matter that joins people all across the political spectrum--whether you are a conservative Republican, a liberal Democrat, or somewhere in between. Everyone in America understands that if you try to talk about making this Nation strong and vibrant in the 21st century and simultaneously fail to invest intelligently in the public educational needs of this Nation, you are engaging in hypocrisy. This Nation cannot be strong, cannot be vibrant, and cannot be a global competitor unless we are willing to make the commitment that the overwhelming majority of people in this country want to make to improve our schools and to give our children the opportunities they deserve. I want to remind people of the numbers--they aren't terribly complicated. There are 53 million children in school today in elementary and secondary schools--53 million. Forty-eight million of them go to public schools--48 million. Five million go to private schools. Yet, this bill that we are going to be asked to vote on come Tuesday provides the lion's share of the dollars--fifty-two percent of the money--to only 5 million children and their families. These families get $37, and the kids who go to public school and their families get $7. Do you think that taking $1.6 billion and providing people with a $7 tax break, or even a $37 tax break if your kid goes to a private school, is an intelligent investment of your money? Do you think it is the best investment given all the other needs we have--with schools falling apart in our inner cities, with special-education costs rising every year? It's not uncommon to spend $50,000 or $100,000 a year to meet the needs of one or two children who require special-education. Eighteen percent of the budget in my State for education goes to special education. Do you think that meeting these needs is a lessor priority? Do you think that reducing the average kindergarten class size from 32 kids is a lessor priority? If you do, then don't say anything over the next 72 hours, because that is what you are going to get. But if you have a sense of outrage, a sense of outrage about what you think is a misplaced priority, if you think that we ought to be doing a far better job than what this bill calls for, then we urge you to speak out.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would also like to call to the attention of my colleagues some very specific recommendations Cardinal Law has made to President Clinton and the administration, recommendations which the President has the authority, without any acts of Congress, to undertake. And I recite them very briefly to you here: Restore direct flights to Cuba; ease restrictions on remittances and travel; suspend implementation of title III indefinitely; and utilize current executive authority to grant general licenses to permit the sale of food and medicines. I say ``title III.'' That is of the Helms-Burton legislation. Mr. President, I strongly support these recommendations and hope that the President will immediately act on them. Let me summarize briefly some of the other major points made in the course of Cardinal Law's presentation. On the positive side, the Cardinal noted that ``change has already come'' to Cuba in many ways; ``dramatic change has occurred within the last twelve months in the area of religious freedom''--I am quoting him from his remarks--``a principle of public, organized social service by the Catholic Church has been reorganized'' by Cuban authorities; ``the backlog of visa requests by foreign clergy, religious and other Church workers has been broken as the number of visas has dramatically increased;'' and, ``there has been the release [in the last few weeks] of more than 400 [political] prisoners [in Cuba].'' The cardinal also readily acknowledges that Cuba's human rights record--and I agree with him--has been dismal. No one is suggesting, I hope--not by my remarks--that there has been a total transformation in Cuba. There has not been a total transformation, but there has been change, and it is significant, and we ought to respond to those changes that have occurred. He reminded--Cardinal Law did--listeners of Pope John Paul's party comments as he left Havana to return to the Vatican. I quote him. He said: The Cuban people cannot be denied the contacts with other peoples necessary for economic, social, and cultural development, especially when the imposed isolation strikes the population indiscriminately. Mr. President, I think it is fair to say Cardinal Law was extremely critical of current U.S. policy. He noted that the ``[c]urrent U.S. policy towards Cuba was set during the missile crisis'' and that ``[a] policy driven by events of an earlier time does not meet the challenge of new possibilities which the Holy Father's visit opens up.'' Finally, Cardinal Law made a number of very important recommendations concerning how we might begin to fashion some new and constructive policy initiatives. He recommended, for example, that steps be taken to isolate U.S.-Cuba policy from partisan politics by establishing a bipartisan national commission on U.S.-Cuban relations. I think this is an intriguing idea and one that I intend to discuss personally with the President and the Secretary of State. Mr. President, I believe that the cardinal's remarks are timely, they are important, and they are worthy of our serious consideration. I urge my colleagues to review them personally in these coming days as they formulate their own views on how we ought to proceed with regard to U.S.-Cuban relations.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, earlier last week I had the privilege of having a brief conversation with His Eminence Bernard Cardinal Law, the Archbishop of Boston. In fact, it is a nice coincidence that my colleague from Missouri is here on the floor as I say these remarks, because I shared with him a message that Cardinal Law had sent to our colleague from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft, who had the privilege of knowing Cardinal Law when he was presiding as a bishop in Missouri back before assuming his present post. And he extended his best wishes to our colleague from Missouri. So I appreciate his presence here on the floor as I share these remarks. In the course of our conversation, Cardinal Law mentioned to me he was going to be speaking at a conference sponsored by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University. The topic of the conference was to be on Cuba, Mr. President. The cardinal was very kind enough to send a copy of his remarks to me. And after reading them, I have no doubt that all of my colleagues should have that opportunity as well. They are excellent, excellent remarks and ones that I think will be worthwhile. I know Members are going through their own private discussions of what should be our policy with regard to Cuba. There have been some changes here. How do you respond to them? Cardinal Law has laid out, I think, some very, very creative, clear, and interesting ideas on how we ought to move forward here. So I urge my colleagues to read these remarks. Cardinal Law is extremely well informed on this subject. He has visited Cuba over the years. He has kept in very close contact with the clergy in Cuba. I was particularly struck, Mr. President, by what he believes we should have learned from Pope John Paul II's January visit to Havana; namely--and I quote him -- The Holy Father has amply demonstrated that a policy of positive engagement can achieve far more change within Cuba than can the [U.S.] embargo. Cardinal Law starkly and very vividly highlights what he thinks is the failure of our current policy with regard to Cuba by contrasting it with our policies towards the People's Republic of China and even Vietnam--two nations that have had deplorable human rights records and where religious freedom is severely restrained, even as we speak here today. He then pointedly asked--and I quote him-- If openness is thought to be further freedom in those nations where change is not so evident, how it is that a different standard is applied to Cuba where there is evident change? Mr. President, I do not believe that there is a credible answer to that question. And that alone should tell us why the current U.S. policy with respect to Cuba is so flawed. Cardinal Law's remarks, which touched on such issues as the state of affairs in the Cuban and United States-Cuban relations are very insightful, and I urge my colleagues to read the full text of his remarks, which I now ask, Mr. President, unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. I will be happy to.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I see my colleague from Missouri is here. I tell him this will be very brief, my remarks. I don't want him to depart. I know he has been standing here for some time. It is on an unrelated matter that is the subject of this debate, Mr. President. And let me just say, having the privilege of standing here and listening to the Presiding Officer share his remarks, I commend him for those remarks. And I thank my colleague from Delaware for yielding here. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Delaware for yielding. While we are on this resolution introduced by Senator Nickles and I and the distinguished Senator from Delaware, my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and others, let me commend the Senator for the very fine way in which he is managing the effort dealing with NATO expansion. I know in a sense we are interrupting that debate to consider this resolution. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be a principal sponsor, along with our colleague from Oklahoma and others, of this resolution. I think it is appropriate, in light of events we have all seen in our newspapers and television stations, events that have occurred in Kosovo in the last couple of weeks, to speak, to be heard. I think it is appropriate. In this body we are oftentimes asked, what do these resolutions mean? What value do they have? People write resolutions with a lot of language, and here are calling for sanctions or expressing outrage over behavior, and it seems just like a lot of words. I remember, Mr. President, very vividly one of my first days in the Congress of the United States and I had a chance to meet with some refuseniks from the Soviet Union. They were courageously trying to achieve religious freedom for themselves and democracy in the Soviet Union, a very repressive regime. I remember raising the question to a couple of these people, does this have any real value when we speak out with resolutions, and people were wearing bracelets and so forth with the names of refuseniks. And there were those who questioned the wisdom of it, ``Wasn't it more sort of a lot of rhetoric without having much influence?'' I will never forget the response of these people. They said, ``You have no idea how closely the world watches what you say in America. When you speak our names on the floor of the U.S. Senate, when you talk about us, you give us hope beyond belief. We live, we exist.'' People try to suppress the rights of others or, worse, try to suppress the rights of others by engaging in the worst kinds of atrocities, as we have seen in Bosnia and now Kosovo. They need to know there are people who understand what is happening to them. So it is entirely appropriate and proper, Mr. President, that we take out an hour today. There may not be many who come here to address this issue, but I am very confident that there will be unanimous support for this resolution. There will be a vote on it in which we will be heard expressing, I think, the outrage of our constituents across this country, regardless of where we live, letting those who are suffering know that their voices are being heard, letting those who perpetrate this violence and outrage know that we know what is going on and we will not forget it. So to those who raise the issue of whether or not these resolutions have value, I believe they do. It doesn't mean that we are going to solve the problem today or that we are going to necessarily change events dramatically. But we just might save a life or two because of what we say or do here today--maybe more than that. For those reasons, I think it's appropriate and proper that we engage in a discussion of what has happened in Kosovo and to express our concern and outrage about it. It is a coincidence, in a way, Mr. President, that brings us to this. Unbeknownst to me, my friend and colleague from Oklahoma was working on a resolution just as we were--separately from each other. Last week, I came to the floor with the idea that I might offer such a resolution, and I was told that Senator Nickles, the colleague of the Presiding Officer, had a similar resolution he was working on. Rather than having two resolutions or trying to sort of paste a resolution together that afternoon, we worked together over the last several days and came up with this resolution that we have both sponsored and endorsed. We will be asking all of our colleagues to support this. I thank Senator Nickles and his staff for their cooperation in working out the language that we think will engender the broad-based support of our colleagues. I know all of my colleagues read the same reports that I have, Senator Biden has, and others have, detailing the very gross violations that have been perpetrated by the Serbian police and paramilitary units against the people of the Province of Kosovo, particularly the ethnic Albanian community, the overwhelming majority of whom are Muslims. The Albanian community makes up 90 percent of the province's population. More than 80 individuals that we know about have lost their lives in recent days, many of whom are women and children. Others have lost their homes and have been forced to flee from their villages in search of refuge. Yugoslav President Milosevic, whom my colleague from Delaware has very appropriately and properly identified as a thug, appears to be at the center, once again, of this current tragic situation. Sometimes, Mr. President, we don't know who is responsible for these events. We are outraged by them, but it's difficult to identify those responsible. I remember for years attending ceremonies to recognize the cream of the young Polish officer corps that had been summarily executed in the forests of Poland back during World War II. There were allegations back and forth as to who had committed the crimes, the Soviets or the Nazis. That issue was never resolved completely in the minds of people until Mikhail Gorbachev opened up the files and we discovered what many felt was the case--that the Soviets in fact had been responsible for that atrocity. But for years the debate raged as to who was responsible. On this issue, Mr. President, there is no debate. We know directly who is responsible, who has ordered this, who has tolerated it and who, in fact, supported and encouraged it, in my view. That is President Milosevic. The world needs to know that so that his name will ring in the ears of coming generations as somebody who allowed this, permitted it, encouraged it, and supported it happening in his country. Once again, the forces under his control are murdering and intimidating ethnic communities in the former Yugoslavia. As I said a moment ago, the majority are largely of the Muslim faith. It was reprehensible that Serbian police were in such a hurry to cover up the evidence of their heinous act and surreptitiously burying the dead without according them the proper burial services. Grief-stricken families bravely defied Serbian authorities and dug up their own dead-- family members, their own children, wives, sisters--so that these people could be given an appropriate burial service, having been murdered by these police, in keeping with the Muslim religious beliefs and practices for the bodies to be facing to the east. It is imperative that the international human rights observers, members of the Red Cross, and independent journalists be granted access to communities in Kosovo to independently investigate these recent killings. All relevant evidence should be referred to the International War Crimes Tribunal for further investigation and prosecution as expeditiously as possible. It seems to me, Mr. President, and to those of us who sponsored this resolution, that it would be wrong for the United States to remain silent in the face of such despicable acts; hence, this resolution today. If we were to do so, we would simply, in our view, be encouraging Milosevic and his like to act even more viciously and recklessly than they have in the past, if that were possible, to repress the democratic aspirations of the people of Kosovo. We would also be running the risk that the current conflict would spill over into other countries and pose serious threats to regional peace and security. That must not happen. Silence, in a sense, is almost the coconspirator of those who perpetrated these crimes. So by raising our voices here and hopefully expressing our unanimous outrage at what is occurring, we do not become the coconspirators, if you will, of these atrocities. Fortunately, President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright focused very quickly on this matter. In the context of the so-called ``contact group'' established to monitor the situation in the former Yugoslavia, the United States has sought to galvanize the international community and to speak with one voice on this problem and to agree upon a course of action against the Milosevic regime should it continue its aggression in Kosovo. Today, the Senate will endorse those efforts, and the contact group specifically, by strongly supporting the pending resolution. Moreover, we would be adding our voice to those who call for the international community as a whole to come together behind the initiatives of the contact group. If the international community is prepared to do that, it will improve the prospects for a political solution to this conflict before it grows even more unmanageable. Mr. President, our colleague from Delaware started to read some of the operative paragraphs in the resolve clause of this resolution. I won't go through and read it all. It is in the Record. It does call for a freezing of government funds of Yugoslavia if we don't get compliance by March 25, over the next 5 or 6 days, with the terms set forth by the contact group. It also calls for extremely strong monitoring efforts by the appropriate international groups. This is not the end of this issue. If we don't see the proper responses in the coming days, as I said a moment ago, those of us who have seen and watched the terrible tragedies that have transpired here want our voices to be heard. We want those in this country who have family members there to know that we care deeply about this. We want those who may hear our voices in the Albanian minority in Kosovo to know that there are voices here--people whose names they may not know, faces they may not recognize, people they may never meet, but who will not be silent in the face of their tragedy. So, Mr. President, I urge colleagues here to, in a strong bipartisan fashion, support this resolution introduced by Senator Nickles, myself, and others, so that this body, this U.S. Senate will, on this day in March, express to the people of the world, particularly the people of Yugoslavia and Kosovo, that we hear their cries and we will do everything in our power to try to see to it that this tragedy comes to an end. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this resolution.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a critical measure that has the potential to save many lives--``Matthew's Law.'' This bill is named after a very lucky third-grader from Bridgeport, Connecticut, whose life was endangered by the failure of his pharmacy to notify his family that an unsafe medical device had been pulled from the market. It is both unfortunate and remarkable that no Federal legislation currently exists that requires notification of consumers when unsafe drugs or devices are recalled. State laws also fail to guarantee consumers the right to know of recalls. Although 18 States recommend that pharmacists notify their patients of recalls, as part of professional standards of care, only one State (Vermont) explicitly requires that patients be contacted. This bill will amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to impose the commonsense requirement that when pharmacies are notified of a class I or II recall of a drug or device dispensed by prescription, they must notify their patients that the product has been pulled from the market. Class I recalls include those drugs and devices that could reasonably cause serious adverse effects on health or death. Class II recalls include drugs and devices that may cause temporary or medically reversible adverse effects on health. For over the counter drugs and devices, the bill requires that a notice regarding the recall be displayed in the pharmacy. Pharmacies that fail to comply will be subjected to fines of up to $10,000. Matthew McGarry, for whom this bill is named, has a life-threatening allergy to peanuts. In case he should accidentally eat one, he carries a device with him that injects a drug to counteract an allergic reaction, called an ``EPI-E-Z'' pen. When it was found that a few of the devices in one batch were leaking the life saving drug, all pharmacies were notified that the product was being recalled. And almost all pharmacies, acting in the best interest of their patients, in turn notified consumers. The McGarry's pharmacy, however, did not contact its patients. Thanks to the vigilance of his school's nurse, Betty Patterson, Matthew escaped unharmed--the defective device was replaced. Under current law, consumers have the right to be notified their automobiles are defective or when the toys that their children play with are found to be unsafe. It is only logical that we should have the same peace of mind when it comes to products like drugs and medical devices that directly affect our health. Most pharmacists do the right thing. Most pharmacists contact their customers when a drug or device is recalled. However, it takes just one incident, like that experienced by the McGarry family, to point out a dangerous loophole in the law. With Matthew's law, we will close that loophole and protect all American families from the McGarry's frightening experience. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a critical measure that has the potential to save many lives--``Matthew's Law.'' This bill is named after a very lucky third-grader from Bridgeport, Connecticut, whose life was endangered by the failure of his pharmacy to notify his family that an unsafe medical device had been pulled from the market. It is both unfortunate and remarkable that no Federal legislation currently exists that requires notification of consumers when unsafe drugs or devices are recalled. State laws also fail to guarantee consumers the right to know of recalls. Although 18 States recommend that pharmacists notify their patients of recalls, as part of professional standards of care, only one State (Vermont) explicitly requires that patients be contacted. This bill will amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to impose the commonsense requirement that when pharmacies are notified of a class I or II recall of a drug or device dispensed by prescription, they must notify their patients that the product has been pulled from the market. Class I recalls include those drugs and devices that could reasonably cause serious adverse effects on health or death. Class II recalls include drugs and devices that may cause temporary or medically reversible adverse effects on health. For over the counter drugs and devices, the bill requires that a notice regarding the recall be displayed in the pharmacy. Pharmacies that fail to comply will be subjected to fines of up to $10,000. Matthew McGarry, for whom this bill is named, has a life-threatening allergy to peanuts. In case he should accidentally eat one, he carries a device with him that injects a drug to counteract an allergic reaction, called an ``EPI-E-Z'' pen. When it was found that a few of the devices in one batch were leaking the life saving drug, all pharmacies were notified that the product was being recalled. And almost all pharmacies, acting in the best interest of their patients, in turn notified consumers. The McGarry's pharmacy, however, did not contact its patients. Thanks to the vigilance of his school's nurse, Betty Patterson, Matthew escaped unharmed--the defective device was replaced. Under current law, consumers have the right to be notified their automobiles are defective or when the toys that their children play with are found to be unsafe. It is only logical that we should have the same peace of mind when it comes to products like drugs and medical devices that directly affect our health. Most pharmacists do the right thing. Most pharmacists contact their customers when a drug or device is recalled. However, it takes just one incident, like that experienced by the McGarry family, to point out a dangerous loophole in the law. With Matthew's law, we will close that loophole and protect all American families from the McGarry's frightening experience. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for S. 1722, ``The Women's Health Research and Prevention Amendments of 1998.'' I commend Senator Frist for his introduction of this legislation and am pleased to join him as a co-sponsor. Women's health programs administered by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention play a critical role in ensuring that the extraordinary scientific advances of our nation don't sit on the shelf, but are actually used to improve lives. The last few years have brought astonishing new developments in women's health research. Medical researchers have now located the genetic mutations that predispose women to certain types of breast cancer--knowledge that may lead to more effective treatment of this devastating disease. And through the CDC, a recent initiative focused on the prevention and early detection of breast and cervical cancer is already saving lives. In just the year since this program was begun in Connecticut, over 19,000 women received free screening for breast cancer--and 15 cases were caught early while they were still treatable. Over 1,000 women were checked for cervical cancer--and 8 cases were detected. We've taken a number of important steps toward improving women's health, but we must continue to support and sustain these programs if we are to truly reap the benefits of our initial investments. This bill clearly is a good start. I am concerned that some critical areas of women's health have been omitted from the bill. We would be remiss if issues so important to women's health, such as sexually transmitted diseases and reproductive health were neglected. However, I know that Senator Frist has indicated his willingness to continue the dialogue and to work with members of the Labor Committee to include these programs prior to markup. This legislation is the continuation of a commitment that we have made to women and our nation and makes a sound and intelligent investment in the long term health of this country. I again offer my support and urge swift consideration of this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today along with my friend and colleague Senator Abraham to speak to this amendment that will help save lives and prevent injuries to our youngest children by improving education and awareness about child safety seats. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of unintentional injury- related death to children ages 14 and under. Yet some 40 percent of kids are still riding unrestrained. And of the children who are buckled up, studies estimate that eight out of ten are restrained incorrectly. Each year more than 1,400 children die in automobile accidents, and an additional 280,000 are injured. Tragically, most of these injuries could have been prevented. The most proven way to protect our children is child safety seats. They reduce the risk of death by 69 percent for infants and 47 percent for toddlers. We must work to ensure that they are used at all times and used correctly. This amendment that we introduce today will provide $7.5 million to the Department of Transportation for the purpose of awarding grants to state highway agencies, as well as child safety organizations who promote important information on the use of child safety seats. The legislation will ultimately allow funds to be used to help parents become better informed on the best way to restrain and protect their children. This money may also enhance public education on car safety through workshops, publications, and audio-visual aides. This past June, Senator Abraham and I sponsored a resolution that allowed the National SAFE KIDS Campaign to use a small portion of the Capitol Hill grounds to conduct a car seat check-up event and launch a new national safety campaign. The initiative, SAFE KIDS BUCKLE-UP, was a joint project of the National SAFE KIDS Campaign and the General Motors Corporation. Its purpose was to educate families about the importance of buckling up on every ride. This event and this initiative have been a success, but we need to do more to educate parents and public safety officials, not only on Capitol Hill, but in our communities. This legislation will put more resources at the disposal of the people in our towns and cities, so they may do a better job of educating others and raising awareness on this issue. Protecting our children is a critical national priority that deserves national attention. I applaud Senator Abraham for his work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate is poised to pass Examination Parity and Year 2000 Readiness For Financial Institutions Act, which I introduced with Senator Bennett last week. The legislation will provide badly needed authority and guidance to Federal financial regulators to help their supervised institutions cope with the Year 2000 computer problem. The Year 2000--or Y2K--computer problem is caused by the inability of most of the major financial systems to process the year 2000 as the one that follows the year 1999. This is caused by the fact that basic computer code, much of it written as many as thirty years ago, reads dates as two-digits, ``98'' or ``99,'' instead of four digits ``1999'' or ``2000.'' If left untreated, computers will read the year 2000 as the years 1900, 1980 or some other default date. The result is not only erroneous calculations, but the total disruption of many critical financial systems. Unfortunately, neither the Office of Thrift Supervision or the National Credit Union Administration have the authority to examine the Year 2000 preparations of service providers to thrifts and credit unions. Currently, other federal financial regulators--the Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation--have this authority. These service providers perform many of the key transaction and data processing for federally-insured thrifts and credit unions, particularly smaller institutions for whom it is not cost-effective to establish their own computer systems. As a result, it is imperative to the safety and soundness of these institutions for the regulators to be able to establish that their service providers will be Year 2000 compliant. The legislation also contains provisions that require all financial regulators to hold seminars to educate their respective supervised institutions and, to the maximum extent possible, provide model solutions for fixing the problem. The beneficial impact of such outreach and education efforts for federally-insured institutions is self-evident. Mr. President, as I've said many times before, the Year 2000 problem is one that we will have to confront in many more ways than this legislation. The extent of the problem goes well beyond the financial services industry to affect virtually every segment of our nation's economy. But this sensible bill is a good first step to ensuring that Federal financial regulators have the tools necessary to address the problem in their area of jurisdiction. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this sensible, bipartisan legislation.