Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Lieberman in introducing legislation to add up to 15 acres to the Weir Farm National Historic Site in Connecticut for the creation of a visitor center and art gallery. The new property is located in Ridgefield, Connecticut. Because the land is adjacent to undeveloped State and Town land, the non-profit Weir Farm Heritage Trust can ensure that the proposed visitor center and gallery will be in keeping with the pastoral theme of the historic site. Eight years ago, Congress established Weir Farm as Connecticut's first national park and the only National Park Service site in the country dedicated to the celebration of an American painter. The 62 acre historic site contains the home and studio of the founder of American impressionism, J. Alden Weir and this rich landscape is the inspiration for many of his paintings. Together, the National Park Service and the Weir Farm Heritage Trust seek to raise public awareness of the farm's historical and cultural significance and to preserve the farm's artistic tradition, while developing a world renown art collection and providing artist workshops. Through a Visiting Artists Program, several artists each year are invited to work within the surroundings of Weir Farm. More than eleven thousand people visited Weir Farm in 1996 and almost ten thousand came in 1997. The Park Service estimates that by the year 2010, the number of visitors could increase to between 25,000-40,000. It is for these reasons that the Weir Farm Heritage Trust would like to acquire this land and convert an existing building into a visitor center and art gallery and construct a modest 30-space parking area. Language in the bill stipulates that the National Park Service will enter into a binding agreement with appropriate town zoning commissions to manage the projected increase in bus traffic and develop parking, visitor and administrative facilities. In December, the Ridgefield, Connecticut Selectmen voted in favor of the land acquisition proposal. In November, the Ridgefield Planning and Zoning commission also voted in favor of the plan, after convening several public hearings on the matter. This proposal is important to the people of Connecticut and all those who wish to see a bit of artistic history preserved in its natural state. I urge my colleagues to support this land acquisition proposal as well.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Lieberman in introducing legislation to add up to 15 acres to the Weir Farm National Historic Site in Connecticut for the creation of a visitor center and art gallery. The new property is located in Ridgefield, Connecticut. Because the land is adjacent to undeveloped State and Town land, the non-profit Weir Farm Heritage Trust can ensure that the proposed visitor center and gallery will be in keeping with the pastoral theme of the historic site. Eight years ago, Congress established Weir Farm as Connecticut's first national park and the only National Park Service site in the country dedicated to the celebration of an American painter. The 62 acre historic site contains the home and studio of the founder of American impressionism, J. Alden Weir and this rich landscape is the inspiration for many of his paintings. Together, the National Park Service and the Weir Farm Heritage Trust seek to raise public awareness of the farm's historical and cultural significance and to preserve the farm's artistic tradition, while developing a world renown art collection and providing artist workshops. Through a Visiting Artists Program, several artists each year are invited to work within the surroundings of Weir Farm. More than eleven thousand people visited Weir Farm in 1996 and almost ten thousand came in 1997. The Park Service estimates that by the year 2010, the number of visitors could increase to between 25,000-40,000. It is for these reasons that the Weir Farm Heritage Trust would like to acquire this land and convert an existing building into a visitor center and art gallery and construct a modest 30-space parking area. Language in the bill stipulates that the National Park Service will enter into a binding agreement with appropriate town zoning commissions to manage the projected increase in bus traffic and develop parking, visitor and administrative facilities. In December, the Ridgefield, Connecticut Selectmen voted in favor of the land acquisition proposal. In November, the Ridgefield Planning and Zoning commission also voted in favor of the plan, after convening several public hearings on the matter. This proposal is important to the people of Connecticut and all those who wish to see a bit of artistic history preserved in its natural state. I urge my colleagues to support this land acquisition proposal as well.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday, March 3, was designated by the President as the day to pay public tribute to the 37th anniversary of the Peace Corps. Although the official anniversary technically occurred on Sunday, March 1, a day during the week for events to be sponsored in honor of the Peace Corps' anniversary proved to be more practical. It was nearly four decades ago that President Kennedy signed legislation into law to create the Peace Corps in 1961 and sent the first class of volunteers to Ghana. Since its founding, more than 150,000 Americans have served in the Peace Corps. The public recognition of the Peace Corps' anniversary has special significance for me personally, as I was fortunate enough to serve as a Peace Corps volunteer in the Dominican Republic some years ago. Like other Americans who have had the honor of serving as Peace Corps volunteers, my service in the Dominican Republic will remain one of the most important periods of my life. Currently there are 6,500 volunteers, serving in 84 countries around the globe. These people dedicate two years of their lives to addressing the critical development needs of impoverished communities. They help people gain access to clean water, grow more food, help prevent the spread of AIDS, teach English, math and science, aid entrepreneurs in the development of new business, and work with non-governmental organizations to protect the environment. The Peace Corps has been marked by much success thanks to current and returned Peace Corps volunteers. Based on the Peace Corps' high level of achievement since its creation, and taking into account the unmet needs of the developing world, I support the proposed increase in the Peace Corps Fiscal Year 1999 budget. The value of the Peace Corps is not limited solely to its overseas volunteer service. There is a ``domestic dividend'' as well--the experience and value that is brought back to the communities where volunteers return once their two year tour is over. Experience has shown that Returned Peace Corps volunteers participate in their communities across the nation more than most other Americans. This week, as the nation celebrates the 37th anniversary of the Peace Corps, more than 350,000 students in all 50 states will learn more about life in the developing world by talking with and listening to 5,000 current and returned volunteers, in person, via satellite and by phone. In my home state of Connecticut, one of six states and 23 cities that declared March 3 as Peace Corps Day, students in New London talked to current Peace Corps Volunteers in Panama and students at Balboa High School in Panama via a live CU-SeeMe video conference. With advancing technology, it is exciting to have students in the United States learn more about people in different corners of the world, without even leaving their classroom. Finally, I commend all of those volunteers, both past and present who have contributed to the success of the Peace Corps. Every anniversary is an important one. This one has been made special by being officially recognized as Peace Corps Day--something that will hopefully become an annual occurrence. It serves as an opportunity for Americans to learn about other cultures of the World and to pay tribute to the more than 150,000 Americans who have dedicated part of their lives to making this a better World to live in. I am confident that we in the Senate are proud of each and every one of them.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President. I am very pleased to join with Senator Bennett to introduce the ``Examination Parity and Year 2000 Readiness For Financial Institutions Act.'' This legislation, while technical in nature, 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 crash of many critical financial systems. Federal financial regulators have been very active, of late, in helping their supervised institutions prepare for this extremely dangerous problem. However, both the Office of Thrift Supervision and the National Credit Union Administration have notified Senator Bennett and I that they lack 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, 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.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President. I am very pleased to join with Senator Bennett to introduce the ``Examination Parity and Year 2000 Readiness For Financial Institutions Act.'' This legislation, while technical in nature, 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 crash of many critical financial systems. Federal financial regulators have been very active, of late, in helping their supervised institutions prepare for this extremely dangerous problem. However, both the Office of Thrift Supervision and the National Credit Union Administration have notified Senator Bennett and I that they lack 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, 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.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate an extraordinary life. We in the U.S. Senate have lost a former colleague and a leading light of the U.S. Senate--Abraham Ribicoff. Abe Ribicoff, Mr. President, was born and raised in New Britain, CT. He was the son of poor Polish immigrants. Yet this humble son of Connecticut rose to become one of our State's and our country's most distinguished public servants. He served in this body for 18 years-- beginning in January of 1963 and retiring in 1981. One of the highest honors I have had in public life, Mr. President, was to succeed Abe Ribicoff in the U.S. Senate, and I take great pride in the fact that in 1981 Abe Ribicoff placed my name in nomination for this office. Abe Ribicoff believed fervently that the highest calling one can have in American life is public service. He obeyed that calling as few Americans ever have. He is the only person in our Nation's history to have served as a State legislator, a municipal judge, a U.S. Representative, a Governor, a Presidential Cabinet Secretary, and a U.S. Senator. But to appreciate Abe Ribicoff, it is important to understand that he did more than occupy an impressive collection of public offices. What distinguished Abe Ribicoff from his peers, from his predecessors, and from those who have come after him is not the number of offices he held, but the manner in which he held them. Abe Ribicoff brought to his life's work integrity, candor, high principle, an unshakeable faith in America's Government, and a deeply held belief in the goodness and decency of our people. Abe Ribicoff had the rarest and most important of all qualities we seek in public leaders--courage in the public arena. Time and again, in ways large and small, he demonstrated a commitment to principle even in the face of fierce opposition. He was willing to fight for what he believed to be right. And he fought hard, though always--always--in a decent and honorable manner. In Abe Ribicoff's politics, there was no place for meanness, no place for personal attacks. He understood the importance of public opinion, but he never relied on polls to shape his political decisions. He was guided not by emotion, not by numbers, but by judgment, by reason, and by principle. One of the defining moments in his public life took place in 1968 at the Democratic National Convention. Here was a man, Mr. President, a first-term Senator, not unaware that he was confronting the entire national leadership of his party, willing to take a stand and make a very, very public display and call for civility in our society. In doing so on that day, he appealed, in my view, to what is best about our Nation and ourselves--our capacity for tolerance and understanding; our belief that in a truly civilized society we live by the rule of law, not by the rule of force; that in fact it is right that makes might. In this moment, the world learned what we in Connecticut had long known, that Abe Ribicoff was a national gift. His entire career stood above all for the belief that America is a land of limitless opportunity and equal justice. He abhorred discrimination in all its forms, and he knew it in his own life. During his campaign for Governor in 1954, an ugly whispering campaign questioned whether Connecticut was ready for a Jewish Governor. Abe Ribicoff answered from the heart. In a famous address in Connecticut, Abe Ribicoff said: In this great country of ours, anybody, even a poor kid from immigrant parents in New Britain, could achieve any office he sought, or any position in private or public life, irrespective of race, color, creed, or religion. The voters of Connecticut, Mr. President, answered that they agreed with their Governor-elect. Even when he himself was not touched by the sting of discrimination, he acted to do what was right. In 1956, a young Senator from Massachusetts was mentioned as a possible Vice Presidential candidate. Ironically, many Catholics, mindful of the discrimination that still existed against them, questioned whether America was ready for an Irish Catholic in the White House after what had occurred to Alfred Smith in 1928. Abe Ribicoff, speaking to the Irish Catholic leadership of the Democratic Party, took exception. I never thought [he said] I'd see the day when a man of the Jewish faith had to plead before a group of Irish Catholics about allowing another Irish Catholic to be nominated for the position [of Vice President]. In no small measure, Mr. President, it was Abe Ribicoff's faith-- faith in his country and faith in a candidate that propelled John Kennedy to the Presidency just a few years later. Once again, Mr. President, in 1976, questions were raised about whether a southern Governor and a born-again Baptist believer could serve as President of the United States. Without a moment's hesitation, this Connecticut Yankee said yes. Judge the man, judge his ideas, but do not judge his personal faith. Abe Ribicoff lived most of his professional life at the highest, most austere and auspicious levels. He knew his share of Governors, of Senators, of Presidents. But lest we forget, Mr. President, he also knew struggle. He knew hardship growing up among the shops and mills of New Britain, CT. And he knew discrimination and he knew defeat, having lost his first campaign in the Senate by a slim margin. But even as he rose to the very top of public life, he never forgot about those that he served. He knew that all principles are in the end empty letters and hollow rhetoric if they are not connected to people's lives. The instrument of Government, the laws of the land mean little if they do not help ordinary citizens surmount obstacles and obtain their noblest aspirations. At a time when Medicare was described as ``socialism,'' Abe Ribicoff knew that it embodied the obligation of a compassionate society to care for its elderly. When some called civil rights laws an affront to ``States rights,'' he knew that they could make the promise of equal justice a reality for millions of Americans. When others said that a Governor and a Senator should not spend his time fussing about highway safety, he knew that a tough approach to speeding and drunk driving would save lives and spare families immeasurable grief and sorrow. We have spoken of Abraham Ribicoff as a public servant, but he was much more than that. He was also a husband and a father. To his wife Casey and to his family we convey our deepest sorrow. He was also a teacher. I consider myself extremely--extremely-- fortunate to have been able to call on him many, many, many times since he left office in 1981 for his advice and counsel and guidance and just good old political conversation. No one--no one--in this world of political life could have had a better mentor than I did in Abe Ribicoff. Mr. President, I want to close with a reading from Hebrew text. It captures, I believe, the essence of this man whose passing we all mourn today. Let me quote it: A good name is to be chosen above wealth, and character rather than silver and gold. Blessed is the one who bequeaths a good name to his descendants. There are three crowns: the crown of Torah, the crown of priesthood, and the crown of royalty, But the crown of a good name excels them all. Even a long life ends too soon, but a good name endures forever. Blessed is he whose noble deeds remain his memorial after his life on Earth is ended. Mr. President, I yield to my good friend and colleague, Senator Lieberman.

Mr. DODD. I commend my colleague for his eloquent statement and his remembrances of Abe Ribicoff. On behalf of both of us, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed some very fine comments from today's editions of the Hartford Courant and the New Britain Herald, his hometown newspaper. They did excellent jobs in capturing the career and the essence of Abe Ribicoff.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me commend our colleague from North Dakota for a very eloquent statement and the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle of South Dakota, for laying out one of the primary objectives of a Democratic agenda for this session of the 105th Congress. I think there are issues that ought to enjoy and attract strong bipartisan support--sustained growth in our economy, a balanced budget, a growing surplus, and investments in the educational and health needs of young people. I certainly hope that on managed care issues, in particular, we can find consensus--making sure that people across this country have the right to choose their own doctors and are not going to be forced out of the hospital prematurely. A bill of rights for patients is something that is long overdue. I know that the people of American are hoping that this Congress will address these issues before we adjourn. I want to commend those who are responsible for putting this agenda together and to address a few aspects of it more fully. Shortly we will be hearing from our colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, who has led a task force over the past several months to fashion a bill to deal with the difficult issue of tobacco use by young people--a bill which I was pleased to cosponsor. As Senator Dorgan just discussed, the facts on youth smoking are not in controversy--3,000 young people start smoking every day, and 1,000 of those will die prematurely. This is an issue that ought to unite Americans regardless of political persuasion or ideology. We all pay when children become addicted to tobacco. It is not just the children who pay with abbreviated lives that might have produced far more for themselves, for their families, and for their Nation. But all of us in a sense suffer when we, by our silence, by our inaction promote or at least don't try to retard the growth of a problem that so negatively affects young people. So, I am hopeful in these few legislative days we have remaining, we will do something meaningful to reduce the harmful impact of tobacco on the children in this country. We all know that a tax increase, which makes tobacco less affordable, is one of the ways to do that. I'd like to cite some facts from a recent survey done in my State--in Fairfield County, CT. This county is a one of great affluence--it contains the towns of Greenwich and Westport some of the more affluent communities in the Nation. It is also a county that is the home of Bridgeport, CT, one of the poorest cities in the Nation. In a relatively small area of geography, you have great diversity in income. This survey looked at young people's smoking habits. Interestingly, about 30 to 35 percent of the young people in the more affluent suburbs in the communities of Fairfield have already begun to smoke or abuse alcohol. In Bridgeport, however, the percentage of teenagers was much lower--10 to 13 percent. Why? There are many factors, but, clearly economics play a major role. The people who conducted this survey concluded that money does make a difference--that the ability of a teenager to buy a pack of cigarettes actually does affect the likelihood that he or she will smoke. Senator Conrad has included in his bill a tobacco tax of $1.50--the amount that public health experts tell us is necessary to effect a decrease in youth smoking. Senator Conrad has also laid out a plan for making use of the revenue raised by this increased tax on tobacco. I suspect that I was somewhat of a pest over the last 72 hours as he was getting ready to introduce this bill--in making repeated suggestions about how he could best make use of those funds. I am very pleased that Senator Conrad will be directing $14 billion of the revenues--of the $80 billion that will be generated in the next 5 years or so--toward improving the affordability, availability and quality of child care. My colleagues know, going back during the years of my tenure in the Senate, that I have spent a lot of time advocating for children's issues, particularly child care. So, I am deeply, deeply grateful to my colleague from North Dakota for agreeing to allocate such a substantial part of these dollars to the needs of children. I know my colleague from Rhode Island, Jack Reed, who was one of the first cosponsors on our comprehensive child care bill introduced last week and an active member of the Democratic Strike Force--Right Start 2000 that we formed in the Senate here to focus on children's issues, joins me in expressing our appreciation. While we are on the topic of child care, Mr. President, I'd like to share with my colleagues some new findings in the child care debate that relate to the issues of the cost and quality of child care. Mr. President, after we passed the welfare reform package in 1996 I asked the General Accounting Office if they would do a survey of States and give us some idea of how this law would affect the child care needs of families in this country. The GAO, just in the last few days, completed its survey and issued a report to the Subcommittee on Children and Families, of which I serve as ranking member. Let me just briefly share some of the conclusions of this GAO study about how welfare reform is affecting not only welfare recipients, but also working families. I think these findings highlight why the allocation that the Senator from North Dakota has directed to children's needs in his tobacco bill is so critically important. This report's findings are based on a survey of several States-- California, Louisiana, Oregon, Texas, Washington, and Connecticut. First, let me offer the good news. According to the GAO States have done a very good job in meeting the needs of welfare recipients. Most families who need child care assistance in order to begin to enter the workplace are receiving it. Now, for some of the bad news. In order to help all of the welfare recipients, States had to severely limit the access of working families to child care subsidies. People who are right on that margin--not on welfare, but just over the line--are not getting the assistance they need. The survey indicates that access of working families to subsidies has been severely curtailed. Even if States draw down all of the Federal funds available, more than half--52 percent of working families in this country who need affordable child care--will be denied it. In Texas, one of the seven States surveyed, this means that over 37,000 working families remain on waiting lists for child care assistance. In California, even more dramatically, 200,000 working families are on waiting lists for child care assistance--some for over 2 years. Tragically, in my State of Connecticut, we just stopped pretending. We don't even keep waiting lists for new families. In this survey, the States also told the GAO about severe problems with the availability of child care. As we have known for years, certain types of care are not available at any cost--infant care, care for children with disabilities and care during nonstandard work hours. The GAO found that States are particularly concerned that the work participation requirements of welfare could exacerbate the shortage of infant care. Under welfare reform, mothers with children over the age of 1 are told they must work. Some States have chosen even tougher standards. In Wisconsin and Oregon, mothers with children older than 3 months must work. I find it somehow ironic that we now have Republican legislation pending that would offer incentives for parents to stay home with children under the age of 3 years--a wonderful idea--but yet we have in place a work requirement for welfare recipients with children over 3 months in some States. In many communities, child care for very young children is so limited that parents must sign up while they are still pregnant to have any chance of finding that care at all. Welfare reform is also exacerbating, according to GAO, the lack of child care during nonstandard work hours. Many welfare parents are finding jobs in service industries where shift work is required. Yet in most communities child care on weekends or after 6 p.m. is nonexistent. When it comes to improving the quality, it is clear that States are making an effort. States are trying to improve provider training, to incresae provider compensation and to help facilities meet licensing standards, but they are still concerned that they are falling short. They are concerned, and rightly so, that as work participation requirements rise, quality may be compromised. This report is not about blaming the States. They are doing the best they can with a very big job. This is not about pitting welfare recipients against working families in the battle for limited child care dollars. It should be about making sure that the Federal Government provides sufficient resources so that parents who need safe and affordable child care in order to work can find it in this country. Senator Conrad's bill and the $14 billion in funding that it will provide will go a long way towards meeting those needs. I am pleased that the Senator from North Dakota has included in his tobacco legislation language directing these funds to the programs outlined in the Child Care A.C.C.E.S.S. bill which I introduced last week. I think it will go a long way toward ensuring that working families are going to get the kind of child care assistance and support they need. Again, I want to say to my colleague from North Dakota that I commend him immensely for the tremendous job he did, and I apologize to him publicly for being the source of some annoyance to him as I tried to get more money out of him for child care over the last several days. He very generously doubled the investment in child care from $7 billion to $14 billion. I thank him for that. Hope springs eternal. There may even be some additional resources made available for child care as we go through this debate. I am grateful to him and members of the tobacco task force for their attention to the needs of children and child care in their legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, throughout the years, I have had the opportunity to criss-cross the State of Connecticut countless times, and along the way I have met a number of remarkable individuals. Their occupations and backgrounds may vary, but they are all linked by a common commitment to helping others and making a positive difference in their communities. These are the unsung heroes in our society, and they are the foundation on which our communities are built. Sadly, Connecticut lost one its heroes earlier this month, when Jane Johnson of New Britain died at the age of 59. Jane Johnson's entire career was dedicated to working with poor and underprivileged children so that they may have a brighter future. A native of New Britain, she spent more than 30 years working in her home town's Head Start program, and for the past 17 years she served as its Director. I was fortunate to work with Jane over the years, and I, along with everyone else who knew her, had the highest regard for Jane and for her opinions on issues concerning children. Not only was she well-respected throughout the State but her efforts on behalf of young people earned her national recognition. That is why she was invited to several White House Conferences on Head Start. As if her efforts with Head Start were not enough, Jane also volunteered her free time to serve her community. She was involved with many service organizations, including as a member of the board of directors for the Sheldon Community Guidance Clinic and the United Way of New Britain. She was also active in her church, singing in the choir and actively working with the young people in the congregation. No one really knows exactly how many children showed up to their first day of school ready to learn and came closer to reaching their full potential because of Jane Johnson's efforts. But everyone in New Britain and throughout the State of Connecticut knows that she was a remarkable woman who touched many young lives and will be dearly missed. I offer my heartfelt condolences to her friends and family, and I ask that her obituary be printed in the Record. The obituary follows: [From the New Britain Herald, Feb. 6, 1998] Jane Johnson New Britain.--Jane Johnson, 59, of New Britain, Director of the New Britain Head Start Program, died Tuesday, Feb. 3, 1998, at New Britain General Hospital. Born in New Britain, she was the daughter of Josephine (Gray) Hines of New Britain and the late James Johnson. She was a lifelong New Britain resident. Jane Johnson worked for the New Britain Head Start Program at the Human Resources Agency for 30 years. She began her career in public service as a teacher's assistant in 1965, the first year of the national Head Start Program which was begun by President Lyndon Johnson as a central part of his Great Society Program. In order to fight the ``War on Poverty,'' programs like Head Start were developed on the national level. Ms. Johnson was an exemplary model of the program. She began participating as a client through the Parent Involvement Component of the Head Start Program. From 1965- 67, she worked directly with the children as a teacher's assistant. The first director of the program, John E. Francisco, recognized Ms. Johnson's talent and promoted her. For the next five years, she worked first as an assistant, and then as the coordinator in the Social Service component of the Head Start Program. During the mid-1970's, she returned to school and earned an Associate Degree from Tunxis Community College in 1976. Mr. Francisco promoted Ms. Johnson again in 1977, when she became his Administrative Assistant. She continued her education, earning a Bachelor of the Arts Degree from Central Connecticut State University in 1979. She graduated with honors and was named to Alpha Kappa Delta National Honor Society. From 1980-98, Ms. Johnson was the Director of the Head Start Program. During this period, her innovative public policy initiatives earned National recognition. She was selected as a Johnson and Johnson Management Fellow and attended an honorary program at the University of Southern California in 1995. In addition to her brilliant work as a leader in the National Head Start Program, Ms. Johnson served her community as a volunteer. She served as a member of the Board of Directors at the Sheldon Community Guidance Clinic and at the United Way of New Britain. She was a member of the Connecticut and National Association of Head Start Directors. Ms. Johnson also volunteered as a coordinator for the Conference on Coordinated Child Care For The State of Massachusetts. Ms. Johnson was a member of the McCullough Temple C.M.E. and during the 1960's, was active as a choir member and served as a Junior District and Secretary Delegate to their young people's conference. Throughout her life, she made countless contributions to the children and their families who came to the New Britain Head Start Program. The staff, the children, and the families who were involved with the program for the past 30 years will miss her loving guidance, her wonderful sense of humor and, most of all, her kind heart. She will continue to inspire them to serve their community with hard work and commitment. In addition to her mother, she is survived by three children, Carnell Small of New Britain, Cheryl Small-Parris and her husband, Colin Parris of New Britain, and Wayne Small of Calif.; two sisters, Beatrice Walker of New Britain, and Margaret Johnson of Hartford; two grandchildren, Torey Small and Tia Parris; a great granddaughter, Taryn Fudge; and several nieces and nephews. She was predeceased by an infant son, Todd Anthony Small. Funeral services will be held on Monday, 11 a.m. at the Spottswood AME Zion Church. Burial will take place at Fairview Cemetery, New Britain. Calling hours are Sunday evening from 6 to 8 p.m. at the church. Memorial donations may be made to the HRA Head Start Program, 180 Clinton St., New Britain, CT 06053. Erickson-Hansen Funeral Home is in charge of arrangements.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased this morning to join with the distinguished Senator from New Mexico and a group of my colleagues in cosponsoring this Senate Resolution designating October 18th through 24th as National Character Counts Week. Nothing that we do in this country will have a more direct impact on our collective future than how we educate our children. And as the face of our society changes, and children are faced with modern problems like illegal drug use and violence, we should look at ways to expand our traditional definition of education. We must recognize that education should be more than the transmission off acts. It ought to be more than the relaying of concepts. Education should also seek to develop the moral character of our children. Schools need to reinforce the lessons that children are taught at home. Education must help teach young people what they need to know to be good citizens in our society. Strengthening the mind is not enough. We must also nurture the character. That is why so many of us in the Senate come to the Floor each year to speak in support of character education in our schools. We believe that it is entirely appropriate for schools to instruct students on the importance of qualities like trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. This is not a substitute for disciplined instruction in reading, math, composition, and other subjects. This is simply an effort to instill in our young people the values that we cherish in a civil society. I have been working on character education issues for about 5 years now, and all of my experiences with this initiative have reinforced my belief that this is a good idea that can have a positive impact in the lives of our children. In 1994, I Introduced a character education amendment to the elementary and secondary education bill when it was being considered by the Labor Committee. This amendment was adopted, and it provided funding for schools to start character education curriculums. Over the past few years, I have had the pleasure of visiting schools in Connecticut that have received some of these funds and begun teaching character education. In each and every classroom, I have seen the positive impact that these programs are having in our children's lives. Children, as well as teachers and parents, are responding enthusiastically to these lessons, and the result has been better attendance, higher academic performance, and improved behavior among our students. Character education may be a relatively new initiative, but these programs are already reaching 100,000 students in the State of Connecticut alone. And character education is not only making a difference in my home State, but all over the country as many of my colleagues can confirm. Theodore Roosevelt once said, ``To educate a person's mind and not his character is to educate a menace.'' It is imperative that we build a society whose institutions will help support a strong ethical upbringing for our children, and character education should be a critical component of our efforts to reach that goal. Again, I commend my friend and colleague from New Mexico for all of his work in this area. And I invite all my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join us in supporting National Character Counts week and embracing character education as a vital means of molding better individual, strengthening families and creating a responsible American citizenry.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the introduction of S. 1610 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

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

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the nomination of Dr. David Satcher to the positions of Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary for Health. I commend the president for selecting him to serve as a voice for the Nation's public health needs and goals. Dr. Satcher is a renowned physician, scholar and public health leader. During his tenure at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the nation saw a dramatic increase in childhood immunization rates as well as an increased capacity to respond to and detect emerging infectious diseases. In addition, while under Dr. Satcher's leadership, the CDC placed a significant emphasis on prevention programs, including efforts to screen low-income women for breast and cervical cancer. I also applaud his quest to protect the health of our nation's children by supporting research into prevention of deaths and injuries from gun injuries. Dr. Satcher, as has been noted on numerous occasions, is a remarkable individual of distinguished accomplishment. This Nation will be richer and better off were he to fill the job of Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary of Health. I am distressed that there are some who want to make another issue of Dr. Satcher's nomination. There are those who would argue that there is no need for a position of Surgeon General. That has been raised in the past. I think that is a legitimate debate, although I happen to believe that having an Office of Surgeon General has been tremendously valuable to this country, having someone who can speak on behalf of the Nation in a clear voice about issues of national concern. No one better epitomized that role than Dr. C. Everett Koop, who led the Nation on numerous health care issues over the years, speaking very clearly. To this day he plays a very important role as a former Surgeon General of the United States. The position of Surgeon General has been vacant since December of 1994. We are now going to the fourth year not having filled this position. That is inexcusable. This Nation deserves to have a Surgeon General. As I said a while ago, if there are those who want to eliminate the position altogether, then offer legislation that will do that. But we have a position that needs to be filled, a position that can play an important role, as shown by various Surgeons General over the years, leading this Nation in the debate on health care issues. So I hope within the coming days here we can complete this nomination process and send it to the President and allow Dr. Satcher to assume the job of Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary for health. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. I have a bill I want to introduce. I inquire as to whether or not it would be permissible for me to do so in this debate?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, the bill I send to the desk I send on behalf of myself and 24 of my colleagues whose names are included on the introduction of the legislation. The bill I have sent to the desk is called the Child Care and ACCESS bill, ``ACCESS'' standing for Affordable Child Care for Early Success and Security. As I said, I am pleased to be joined by 24 of my colleagues. There may be others in the coming days who care to join us in presenting what we believe is a comprehensive approach to dealing with an issue that I think all Americans--certainly I hope all in this Chamber--will recognize as a crisis: That is the crisis of child care. Almost on a daily basis, we read stories of children in child care settings who are left alone and then are discovered either with serious injury or worse. Many of them are left in certified and accredited child care centers. These stories highlight the critical importance of this issue. This is an issue that now affects 13 million children, the overwhelming majority of whom come from families where there is either a single parent or both parents must work in order to provide for the basic needs of their families. We have often felt in this country that we should not ask parents to make a choice between the job they need and the children they love, so child care has become a necessity. The question now is can we make it affordable for families? At a cost of $4,000 to $10,000 a year per child, is care accessible for parents who need it? Is the care they find going to be in a quality setting, where a child is safe? If the provider is a qualified parent, obviously her or she can provide for the needs of the child. But in this country, we know that too often qualified parents, in order to provide for the economic needs of their family, must provide a child care setting for their children. There's the issue of after-school care. 5 million children are home alone in this country. Any chief of police in this Nation will tell you that the most dangerous time for these children is not after 11 p.m. at night when many of the curfews are invoked, but rather between 3 and 8 o'clock, in the afternoon, when children are unsupervised. We don't have after-school programs for these kids where they can either stay in school or be involved in a worthwhile outside academic experience. So, there is a need here. When we discuss child care, we must also consider recent findings concerning early child development. We know how important these first 36 months of a person's life are, about the development of synapses that occur, about the nurturing that must go on in those years. We must make sure that parents can find quality care where there children will be intellectually stimulated, not simply warehoused. What we are doing today is presenting a piece of legislation which tries to deal in a comprehensive way with this issue of child care. This bill recognizes the needs of parents, working parents, middle- income families, those who are striving to achieve a middle-income status, poorer families in this country, providers who want to provide good child care but don't have the resources to do so, businesses that want to help their employees either by providing a child care setting, and businesses that want to assist their employees with help in attaining child care support. This legislation also includes an expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act, a piece of legislation that was signed into law 5 years ago tomorrow. It has already benefited literally thousands and thousands of families across this country. Today as part of this legislation we are calling for an expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act by lowering the threshold from 50 employees to 25. We think by including 13 million more Americans who, when faced with the crisis of choosing between their children and their jobs, ought not to be asked to make that choice. So this legislation includes an expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act. At any rate, the challenge before us is certainly a significant one, and that is to create a child care system that works for America's families. As I said, for far too many families today when it comes to child care, they either have no choices or very bad choices. Here are some of the appalling statistics. They are incontrovertible, undeniable. Child care quality: Only one in seven child care centers provides care that promotes healthy development; child care at one in eight centers actually threatens children's health and safety. Infants and toddlers, our youngest and most vulnerable children, fare the worst. Almost half of infant and toddler care in our country endangers the health and safety of those who are in those centers. No State in this Nation has child care regulations in place that can be characterized as good quality standards. Two-thirds of the States have regulations that don't even address the basics--care giver training, safe environments, appropriate provider-child ratios. Even though we know that well-paid, educated and trained providers make a difference between poor and good quality child care, we pay caregivers in this country--almost all of them women--abysmally, some of them at well below the poverty levels, even though they're caring for our most precious possessions. As someone said not too long ago, children represent 27 percent of America's population, but they represent 100 percent of our future. These are the children that will be asked to be good employees, good employers, good citizens, and good parents, making a contribution to this Nation in the 21st century. Yet, for the 13 million children who are in child care environments today, the results are not good at all. We can either recognize that in this country and try and do something about it, or we can sit back and allow our system to continue to deteriorate and then face the judgment of history as to why we didn't stand up and try and put up some of the resources that we have to help these families. How does a family making $20,000 or $25,000 or $30,000 a year, with 2 or 3 children, afford care at $7, $8, $9, $10 thousand per year per child. The cost of some child care settings is in excess of some universities. Child care providers and centers workers average only $12,000 a year in pay, Madam President. That is just at the poverty level for a family of three. Home based providers average $9,000 a year. That is their income. Those are the people we are asking to provide for our children, making several thousand dollars below the poverty level. These numbers and statistics, by the way, come from national surveys and studies done by child care centers around the Nation. As I mentioned earlier, full day child care costs run from $4,000 to $10,000 per child. Because of a lack of funding, only an estimated one out of 10 eligible families actually received help in paying for care through the child care block grants which Senator Hatch and I authored eight years ago in this very Chamber. Good quality child care does cost more than mediocre quality, but not a lot more. An investment of only an additional 10 percent has a significant, positive impact on quality. And many types of child care remain unavailable at any cost, Madam President. Many new parents are dismayed to learn that care for infants is virtually nonexistent, and the problem is only getting worse. The General Accounting Office estimates that by the time the 50-percent work participation goal is reached in 2002, 88 percent of infants needing child care will not be able to find it. This corresponds to 24,000 young children in Chicago alone without child care. Let me repeat that. The General Accounting Office, not a partisan organization, estimates that by the time we reach the 50-percent work requirement in 2002, 4 years from now, 88 percent of infants in this country that need child care--we are not talking about choices now, it is not a question that someone is in an income category where they have a choice as to whether or not they are going to put a child in child care or stay home. We are talking about people who absolutely have to have child care. Eighty-eight percent of them will not be able to find it. We cannot let that happen, and this ought not to be a partisan debate about whether or not we see the facts. We know what is going to occur. Do we stand up and try and address it? In addition, there is a glaring lack of after-school programs. As I mentioned earlier, 5 million children are home alone. Eighth graders left home alone after school reported a greater use of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, the gateway drugs, than those who are in adult- supervised settings. The challenge, again, facing us is a straightforward one: to find a way to support families in the choices about how their children are cared for. I know that some will argue that child care is a private problem, one that families should be left to solve on their own. However, we don't expect families to shoulder the financial costs of educating their children alone. We provide public schools. We don't expect families to shoulder the burden of providing health care for their children alone. The vast majority of families have that cost subsidized through their employers. And as a nation, we have an interest in well-educated and healthy children, and so we accept that the Federal Government, States and employers play a role in getting us to these laudable goals of public education and health. Yet, when it comes to child care, we set families adrift. We tell them that it is a private problem, you have to solve it alone. The result is a system in which parents have less, not more, choices. The result is a nation in which child care is too often unaffordable, unavailable and unsafe. I believe that it is a compelling national interest in making sure that our children are safe and well cared for. I rise today to offer this plan that I have sent to the desk that will broadly improve the ability of families to make the right choice when it comes to their children's care. Twenty-four of my colleagues and myself--25 of us--have offered this bill. There are several main parts in our initiative. Let me touch on them briefly. One, improving the affordability of child care. Our legislation would provide an additional $7.5 billion over 5 years through the child care and development block grant, that I mentioned that Senator Hatch and I authored some eight years ago, to increase the amount of child care subsidies available to working families. This investment will double the number of children served by the block grant to 2 million by the year 2003. Secondly, we enhance the quality of child care in early childhood development. This legislation will provide some $3 billion over 5 years to encourage States to invest in activities known to produce significant improvements in the quality of child care. For example, we help the States with this $3 billion to bring provider-child ratios to nationally recommended levels. Again, I think most people understand this. Even if you have a well- trained adult, if they have too many children they are watching over, it doesn't work well. So we get to these ratios that those who understand this issue think are acceptable. With smaller infants, it is a very small ratio. As the children get a little older, the ratios can be a little broader. We improve the enforcement of quality standards by conducting unannounced inspections. Let me, as an aside, say that we had the head of the Defense Department's child care program testify the other day before a group of us. This is the best child care program in the world, by the way. Our Armed Forces serve 200,000 children all over the world everyday. The Defense Department would be the first to tell you not too many years ago they had the most dreadful system which was the subject of severe criticism as a result of national reports that were done on them. They have turned this around and, as I said, have now set up one of the best systems, if not the best system certainly, in this country if not in the world. One of the things they do is they have unannounced inspections of child care centers on military bases. Just recently, I went to the child care facility at the submarine base in Groton, CT. Really, they are doing a magnificent job--the providers, the staff, the children. This is a great sense of pride for our military personnel, our men and women, who must by necessity have child care. In the case of submariners, the men are off on submarines for weeks and weeks on end. Their spouses, if they are married with families, are working to supplement their incomes, and they need child care. To the Defense Department's great credit, they put in place a great system. Unannounced inspections make a difference. Conducting background checks on child care providers. Today, it is hardly done at all. Someone can move from State to State, get a job and then we find out there is a long record of abuse and other problems, and that goes on every day. Improve the compensation, education, and training of child care providers. I have already shared the statistics on what the average salaries are, $12,000 and $9,000. We pay parking attendants in this country higher salaries than we do people who take care of America's children. Your car is more likely to have someone with a better salary watching over it than your child. That is unacceptable, or should be, to all of us in this country. Educating parents on how to find good quality child care and ensuring that high quality care is available to children with disabilities. Those are some of the ways in which we try to help our States in this bill. Thirdly, we increase the availability and quality of school-age child care. This initiative will provide $3 billion over 5 years to increase the supply and quantity of school-age care through child care development block grants. In addition, we incorporate the model developed by Senator Boxer which ensures that schools play a central role in these efforts by providing the 21st century community learning centers with $1 billion over 5 years to create before- and after-school programs. Again, as an aside, I think all of us would agree, I hope, that our taxpayers build wonderful schools around our country, marvelous facilities. In many instances, they open at 8 or 9 in the morning, but then close in the afternoon, and are not open in the evening, weekends, vacations, summer months. We want to see the school buildings get more community use for children in after-school programs, adult education, summer programs, when kids are out of school. There ought to be ways in which we incorporate the use of these facilities to a larger extent than we have been able to. Fourthly, we expand the dependent care credit. This initiative would also expand the existing dependent care tax credit by nearly $8 billion over 5 years, following the model of Senator Harkin's earlier child care bill. We would adjust the sliding scale to increase the credit for families earning under $60,000 and index the credit for inflation to keep pace with the rising child care costs. We would also make the credit refundable so that families with little or no tax liability, those making under $30,000 a year, can receive assistance with child care expenses. I hope that this will not be a matter that ends up being a significant debate. On refundability, again, when people have incomes under $30,000, they don't pay Federal taxes or very few taxes, and if we don't make this refundable, then they are not going to get the benefit. It is to people at that income level struggling to make ends meet, it seems to me, that refundability is absolutely critical if they are going to get help. No. 5, supporting family choices in child care. Our legislation would also provide new support for families who make the difficult choice to forgo a second income or career and to stay at home to care for their children. We would allow stay-at-home parents with children under the age of 1 to claim a portion of the dependent care credit. This credit would also be made refundable to allow stay-at-home parents earning under $30,000 to benefit, and it is phased out for families earning over $70,000. There is a bill that has been introduced by our colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee. The Presiding Officer may, in fact, be a cosponsor of that bill. I know we have worked together on these issues. There is a difference here because the proposal being offered, I believe, by Senator Chafee treats parents who stay at home exactly the same way we treat parents who can't stay at home. In our bill, we do it a bit differently. I am very sympathetic of providing some help to parents who can make the choice, but if we provided it on a totally equal basis, it just becomes far too expensive. What we have done here is said, look, we are going to provide this assistance to you in the first year of that child's life. That cuts the cost by two-thirds. The reason I say that is because there are people out here who have no choice. I want to make this case. It is one thing to have the choice, that is a wonderful luxury, but for the overwhelming majority of the 13 million children who are in child care centers, their parents don't have the choice, they have to be there. It is not a question of ``I would like to stay home, I have another spouse that is earning enough.'' It is not a question of ``I want to go play golf or go to the club and play cards.'' These are people trying very hard on their own or with their spouse to hold their families together. So the choice doesn't exist for them. So it is not exactly equal in that sense. But I do think we should try to recognize and offer help where they do have stay-at-home parents, particularly for that first year. So we do provide that provision in our bill. I think it is a worthwhile one. I am hopeful we can reach some common ground. Madam President, we also expand the Family and Medical Leave Act, which I have already mentioned at the outset of my remarks. I invite my colleagues to go to a children's hospital in your State. Go to the waiting room in those hospitals. You will meet the parents who need protection under Family and Medical Leave. They will tell you about the difficulties. They will tell you, if they work for someone who employs 25 to 50 people, how difficult it is. There's the problems with health care, the insurance benefits. You go out to NIH here. Go to the Ronald McDonald House. Talk to parents who have children with extended illness problems where they can't stay at home, and they have to travel and be with their children. Talk to C. Everett Koop, a pediatrician. He will tell you about a child's recovery rate when they are with a parent, with a loved one who is with them. This ought not to be a controversial item, Madam President, to provide family and medical leave for working families, to be with their parents, to be with their children during a time of crisis. I just do not understand when people raise the kind of objections to trying to help out people in that situation. It ought to be a sense of national mortification that every other nation you can name provides a family and medical leave process. I can count colleague after colleague in this Chamber who had a problem with their children, had a problem with their parents, missed votes, did not go to committee hearings, and in fact had they been here and not been with their family they probably would have been subjected to political attack, that their priorities were wrong, that they were down here voting when they should have been with their children or parents at a time of illness. If we believe that to be the case among ourselves, is it asking too much to say, too, to parents who work outside of public life, that when they are faced with that crisis, that they ought not to have to choose between their job and their families? So I hope we can expand this benefit to the 13 million working people in this country who do not have the luxury of the Family and Medical Leave Act that others have enjoyed for the past 5 years. Madam President, No. 6, we encourage private sector involvement, which is a very important element in all of this. Child care cannot be the sole responsibility of Government, State, local or Federal. So our legislation will create a new discretionary program of competitive challenge grants in which communities that generate funds from the private sector would be eligible for matched Federal grants to improve the availability and quality of child care on a communitywide basis. This program would be authorized at $1 billion over 5 years. Based on the legislation of the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, which was approved, I might add, by the full Senate during the budget reconciliation bill of last year but dropped in conference, we would provide a new tax incentive to open high-quality, on-site child care centers or to assist employees in finding and paying for child care offsite. Many businesses, Madam President, understand what their employees are going through, and they want to help. But they are not affluent businesses. If they could get a little bit of help on paying their Federal taxes by providing onsite child care or assisting their employees, I think we would do a lot to expand the availability and the quality of child care. So we offer that to employers. Seventh, Madam President, we ensure the quality of Federal child care facilities. We would also ensure that the Federal Government would lead by example in providing its workers only the highest quality of child care. Many people would be surprised, I think, to hear that currently Federal child care facilities are exempt from State quality regulations. In this bill we require that all Federal child care centers meet all State licensing standards. Madam President, this is a comprehensive package. I have run down through the major provisions in a brief way. It is a long bill. It covers a lot of territory, a lot of ground. But it is a bold agenda, I think one that people of common purpose can come to. As the Presiding Officer and I see my colleague from Vermont, the chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, who is on the floor here, back in October, November we convened a group of us here, Democrats and Republicans, to try to fashion a compromise bill. We spent long hours, I know our staffs did, in trying to hammer out a bill that we could have presented to the full Chamber here in January. That was my hope. I know it was the hope of the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Maine. Well, that did not happen. I am not going to spend time here on why things didn't happen. There are various elements. But a new bill was introduced by Senator Chafee. I do not agree with all of it. There are parts I do agree with. In fact, there are parts that are exactly alike in both of these bills. I urge the leadership, the distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, the distinguished Democratic leader, the minority leader, Senator Daschle, who is a cosponsor, I might add, of this bill, that we try to set some time aside for this issue if we are only in session for 70 days, 100 days out of the 300 days left in this calendar year--at least that is what we have been told. I realize this is a big bill. It is not small. It is a lot of money over 5 years. A lot of ideas need to be thought out carefully. But we ought to be getting about the business, Madam President, of doing just that. This issue becomes more of a crisis and more of a problem and arguably more costly the longer we wait to address it. To the President's great credit, he identified this issue during his State of the Union Message--after school care, affecting millions of working families, early childhood development, that zero to 3 range, the brain studies that all of us are now very familiar with, the infant care, the provider assistance, the family assistance through the credits, the Family and Medical Leave Act. We ought to get about the business of trying to get a bipartisan bill that all of us can claim credit for. So we can say to the American public in 1998, ``We heard your concerns. We recognize the problems coming down the road. We stepped up to the plate. We resolved our differences, and we presented you with our best efforts in this regard.'' My sincere hope, Madam President, is that is what exactly will happen in these coming days. As I said, it is a bold agenda. It is comprehensive. And we must try to work together if we are going to succeed in that regard. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, the bill I send to the desk I send on behalf of myself and 24 of my colleagues whose names are included on the introduction of the legislation. The bill I have sent to the desk is called the Child Care and ACCESS bill, ``ACCESS'' standing for Affordable Child Care for Early Success and Security. As I said, I am pleased to be joined by 24 of my colleagues. There may be others in the coming days who care to join us in presenting what we believe is a comprehensive approach to dealing with an issue that I think all Americans--certainly I hope all in this Chamber--will recognize as a crisis: That is the crisis of child care. Almost on a daily basis, we read stories of children in child care settings who are left alone and then are discovered either with serious injury or worse. Many of them are left in certified and accredited child care centers. These stories highlight the critical importance of this issue. This is an issue that now affects 13 million children, the overwhelming majority of whom come from families where there is either a single parent or both parents must work in order to provide for the basic needs of their families. We have often felt in this country that we should not ask parents to make a choice between the job they need and the children they love, so child care has become a necessity. The question now is can we make it affordable for families? At a cost of $4,000 to $10,000 a year per child, is care accessible for parents who need it? Is the care they find going to be in a quality setting, where a child is safe? If the provider is a qualified parent, obviously her or she can provide for the needs of the child. But in this country, we know that too often qualified parents, in order to provide for the economic needs of their family, must provide a child care setting for their children. There's the issue of after-school care. 5 million children are home alone in this country. Any chief of police in this Nation will tell you that the most dangerous time for these children is not after 11 p.m. at night when many of the curfews are invoked, but rather between 3 and 8 o'clock, in the afternoon, when children are unsupervised. We don't have after-school programs for these kids where they can either stay in school or be involved in a worthwhile outside academic experience. So, there is a need here. When we discuss child care, we must also consider recent findings concerning early child development. We know how important these first 36 months of a person's life are, about the development of synapses that occur, about the nurturing that must go on in those years. We must make sure that parents can find quality care where there children will be intellectually stimulated, not simply warehoused. What we are doing today is presenting a piece of legislation which tries to deal in a comprehensive way with this issue of child care. This bill recognizes the needs of parents, working parents, middle- income families, those who are striving to achieve a middle-income status, poorer families in this country, providers who want to provide good child care but don't have the resources to do so, businesses that want to help their employees either by providing a child care setting, and businesses that want to assist their employees with help in attaining child care support. This legislation also includes an expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act, a piece of legislation that was signed into law 5 years ago tomorrow. It has already benefited literally thousands and thousands of families across this country. Today as part of this legislation we are calling for an expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act by lowering the threshold from 50 employees to 25. We think by including 13 million more Americans who, when faced with the crisis of choosing between their children and their jobs, ought not to be asked to make that choice. So this legislation includes an expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act. At any rate, the challenge before us is certainly a significant one, and that is to create a child care system that works for America's families. As I said, for far too many families today when it comes to child care, they either have no choices or very bad choices. Here are some of the appalling statistics. They are incontrovertible, undeniable. Child care quality: Only one in seven child care centers provides care that promotes healthy development; child care at one in eight centers actually threatens children's health and safety. Infants and toddlers, our youngest and most vulnerable children, fare the worst. Almost half of infant and toddler care in our country endangers the health and safety of those who are in those centers. No State in this Nation has child care regulations in place that can be characterized as good quality standards. Two-thirds of the States have regulations that don't even address the basics--care giver training, safe environments, appropriate provider-child ratios. Even though we know that well-paid, educated and trained providers make a difference between poor and good quality child care, we pay caregivers in this country--almost all of them women--abysmally, some of them at well below the poverty levels, even though they're caring for our most precious possessions. As someone said not too long ago, children represent 27 percent of America's population, but they represent 100 percent of our future. These are the children that will be asked to be good employees, good employers, good citizens, and good parents, making a contribution to this Nation in the 21st century. Yet, for the 13 million children who are in child care environments today, the results are not good at all. We can either recognize that in this country and try and do something about it, or we can sit back and allow our system to continue to deteriorate and then face the judgment of history as to why we didn't stand up and try and put up some of the resources that we have to help these families. How does a family making $20,000 or $25,000 or $30,000 a year, with 2 or 3 children, afford care at $7, $8, $9, $10 thousand per year per child. The cost of some child care settings is in excess of some universities. Child care providers and centers workers average only $12,000 a year in pay, Madam President. That is just at the poverty level for a family of three. Home based providers average $9,000 a year. That is their income. Those are the people we are asking to provide for our children, making several thousand dollars below the poverty level. These numbers and statistics, by the way, come from national surveys and studies done by child care centers around the Nation. As I mentioned earlier, full day child care costs run from $4,000 to $10,000 per child. Because of a lack of funding, only an estimated one out of 10 eligible families actually received help in paying for care through the child care block grants which Senator Hatch and I authored eight years ago in this very Chamber. Good quality child care does cost more than mediocre quality, but not a lot more. An investment of only an additional 10 percent has a significant, positive impact on quality. And many types of child care remain unavailable at any cost, Madam President. Many new parents are dismayed to learn that care for infants is virtually nonexistent, and the problem is only getting worse. The General Accounting Office estimates that by the time the 50-percent work participation goal is reached in 2002, 88 percent of infants needing child care will not be able to find it. This corresponds to 24,000 young children in Chicago alone without child care. Let me repeat that. The General Accounting Office, not a partisan organization, estimates that by the time we reach the 50-percent work requirement in 2002, 4 years from now, 88 percent of infants in this country that need child care--we are not talking about choices now, it is not a question that someone is in an income category where they have a choice as to whether or not they are going to put a child in child care or stay home. We are talking about people who absolutely have to have child care. Eighty-eight percent of them will not be able to find it. We cannot let that happen, and this ought not to be a partisan debate about whether or not we see the facts. We know what is going to occur. Do we stand up and try and address it? In addition, there is a glaring lack of after-school programs. As I mentioned earlier, 5 million children are home alone. Eighth graders left home alone after school reported a greater use of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, the gateway drugs, than those who are in adult- supervised settings. The challenge, again, facing us is a straightforward one: to find a way to support families in the choices about how their children are cared for. I know that some will argue that child care is a private problem, one that families should be left to solve on their own. However, we don't expect families to shoulder the financial costs of educating their children alone. We provide public schools. We don't expect families to shoulder the burden of providing health care for their children alone. The vast majority of families have that cost subsidized through their employers. And as a nation, we have an interest in well-educated and healthy children, and so we accept that the Federal Government, States and employers play a role in getting us to these laudable goals of public education and health. Yet, when it comes to child care, we set families adrift. We tell them that it is a private problem, you have to solve it alone. The result is a system in which parents have less, not more, choices. The result is a nation in which child care is too often unaffordable, unavailable and unsafe. I believe that it is a compelling national interest in making sure that our children are safe and well cared for. I rise today to offer this plan that I have sent to the desk that will broadly improve the ability of families to make the right choice when it comes to their children's care. Twenty-four of my colleagues and myself--25 of us--have offered this bill. There are several main parts in our initiative. Let me touch on them briefly. One, improving the affordability of child care. Our legislation would provide an additional $7.5 billion over 5 years through the child care and development block grant, that I mentioned that Senator Hatch and I authored some eight years ago, to increase the amount of child care subsidies available to working families. This investment will double the number of children served by the block grant to 2 million by the year 2003. Secondly, we enhance the quality of child care in early childhood development. This legislation will provide some $3 billion over 5 years to encourage States to invest in activities known to produce significant improvements in the quality of child care. For example, we help the States with this $3 billion to bring provider-child ratios to nationally recommended levels. Again, I think most people understand this. Even if you have a well- trained adult, if they have too many children they are watching over, it doesn't work well. So we get to these ratios that those who understand this issue think are acceptable. With smaller infants, it is a very small ratio. As the children get a little older, the ratios can be a little broader. We improve the enforcement of quality standards by conducting unannounced inspections. Let me, as an aside, say that we had the head of the Defense Department's child care program testify the other day before a group of us. This is the best child care program in the world, by the way. Our Armed Forces serve 200,000 children all over the world everyday. The Defense Department would be the first to tell you not too many years ago they had the most dreadful system which was the subject of severe criticism as a result of national reports that were done on them. They have turned this around and, as I said, have now set up one of the best systems, if not the best system certainly, in this country if not in the world. One of the things they do is they have unannounced inspections of child care centers on military bases. Just recently, I went to the child care facility at the submarine base in Groton, CT. Really, they are doing a magnificent job--the providers, the staff, the children. This is a great sense of pride for our military personnel, our men and women, who must by necessity have child care. In the case of submariners, the men are off on submarines for weeks and weeks on end. Their spouses, if they are married with families, are working to supplement their incomes, and they need child care. To the Defense Department's great credit, they put in place a great system. Unannounced inspections make a difference. Conducting background checks on child care providers. Today, it is hardly done at all. Someone can move from State to State, get a job and then we find out there is a long record of abuse and other problems, and that goes on every day. Improve the compensation, education, and training of child care providers. I have already shared the statistics on what the average salaries are, $12,000 and $9,000. We pay parking attendants in this country higher salaries than we do people who take care of America's children. Your car is more likely to have someone with a better salary watching over it than your child. That is unacceptable, or should be, to all of us in this country. Educating parents on how to find good quality child care and ensuring that high quality care is available to children with disabilities. Those are some of the ways in which we try to help our States in this bill. Thirdly, we increase the availability and quality of school-age child care. This initiative will provide $3 billion over 5 years to increase the supply and quantity of school-age care through child care development block grants. In addition, we incorporate the model developed by Senator Boxer which ensures that schools play a central role in these efforts by providing the 21st century community learning centers with $1 billion over 5 years to create before- and after-school programs. Again, as an aside, I think all of us would agree, I hope, that our taxpayers build wonderful schools around our country, marvelous facilities. In many instances, they open at 8 or 9 in the morning, but then close in the afternoon, and are not open in the evening, weekends, vacations, summer months. We want to see the school buildings get more community use for children in after-school programs, adult education, summer programs, when kids are out of school. There ought to be ways in which we incorporate the use of these facilities to a larger extent than we have been able to. Fourthly, we expand the dependent care credit. This initiative would also expand the existing dependent care tax credit by nearly $8 billion over 5 years, following the model of Senator Harkin's earlier child care bill. We would adjust the sliding scale to increase the credit for families earning under $60,000 and index the credit for inflation to keep pace with the rising child care costs. We would also make the credit refundable so that families with little or no tax liability, those making under $30,000 a year, can receive assistance with child care expenses. I hope that this will not be a matter that ends up being a significant debate. On refundability, again, when people have incomes under $30,000, they don't pay Federal taxes or very few taxes, and if we don't make this refundable, then they are not going to get the benefit. It is to people at that income level struggling to make ends meet, it seems to me, that refundability is absolutely critical if they are going to get help. No. 5, supporting family choices in child care. Our legislation would also provide new support for families who make the difficult choice to forgo a second income or career and to stay at home to care for their children. We would allow stay-at-home parents with children under the age of 1 to claim a portion of the dependent care credit. This credit would also be made refundable to allow stay-at-home parents earning under $30,000 to benefit, and it is phased out for families earning over $70,000. There is a bill that has been introduced by our colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee. The Presiding Officer may, in fact, be a cosponsor of that bill. I know we have worked together on these issues. There is a difference here because the proposal being offered, I believe, by Senator Chafee treats parents who stay at home exactly the same way we treat parents who can't stay at home. In our bill, we do it a bit differently. I am very sympathetic of providing some help to parents who can make the choice, but if we provided it on a totally equal basis, it just becomes far too expensive. What we have done here is said, look, we are going to provide this assistance to you in the first year of that child's life. That cuts the cost by two-thirds. The reason I say that is because there are people out here who have no choice. I want to make this case. It is one thing to have the choice, that is a wonderful luxury, but for the overwhelming majority of the 13 million children who are in child care centers, their parents don't have the choice, they have to be there. It is not a question of ``I would like to stay home, I have another spouse that is earning enough.'' It is not a question of ``I want to go play golf or go to the club and play cards.'' These are people trying very hard on their own or with their spouse to hold their families together. So the choice doesn't exist for them. So it is not exactly equal in that sense. But I do think we should try to recognize and offer help where they do have stay-at-home parents, particularly for that first year. So we do provide that provision in our bill. I think it is a worthwhile one. I am hopeful we can reach some common ground. Madam President, we also expand the Family and Medical Leave Act, which I have already mentioned at the outset of my remarks. I invite my colleagues to go to a children's hospital in your State. Go to the waiting room in those hospitals. You will meet the parents who need protection under Family and Medical Leave. They will tell you about the difficulties. They will tell you, if they work for someone who employs 25 to 50 people, how difficult it is. There's the problems with health care, the insurance benefits. You go out to NIH here. Go to the Ronald McDonald House. Talk to parents who have children with extended illness problems where they can't stay at home, and they have to travel and be with their children. Talk to C. Everett Koop, a pediatrician. He will tell you about a child's recovery rate when they are with a parent, with a loved one who is with them. This ought not to be a controversial item, Madam President, to provide family and medical leave for working families, to be with their parents, to be with their children during a time of crisis. I just do not understand when people raise the kind of objections to trying to help out people in that situation. It ought to be a sense of national mortification that every other nation you can name provides a family and medical leave process. I can count colleague after colleague in this Chamber who had a problem with their children, had a problem with their parents, missed votes, did not go to committee hearings, and in fact had they been here and not been with their family they probably would have been subjected to political attack, that their priorities were wrong, that they were down here voting when they should have been with their children or parents at a time of illness. If we believe that to be the case among ourselves, is it asking too much to say, too, to parents who work outside of public life, that when they are faced with that crisis, that they ought not to have to choose between their job and their families? So I hope we can expand this benefit to the 13 million working people in this country who do not have the luxury of the Family and Medical Leave Act that others have enjoyed for the past 5 years. Madam President, No. 6, we encourage private sector involvement, which is a very important element in all of this. Child care cannot be the sole responsibility of Government, State, local or Federal. So our legislation will create a new discretionary program of competitive challenge grants in which communities that generate funds from the private sector would be eligible for matched Federal grants to improve the availability and quality of child care on a communitywide basis. This program would be authorized at $1 billion over 5 years. Based on the legislation of the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, which was approved, I might add, by the full Senate during the budget reconciliation bill of last year but dropped in conference, we would provide a new tax incentive to open high-quality, on-site child care centers or to assist employees in finding and paying for child care offsite. Many businesses, Madam President, understand what their employees are going through, and they want to help. But they are not affluent businesses. If they could get a little bit of help on paying their Federal taxes by providing onsite child care or assisting their employees, I think we would do a lot to expand the availability and the quality of child care. So we offer that to employers. Seventh, Madam President, we ensure the quality of Federal child care facilities. We would also ensure that the Federal Government would lead by example in providing its workers only the highest quality of child care. Many people would be surprised, I think, to hear that currently Federal child care facilities are exempt from State quality regulations. In this bill we require that all Federal child care centers meet all State licensing standards. Madam President, this is a comprehensive package. I have run down through the major provisions in a brief way. It is a long bill. It covers a lot of territory, a lot of ground. But it is a bold agenda, I think one that people of common purpose can come to. As the Presiding Officer and I see my colleague from Vermont, the chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, who is on the floor here, back in October, November we convened a group of us here, Democrats and Republicans, to try to fashion a compromise bill. We spent long hours, I know our staffs did, in trying to hammer out a bill that we could have presented to the full Chamber here in January. That was my hope. I know it was the hope of the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Maine. Well, that did not happen. I am not going to spend time here on why things didn't happen. There are various elements. But a new bill was introduced by Senator Chafee. I do not agree with all of it. There are parts I do agree with. In fact, there are parts that are exactly alike in both of these bills. I urge the leadership, the distinguished majority leader, Senator Lott, the distinguished Democratic leader, the minority leader, Senator Daschle, who is a cosponsor, I might add, of this bill, that we try to set some time aside for this issue if we are only in session for 70 days, 100 days out of the 300 days left in this calendar year--at least that is what we have been told. I realize this is a big bill. It is not small. It is a lot of money over 5 years. A lot of ideas need to be thought out carefully. But we ought to be getting about the business, Madam President, of doing just that. This issue becomes more of a crisis and more of a problem and arguably more costly the longer we wait to address it. To the President's great credit, he identified this issue during his State of the Union Message--after school care, affecting millions of working families, early childhood development, that zero to 3 range, the brain studies that all of us are now very familiar with, the infant care, the provider assistance, the family assistance through the credits, the Family and Medical Leave Act. We ought to get about the business of trying to get a bipartisan bill that all of us can claim credit for. So we can say to the American public in 1998, ``We heard your concerns. We recognize the problems coming down the road. We stepped up to the plate. We resolved our differences, and we presented you with our best efforts in this regard.'' My sincere hope, Madam President, is that is what exactly will happen in these coming days. As I said, it is a bold agenda. It is comprehensive. And we must try to work together if we are going to succeed in that regard. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a modification of my amendment to the desk.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me, first of all, say to my colleagues here, my intention, as I have said earlier, is to support the underlying legislation to name the airport in honor of Ronald Reagan. As I said yesterday, I certainly had no lack of disagreements with Ronald Reagan during the 8 years of his stewardship but believe that a two-term President deserves to be recognized. And if it is the desire of his family and others to rename this airport, given the fact it has had name changes over the years, I do not object to that. I had offered this amendment for the purpose of dealing in the future with these same issues. In a sense, Mr. President, it has become sort of a modern day graffiti when we run around naming things here willy-nilly, both on the Capitol grounds and in this city. We are mere custodians of these facilities; we don't own them, and we ought to have a process by which we make solid determinations about whose names are associated with great monuments, buildings and rooms that we have. When we as an institution decided to decorate the reception room with five of our former colleagues, it was Senator John Fitzgerald Kennedy who chaired that commission--I look to my colleague from West Virginia as our historian--where a deliberative process went forward and that decision was made. It seems to me we as a body ought to adopt something like this so that we are not faced with these situations year in and year out. Now, Mr. President, I gather from talking with my colleague and friend from Georgia that my amendment to the underlying legislation is going to be rejected, but I hope that we might consider something like this amendment at the appropriate place. Unfortunately, what happens in the absence of a decision like this, these matters get shunted aside and we do not bring them up again until the next issue emerges. But I happen to believe that setting up a commission that would deal with these issues, having a commission made up of former Members to deal with Capitol grounds, possibly the Architect of the Capitol included, is the way we ought to go about the process of naming rooms, buildings, and renaming facilities, Federal facilities, here in Washington and elsewhere. Having said that, I know my colleague from Georgia will want to be heard on this. When he completes his comments, I will withdraw my amendment and hope that at some point in the not too distant future we can bring this matter up through the Rules Committee or other such committees where it would be appropriate. I see my colleague from Texas who I know is interested in this as well.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, shortly, I will offer an amendment. I am making some drafting corrections to it. When that is completed, I will submit it to the desk for consideration. Allow me to, first of all, ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

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

Mr. DODD. I will be taking maybe all of 5 to 10 minutes.

Mr. DODD. I hope that might be the case. It would be a proper ordering of these.

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