Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. DODD. I yield to the Democratic leader.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may I inquire of the distinguished Senator from Georgia, chairman of the committee, may it not be possible--and I see my colleague, the distinguished Democratic leader arriving. He has an amendment that is very similar. In fact, it is drawn in similar language, but it has a different application. I inquire as to whether or not the ordering of the amendments might be such that his amendment be considered--

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in a moment I will send that amendment to the desk. First of all, on the underlying question here, in terms of the naming of the National Airport in honor of President Ronald Reagan, I support that, Mr. President. I realize others apparently do not, and I certainly respect people's right to make that decision. For those who have been around here long enough, I guess going back to the days when President Reagan served as President, there were not many issues on which we agreed. I fought rather vociferously on issues involving Latin America, domestic policy, and questions on a wide range of issues. But I happen to believe that the people who have served this country as President, elected twice, deserve recognition. Whether you agree with him or not, the people elected him twice to the highest office in our land, a position achieved only by some 41 or 42 people in the history of this country. So if this is what has been chosen by those who believe it is a proper way to recognize the contribution of Ronald Reagan, I respect that. It has been suggested that we haven't named anything for Harry Truman or Jimmy Carter, and I think that is a legitimate point. Certainly, those who want to do that--and I join them in that--ought to find an appropriate way to recognize their contributions. It seems to me that that ought not to detract from the effort here to name something in honor of Ronald Reagan. So if this is what the President's family and others believe, as I said a moment ago, is an appropriate and proper way to recognize him, then this Senator--this Democrat, if you will, which comes secondary to my role in the Senate, and as a citizen--I am going to support that decision. I noted earlier that it took many years before we were able to recognize Franklin Delano Roosevelt with a monument. He was one of the greatest Presidents in this century, having led us during the Great Depression and a world war. I was saddened that day when the ceremonies opened up that wonderful memorial, and it occurred to me that there weren't many people on the other side of the aisle there. We ought to take politics out of these decision whenever possible. I call for the establishment of a commission so that, henceforth--not on this issue, but henceforth when we decide to name or rename facilities, there ought to be a deliberative way in which we proceed. Too often these issues are raised when a particular monument is up for consideration, and based on whether people agree or disagree with that choice, there are suggestions about sending this off to a commission or some group for consideration. I understand that, but too often once that issue is put aside and ended, we go back to business as usual and never come back to how we consider these issues. So the amendment that I am offering establishes a commission. It does not condition this naming on the commission being established, but rather it is prospective. So that in the future when such namings or renamings will occur, there is a process by which we can do it. I offer a second part of this amendment, which is a Sense-of-the- Senate resolution that has to do with the naming of facilities here on the Capitol grounds. Rather than trying to write statutory law here, I just made it a Sense-of-the-Senate resolution that would establish a commission made up of former Members of Congress from both parties. So that on the Capitol grounds when we are naming rooms or facilities within the Capitol here, there would also be a deliberate process by which we go, and that is really a sense of the Senate. The idea is that it would give our former colleagues a role to play when the issue arose as to whether or not we ought to name buildings, facilities, porticoes, or balconies that have been named in the past. I think as temporary custodians of these wonderful grounds of the Capitol, we ought to be deliberate and cautious in how we go about naming these facilities, so that long after we are gone, there is an appropriate designation that the test of time would wear well. I point out to my colleagues that, in the last 24 hours or so, we have heard of the people who have just been named to the National Basketball Association Hall of Fame. What is the relationship? I note that there is a requirement that there be a period of 5 years since the person has left professional basketball before they can even be considered. I note that Larry Bird, someone I admired immensely, as most Americans did for his great skill on the basketball court, I suppose you might have made the case when he retired in 1992 that he should have been named immediately. Yet, the rules are that you have to wait 5 years and then a board thinks about it, analyzes it, and makes its judgment. All I am suggesting here is as temporary custodians, for these wonderful Capitol grounds, that we ought to establish a similar kind of a process before we go off and name buildings and rooms and facilities and other parts of these grounds for people who may be very well deserving of such a designation, but the test of time and a little deliberation would serve us all well and serve future generations well accordingly. So there are two parts of this amendment. First is that we would establish, by law, a commission that would consider naming, in future days, Federal facilities around the country. And the second part is a sense of the Senate to deal with the Capitol grounds and buildings. Mr. President, as I say, this is prospective. It doesn't affect the decision of naming the National Airport for Ronald Reagan. I support that. I said to my colleagues that, despite whatever differences--and they were significant--I had with this American President, I believe that naming such an airport for him is not inappropriate. In fact, having served this Nation for 8 years as President, chosen by the American public, a designation such as this in his honor is appropriate, and I support that. With that, I will be happy to yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for that. Mr. President, if I may inquire further, I was just told--I apologize to my colleague from Virginia, Senator Robb--it is my understanding that the distinguished Democratic leader would be offering the commission amendment. All I was suggesting is if it is appropriate at the proper time that an unanimous consent request would provide an order for these amendments so there would be a proper flow here in a way that we would consider the amendment of the Senator from Virginia, I suspect, prior to mine, and then mine. If that would be the order, again, I am here on the floor because I have another engagement and was asked to come over and properly deal with the amendment which I want to offer. There was no attempt to try to get ahead of anybody in line. Maybe a sequencing of these amendments would serve everybody's interest. I would have no objection to that, if the amendment of the Senator from Virginia can be considered prior. We can deal with this at a later point.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me, first of all, commend my colleague from New Mexico for the very thoughtful statement on education, on the importance of it. I did not hear all of the statements made earlier. I know my colleague from West Virginia, the senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, discussed the issue of transportation and the importance of the ISTEA bill, the intermodal transportation system bill, which has to be brought up very quickly here. I heard our junior Senator from West Virginia discuss the issue of Medicare and health care. So a number of these items the President discussed last evening in his State of the Union Message have been the subject of some discussion here today. I think all of us were very impressed with the agenda the President has laid out for this session of this Congress, the remaining 70 to 120 days. The distinguished majority leader of the U.S. Senate, Senator Lott, has indicated this will not be a long session. So we have a relatively short amount of time for an agenda that I think is important for the country. I hope many of these items will be considered in a strong bipartisan sense. Some will obviously provoke some disagreements. Minimum wage and family and medical leave are two items that come to mind immediately. But I hope on things like Medicare and Social Security and building our public schools and campaign finance reform, we can find some common ground here and get the business of the country done. Mr. President, I would like to focus some remarks, if I could, on a subject that is I think critically important. The President spent some time discussing it last evening. It is one that I had worked on for about a month and a half here, during the month of December and a good part of the month of January, with a bipartisan group of Republicans and Democrats, and that subject is child care. Unfortunately, in the last week, I received some correspondence from our colleagues on the Republican side who decided to pull out of the effort basically to come up with another bill. I understand Senator Chafee of Rhode Island has introduced a bill that, in many ways, reflects the work product of those 6 weeks, where I had tried to see in that quiet time if we could come out with a proposal that we could rally around here. Unfortunately--and this happens--these things break apart. I hope at some point we will come back together again. This is important. We have introduced a bill on our side, so there are two bills out there. The President laid out some thoughts and ideas on it. Let me say to you, Mr. President, how important this issue is. We are talking about millions of families in this country that are either single parents raising children, or two-income parents that need both incomes. They may have children and have to pay the tremendous cost of child care because, obviously, you can't leave them home alone. Maybe they don't necessarily have grandparents or aunts and uncles around to take care of them on a daily basis. It poses a serious problem for parents. When schools close down for snow days during the winter. What do you do with your children when you have to go off to work? You have the job you need and the children you love. How do you reconcile these issues? In the past, many of us grew up in a situation where you had neighbors and friends and you would accommodate an occasion when a crisis like that emerged. Today, it is a daily effort, if a family is to make ends meet and fulfill these obligations. The average cost of a child care setting is between $4,000 and $9,000 per child per year. If you are making, as the average family does, $30,000, $35,000, $40,000 a year, with two children that need some care because they are minors or infants, you immediately get a sense of how difficult a situation people can be placed in financially. What we have proposed is to expand the block grants, to come up with some tax credits--by the way, tax credits not just to families who have children they want to place in care, but to families who decide they are going to try and get along with one income. Some parents are going to stay home. We provide the credits for them as well. We make it refundable, too, Mr. President, because people who make that $30,000 and below don't pay taxes. Yet, many of them are out there just barely getting along. If they don't have a refundable tax credit, they don't get any benefit at all. So we refund the tax credits for those families that either want to stay home with their child or place that child in a child care setting, because they need that extra help to get along. On the stay-at-home parent idea--and I am delighted to see more and more coming to this issue--I authored something called the Family and Medical Leave Act, which was a source of some controversy back in the 1980's. It took me 7 years. It went through 2 vetoes, and as the President said, it was the first bill he signed into law in 1993. That was basically a stay-at-home parent idea. The idea was that if your child is facing a medical crisis or serious problem that could be documented, that a parent could make the choice to take 12 weeks away from their job, up to 12 weeks, without pay, without losing their job. We were the only country that I could find among industrialized nations that didn't permit a family and medical leave policy, giving parents the ability to stay at home and care for their children without losing the job that they need. So the idea of providing some assistance for parents who want to stay at home and care for their children, I think, is a very sound idea. I hope we don't get into the situation where we cause stay-at-home parents and those who must work to be pitted against each other, to cause a quarrel, if you will, between parents who don't have that choice. If you are raising 2 or 3 kids on your own, the idea that you have a choice to stay home and watch them is nonexistent. You don't have that choice. Or if you are a two-income family barely getting by or you want to invest money that you are earning for their education, or to buy a better home, or to plan a vacation, you should not be branded somehow as an uncaring parent because you made that choice. I don't want to see us get into a debate here and suggest somehow that parents who need that second income are less caring about their children because they make that choice, any more than I want to see us deprive parents who make that choice to be at home by not providing them with help so that they can do that. So I am hopeful that we can come to some common ground here. We have begun Welfare to Work. We have a lot more people in the work force. We don't have the child care vacancies, and we don't have the high-paying child care workers, as the average income is $12,000 a year. I don't know anyone who can now get along on that income. How do you attract good people to care for our children in this society? There have been studies done recently about the quality of child care programs around the country. Some 17 States now have certification processes. Yet the Ziegler Child Study Center at Yale University would tell you that even in the States that have certification and accreditation processes the quality of child care is embarrassing. It is mortifying. So for States that do not have that certification process you can imagine what it is like. In fact, if you pick up almost any daily newspaper in any city or any State in the country, you will find a case almost on a daily basis of parents who placed their child in what they thought was a safe, quality child care setting only to discover, of course, that child is not safe, and lost its life as we have seen in numerous cases. So we need to be far more conscientious. We don't deal with quality here in Washington. We don't set standards. I realize that is too high a hurdle to probably overcome. So we let the States set the standards. There is nothing in our Federal bill that mandates what standards are. But we do think there ought to be at least health and safety standards. We require that for our pets. If you leave them at a vet or in one of these weekend kennels, you get a State requirement of safety and health standards for your puppies. It seems to me, if we are going to require that minimum standard for animals that we might try it for our own children in this country. So our bill provides assistance to employers and providers of child care, and to parents who want to have the security of knowing their children are in safe places. To give you an idea of how serious this problem is, in the State of Florida today, there is a need of 40,000 spaces for child care that are nonexistent in the State. We are told with Welfare to Work that number will increase by 440,000 in the coming year. So you are going to have an explosion, I guess, of child care providers. What will be the quality? How much will the cost be? Is it accessible to people? The State of Florida may be an example where the vacancy rate is particularly high. But it is not unique. Other States across the country are facing similar problems. I was disappointed when I saw the list of the 19 priority items that the majority leader has placed before us in this brief session that child care is not on that list of 19. Child care is not on that list. We went through the debate on welfare reform a year or so ago. One of the promises made in this Chamber was that as we moved people from welfare to work, we would do something about caring for the children of these people who have been on welfare. What we are being told now, with this priority list of 19, is that child care is not on that list; that working families who are trying to make ends meet in caring for their children are not going to be a part of this agenda in the next 70 or 120 days of a legislative process. I am hopeful that agenda can change, that it is not written in concrete, that there will be an opportunity to make the case that we ought to be able to come up with a compromise bill if need be between Republicans and Democrats that takes out the partisanship on this issue and says that we ought to be able to come up with some idea here that can assist these working families. I know my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, with whom I wrote the child care block grant program 13 years ago, and my colleague from Kansas, Senator Pat Roberts, care very much about this issue. Senator Jeffords cares about this issue, and had his own bill up earlier. Obviously, Senator Chafee does. He has a bill in. I know my colleagues from Maine, Senator Collins and Senator Snowe, and Senator Specter have an interest in this. I am just disappointed. I can't hide it--that having invested 6 weeks of staff time and effort to try to come up with a compromise bill that it all falls apart literally in the last few days after we pretty much had a work product. So I am going to continue to raise this issue. I am glad the President did last night. I am glad he highlighted it. I think a lot of people in this country understand in very graphic ways how important this issue is to them for their neighbors and their coworkers. They understand it. They see every day what goes on, how difficult this is, how costly it is, and how worried people are. After-school care is a big issue in this context. We put over $3 billion over 5 years in after school care. 5 million children every day are home alone between 3 o'clock and 6 o'clock and 7 o'clock. Any police chief in any town will tell you the problems that kids get into is not after 11 p.m. at night when people want to put in curfews. Where kids get in trouble is in the afternoon between 3 o'clock and 8 o'clock. That is when trouble occurs. Seventy percent of our schools in this country have no after-school care programs at all. It seems to me that we ought to do something about that. I am not just talking about infants but young children in elementary schools. Try and dial a phone in a relatively small community between 3 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. in the afternoon. There is a delay between the last digit you dial and when the phone actually clicks in. That is because the phone system is overloaded with parents calling their homes to make sure their kids have gotten home safely. So after-school care is a part of our effort and a part of this proposal that we will put before this body. So with those thoughts I am urging our colleagues to see if we can't find some common ground. Hopefully the majority leader will change that agenda to include child care on it with the recommendation of the administration. We are not arguing now with an executive branch over whether or not we ought to do this. There are two bills here that it seems to me we should move on. I am going to raise this issue at every opportunity I can in the coming weeks to see to it that before this session of this Congress adjourns that this U.S. Senate will address child care, after-school care, and care for parents who want to stay at home, and that these parents are going to get some relief before we call it quits. I think it is a critical issue and one that ought to be one of our top priorities rather than not a priority at all. With that I yield the remainder of my time, if any of my colleagues want to take a few minutes before the time expires. I see my colleague from New Jersey.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer congratulations to an outstanding mathematics teacher, Marianne Roche Cavanaugh, who has been named the 1998 Connecticut Teacher of the Year. Mrs. Cavanaugh has demonstrated a lifetime of dedication to the students of Glastonbury's Public Schools, and she has set a standard of excellence for both her students and other educators. I want to express my gratitude and admiration for the commitment that she has displayed over her 22 years in teaching. Mrs. Cavanaugh has had a distinguished career marked with various awards and achievements. She single-handedly created the Gideon Wells Marathon--an academic and community involvement program for 7th and 8th graders. Since 1994, students have raised more than $20,000 by securing pledges for each math problem they solve in 1 hour during the Marathon. The accumulated funds have been donated to charities chosen by the students. In addition, Mrs. Cavanaugh has directed district-wide professional development, and has co-developed a problem solving math curriculum, which emphasizes writing, calculator use, problem solving, and interdisciplinary activities. Imaginative and productive ideas such as these have earned Mrs. Cavanaugh the distinction of being a finalist for the prestigious Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching in both 1986 and 1998, as well as being the winner of the Celebration of Excellence Award in 1986. The purpose of the Connecticut Teacher of the Year Program is to identify, from among many outstanding teachers, one teacher to serve as a visible and vocal representative of what is best in the profession. Through her innovative ideas, dedication to the institutional development of mathematics, and love for her profession and her students, Mrs. Cavanaugh has clearly earned this prestigious honor. While I commend Mrs. Cavanaugh for her display of excellence in teaching, I want also to mention that her work is representative of the work of many educators that too often remain unrecognized. A survey done by the National Center for Education Statistics in 1995 found that only 54 percent of all teachers feel respected by society in their profession. Teachers fill an enormously important role in shaping the developmental experiences of children during the impressionable ages of childhood and adolescence. They serve not only to educate, but to mentor, motivate, influence, and inspire our children. Thanks to Mrs. Cavanaugh and other quality teachers like her throughout the State and the Nation, we have a brighter future ahead of us.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate 11 organizations, companies, and municipalities in my home State of Connecticut for being named to the honor roll of the Women's Bureau of the U.S. Department of Labor. This honor roll recognizes entities across the country that have made a commitment to working women and to a family-friendly workplace. Most Americans go to work each day worried about their health care, affordable and reliable child care, living wages, and job protection in times of family crisis. These organizations are trying to help alleviate some of these worries and should be applauded for their efforts. The 11 honorees from Connecticut are: Aetna Inc., the city of New Britain, the Connecticut Women's Education and Legal Fund, DCC/The Dependent Care Connection Inc., the Entrepreneurial Center at Hartford College for Women, GTE Service Corp., ITT Hartford, Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Co., United Illuminating Co., United Technologies Corp., and the Urban League of southwestern Connecticut. These entities are helping working women to achieve better pay and benefits, to strike a better balance of work and family responsibilities, and to gain more respect and opportunity on the job. For example, flexible work schedules and interactive retirement planning software allow more women to pick up a sick child from school or help plan for their and their families' financial future. Other programs instituted by these family-friendly Connecticut organizations include discounted on-site day care, at-home offices, extensive prenatal care, and seminars to assist families with college planning. The American work force is changing. When The Department of Labor Women's Bureau was created by Congress in 1920, there were only 8.25 million working women--less than 20 percent of our Nation's work force. Today, nearly 60 million women work for pay --almost 50 percent of our Nation's work force. Not only are more women working, but more women must work to make ends meet for their families. America's work force and families are facing new challenges and it is organizations like these 11 that deserve to be applauded for making innovative and constructive efforts to make their workplaces more family-friendly. As we applaud these honor roll members we must also remember that there are challenges that still need to be addressed in our changing workplace. By and large, American working women still have difficulty finding affordable child care, paid sick leave, and unpaid family leave during an extended family crisis. And let us not forget that women continue to face discrimination in hiring and promotion, as well as underpayment in comparisons to men with the same or similar credentials. Though we have made some progress, such as passing the Family and Medical Leave Act, it is obvious we still have challenges to overcome. So, let's applaud the companies, organizations, and municipalities on the Labor Department's honor roll for working women. And let's continue to struggle toward solutions to make every workplace a family-friendly workplace.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to recognize the work of one of my constituents--William D. Moore of Old Saybrook, Connecticut. Bill left his post as Executive Director of the Southeastern Connecticut Chamber of Commerce this month and his work in that post deserves special recognition. Bill has been at the helm of so many economic and development initiatives in the Southern portion of our state that it is hard to list all of them in this brief statement. But without a doubt, it is Bill's leadership through some of the most difficult economic times in our state that really stand out in my mind. When the very first round of base closures were being proposed in the Pentagon in 1989, it was Bill Moore who literally marshaled the forces in Southern Connecticut. He recruited some of the most dynamic and brilliant minds in our state to come together and review every single document, every single calculation, and even the very computer model used to analyze the various Groton-New London regional facilities under the Defense Department's review. Bill created one of the most cohesive and effective team strategies ever presented to address the economic impact issues which clearly were not being assessed by the Pentagon. Although not all of our efforts were successful, it was Bill's foresight and commanding presence that eventually led our team to victory in the fight to remove the New London Submarine Base from the Base Closure list in 1993. As a measure of credit, the Base Closure Commission belatedly admitted that the Navy's assumptions used to evaluate New London were flawed. Bill Moore was the man who first presented that information to the commission. However, Bill's efforts have gone far beyond that monumental task. He has been the usher at the door of an entire new economic era for Southeastern Connecticut. Just as the defense down-sizing efforts were taking their ravenous toll on our state and New London County in particular, Bill encouraged and fostered new development for our state and helped bring about a more level-headed transition for our heavily defense weighted economy. For example, he assisted in the appropriation of funds to rebuild the Connecticut State Pier and helped with the private-public partnerships that have rebuilt downtown New London. That was no small task. During Bill's tenure, the membership of the Southeastern Chamber has more than doubled. Clearly, the contributions of those members have made New London County what it is today. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention Bill's contributions during the creation and expansion of two of the most successful Indian gaming facilities in the hemisphere. Bill's unique skills and perseverence made this transition for our region a positive and inclusive process. In closing, let me just add my personal thanks and congratulations to Bill and his family. I wish Bill and Maureen every success in their new endeavors.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President. As 1998 rolls around, so does another election. But this upcoming campaign season will be different from any other that I have ever known. For the first time since I entered public office in 1974, a certain dapper reporter with a flower in his lapel will not be there reporting the facts of the campaign and offering his assessments. Don O. Noel, Jr., who is one of the most prominent and respected journalists in Connecticut history, has retired after working for 39 years as a political reporter in Hartford. Don Noel's career as a journalist dates all the way back to 1958, the year that my father was elected to the first of two terms as a U.S. Senator. It is amazing for anyone to have such a long career in any field, particularly in an area as mentally, physically, and emotionally demanding as journalism. Don Noel started out as a writer for the Hartford Times, where he worked for 17 years. For a change of pace, he ventured into television journalism and spent a decade at WFSB-TV Channel 3. He eventually returned to print journalism in 1984 when he became a political columnist for the Hartford Courant, where he stayed until his retirement. Don Noel was an old-school reporter in the truest and best sense of the term. He was always courteous and respectful of the people he interviewed and wrote about. At the same time, he refused to skirt around difficult issues and never refrained from asking stinging questions or making pointed comments. He felt that part of his role as a journalist was to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Don Noel was able to succeed for so long because he was a reporter of substance who cared about the truth and cared about his readers. He understood that his role as journalist was to hold politicians accountable for their actions and to serve as a watchdog on behalf of the general public. Don Noel did more than simply report the facts, he also interpreted them. As an editorial page writer, he was responsible for offering his opinions on the issues of the day. Not everyone agreed with his ideas, but everyone respected them because they were always thoughtful and well-developed. Most of Mr. Noel's criticisms were aimed at those who tended to be a bit more conservative, but to the end he remained an equal opportunity critic. It didn't matter if you were a Democrat, Republican, or Independent; if you were a public official and Don Noel thought that you were anything less than an upstanding public servant, it's safe to say that your name would be in the paper that week. One of his colleagues at the Hartford Courant noted that Don Noel was an institution not because of the number of years he put into service, but how well he applied them. I strongly concur with these sentiments and believe that Don Noel was one of the finest people that I have had the pleasure of knowing during my career in politics. While his retirement is truly a loss for the people of Connecticut, I am glad that he will finally have more time to do the things that he truly enjoys. He has said that he plans to spend a good deal of his new-found free time doing community service work in the neighborhoods of northwest Hartford, where he has volunteered for more than a decade. He also hopes to travel with his wife and have an opportunity to try other kinds of writing in which he won't have a deadline hanging over his head. Whatever he chooses to do in his retirement, I wish him only the best, and I thank him for his many years of service to the people of Connecticut.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking my colleagues who have spent innumerable hours creating a bill that will bring lifesaving drugs and medical devices to the American people more quickly and efficiently, without compromising safety or effectiveness. First, Senator Jeffords is to be commended for his leadership. His staff, most notably Jay Hawkins and Sean Donahue, also deserve our appreciation for their hard work and dedication to seeing this legislation enacted. Although the process was at times a difficult one, I'm pleased to say that a spirit of bipartisanship and compromise ultimately prevailed, as evidenced by the overwhelming Senate vote of 98 to 2 in September on this bill. I'd also like to thank my fellow Senate conferees--Senators Kennedy, Coats, Harkin, Gregg, Mikulski, Frist, and DeWine for their successful efforts to negotiate a workable compromise with our colleagues in the House. We should take pride in the legislation that has been created--the first substantial update of FDA's rules for regulating drugs and devices since the 1970's. We should take pride in the fact that this bill will speed critical products to patients without compromising the high safety standards that Americans have come to rely on. Mr. President, I'd like to speak for a moment about some of the positive reforms contained in this bill. At the heart of the bill is the 5-year reauthorization of PDUFA, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act--a piece of legislation remarkable for the fact that there is unanimous agreement that it really works. In the 5 years since this initiative was created, the fees collected under PDUFA have cut drug approval times in half. With its renewal as part of this bill, we can expect drug approval times to drop an additional 10 to 16 months. In addition, by improving the certainty of product review process, this bill encourages U.S. companies to continue to develop and manufacture in the United States. This bill asks the FDA and industry to begin collaborating early in the approval process to prevent misunderstandings about agency expectations that ultimately could delay a needed product from reaching consumers. This bill also establishes or expands upon several mechanisms to provide patients and other consumers with greater access to information and to lifesaving products. For example, this bill will give individuals with lifethreatening illnesses greater access to information about ongoing clinical trials of drugs--information that may offer the only hope for those patients who have not benefited from treatments already on the market. Based on a bill originally championed by Senators Snowe and Feinstein, I offered an amendment in committee, which I was pleased to see adopted, to expand an existing AIDS database to include clinical trials for all serious or lifethreatening diseases. Individuals struggling with chronic and debilitating diseases should not be burdened with the daunting task of searching, without assistance, to locate studies of promising treatments. This database will provide one-stop-shopping to help those patients quickly and easily access vital information. Mr. President, I am particularly pleased that this bill incorporates the Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, legislation originally introduced by our former colleague from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, and now cosponsored by myself and Senator DeWine. This provision addresses the problem of the lack of information about how drugs work on children, a problem that President Clinton recognized recently as a national crisis. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, only one-fifth of all drugs on the market have been tested for their safety and effectiveness in children. This legislation provides a fair and reasonable market incentive for drug companies to make the extra effort needed to test their products for use by children. I was pleased to join Senator Jeffords as the first Democratic cosponsor of this bill. I would thank him again for the hard work and long hours that he and his staff have contributed. I look forward to joining my colleagues in voting in favor of this legislation. Let me join here, Mr. President, the chorus of praise for those who have been involved in putting this bill together. It has been a long journey and not always an easy one, but I think the final product is a good one. I commend the chairman of the committee, Senator Jeffords, and his staff, Jay Hawkins, Sean Donohue, Jeanne Ireland of my staff, for their hard work and dedication in seeing this process to its conclusion. We swept the Senate with an overwhelming vote of 98 to 2 on what I thought was a good bill. Our conferees worked very hard. I thank Senators Kennedy, Coats, Harkin, Craig, Mikulski, Frist, and DeWine for their successful efforts in this area as well. This is a critically important piece of legislation that will expedite the process of getting needed medicines and devices to patients, without compromising safety or effectiveness. That was a desired goal of everybody here. Let me, if I can, mention two or three provisions in the bill that I think are worthy of special note. One, of course, is a 5-year reauthorization of PDUFA, which is very, very important. I think it demonstrates the success of the PDUFA and how well it worked over 5 years. Secondly, I also would like to commend our colleagues for accepting the several mechanisms to provide patients and consumers with greater access to information and to life-saving products. For example, this bill gives individuals with life-threatening illnesses greater access to information about ongoing clinical trials and drugs that could be very, very important to them and their families. By the way, Senator Snowe and Senator Feinstein deserve particular credit. It was originally their idea that we incorporated in the bill, the Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. Former Senator Kassebaum of Kansas originally authored that idea, Mr. President. Senator DeWine and I included it in this bill. I think it has been improved upon in the conference. It is a very important provision that could make a huge difference for young children and their families who want to have reliable products that will become available to them. So, Mr. President, let me conclude by again thanking all those who have been involved in this process. Passing this legislation can truly be considered one of the very fine achievements of this first session of this Congress. I look forward to its effectiveness with the American consumer.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, within every town in the country, there are a small handful of families or individuals whose achievements and contributions to their community are so extraordinary that they become as much a part of the town's landscape as Main Street, the Court House, or City Hall. The Vece's are such a family in the town of Clinton, CT. For decades, Vece family members have been on town boards and commissions, working on countless charity and civic events. The Vece family's contributions to town life were even honored in 1995, when the Pierson School gazebo was renamed the Vece Gazebo. But the greatest illustration of what this family meant to the vitality of this small New England shoretown could be seen once a week at a local restaurant. Each Sunday from 4 to 8 p.m. for the past 16 years, a diverse group of patrons would gather at Bill's Seafood Restaurant to enjoy the music of Clinton's favorite band. The people of Clinton loved coming out and singing the songs that they all knew, but what they loved most was the band's leader--Dan Vece, Sr. What set Mr. Vece apart from other bandleaders was not the great musical skill with which he played the banjo. What made Dan Vece so special was his zest for life. That, and the fact that he was over 100 years old. Seeing Dan Vece on stage wearing his trademark sailor's cap and picking at his 1919 Gibson banjo, served to remind countless people that life was meant to be enjoyed. He served as an inspiration to anyone who was fortunate enough to meet him. Sadly, on September 23, 1997, Dan Vece, Sr. died at the age of 101. Dan Vece, Sr. grew up and lived in New Haven, CT until he enlisted in the Army during World War I. After being discharged from the Army, he returned to New Haven where he married his wife of 68 years, Tilly Tullo. Together they moved to Clinton in 1919, where they operated a retail plumbing store and service. In addition to his business, Mr. Vece was one of Clinton's first police officers and served as a fireman, beginning the longstanding family tradition of public service. Mr. Vece enjoyed working and didn't retire until he was 80 years old, and he continued doing odd jobs until he was 88. He played golf until he was 96, and drove a car until he was 98, transporting senior women to the grocery store. Dan Vece was involved in countless activities, but his true passion was always his music. He had no formal musical training, but he taught himself to play most any musical instrument that he could get his hands on. His wife was a trained musician and together they formed a band with Tilly on piano and Dan on the drums. They played together at the ice shows in Clinton and all the big jobs from New Haven to New London. And after each gig, they always loved to go out dancing. Eventually, Tilly retired from performing, but Dan carried on and fronted a band that played at restaurants and resorts along the Connecticut shoreline, various jazz festivals, nursing homes, schools, and of course Bill's Seafood Restaurant on Sunday evenings. Whenever anyone asked why he was still performing, Mr. Vece would always say that his doctor told him that music was the best medicine and he should keep on playing as long as possible. Well, Dan Vece followed his doctor's orders, and as a result he brought happiness into the lives of countless individuals. Dan Vece, Sr.'s good humor, devotion to his community and remarkable vitality made him a beloved figure in Clinton and throughout Connecticut. He was loved and revered by all, and he will be dearly missed.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the greatest lawyers in recent American history--Bernard G. Segal, who died earlier this year. Bernard Segal, who served as the president of the American Bar Association in 1969-70, was known as the conscience of the bar, and some of his colleagues said that he promoted individual rights and the rule of law more than any other lawyer of our time. Bernard Segal's legal accomplishments began at an early age, as he was named directly out of Penn Law School to serve as deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania. At age 24, he was the youngest person to ever hold this post, but he still proceeded to write many important pieces of legislation, including the State's banking code. He left this position to be a founding partner of the Philadelphia law firm of Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis. As a member of the firm, he was very successful, representing many blue-chip clients such as Bell Telephone, NBC, and United Parcel, and during his career he argued nearly 50 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result of his legal prowess, Mr. Segal was tapped to serve as the chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar and president of the American Bar Association, becoming the first Jewish man to serve in either post. Mr. Segal continually dedicated himself to legal causes, and one of his most successful crusades was his mission to improve the selection process for federal judges. As chairman of the ABA's standing committee on the Federal Judiciary, Mr. Segal helped to persuade President Eisenhower to establish the practice of submitting prospective Federal judicial appointments to the ABA for review. In order to convince the President of the need for this procedure, Mr. Segal asked the former general this simple question: ``Would you appoint a general without asking the colonels what they thought of him.'' Bernard Segal's legal career was truly exemplary, but what made this man so extraordinary was his commitment to helping the less fortunate members of our society. Mr. Segal described the hallmark of the law firm that he helped found as its ``dedication to the higher calling,'' that is ``the lawyer's obligation to assume an active role in the pursuit of a just and ordered society, in helping to solve the emerging problems of social, economic and political importance * * * to serve the public as his or her client, as she or he would serve a full-paying client.'' Mr. Segal's commitment to preserving equal justice under the law for all Americans particularly shone during the civil rights movement. In the 1960's, many people in the country viewed civil rights as a Southern problem, one over which they had little influence or control. Fortunately, Bernard Segal did not share this view. In 1963, when Alabama Governor George Wallace announced that he would disregard the Federal court order that prohibited interference with the admission of African-American students at the University of Alabama, Bernard Segal saw the need for the Nation's legal community to speak out publicly against the Governor's actions. He quickly got 46 prominent lawyers, including three former U.S. Attorneys General, to sign a public letter condemning the Governor's defiance of the law. Shortly afterward, President Kennedy announced that he was creating a group known as the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the President named Bernard Segal as one of the organization's two co- chairmen. This committee of 246 private lawyers helped build support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and its call for peaceful compliance with court orders had a persuasive impact on future integration efforts in the South. In the wake of the civil rights movement, Bernard Segal remained socially active. President Johnson chose him to head the National Legal Service Program, which established legal services for the poor. And much like he did at his own law firm, Mr. Segal worked diligently to enlist lawyers to provide legal assistance for the indigent. Bernard Segal's efforts did not go unrecognized. Among his many honors were the American Bar Association's Gold Medal, the National Civil Rights Award by the U.S. Attorney General, the National Human Relations Award by the National Conference of Christians and Jews, the Judge William H. Hastie Award by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the World Peace Through Law Award as the ``World's Greatest Lawyer.'' Bernard Segal represented the highest standards and ideals of the legal profession, and all those who were fortunate enough to know this great man will miss him dearly. He is survived by his wife, Geraldine, his daughter Loretta, his son Richard, three grandchildren, one great- grandchild, his brother, and his sister. I offer my heartfelt condolences to them all.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President. I rise today in strong support for passage of S. 318, the Homeowners Protection Act of 1997. This important consumer legislation would end the odious practice of forcing hundreds of thousands of homeowners to pay for private mortgage insurance long after they, or their lender, cease to derive any benefit from it. Private mortgage insurance--or PMI as it's known--has played a very important role in expanding homeownership opportunities for people who have had less than the traditional 20 percent downpayment that many lenders required. In the event of a default, the PMI provides insurance to the lender for the difference between the downpayment and 20 percent or, in rare instances, some other predetermined percentage--equity level. This is also known as an 80 percent loan-to-value ratio. As beneficial as PMI has been, it has also developed some less savory characteristics. Principally, the problem with PMI as it exists today is that it is virtually impossible for a homeowner to stop making the premium payments, even after the PMI no longer provides any protection. As a result, literally hundreds of thousands of homeowners pay as much as $1,200 a year in unfair and unnecessary payments. Mr. President, this legislation would change all that in a fair and simple way. First, the bill provides simple and meaningful disclosure to the borrower at the time of the mortgage closing, so that the borrower understands when and how they can cancel their PMI. In fact, the borrower receives an amortization table that gives them a date certain when they may voluntarily cancel the PMI and a date certain when the PMI will be automatically canceled. Second, the bill requires the mortgage servicer to provide annual notices to the homeowner and then to let the homeowner know that they've reached 80 percent loan-to- value ratio, based upon the original amortization table, and therefore, the homeowner may have the right to cancel. Third, the bill provides that for the vast majority of homeowners, their PMI will be automatically canceled at 78 percent loan-to-value ratio, based upon the original amortization table. Lastly, there are some very, very narrow exceptions for high-risk loans that allow the continuation of PMI to the halflife of the loan. Let me put it more simply, Mr. President: for the overwhelming majority of homeowners, when you've got 20 percent equity in your home, you have the right to initiate cancellation of your PMI. If you choose not to initiate the cancellation, your PMI will be automatically canceled at 22 percent equity. It's that simple. And the result of these reforms will save hundreds of thousands of homeowners as much as $1,200 a year. As easy as the problem was to identify, it was a complicated and difficult process to achieve this legislative remedy. I particularly wish to acknowledge the outstanding work of Chairman D'Amato, with whom I joined in this effort back in February. I would also like to thank Senator Sarbanes, Senator Faircloth, and Senator Bennett for their tireless efforts to achieve a bill that serves the interest of consumers without inadvertently disrupting the mortgage lending industry. I urge my colleagues to join me in passing this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President. I rise today to pay tribute to Gen. John Shalikashvili. His life's story is one of the greatest in our Nation's history. General Shali, as he is affectionately known, came to this country when he was 16, and after graduating from college, he was drafted into the U.S. military. During his 39 years of public service, he rose from the ranks of Army private to the highest military office in the land. He is an embodiment of the principles for which this Nation stands, and I would like to pay tribute to him on the occasion of his retirement earlier this year as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Anyone he worked with will tell you that he did a tremendous job as Chairman. During these times of military downsizing, he has been responsible for shaping a military that is smaller, but better. In order to do so, he had to ensure that our troops were better prepared and better equipped than any other force in the world. He succeeded mightily. During his tenure as Chairman, U.S. troops were tested in more than 40 operations. In places like Bosnia, Haiti, and Iraq our troops performed superbly in their efforts to defend democracy and further the cause of peace. General Shalikashvili's courage and bravery were unquestioned, as evidenced by the Bronze Star he earned for his combat service in the Vietnam war. But what made General Shali such an effective leader was his compassion, and his ability to understand the human element of military operations. He was the head of the 1991 operation to provide relief to the Iraqi Kurds who had been exiled from their homes by Saddam Hussein. Thousands of men, women, and children were dying in the mountains of northern Iraq and eastern Turkey, and he helped many of these families return to their homes, personally providing comfort to these individuals who were sick and suffering. America's troops could look at General Shali and see a man who understood their needs, because he had stood in their shoes. He worked his way through the ranks, but never forgot his own past. General Shalikashvili spent his 39-year career fighting to protect freedom, and I think that the greatest tribute and reward for his service came this past July in the city of Warsaw. At that time, General Shali watched on as President Clinton invited Poland to become a member of NATO. Who would have ever imagined that the young Polish child, who was 3-years-old when Hitler's tanks rolled in from the East, would 1 day return to Poland as the highest-ranking officer of the U.S. military and stand before thousands of cheering Poles as his native country was welcomed back into the family of free nations? General Shalikashvili is truly an inspiration to us all, and our Nation is richer and stronger as a result of his contributions. I want to personally thank him for his service, and I wish him and his wife, Joan, all the best as they enjoy retirement together.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President. I rise today to pay tribute the Wethersfield Teen Theater Company, which is about to celebrate its 10th anniversary. This company was founded in 1988 by 15-year-old Bill Fennelly who was frustrated by the lack of opportunities in the theater for young people in the Wethersfield area, and the name of the company that Bill created indicates what makes this group so unique and special--it is run by and for teenagers. Whether it's the director, the choreographer, or a member of the lighting crew, every member of the company must be between the ages of 11 and 21. The company members have complete artistic control over their productions, and they are also responsible for raising money and doing publicity for each play. Not only has the Wethersfield Teen Theater given hundreds of young people an opportunity to express themselves artistically and experience the feeling of performing live on the stage; but this company also gave many young people leadership opportunities that people their age don't traditionally enjoy. People who participate in the Wethersfield Teen Theater learn lessons about personal responsibility that they will carry with them throughout their lives. When the theater company was founded there were many doubters. Not only were people skeptical that a group of teenagers would be able to put on a quality theatrical production, there were questions about their ability to raise the money to stage a production. The Wethersfield Teen Theater put on a spring review called ``On Broadway,'' and they were able to raise the money to stage a production of ``Joseph and the Technicolor Dreamcoat.'' ``Joseph'' was major success, and in 1990, the teen theater gained the official sponsorship of the Wethersfield Recreation and Parks Department. While the sponsorship provides the company with free rehearsal and performance space, the theater company is not a budgeted program and the teens still must earn all the money required to produce each show. Since its founding, the Wethersfield Teen Theater Company has put on a major summer and spring production every year. In addition, the company also sponsors children's workshops that are designed to get children interested in theater. They also perform at local community events, elementary schools, and hospitals. For a decade, people have been enjoying the talent, enthusiasm, and creativity of the Wethersfield Teen Theater Company, and on January 3, 1998, the group will celebrate its 10th Anniversary with the performance of a production called ``Our Time.'' I am certain that this production will be a great success, and I hope that this wonderful theater company will continue enriching the lives of young people in the Wethersfield area for many decades to come.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for key provisions of the fiscal year 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill. This bill is the product of a long, often difficult, process and, like many of our legislative efforts, it is in no way perfect. However, I am particularly pleased with the $3.3 billion increase included for education. With this legislation, students, parents and schools across the country will see broad increases in Federal spending in key areas. Funding for education technology will double. Special education funding will increase by $800 million to a historic high of nearly $5 billion. The title I program, which provides disadvantaged students with remedial tutoring in math and science, will receive $7.4 billion. This bill also provides for the continued development of voluntary national tests in fourth grade reading and eighth grade math. While there was a great deal of negotiation, discussion, and compromise on this last issue, I am pleased that the final legislation does not set up any roadblocks that will block full implementation of this important accountability initiative in schools across the country. This bill also includes new funding for young children. Head Start funding will grow by $300 million, putting it on the path to serving 1,000,000 3- and 4-year-olds by the year 2000. The Child Care and Development Block Grant will also grow by $50 million to reach $1 billion and provide working families with additional assistance in meeting their child care needs. On the other end of education funding, college students and their parents will receive substantial new assistance through this bill. First and most importantly, the Pell grant program will receive an increase of $1.5 billion. These funds will increase the Pell grant maximum to $3,000--the highest level in history--and will expand the Pell grant program to assist an additional 210,000 students. This last step is particularly crucial in my view. Earlier this year, I introduced legislation to better assist students by modifying the treatment of dependent student income to ensure that needy students are not penalized for working. This appropriations bill includes this initiative and consequently will reach thousands of new students who work. This appropriations bill does not fully accomplish the goals set by my legislation, but it takes the first vital steps, which we can hopefully build upon during next year's reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. This bill also includes legislation approved by the Labor and Human Resources Committee last month to assist students in better managing their Federal student loans. This bill, the Emergency Student Loan Consolidation Act, responds to the recent shutdown of the Federal direct loan consolidation programs by providing all student borrowers with the option of consolidating their student loans into the guaranteed loan program. There had been some concern that this bill, as it passed the Labor Committee, did not have an appropriate offset; however, additional clarifying language is included today which will allow the administration to manage this offset appropriately. We also include another emergency provision which ensures that families who receive a HOPE Scholarship will not be penalized for this scholarship in the determination of families' need for Federal student aid. It is very important to America's families and college students that these two initiatives pass this year and I am pleased that their inclusion in this bill today will make that possible. Thus far, Mr. President, I have focused on what is in this bill in terms of education. However, I am pleased that one education provision adopted by the Senate was dropped in this final bill--the Gorton amendment. This very destructive amendment, which I have strenuously opposed since it was first introduced, would have eliminated Federal funding for school safety, character education, vocational rehabilitation services, Indian education, teacher training and education technology. The conferees recognized that this policy was not fully considered by the Senate, as well as the appropriate committees, and took us in the wrong direction on education policy. For all that is good in this bill, it is clearly the product of considerable compromise and is not the bill I would have written. I am particularly disturbed by the inclusion of language expanding the reach of the Hyde amendment which will further limit the rights of Federal employees in this important, personal area. However, on the whole, I believe this is a good bill for the families and children of America and will join my colleagues in supporting its passage. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Mack, Senator Harkin, and others in introducing the National Institutes of Health Trust Fund Act of 1997. This bill, very simply, is intended to ensure that payments made by the tobacco industry under any settlement legislation enacted by Congress on behalf of the people of this Nation, will be the full responsibility of the tobacco companies. Many of us were dismayed to learn that under current law, those payments could be deducted by these companies as a business expense-- effectively reducing the cost to manufacturers by one-third. I don't think that this is what the negotiators of the settlement intended, nor is it what the public expects. This bill would disallow the deductibility of the proposed settlement or the settlement of any other tobacco-related civil action. The tax revenues from the disallowance of the deduction, estimated at $100 billion, would go toward a trust fund for the National Institutes of Health. My primary interest in the tobacco settlement originates in the dramatically high incidence of teen smoking in our country. The statistics are startling--3,000 young children begin smoking each day and over 90 percent of adults that smoke started before the age of 18. Our hope and expectation is that with resources generated by a tobacco settlement, we can fund effective programs to help addicted teens quit smoking and prevent most children from ever starting. In essence, we want to encourage young people to take responsibility for their health. Tobacco companies must set a precedent for our youth by taking full financial responsibility for the damage they have inflicted on the public health of the Nation. Tobacco companies have already conceded the points that tobacco is harmful and addictive and information that would have been useful to our understanding of tobacco addition was withheld. Avoiding full payment of penalties for their actions through the tax deduction loophole is ethically wrong, even if legal. The tobacco industry needs to serve as an example for the children of the Nation by accepting the full financial consequences of the settlement. Just a few months ago, the public loudly voiced its disgust with the covert attempt to give the tobacco industry a $50 billion credit toward payment of a future settlement. While we were successful in eliminating that loophole, an unfortunate repercussion has been the exacerbation of the public's doubts about the settlement. Even if they didn't before, many now believe that the industry will exploit any loophole to escape its responsibility. We must restore the public's faith in this process. We must send a clear message that any tobacco settlement reached will be grounded in the principle that tobacco companies take full responsibility for their actions. That objective can best be achieved by swift passage of this bill.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Commission on Fairness in the Workplace Act. This commission will be tasked to review the trend of creating more part-time jobs than full- time jobs; assess the relationship between part-time work and wage levels, benefits, earning potential, and productivity; and examine the practice of having different wage and benefit levels for part-time and full-time workers. This commission, comprised of representatives of the business community, labor, academia and government, will report its findings and recommendations to Congress and the President. I fully recognize that for many individuals, part-time employment is a perfect solution. Full-time students and individuals wanting to combine work and family responsibilities choose to work part-time. But, part-time work should not be a passport to second class status. Often these employees perform the same duties as their full-time counterparts, but for less money and no benefits. And for those individuals seeking employment, too often they can only find work that requires full-time hours, but not full-time pay and benefits. Too many Americans are forced to work two and three part-time jobs to pay their rent or mortgage, and put food on their tables. Let's not forget that employees who work full-time, earning benefits and living wages, are often still struggling. How do we expect individuals and families to survive on part-time wages and no benefits. Their status may be classified as part-time, but their expenses certainly are not. Employers must strive to provide salaries and benefits that meet the demands of today's circumstances, while searching for ways to increase productivity and remain competitive in a global environment. The recent UPS experience put a national spotlight on this issue; working full-time hours at part-time status and receiving less money and fewer benefits than a full-time employee. One of the concessions of the negotiations was that UPS would agree to create 10,000 full-time jobs from existing part-time positions. A poll of 500 individuals by the University of Connecticut in September found strong support for action that would guarantee part- time workers some benefits and compel employers to pay those workers hourly wages equal to their full-time counterparts. Part-time employees in Connecticut comprise 12 percent of the work-force, less than the 18 percent national average. Our work-force is one of our countries most treasured assets. Employees deserve to receive living wages and benefits and we must act now. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Hartford Courant article ``Part-timers' Rights Backed'' be included in the Record and I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National Commission on Fairness in the Workplace Act. This commission will be tasked to review the trend of creating more part-time jobs than full- time jobs; assess the relationship between part-time work and wage levels, benefits, earning potential, and productivity; and examine the practice of having different wage and benefit levels for part-time and full-time workers. This commission, comprised of representatives of the business community, labor, academia and government, will report its findings and recommendations to Congress and the President. I fully recognize that for many individuals, part-time employment is a perfect solution. Full-time students and individuals wanting to combine work and family responsibilities choose to work part-time. But, part-time work should not be a passport to second class status. Often these employees perform the same duties as their full-time counterparts, but for less money and no benefits. And for those individuals seeking employment, too often they can only find work that requires full-time hours, but not full-time pay and benefits. Too many Americans are forced to work two and three part-time jobs to pay their rent or mortgage, and put food on their tables. Let's not forget that employees who work full-time, earning benefits and living wages, are often still struggling. How do we expect individuals and families to survive on part-time wages and no benefits. Their status may be classified as part-time, but their expenses certainly are not. Employers must strive to provide salaries and benefits that meet the demands of today's circumstances, while searching for ways to increase productivity and remain competitive in a global environment. The recent UPS experience put a national spotlight on this issue; working full-time hours at part-time status and receiving less money and fewer benefits than a full-time employee. One of the concessions of the negotiations was that UPS would agree to create 10,000 full-time jobs from existing part-time positions. A poll of 500 individuals by the University of Connecticut in September found strong support for action that would guarantee part- time workers some benefits and compel employers to pay those workers hourly wages equal to their full-time counterparts. Part-time employees in Connecticut comprise 12 percent of the work-force, less than the 18 percent national average. Our work-force is one of our countries most treasured assets. Employees deserve to receive living wages and benefits and we must act now. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Hartford Courant article ``Part-timers' Rights Backed'' be included in the Record and I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Mack, Senator Harkin, and others in introducing the National Institutes of Health Trust Fund Act of 1997. This bill, very simply, is intended to ensure that payments made by the tobacco industry under any settlement legislation enacted by Congress on behalf of the people of this Nation, will be the full responsibility of the tobacco companies. Many of us were dismayed to learn that under current law, those payments could be deducted by these companies as a business expense-- effectively reducing the cost to manufacturers by one-third. I don't think that this is what the negotiators of the settlement intended, nor is it what the public expects. This bill would disallow the deductibility of the proposed settlement or the settlement of any other tobacco-related civil action. The tax revenues from the disallowance of the deduction, estimated at $100 billion, would go toward a trust fund for the National Institutes of Health. My primary interest in the tobacco settlement originates in the dramatically high incidence of teen smoking in our country. The statistics are startling--3,000 young children begin smoking each day and over 90 percent of adults that smoke started before the age of 18. Our hope and expectation is that with resources generated by a tobacco settlement, we can fund effective programs to help addicted teens quit smoking and prevent most children from ever starting. In essence, we want to encourage young people to take responsibility for their health. Tobacco companies must set a precedent for our youth by taking full financial responsibility for the damage they have inflicted on the public health of the Nation. Tobacco companies have already conceded the points that tobacco is harmful and addictive and information that would have been useful to our understanding of tobacco addition was withheld. Avoiding full payment of penalties for their actions through the tax deduction loophole is ethically wrong, even if legal. The tobacco industry needs to serve as an example for the children of the Nation by accepting the full financial consequences of the settlement. Just a few months ago, the public loudly voiced its disgust with the covert attempt to give the tobacco industry a $50 billion credit toward payment of a future settlement. While we were successful in eliminating that loophole, an unfortunate repercussion has been the exacerbation of the public's doubts about the settlement. Even if they didn't before, many now believe that the industry will exploit any loophole to escape its responsibility. We must restore the public's faith in this process. We must send a clear message that any tobacco settlement reached will be grounded in the principle that tobacco companies take full responsibility for their actions. That objective can best be achieved by swift passage of this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues, Senators Warner, Bennett, Jeffords, Grams, Bingaman, and Leahy in introducing the Cuban Women and Children Humanitarian Relief Act--a bill to authorize the President to permit the sale of food, medicine, and medical equipment to the Cuban people. Provisions of this bill include a summary of the impact that the United States embargo on food and medicine has had on the public health in Cuba; a statement of United States policy with respect to the sale of food and medicine; authority for the President to permit the sale of food, medicine, and medical supplies to Cuba; congressional notification requirements; and a report to Congress assessing the impact of the bill 2 years after enactment. Mr. President, the intent of the legislation is very straight forward, namely to clear away all of the legal implements that impede the President's ability to permit American exports of food, medicines, and medical supplies to Cuba. As a matter of policy, I do not believe that United States sanctions should include prohibitions on the sale of what are essentially humanitarian items--products that are critical to the health and well being of the more than 10 million people who inhabit the Island of Cuba. Most Americans are probably unaware that United States policy generally prohibits American food and drug companies from selling food, medicines, and medical supplies to Cuba. Even those who are aware of this aspect of United States policy, probably assume that this isn't a serious problem, since Cuban authorities can simply buy these products elsewhere. That is not the case. Earlier this year, the American Association for World Health [AAWH] issued a report--Denial of Food and Medicine: The Impact of the U.S. Embargo on Health & Nutrition in Cuba--setting forth its observations from a year long study of the implications of the United States embargo on health care delivery and food security in Cuba. The AAWH ``determined that the United States embargo of Cuba has dramatically harmed the health and nutrition of large numbers of ordinary Cuban citizens.'' The team of nine medical experts who undertook this effort on behalf of AAWH identified four major health problems affected by the embargo: malnutrition, water quality, medicines and equipment, and medical information. First, with respect to malnutrition--the prohibition on the sale of United States food to Cuba has had serious consequences on the nutritional standards in Cuba, particularly for pregnant women. These nutritional deficiencies have, among other things, led to an increased incidence of low birth-weight babies. With respect to water quality, the lack of parts and appropriate chemicals has compromised the Cuban water supply system and resulted in increased illness and deaths from water-borne diseases. We all know that United States medical and pharmaceutical companies are at the forefront of the development and production of a vast majority of all new drugs and medical equipment that enter world markets. The by-product of that situation is that current United States restrictions virtually preclude the Cuban medical system from utilizing the most effective and advanced medicines and medical treatments in caring for the Cuban people. Finally, the embargo indirectly inhibits the exchange of critical medical information between the United States and Cuba. In no way should this legislation be seen as an endorsement of the current regime in Cuba. The existing policies of that government are clearly responsible for the serious economic crisis confronting that country. United States policy should be focused on promoting a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba--the tide of history flows in that direction. Many human rights activists within Cuba have been strongly critical of United States food and medicine restrictions. Elizardo Sanchez Santacruz, director of the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, and a prominent critic of the Cuban Government, has made clear his views on the current policy. ``America should lift its embargo on the sales of food and medicine to Cuba, a prohibition that violates international law and hurts the people, not the regime. Denying medicine to innocent citizens is an odd way of demonstrating support for human rights.'' I share that view. I believe the Clinton administration should take steps to mitigate the harmful impact of United States policy on the health of the Cuban people--particularly so with respect to the health of children, the elderly, and the infirm--by permitting United States exporters to sell food and medicine to that country. That is what this bill once enacted will enable the President to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join with my colleagues, Senators Warner, Bennett, Jeffords, Grams, Bingaman, and Leahy in introducing the Cuban Women and Children Humanitarian Relief Act--a bill to authorize the President to permit the sale of food, medicine, and medical equipment to the Cuban people. Provisions of this bill include a summary of the impact that the United States embargo on food and medicine has had on the public health in Cuba; a statement of United States policy with respect to the sale of food and medicine; authority for the President to permit the sale of food, medicine, and medical supplies to Cuba; congressional notification requirements; and a report to Congress assessing the impact of the bill 2 years after enactment. Mr. President, the intent of the legislation is very straight forward, namely to clear away all of the legal implements that impede the President's ability to permit American exports of food, medicines, and medical supplies to Cuba. As a matter of policy, I do not believe that United States sanctions should include prohibitions on the sale of what are essentially humanitarian items--products that are critical to the health and well being of the more than 10 million people who inhabit the Island of Cuba. Most Americans are probably unaware that United States policy generally prohibits American food and drug companies from selling food, medicines, and medical supplies to Cuba. Even those who are aware of this aspect of United States policy, probably assume that this isn't a serious problem, since Cuban authorities can simply buy these products elsewhere. That is not the case. Earlier this year, the American Association for World Health [AAWH] issued a report--Denial of Food and Medicine: The Impact of the U.S. Embargo on Health & Nutrition in Cuba--setting forth its observations from a year long study of the implications of the United States embargo on health care delivery and food security in Cuba. The AAWH ``determined that the United States embargo of Cuba has dramatically harmed the health and nutrition of large numbers of ordinary Cuban citizens.'' The team of nine medical experts who undertook this effort on behalf of AAWH identified four major health problems affected by the embargo: malnutrition, water quality, medicines and equipment, and medical information. First, with respect to malnutrition--the prohibition on the sale of United States food to Cuba has had serious consequences on the nutritional standards in Cuba, particularly for pregnant women. These nutritional deficiencies have, among other things, led to an increased incidence of low birth-weight babies. With respect to water quality, the lack of parts and appropriate chemicals has compromised the Cuban water supply system and resulted in increased illness and deaths from water-borne diseases. We all know that United States medical and pharmaceutical companies are at the forefront of the development and production of a vast majority of all new drugs and medical equipment that enter world markets. The by-product of that situation is that current United States restrictions virtually preclude the Cuban medical system from utilizing the most effective and advanced medicines and medical treatments in caring for the Cuban people. Finally, the embargo indirectly inhibits the exchange of critical medical information between the United States and Cuba. In no way should this legislation be seen as an endorsement of the current regime in Cuba. The existing policies of that government are clearly responsible for the serious economic crisis confronting that country. United States policy should be focused on promoting a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba--the tide of history flows in that direction. Many human rights activists within Cuba have been strongly critical of United States food and medicine restrictions. Elizardo Sanchez Santacruz, director of the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, and a prominent critic of the Cuban Government, has made clear his views on the current policy. ``America should lift its embargo on the sales of food and medicine to Cuba, a prohibition that violates international law and hurts the people, not the regime. Denying medicine to innocent citizens is an odd way of demonstrating support for human rights.'' I share that view. I believe the Clinton administration should take steps to mitigate the harmful impact of United States policy on the health of the Cuban people--particularly so with respect to the health of children, the elderly, and the infirm--by permitting United States exporters to sell food and medicine to that country. That is what this bill once enacted will enable the President to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Thurmond, Senator Levin, and the others on the Armed Services Committee for their efforts in bringing this conference report to the floor. This important conference report has not easily reached this point, and the fact that we are about to vote on it is a tribute to the bipartisanship and forbearance of the Committee members. This conference report will be good for our fighting forces and good for the Nation. Most important perhaps is the well-deserved 2.8 percent pay raise for our military personnel. Moreover, this conference report will provide the badly needed pay bonuses to help encourage highly trained personnel to continue their military service beyond their initial commitments. With passage of this conference report into law, this Nation will also fully fund the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program--the most cost-effective means of preventing nuclear proliferation. I can think of no better method to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction than to assist Russia in dismantling its nuclear arsenal. This conference report includes an amendment that I authored to assist those suffering from Persian Gulf war illnesses. Next year, I look forward to a combined Defense Department-Veterans Administration plan to provide health care to our sick veterans. Also, I expect to see a full report from the Defense Department on the effectiveness of research efforts to date. Finally, because there has not yet been a program to determine which treatments are most effective in caring for those suffering from Persian Gulf war illnesses, this amendment authorizes $4.5 million to begin a clinical trials program with that determination as its goal. As for procurement, I give this conference report high marks. It supports the agreement between our Nation's two submarine builders to work together in building the New Attack Submarine; it provides appropriate relief from the Seawolf cost cap; it completes the funding authorization for the third and final Seawolf-class submarine; and it fully funds the New Attack Submarine Program. For those who think that this Nation is doing too much submarine building, let me urge them not to look at any 1 year in particular, but to look at the submarine program as a whole. The U.S. Navy, which had once built two, three, or four attack submarines a year to maintain a fleet of well over 100, now plans to build just four over the next 6 years. The United States has never built nuclear attack submarines at a lower rate. This conference report also authorizes 30 H-60 helicopters. The Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and National Guard all use these helicopters, not to mention several countries throughout the world. In natural disasters and military operations alike, H-60 helicopters are on the front line. One need only ask the Adjutant General of virtually any State in the Union to gain an appreciation of how vitally important these helicopters are. I hope that future defense bills will continue to provide this Nation's servicemembers with the capable H-60 helicopters that they need and want. Let me conclude by mentioning that I do not know whether this conference report will be vetoed. I think, on balance, that the good in this report clearly outweighs the bad, and I would urge the President to quickly make it law rather than prolonging the battles that have plagued conference report for months.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would help our communities respond to an increasingly serious problem in our country: truancy. Truancy is a dangerous and growing trend in our nation's schools. It not only prevents our children from receiving the education they need, but it is often the first warning of more serious problems to come. Truant students are at greater risk of falling into substance abuse, gangs, and violent behavior. Truancy is a gateway into all of these activities. In the past ten years, truancy has increased by 67 percent. In 1994, courts formally processed 36,400 truancy cases. And in some inner city schools, absentee rates approach 50 percent. Fortunately, truancy is a solvable problem. Many communities have begun to set up early intervention programs--to reach out and prevent truancy before it leads to delinquency and criminal behavior. These programs are showing signs of success, as several towns have reported drops in daytime burglary rates of as much as 75 percent after instituting truancy prevention initiatives. Unfortunately, implementing these programs has been a challenge. Truancy is considered an educational rather than a criminal issue, and, with growing classroom enrollments, many financially-strapped schools don't have the resources to adequately address this problem. Today, I am introducing ``The Prevention of Truancy [PTA] Act of 1997'' whose goal is to promote anti-truancy partnerships between schools, parents, law enforcement agencies, and social service and youth organizations. This bill would provide $80 million in grant funding for the purpose of developing, implementing, or operating partnerships for the prevention and reduction of truancy. The partnerships would be administered by the Department of Education. All of the partnership programs would be required to sanction students engaging in truancy, as well as provide incentives for parents to take responsibility for their children. These programs would also be evaluated for their effectiveness in preventing truancy, increasing school attendance, and reducing juvenile crime. Truancy prevention programs produce long-term savings. By some estimates, truants cost this nation more than $240 billion in lost earnings and foregone taxes over their lifetimes. And billions more are spent on law enforcement, prisons, welfare, health care, and other social services for these individuals. Imagine what we could do with this money if we could keep our kids in school? Imagine how bright their futures could be? I hope my legislation will help communities build successful programs to prevent and reduce truancy so that one day we will realize these concrete savings and admire the accomplishments of the youth who benefitted from these programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.