Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I know we have a vote at about 11 o'clock and my colleague from Georgia wants to be heard before that time. I will try and move this along. Mr. President, the vote around 11 o'clock is on a cloture motion dealing with a proposal that has been offered by my colleague from Georgia, whom I respect greatly and agree with on many issues. On this one we disagree, not because of his intent at all, but rather because I am concerned it is not the best use of scarce resources. Even though our budget situation is vastly improved from what it was even a few months ago--with the deficit now down around to unimaginably low levels--still we must make careful decisions about how to best invest those dollars. When you are trying to help out working parents with the costs of raising children, the question becomes one of priorities in allocating resources. As I understand it, if the cloture motion that will be offered shortly were to be agreed to, an amendment that I would like to offer would be foreclosed because it would probably not pass the procedural test of being germane. I am concerned about that, and for that reason will oppose the cloture motion. The amendment I would offer, Mr. President, would propose a substitute to what our colleague from Georgia has offered. My proposal would allow for a refundable tax credit for child care. As it is right now, we have some 2 million American families--working families; not on welfare, but working--who don't have any tax liability at all and, therefore, cannot claim the current child care tax credit. The affordability and quality of child care, Mr. President, is an area in which most Americans are developing a growing sense of concern. The recent tragedy in Massachusetts that we have all been witness to over the last several days, highlights the concerns that millions and millions of American families have today about who will care for their children and whether they can afford to place them in a quality environment. In contrast, when we are talking about education, choices do exist for parents. There are 53 million American children who are in our elementary and secondary schools at this very hour. About 90 percent of them are in public schools, about 10 percent in private and parochial schools. There is a choice, Mr. President. Parents have a choice. Now, it is expensive in some private and parochial schools, but the choice of free public schooling is there. It is not a great choice in many areas because of the condition of our public schools, but at least affordability is not an issue. When it comes to child care, Mr. President, there really are not many choices available to parents. If you are coming off welfare, if you are working, you have to place your children someplace. The issues of quality and accessibility are obviously important, but if you can't afford it at all, if you can't afford the $4,000 to the $9,000 a year that it costs to place your child in a child care setting, you have no choices. Today, when we have working families out there that are barely making it and we have about $2 billion in tax credits we can offer, I ask the question of my colleagues of whether we can't do something to help. While we might like to do everything for everyone if we could, given the choice of providing a tax credit to someone making $85,000 a year to send their child to a private school or saying to a working family that is barely making it, here are some resources that will allow you to place your child while you work in a decent child care setting, what choice do we make? Do we provide a tax break, with all due respect, to people who have a choice? Or do we offer a refundable tax credit of roughly the same cost as Senator Coverdell's amendment to working families, struggling to hold body and soul together--people who have no choices. Mr. President, the other day there was an article in the Hartford Courant about a woman who has three children, making $6.50 an hour. She has a small apartment and a 1981 automobile. Now she is about to leave welfare. She will lose her welfare benefits of $500 or $600 a month. That ends this week. Now, at $6.50 an hour, with three kids, trying to keep an apartment, trying to keep her family going, I would like to say to her I can't do everything for you with regard to your children as you go to work. But I would at least like to say that I can offer you a refundable tax credit--because at $6.50 an hour you are not paying taxes--and give you a break to see that your three children can be in a child care setting where they may be safe. The question is, do I try to help her? Or, with all due respect, do I instead help someone making--$50,000, $60,000, or $70,000 a year to go to a private school in Washington, Maryland or Virginia? Those are the kind of choices we have to make. I argue very strongly that when you have limited resources, let's put them to work for people who are struggling out there, who need the help the most. Because I can't offer an amendment that I think would make the right choice if cloture were adopted, with all due respect to the authors of the amendment, I will oppose cloture. I yield the floor.

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.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Charles Rossotti's nomination to serve as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS is an agency under widespread, deeply felt, and entirely justified criticism. In my view, the nomination before us today is perhaps one of the most critical the Senate will vote on this session. I commend President Clinton for endorsing an individual who has the expertise and vision to lead the effort to restructure and reform this troubled agency, as well as my colleagues on the Finance Committee for moving the nomination expeditiously. It is no secret that the IRS has come under fire lately from taxpayers who, in their dealings with the agency, have experienced anger, frustration, and despair. The hearings conducted by the Finance Committee earlier this fall highlighted some of the problems at the IRS, including shoddy management, poor taxpayer service, and in some cases, reports of taxpayer abuse by IRS employees. I've heard stories from my own constituents about calls that aren't answered, and about calls that are bounced from one person to the next, where they never get a real answer or any type of guidance or support. I've also heard stories about the IRS losing people's checks and then charging them interest and penalties on this money. The list goes on and on, Mr. President, and the more people you talk to, the more nightmares you hear. Every citizen who pays taxes has a right to be treated fairly, and treated as innocent until proven guilty. Although we have taken several steps in this regard in the last few years, there is still more that can be done, and that is why I am a cosponsor of S. 1096, the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. This legislation aims to transform the troubled agency into a modern institution that provides efficient and fair service, yet still has the ability to effectively collect revenues. Specifically, the bill will enact 21 new taxpayer protections and will establish a hotline for taxpayers to register complaints of IRS misconduct. This legislation, which enjoys broad, bipartisan support and is endorsed by the administration, is, in my view, a tremendous step forward in our effort to protect the rights of our nation's taxpayers. Yet, without an effective leader to implement these much-needed changes, our ideas become nothing but good intentions. I believe that Mr. Rossotti is up to the challenge to successfully steer the IRS through this difficult period. Mr. Rossotti brings with him the refreshing ideas and outlook of a successful businessman with more than 30 years of management and technology experience, including his current position as Chairman of American Management Systems. During his confirmation hearings, Mr. Rossotti expressed a willingness and desire to implement fundamental changes that would focus on the rights of the taxpayer, modernize the agency and its technology, and strengthen communication between Congress, the IRS, and the public. In my view, Mr. Rossotti has the vision and the capability to lead this agency and is committed to holding the IRS to the highest standards of efficiency, competence, and accountability. I urge my colleagues to support this nomination.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President. I am pleased to join with my fellow colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, in introducing this bill which would designate the U.S. courthouse in New Haven, CT, as the ``Richard C. Lee United States Courthouse.'' I strongly believe that this designation would be a fitting tribute to Dick Lee's service and commitment to the city of New Haven, and I commend my good friend and colleague for putting this legislation forward. A self-educated man who was legendary for his charm, Dick Lee is widely considered as one of the most forceful, most capable, and most dedicated mayors that the State of Connecticut an this country has ever known. After losing two bids to become mayor, Dick Lee went on to win eight straight elections, serving as the mayor of New Haven from 1954 to 1969. His first two elections were very close, losing by only two votes in his 1951. Dick Lee learned from these narrow defeats, and they helped to shape his political career. He realized that every single person mattered, and he always did everything in his power to help his constituents, particularly those who were in need. He was always eager to tackle, rather than turn away from constituents' problems. He also exhibited great foresight in anticipating the problems that awaited New Haven and other cities, and he offered imaginative and progressive solutions to these concerns. The focus of his ideas was to preserve and rehabilitate neighborhoods, and to engage in urban planning done with the community, not for it. He supervised the clearance of slums in New Haven and revitalized once decaying areas by rebuilding businesses and homes. He oversaw the building of two new public high schools and a dozen elementary schools. To ensure that residents would have a greater investment in their communities, he pushed for the building of housing that low-income families could buy rather than rent. And Hew Haven was also the first major U.S. city to create its own antipoverty program. Many viewed Dick Lee's views as ahead of his time, and he quickly established a national reputation as a visionary of urban revitalization. On the strength of this reputation, Mr. Lee became a respected advisor to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson on matters of urban policy. Mr. Lee was approached about a possible cabinet position, but rather than lobby for a political appointment for himself, he used his political capital to help secure Federal funding for his urban redevelopment initiatives back home in New Haven. At one point during Dick Lee's tenure, New Haven was receiving more Federal money per capita than any other city in the country. Dick Lee still lives in New Haven in the same house that he purchased more than 30 years ago. In light of all the work that Dick Lee did for the people of his home town and his effective advocacy on behalf of all of America's cities, I think that it is only appropriate that one of New Haven's Federal buildings should bear his name. Therefore I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill to designate the Federal courthouse in New Haven as the ``Richard C. Lee United States Courthouse.''

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President. I am pleased to join with my fellow colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, in introducing this bill which would designate the U.S. courthouse in New Haven, CT, as the ``Richard C. Lee United States Courthouse.'' I strongly believe that this designation would be a fitting tribute to Dick Lee's service and commitment to the city of New Haven, and I commend my good friend and colleague for putting this legislation forward. A self-educated man who was legendary for his charm, Dick Lee is widely considered as one of the most forceful, most capable, and most dedicated mayors that the State of Connecticut an this country has ever known. After losing two bids to become mayor, Dick Lee went on to win eight straight elections, serving as the mayor of New Haven from 1954 to 1969. His first two elections were very close, losing by only two votes in his 1951. Dick Lee learned from these narrow defeats, and they helped to shape his political career. He realized that every single person mattered, and he always did everything in his power to help his constituents, particularly those who were in need. He was always eager to tackle, rather than turn away from constituents' problems. He also exhibited great foresight in anticipating the problems that awaited New Haven and other cities, and he offered imaginative and progressive solutions to these concerns. The focus of his ideas was to preserve and rehabilitate neighborhoods, and to engage in urban planning done with the community, not for it. He supervised the clearance of slums in New Haven and revitalized once decaying areas by rebuilding businesses and homes. He oversaw the building of two new public high schools and a dozen elementary schools. To ensure that residents would have a greater investment in their communities, he pushed for the building of housing that low-income families could buy rather than rent. And Hew Haven was also the first major U.S. city to create its own antipoverty program. Many viewed Dick Lee's views as ahead of his time, and he quickly established a national reputation as a visionary of urban revitalization. On the strength of this reputation, Mr. Lee became a respected advisor to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson on matters of urban policy. Mr. Lee was approached about a possible cabinet position, but rather than lobby for a political appointment for himself, he used his political capital to help secure Federal funding for his urban redevelopment initiatives back home in New Haven. At one point during Dick Lee's tenure, New Haven was receiving more Federal money per capita than any other city in the country. Dick Lee still lives in New Haven in the same house that he purchased more than 30 years ago. In light of all the work that Dick Lee did for the people of his home town and his effective advocacy on behalf of all of America's cities, I think that it is only appropriate that one of New Haven's Federal buildings should bear his name. Therefore I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill to designate the Federal courthouse in New Haven as the ``Richard C. Lee United States Courthouse.''

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senator Lieberman legislation to waive the 1920 Merchant Marine Act, commonly known as the Jones Act, to allow Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., to purchase, rebuild, and operate the 1964 Canadian-built vessel Prince Nova. Faced with an increased demand for its services and a shortage of suitable U.S.-built ferries, Cross Sound cannot purchase a domestically built vessel. Cross Sound Ferry Services, a family owned, nonsubsidized operation, provides auto, truck, and high speed passenger service between Orient Point, NY, and New London, CT. According to the proposed waiver, Cross Sound will purchase the Prince Nova, and spend more than three times the purchase price, no less than $4.2 million, on the conversion, restoration, repair, rebuilding, or retrofitting of the ferry in a shipyard located in New London. Cross Sound Ferry Service, a vital link between New England and eastern Long Island, provides an alternative mode of transportation that saves trucks and autos up to 200 miles in each direction, and reduces traffic, congestion, and wear on major roadways. From an environmental standpoint, ferry service reduces fuel consumption and pollution. Currently, the I-95 corridor throughout the Northeast is under a tremendous traffic burden. If the waiver is granted, it is expected that the new and expanded service the Prince Nova will provide will save 6 million miles and 360,000 travel hours. Cross Sound's commitment to service the Prince Nova in a United States shipyard will create high-skilled, high-wage jobs. Additionally, this waiver will undoubtably better facilitate commerce and encourage economic development in the region by allowing consumers easier access to goods and services. Furthermore, it will provide businesses with an additional mode to transport their products. An identical waiver was passed last week in the House of Representatives as part of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1997. It is our hope that it will receive the same favorable consideration in the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senator Lieberman legislation to waive the 1920 Merchant Marine Act, commonly known as the Jones Act, to allow Cross Sound Ferry Services, Inc., to purchase, rebuild, and operate the 1964 Canadian-built vessel Prince Nova. Faced with an increased demand for its services and a shortage of suitable U.S.-built ferries, Cross Sound cannot purchase a domestically built vessel. Cross Sound Ferry Services, a family owned, nonsubsidized operation, provides auto, truck, and high speed passenger service between Orient Point, NY, and New London, CT. According to the proposed waiver, Cross Sound will purchase the Prince Nova, and spend more than three times the purchase price, no less than $4.2 million, on the conversion, restoration, repair, rebuilding, or retrofitting of the ferry in a shipyard located in New London. Cross Sound Ferry Service, a vital link between New England and eastern Long Island, provides an alternative mode of transportation that saves trucks and autos up to 200 miles in each direction, and reduces traffic, congestion, and wear on major roadways. From an environmental standpoint, ferry service reduces fuel consumption and pollution. Currently, the I-95 corridor throughout the Northeast is under a tremendous traffic burden. If the waiver is granted, it is expected that the new and expanded service the Prince Nova will provide will save 6 million miles and 360,000 travel hours. Cross Sound's commitment to service the Prince Nova in a United States shipyard will create high-skilled, high-wage jobs. Additionally, this waiver will undoubtably better facilitate commerce and encourage economic development in the region by allowing consumers easier access to goods and services. Furthermore, it will provide businesses with an additional mode to transport their products. An identical waiver was passed last week in the House of Representatives as part of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1997. It is our hope that it will receive the same favorable consideration in the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is my intention to vote in favor of the Conference Report making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies, but I do so with some reservations. I commend the appropriations conferees for negotiating a multitude of very contentious issues, but I am particularly concerned with several anti-environmental provisions that remain in the report. The Balanced Budget agreement provided $700 million above the President's request for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and I am very pleased that the appropriators were able to honor that agreement. Land and water conservation funds and the matching State grant program have been very important to Connecticut's ability to acquire land and enhance recreation areas and parks. Without this funding, local communities will continue without the assistance they so deserve to acquire open space and further develop recreational areas. Unfortunately, Senate language providing $100 million in grants to States for land acquisition was not included in the conference report. A portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund will be used to purchase the Headwaters region in California and the New World Mine in Montana, subject to authorizing conditions. Although I recognize that the State of Montana will feel some adverse economic repercussion from the New World Mine purchase, I am dismayed that a proposal of $10 million to the State of Montana could be counted against the Land and Water Conservation Fund. When the Senate initially debated the Interior appropriations bill, I was pleased to join many of my colleagues in voting for an amendment to eliminate funding for timber road purchaser credits for timber sales, but the amendment failed by the narrowest of margins. There is growing support for the elimination of all taxpayer subsidies for Forest Service logging road construction, and the House included language restricting the amount of timber purchaser credits. Unfortunately, the conferees dropped the House provision. Finally, the provision reducing the effectiveness of the law pertaining to the export of Federal timber benefits a few large timber companies in the West. It was never suitably discussed by the authorizing committee. While these are a few of my concerns, there are many provisions in the bill which merit my support. The Silvio Conte refuge and the Stewart McKinney refuge in my State received much-needed funding for land acquisition. Congress authorized the expansion of the McKinney refuge in 1990, and in the ensuing years, Federal appropriations have enabled the refuge to acquire 413 of the 454 acres available. Because the budget for the National Park Service was sufficiently funded, Weir Farm, the only national park in Connecticut, should receive an increase in its operating budget to meet its rising visitor service demands. Mr. President, as you know, I am a strong backer of the arts and I am pleased that the appropriators provided $98 million for the National Endowment of the Arts. The NEA was a marked agency, identified by the other body for elimination. In fact, the other body voted to zero out all funding and tried to extinguish the NEA. But together with my colleagues in the Senate, another round of efforts to dismantle or eliminate the NEA was stopped. When the bill came out of conference with the House, the NEA had been saved. As evidenced by a series of strong bipartisan votes in the Senate in favor of the NEA, my colleagues and I were able to save this national agency and preserve a Federal role for the arts. During the Senate debate over NEA funding, I cosponsored with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens from Alaska, a Sense-of-the-Senate resolution asking the Congress to examine alternative sources of funding for the NEA. I believe it is time to give the NEA a secure future and preserve a national cultural endowment for generations to come. My hope is that the Congress will address this issue in the future. And so it is for these reasons that I support the Interior appropriations conference report. I commend the conferees on a job well done.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on October 16, our colleague, Senator Joe Biden gave a very important and insightful assessment of United States foreign policy with respect to Bosnia. The occasion for those remarks was that Senator Biden was being honored by Fairleigh Dickinson University by being chosen as the first individual to hold a newly established chair at the university--the Fatemi University Chair in International Studies. In accepting this honor, Senator Biden focused his remarks on a current and some what daunting foreign policy challenge that looms before us in the coming months--Bosnia. As is always the case, Joe gave his candid and unvarnished assessment of the current situation in Bosnia--what's gone right and what's gone wrong. He also sets forth how he believes U.S. policy should evolve over the coming months, if the United States is to enhance the prospects for fostering peace and stability in that war-torn country and in maintaining its leadership in shaping the course of world events. His comments were very thoughtful and very much on target from my point of view. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to take a moment to read Senator Biden's remarks. It would be time well spent. I ask that the text of Senator Biden's remarks be printed in the Record. The remarks follow: Bosnia and American Foreign Policy: Finishing the Job (By Joseph R. Biden, Jr.) I. Introduction It would be a very high honor under any circumstances to be called to the fatemi university chair in international studies here at Farleigh Dickinson University. Although I'm not sure I deserve the distinction, I feel honored to be the first to hold that chair. This is for me, as I know it is for many of you, an extra- special occasion, and an extra-special honor. Not only because of the very high standing in the foreign policy community the graduate institute of international studies has earned for Farleigh Dickinson. Not just because of the pre-eminent position Dr. Fatemi occupied in the field of international studies, But also because I have had the very great privilege of knowing Dr. Fatemi and his family personally, through the friendship of his son Fariborz. So besides an opportunity to discuss foreign policy with you, this is a kind of homecoming for me. That's the way Dr. Fatemi and his family made even a stranger feel upon entering their household, and that kind of hospitality was a direct reflection of the kind of man he was. I knew beforehand of his record as a diplomat, as a writer and teacher, and as an exemplar of the richness and integrity of an ancient but still vital culture. What I discovered when I met him was that the man was even more impressive than his credentials. Despite his many achievements, he always put his newest acquaintance instantly at ease. If you were his guest, he became your friend, and when he was your friend, you became, eagerly and irresistibly, his student. That was not just because of his learning and the experience he gained over a long and productive life. He became a valued friend and mentor primarily because it was his nature to do so. He was undeniably bright and intellectually challenging. But he was also gentle, unassuming and encouraging. He taught by example rather than precept; he radiated wisdom and good will in equal measure. It was impossible not to leave his presence wiser than you arrived. The breadth of his scholarship was astonishing, and simply being exposed to it was an invigorating experience. But it was the clarity of his insights into the maelstrom of the Middle East and the passions of the islamic fundamentalists that were most valuable to me. The views I am about to express on Bosnia, are, of course, mine alone. But if I manage to shed any light on that bloody confrontation, much of the credit must go to Nasrollah Fatemi, who opened his hearth, his heart and his mind to me in a way I shall never forget. Bosnia, of course, has significance far beyond the borders of the former Yugoslavia. It has turned out to be one of the most serious challenges for America's foreign policy in the post-cold-war era. It has produced 5 years of debate in congress. It is the centerpiece of any discussion about American military intervention around the world. In short, it has become a critical test of our foreign policy. Rightly or wrongly, whether United States foreign policy in this era is viewed as a success or failure will depend in large part on the success or failure of our policy in Bosnia. So we better get it right. II. From ``Lift and Strike'' to Dayton At the outset, let me state the obvious: I have cared deeply about Bosnia for a long time, since the beginning of the war. Some would say I bring ``historical baggage'' to the issue. I care not just because of the strategic implications--as Bosnia goes, so goes NATO--but for humanitarian reasons. Appalled by the naked Serbian aggression and genocidal attacks on Bosnian civilians, in September 1992 I called for a ``lift and strike'' policy. That was shorthand for lifting the illegal and immoral arms embargo against the Bosnian Government, which was the victim of aggression, and launching air strikes against the Bosnian Serb aggressors. My views were not widely shared at that time. As the war escalated--with massacres, ``ethnic cleansing,'' and rapes--a few other senators, including Bob Dole and Joe Lieberman, joined my call for action. But it took more than two years of failed diplomacy--and a quarter-million killed and two million homeless--before we finally came around to the much- derided ``lift and strike'' policy in the fall of 1995. Guess what? The policy worked! The Serbian bullies sued for peace, and under the leadership of Ambassador Dick Holbrooke we were able to hammer out the Dayton accords in November 1995. I'm leaving out the details--all the peace plans that didn't work--but in a nutshell that's what happened. Honest people may disagree about the compromises that were made at Dayton. I think the accords accomplished as much as we could have hoped for, given the obvious reluctance of our Government, and of our European allies, to get more deeply involved militarily. And I wish I could say that even the modest results envisioned in Dayton had been achieved. But they have not. It's true that conditions today are far better than the bloody mayhem that existed during the war. The killing has stopped. But we are only halfway to the full peace envisioned in the Dayton accords. The question is: ``How do we get the rest of the way? How do we finish the job? III. Bosnia Today Having returned 6 weeks ago from my third trip to Bosnia, I am certainly aware of the contradictions, the ambiguities, the ironies, and the uncertainties of Bosnia today. Bosnia and Herzegovina might be labeled the classical land of ``yes, but.'' Yes, there has been ongoing conflict among the various religious groups in Bosnia--the Orthodox Serbs, the Catholic Croats, and the Muslim South Slavs--for centuries. But, for most of the time, these conflicts were kept under control, usually by an outside hegemon: first the Ottoman Turks, then the Austrian Habsburgs, and more recently the Communists under President Tito. When violence broke out in the spring of 1992, a cosmopolitan society existed in much of Bosnia. Sarajevo, for example, had one of the highest rates of inter-marriage in all of Europe. What killed the ``live and let live'' character of Sarajevo were unscrupulous, ultra-nationalist politicians, many of whom were searching for a new ``-ism'' to replace communism, an ideology that had been discredited. Yes, there were elements of civil war in Bosnia, but there was also blatant aggression from Serbia across an internationally recognized border. In fact, it was through the overwhelming advantage of the weaponry, the salaries, and the support services furnished by Slobodan Milosevic that the Bosnian Serbs perpetrated their systematic slaughter. The ``yes, but'' dichotomy persists in Bosnia today. Yes there has been considerable progress in Bosnia since Dayton, but a huge amount remains to be accomplished. Yes the 50 percent unemployment rate in the Bosnian Croat Federation is huge, but it has come down from 90 percent in only one year. Incidentally, it still hovers at 90 percent in the Republika Srpska, which has been denied all but a trickle of international aid because it has refused to implement the Dayton accords. Yes, Bosnian Serbs regularly try to paralyze many of the institutions of national government created at Dayton, but the Parliament has begun to meet, and even the three-member presidency shows signs of life. Yes, the nationalist parties representing the Serbs, Muslims, and Croats are narrow-minded and corrupt, and in many ways resemble the characteristics of the old Yugoslav league of Communists, which they supplanted. But even in this cynical Bosnian political arena there is hope. In last month's municipal elections a non-nationalist, multi-ethnic coalition triumphed in Tuzla, one of Bosnia's largest cities. A non-nationalist opposition also exists in the Republika Srpska. I met with three of its leaders in Banja Luka. They are confident that they--not Kardzic and his thugs from Pale, not President Plavsic--are the wave of the future. Yes, more than two-thirds of the indicted war criminals remain at large--an international disgrace. But, ladies and gentlemen, just last week, under strong pressure from Washington, Croatia and the Bosnian Croats surrendered 10 indicted Bosnian Croats to the Hague. Virtually every observer of Bosnia believes that Dayton cannot be implemented until indicted war criminals are indicted and transported to the International Tribunal at the Hague to stand trial. The other major precondition for progress in Bosnia is the return of refugees and displaced persons that was mandated by the Dayton accords. Yes, this will be the most difficult of all the Dayton tasks to accomplish. But , contrary to popular belief, even here there has been noteworthy progress. As many as 150,000 refugees have returned to Bosnia from abroad, and another 160,000 persons who were displaced within Bosnia have returned to their homes. Most of these have returned to areas where their ethnic group is in the majority, but an ``open cities'' program has induced several towns--even a half-dozen villages in the Republika Srpska--to accept returnees from other groups in return for economic assistance. On my last trip, I visited one of these sites in a suburb of Sarajevo occupied by the Bosnian Serbs during the war and returned to the federation by Dayton. The U.S. Agency for International Development and its subcontractor, Catholic Relief Services, are helping returning refugees to rebuild their homes. I was moved by the selfless dedication of the young Americans and Europeans working at this important task. Finally let me address the issue of security in Bosnia today. In a country that has recently suffered some of the worst atrocities of the 20th century, the citizens need physical security. For the Muslims and Croats, who were forced into an alliance in 1994 by the United States, this means guaranteeing their ability to deter renewed Serbian aggression in the future. Toward that end, the ``train and equip'' program, led by retired U.S. military officers, is molding a unified force under joint command. We have supplied three hundred million dollars worth of equipment. I visited the training center in Hadzici (haj-eech-ee), near Sarajevo, where Muslims and Croats are studying and training. On the local level, in the Federation, multi-ethnic police forces are being formed. Believe it or not, joint Muslim- Croat police units are now patrolling Mostar, scene of some of the worst warfare in 1993 and early 1994. So there is progress here as well. IV. Next Steps In citing these examples of progress, I do not want to suggest for a moment that conditions in the Federation, let alone in the Republika Srpska, are rosy. They are not. But everyone to whom I spoke in Bosnia agreed on two things: First, significant progress has been made in the Federation; and second, it is absolutely essential for the international military force to remain in Bosnia after June 1998 to guarantee that progress will continue. So what should our policy be in Bosnia in the coming months? I believe we should redouble the efforts we are already making. Yes, I would like to see a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society re-emerge like the one that existed in Sarajevo before the war. But, I fear that too much blood has been shed and too many atrocities committed for that to happen in the near future. More realistic, and politically feasible, is the development of a multi-ethnic state. Most likely that will mean a confederation with a good degree of de-centralization in all but foreign policy and defense. Am I sure that we can achieve the goal of a democratic, decentralized Bosnia? No, I am not. Last year I would have rated the odds 1 in 20. As a result of the progress made in the last 12 months, I would now estimate the odds on success at about 50-50, if we stay the course. But 50-50 looks mighty good compared to the probable outcome if we followed the advice of those now calling for a renegotiation of Dayton and a formal partition of Bosnia. ``Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory'' might be a slight exaggeration, but this policy prescription tends in that direction. Those who favor partition seem unaware of the progress already made in Bosnia and blind to the calamities that would result from scrapping Dayton. Warfare would almost certainly erupt again, with higher casualties, given the new military balance. But renewed fighting would only be part of the tragedy. The vile ethnic cleansers and the war criminals would see their policies vindicated. Europe's remaining anti-democratic rulers like Serbia's Milosevic and Belarus's Lukashenka would be emboldened. Moreover, if we pulled the plug on Bosnia just as international efforts are beginning to bear fruit, we could kiss goodbye American leadership in NATO. In fact, the plan to enlarge NATO, I predict, would fail in the Senate. And soon thereafter, even the future of NATO itself would be cast in doubt. After all, if Bosnia is the prototypical European crisis of the 21st century--and if NATO is unable to solve Bosnia--then why bother spending billions of dollars on NATO every year? So, leaving Bosnia would be a fool's paradise. Just as certainly as night follows day, an American abdication of responsibility and withdrawal from Bosnia would eventually cost us more in blood and treasure than we would ever spend in the current course. Let me sum up: the tragedy in Bosnia and Herzegovina, although complex, ultimately boils down to old-fashioned oppression. It was preventable, and, with the requisite American and European steadfastness, it is solvable. By continuing to lead the effort to put Bosnia and Herzegovina back on its feet and guarantee its citizens a chance to lead productive lives, the United States will be both living up to its ideals and furthering its national self-interest. Thank you.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Jane Alexander on her tenure as Chairperson of the National Endowment for the Arts. Just a few days ago, she announced her resignation from the NEA and her plan to return to private life. I am truly saddened that the NEA will lose such a strong and respected leader and that the Nation will lose one of its most articulate and effective champions in the effort to preserve the NEA. I am proud to be a strong supporter of the arts. It is clear that future generations will remember us not for our gross national product or our stockpile of advanced weapons, but for the content of the artistic and cultural expression that characterizes our civilization. The arts give us an opportunity to leave our mark on history. Jane Alexander's tenure has not been easy. Her term has spanned four of the most challenging years in the NEA's history, filled with annual fights over its survival. Each year we have seen assaults mounted on the arts and the NEA in particular. But the supporters of the arts in the Congress have met each of these challenges and emerged victorious thanks to the leadership of Jane Alexander. Perhaps as important as her leadership in these legislative battles has been her efforts throughout the country as an articulate voice in support of the arts and a Federal role in supporting the arts. She has visited schools and community centers as well as theaters and galleries across the country and has reminded Americans of the strength and importance of the arts. Beyond these efforts on the national scene, she has proved an able and adept manager of the NEA. She has implemented the mandated staff cuts at the NEA and restructured the agency without compromising its mission. She has compensated for fewer resources by forming partnerships with other agencies and encouraging all arts organizations to work more closely together. In addition, under her leadership, grant-making processes have been reorganized, accountability measures have been put in place, investments in arts education have increased, and new communication tools including a website have been developed. From the stage and the big screen to the halls of Congress, Jane Alexander has proven she is a remarkable individual, a great voice for the arts in America, and a true national treasure. I thank her for her dedication and her tireless efforts, and I wish her the best of luck in her future endeavors.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, America's greatest asset is its people, and what makes the American population unlike any other country's is our diversity. No other nation draws strength from so many different cultures, and the American population is a mosaic of the world's many nationalities. Through time, the traditions from these many nations have become part of our own society, enriching our national culture. But our Nation would not be nearly as strong without the contributions of Americans who are of Hispanic descent. In recognition of these contributions, our Nation is currently celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month. Hispanic Heritage Month provides a wonderful opportunity for us to honor the diverse achievements and contributions of Hispanics in this country. I know that in my home State of Connecticut there have been parades and dances to mark this occasion, as well as readings of works by Hispanic authors at public libraries. All of these events give Hispanic-Americans a deeper appreciation for their roots, and make all Americans more aware of the contributions that Hispanics make to our Nation. Perhaps the easiest way to understand and appreciate the extent to which Hispanics have become entwined in the American landscape would come from reading the newspaper. On the front page, you could read an article about our Secretary of Energy or the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations who are both Hispanic. In the business section you could read an article on the Latino Administrator of the Small Business Administration who released a report showing that the number of new businesses owned by Hispanic women has grown at three times the overall rate of business growth. In the arts section you could read about a recital by a Spanish guitarist playing flamenco music at a local theater. The food section could have an writeup of a new Mexican restaurant that just opened up downtown. And in the Sports section you could read about the Major League Baseball playoffs where every single team has Hispanic players that are responsible for their team's success. In fact, in the Washington Post sports pages you could read coverage of World Cup Soccer, in Spanish. When we talk about Hispanics and how their contributions make our Nation more vibrant and diverse, it is important that we recognize the great diversity that exists within the Hispanic community itself. Hispanic-Americans come from a variety of nations, ranging from Central America to South America to Europe to the Caribbean. What unites Hispanic-Americans is a fundamental respect for the traditions and values of their native lands combined with a strong commitment to the American dream. Life in America requires that they strike a balance between embracing their roots and assimilating into this new culture. Reaching this balance can be a struggle, but it is a struggle that will leave them enriched as individuals, while at the same time enriching our Nation. Hispanic-Americans should take great pride in their heritage, and I am glad that Hispanic Heritage Month gives our Nation an opportunity to honor and celebrate their contributions.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the campaign finance reform legislation sponsored by Senators McCain and Feingold. The McCain/Feingold bill is a beginning, and is an important step towards reforming how we finance campaigns. It ends soft money contributions to national parties, expands disclosure requirements, and strengthens election law. It puts guidelines on hard money contributions and begins to address the problem of so-called ``issue advocacy'' advertisements that may be designed to persuade the public about a candidate instead of educating the public about an issue. It also requires labor unions to notify non-union members that they are entitled to request a refund of the portion their agency fees used for political purposes. Make no mistake about it--one bill cannot end the spiraling cost of campaigns or stop the coercive influence of money in our government. But it is a beginning. I am more convinced than ever that our current approach to funding political campaigns is broken and desperately in need of repair. My good friend, Senator Ford from Kentucky, cited the great cost of campaigns and the immense time needed to raise money as the reason for his retirement from the United States Senate. He explained that to run for re-election in 1998, he would need to spend the next two years raising $100,000 per week. Today, a run for the Senate may require over $5 million. On average, a Senator needs to raise $16,000 per week during their six year term to accumulate the funds needed to run a credible campaign. Not only are distinguished elected officials leaving public service due to the daunting cost of running for office, but many Americans have decided not to seek office because it simply costs too much money. This robs us of leaders with new ideas and diverse backgrounds, and it threatens to undermine our country's participatory democracy. Our democracy rests upon the fundamental principle that every person's vote is equal. A citizen walks into a voting booth, casts his or her vote, and the majority rules. But only fifty percent of Americans vote and only four percent of the population contribute to campaigns. The American people worry that those who wrote the checks now expect to write the laws. They see powerful lobbyists working to turn back the clock on 25 years of environmental protection, and to unravel laws that keep our workplaces safe and protect the food we eat. This appearance of undue influence supports the public's cynicism. Incredibly, those who defend politics as usual are not concerned about the amount of money in our political process. These leaders insist that the political process is fine, even though a record $765 million was consumed on House and Senate campaigns in 1996. In fact, Speaker Gingrich and other leaders in his party complain that too little, not too much, money is spent today on political campaigns. We all know that the Government Affairs Committee is, even as we speak, holding extensive hearings on the campaign finance practices of the last Presidential election. Yet, as we have seen here on the floor this week, the Majority Leader and most of those in his party would do nothing. However, there are a few Republicans, including one of the leaders on this issue Senator McCain, who have voted the responsible way and I commend them. It is now time to come together in a bipartisan manner and focus on the future of elections in America for all Americans. Since I was elected to Congress as part of ``Class of 1974,'' I have consistently fought for campaign finance reform. Since 1985, I have cosponsored seven campaign finance reform bills to remove the influence of money in elections and bring democracy back to the people of this country. In an attempt to curb the threatening influence of money, I have supported prohibitions in ``soft money'' in federal elections, and as the General Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, I challenged my counterparts to do the same. In another effort to limited the influence of money, I have supported caps on PAC contributions to candidates and limits on the total amount Senate candidates can accept from PACs. To level the playing field, and help challengers gain exposure, I have agreed to proposals for free or reduced response advertisement costs for candidates attacked by independent expenditures. I have supported requirements that Senate candidates raise most of their money from their home states in an attempt to bring elections back home to the people. Finally, I voted for a Constitutional amendment allowing Congress to set campaign spending limits. I know many of my fellow colleagues share my commitment to reform. As we debate reform, I am concerned that we stand behind the Federal Election Commission, which is charged with monitoring and watching campaign finance violations. The FEC must have the finances and resources it needs to promptly and effectively enforce the laws that govern our campaigns. Between 1994 and November 1996, the FEC's caseload rose 36 percent, and because complaints related to the 1996 election are still being filed, the FEC expects the caseload to ultimately rise by 52 percent. Of the 262 complaints filed with the FEC in the latest election cycle, only 88 are currently under active review. To address the effectiveness of the FEC, earlier this year I authored the FEC Improvement Act. I am pleased that most of the proposals from my bill--including electronic filing, authorizing the FEC to conduct random audits, and stiffer penalties--have been incorporated into the McCain/Feingold legislation. Time after time, Congress has talked about reform but in the end done nothing. Over the past 10 years, Congress has produced over 6,742 pages of hearings, members have made over 3,361 speeches, committees have produced more than 1,063 pages of reports, the Senate has recorded over 113 votes and formed one bipartisan commission. Yet in the end, it's just been business as usual, while the voice of the average American in our democratic process grows fainter, quality candidates say no to public service, and our democracy withers. I regret that the Senate this week has again missed an opportunity to pass comprehensive reform. The Senate missed another opportunity even though 53 Senators voted to fully consider the bill. I am saddened that the majority leader, along with the majority of his Republican colleagues, deployed procedural tactics that thwarted real reform. I lament this maneuver. It saddens me that the Republicans have chosen to sabotage this bipartisan bill. It saddens me even more that this procedural sabotage occurred after concerted efforts to accommodate Republican concerns. Important provisions including voluntary spending limits, free or discounted television and advertising time, and curbs on contributions to PAC's have all been modified in the spirit of bipartisanship. However, the Senate now may not even have a clean vote on campaign finance reform legislation this session. I have voted against Senator Lott's amendment because it was not a bipartisan effort. The Lott amendment was a partisan maneuver to end efforts for comprehensive campaign finance reform. I will continue to vote against any amendments that lack solid bipartisan support and harm a constructive effort for real reform. Conversely, I will consider supporting any amendments to the current legislation that have bipartisan support and would improve this bill. I will also continue to support any positive efforts by both sides to have campaign finance reform considered by the Senate for a full and complete debate this session. I call on all my colleagues to chart a new course, to put aside our differences, and to put first and foremost in our deliberations the good of the Nation. As leaders, we must not shirk our responsibility to do all we can to the reform campaign finance system. The McCain- Feingold bill begins that process, and I believe that as a body we have a solemn responsibility to embrace this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment. Few issues are as divisive in education as this one--private school vouchers. There are very strong feelings on both sides of this issue. This is as it should be on issues affecting our children--strong feelings should be the norm. But I believe we should be concerned for all children, not just for a few. Our universal system of public education is one of the very cornerstones of our Nation, our democracy and our culture. In every community, public schools are where America comes together in its rich diversity. For generations, educating the rich, poor, black, white, first-generation Americans--be they Irish, English, Japanese or Mexican-Americans--and all Americans has been the charge and challenge of our public schools. It is clearly not the easiest task. But it's importance cannot be undervalued. These efforts are essential to our democracy which relies on an educated citizenry, to our communities which require understanding of diversity to function, and to our economy which thrives on highly educated and trained worker. Education--public education--is also the door to economic opportunity for all citizens individually. However, voucher proposals, like the one before us today, fundamentally undermine this ideal of public education. Supporters of these programs never argue they will serve all children. They simply argue it is a way for some children to get out of public schools. The amendment offered today would provide 2,000 children, at most, with vouchers. But the D.C. public schools serve 78,000 children and about 50,000 are low-income. I do not argue that our public schools do not face challenges-- violence, disinvestment and declining revenues plague some of our schools, just as they do many other community institutions. And our schools are not ignoring these problems--even with limited resources. Many are digging themselves out of these problems to offer real hope and opportunities to students. James Comer in Connecticut has led a revolution in public schools across the country by supporting parents and improving education through community involvement and reinvestment in the schools. Public magnet and charter schools are flourishing offering students innovative curriculum and new choices within the public school system. School safety programs, violence prevention curriculum and character education initiatives are making real gains in the struggle against violence in our schools and larger communities. And these reform efforts are beginning to show results. Our schools are getting better. Student achievement is up in math, science and reading. The reach of technology has spread to nearly all of our schools. The drop out rate continues to decline. We clearly have a ways to go before all our schools are models of excellence, but our goal must be to lend a hand in these critical efforts, not withdraw our support for the schools that educate 89 percent of all students in America--public schools. And there is no question about it, private school vouchers will divert much needed dollars away from public schools. Our dollars are limited. We must focus them on improving opportunities for all children by improving the system that serves all children--the public schools. The $7 million this amendment would dedicate to D.C. vouchers are much better invested in the District of Columbia's public schools. Last week, Secretary Riley outlined how he would spend these funds on whole school improvement efforts and after-school programs. In addition, the infrastructure needs in D.C. schools remain quite severe--under the leadership of General Beckton, things are improving and these problems are being addressed. But, he estimates infrastructure needs alone top $2 billion. Proponents of private school choice argue that vouchers will open up new educational opportunities to low-income families and their children. In fact, vouchers offer private schools, not parents choice. The private schools will pick and choose students, as they do now. Few will choose to serve students with low test scores, with disabilities or with discipline problems. Vouchers, which will be between $2,400 and $3,200, will not come close to covering the cost of tuition at the vast majority of private schools in the District. In fact, the tuitions they will cover are at religious schools raising serious constitutional questions. No Federal court has ever upheld the use of vouchers for parochial school or religious education. To receive these funds, private religious schools would likely have to change the nature of their educational programs and eliminate any religious content. Many schools would be unwilling to do this; further limiting parent's ability to choose. There are also important accountability issues. Private institutions can fold in mid-year as nearly half a dozen have done in Milwaukee leaving taxpayers to pick up these pieces--only the pieces are children's lives and educations. This amendment also establishes a new bureaucracy within the District of Columbia to administer this program. There will be a board of citizens--only one of whom will be appointed by a D.C. official--to set up and oversee this program. For all our criticism of the D.C. government, its layer of bureaucracy, and lack of accountability structures, it is ironic that this amendment would set up yet another governing body. This is a long way from what this city needs. Mr. President, our public schools are not just about any one child; they are about all children and all of us. I do not have any children, but I pay property taxes and do so happily to support the education of the children I am counting on to be tomorrow's workers, thinkers, leaders, teachers and taxpayers. Our future is dependent on nurturing and developing the potential of every child to its fullest. Investing in our public schools is the best way to reach this goal. I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Defense Appropriations conference report. First, I'd like to recognize Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye for the fine work they did in working through the conference issues with their House counterparts. I think that after this vote, it will be clear that the vast majority of this body supports the balance this report strikes between the changing needs of our Armed Forces and the constraints imposed by necessary spending reductions. I felt that the conferees made the right decision by endorsing the submarine teaming agreement. That endorsement ends the costly battle between our two submarine builders, saves the taxpayers money, and preserves competition in the research and development phase of submarine building. While some oppose this plan, no one argues the point that this agreement will save the Navy hundreds of millions of dollars over the building plan contained in last year's bill. Furthermore, this plan maintains competition for new ideas on how to improve the new attack submarine. In sum, we have two fine shipyards working together overall to decrease the cost to taxpayers even while they compete on sub-systems to ensure continued technological advancement. On a related matter, I'm heartened to see that this report provides funding to complete the Seawolf submarine program. This building program has clearly undergone radical changes as a result of the end of the cold war. At one point, this nation expected to build 30 Seawolf- class submarines and now that number has been reduced to just 3 in favor of the less-costly new attack submarine. So this Nation has already throttled back in terms of its submarine plans; now it's time to move forward with our new plan. This conference report also increases the number of Blackhawk helicopters to 28, 10 more than the President requested. And it asks for two navy CH-60 helicopters as well as advance procurement money for that Navy version of the Blackhawk. These additional aircraft reveal once again that the Blackhawk is this Nation's most capable helicopter. Derivatives of this helicopter are at work for nearly every branch of the U.S. Armed Forces as well as 15 foreign countries. As capable and versatile as these helicopters are, however, National Guard adjutant generals throughout the country remind us year after year that they do not have enough. In fact, a conservative reading of the numbers reveals that the National Guard has a shortfall of over 400 Blackhawks. Meanwhile, the production line for these aircraft will shut down in a couple of years. The plan for coping with that shortfall is to rely on Vietnam-era UH-1 helicopters as we move into the next century. Frankly, as the National Guard stands at the front line of defense against devastating natural disasters, they deserve better. I hope the President's next budget request reflects their requirements. On a brighter note, this committee made the tough decisions between modernizing military equipment and cutting costs. I was glad to see that the committee agreed with the Defense Department's requests for the C-17 cargo aircraft, the F-22 program, and the emerging Comanche helicopter program. These prudent decisions in support of cost- effective programs will provide vital support for our military forces well into the 21st century. Finally, Mr. President, let me congratulate the conferees on completing this bill, the largest of the 13 appropriations bills, before the end of the fiscal year. There was a lot of hard work in negotiations that allowed this bill to move forward and I'm sure that this body and the Nation appreciates their efforts.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Human Rights Information Act--legislation designed to facilitate the declassification of certain United States documents that relate to past human rights abuses in Guatemala and and Honduras. This act would ensure the prompt declassification of information by all relevant U.S. Government agencies concerning human rights abuses, while providing adequate protection to safeguard U.S. national security interests. Timely declassification of relevant materials would be of enormous assistance to the Guatemalan and Honduran people who are at this moment confronting past human rights violations as part of ongoing efforts to strengthen democratic institutions in those countries, particularly their judiciaries. This bill would ensure prompt and complete declassification within the necessary bounds of protection of national security. It would require Government agencies to review for declassification within 120 days all human rights records relevant to inquiries by the Honduran human rights commissioner and the Guatemalan Clarification Commission. An interagency appeals panel would review agencies decisions to withhold information. The bill follows declassification standards already enacted by Congress in the JFK Assassination Records Act but is much simpler and less expensive than that law. Honduran Human Rights Commissioner Leo Valladares has already made a request of the United States Government for any relevant documents concerning Honduran human rights violations and particularly those alleged to have been perpetrated by Honduran military Battalion 3-16 that resulted in more than 184 killings or disappearances in the early 1980's. The Guatemalan Clarification Commission, which was set up by the December 1996 peace accords to establish a historical record of the massive human rights violations that occurred during more than three decades of civil war, is expected shortly to make a similar request for relevant United States documents concerning this period. The U.S. Government is, properly, offering financial assistance to the clarification commission. The United States should also support the commission's important work to end impunity by providing relevant declassified documents. While it is true that the Clinton administration has already declassified some documents related to Honduras and Guatemala, by Executive order, such declassifications have been very narrowly focused. And, despite a number of letters from Congress requesting prompt action, the administration's response to the longstanding request by Honduran Human Rights Commissioner Valladares, which was first submitted in 1993, has been slow and partial. Moreover, although the administration officially agreed to honor the Honduran request, many of the documents released to date have been heavily excised, yielding little substantive information. The State Department has turned over 3,000 pages, but other agencies have been much less forthcoming. For example, the CIA has released 36 documents concerning Father Carney, a United States priest killed in Honduras, and 97 documents pertaining to 5 other key human rights cases. Most are heavily excised. The Department of Defense has released 34 heavily excised documents, but almost nothing that relates to the activities of Battalion 3-16. The administration has also declassified numerous documents on Guatemala in response to public demands. These focus, however, on approximately 30 cases of human rights abuses directed against Americans in Guatemala. The cases of Guatemalan anthropologist Myrna Mack and guerrilla leader Efrain Bamaca, husband of American lawyer Jennifer Harbury, were exceptions. In May of this year, the CIA also released an important batch of documents concerning its 1954 covert operation in Guatemala. However, thousands of documents on human rights violations that could be of interest to the clarification commission remain classified. Many of the documents already declassified were heavily excised, and, as in the Honduran case, the intelligence and defense agencies were less forthcoming than the State Department. Mr. President, I would hope that my colleagues can join me in voting for the Human Rights Information Act. This will send a very powerful signal of support for efforts to strengthen democracy and the rule of law throughout the hemisphere. It will also greatly assist Latin Americans who are currently bravely working to shed light upon a dark period of their recent pasts so that they can prevent such heinous abuses from occurring in the future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Human Rights Information Act--legislation designed to facilitate the declassification of certain United States documents that relate to past human rights abuses in Guatemala and and Honduras. This act would ensure the prompt declassification of information by all relevant U.S. Government agencies concerning human rights abuses, while providing adequate protection to safeguard U.S. national security interests. Timely declassification of relevant materials would be of enormous assistance to the Guatemalan and Honduran people who are at this moment confronting past human rights violations as part of ongoing efforts to strengthen democratic institutions in those countries, particularly their judiciaries. This bill would ensure prompt and complete declassification within the necessary bounds of protection of national security. It would require Government agencies to review for declassification within 120 days all human rights records relevant to inquiries by the Honduran human rights commissioner and the Guatemalan Clarification Commission. An interagency appeals panel would review agencies decisions to withhold information. The bill follows declassification standards already enacted by Congress in the JFK Assassination Records Act but is much simpler and less expensive than that law. Honduran Human Rights Commissioner Leo Valladares has already made a request of the United States Government for any relevant documents concerning Honduran human rights violations and particularly those alleged to have been perpetrated by Honduran military Battalion 3-16 that resulted in more than 184 killings or disappearances in the early 1980's. The Guatemalan Clarification Commission, which was set up by the December 1996 peace accords to establish a historical record of the massive human rights violations that occurred during more than three decades of civil war, is expected shortly to make a similar request for relevant United States documents concerning this period. The U.S. Government is, properly, offering financial assistance to the clarification commission. The United States should also support the commission's important work to end impunity by providing relevant declassified documents. While it is true that the Clinton administration has already declassified some documents related to Honduras and Guatemala, by Executive order, such declassifications have been very narrowly focused. And, despite a number of letters from Congress requesting prompt action, the administration's response to the longstanding request by Honduran Human Rights Commissioner Valladares, which was first submitted in 1993, has been slow and partial. Moreover, although the administration officially agreed to honor the Honduran request, many of the documents released to date have been heavily excised, yielding little substantive information. The State Department has turned over 3,000 pages, but other agencies have been much less forthcoming. For example, the CIA has released 36 documents concerning Father Carney, a United States priest killed in Honduras, and 97 documents pertaining to 5 other key human rights cases. Most are heavily excised. The Department of Defense has released 34 heavily excised documents, but almost nothing that relates to the activities of Battalion 3-16. The administration has also declassified numerous documents on Guatemala in response to public demands. These focus, however, on approximately 30 cases of human rights abuses directed against Americans in Guatemala. The cases of Guatemalan anthropologist Myrna Mack and guerrilla leader Efrain Bamaca, husband of American lawyer Jennifer Harbury, were exceptions. In May of this year, the CIA also released an important batch of documents concerning its 1954 covert operation in Guatemala. However, thousands of documents on human rights violations that could be of interest to the clarification commission remain classified. Many of the documents already declassified were heavily excised, and, as in the Honduran case, the intelligence and defense agencies were less forthcoming than the State Department. Mr. President, I would hope that my colleagues can join me in voting for the Human Rights Information Act. This will send a very powerful signal of support for efforts to strengthen democracy and the rule of law throughout the hemisphere. It will also greatly assist Latin Americans who are currently bravely working to shed light upon a dark period of their recent pasts so that they can prevent such heinous abuses from occurring in the future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I would respectfully suggest to my colleague that U.S. Surgical is not marketing a video that promotes an unapproved use for this device. Now, there are clinicians out there who have put out videos and other educational materials on medical practice issues. U.S. Surgical is aware of that. It can happen. But the implication that U.S. Surgical is now actively promoting unapproved uses is not true.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield. This company is not engaged in promoting unapproved uses for this biopsy needle. And U.S. Surgical categorically denies any association with any materials produced by others where this might have occurred. The FDA has approved the breast biopsy needle. The FDA has approved it twice, in fact, only for breast biopsies. Accordingly, U.S. Surgical does not promote the device or market the device for tumor removal. It is aware now that articles and videos do exist which discuss other uses of the devices. It is very common, and completely legal, for physicians to explore other possible uses of both drugs and devices as part of the practice of medicine. But the suggestion somehow that the company is now actively promoting this device for something other than diagnostic purposes, with all due respect, is just not true. And the question that we should be asking here--a very important question--is, if this obviously illegal practice is occurring, if U.S. Surgical is actively promoting this product for an off-label use, why hasn't the FDA gone after the company? Now, clearly, if it were true, the FDA, with all the force of law would go out and pursue them vehemently. Promotion of a device for unapproved uses is one of the most egregious violations a company can commit. Surely if this were the case, and evidence of it were so readily available, FDA would have acted. But there has been no FDA action, because there has been no violation. And to suggest otherwise is irresponsible. I mentioned earlier, if my colleague will continue to yield, that U.S. Surgical has promoted this device for the purpose for which it was approved--to give women and their surgeons a useful option in conducting breast biopsies. There are good medical reasons that a larger size biopsy might need to be taken. In conducting biopsies you do can not always get a reliable tissue sample just with a small needle--some tumors are just too diffuse. Evidence shows that, with some types of tumors, taking a larger biopsy gives the surgeon a far better chance of determining the quality of the tumor accurately without the need to take multiple, painful biopsies. That is why this device was developed. And as women who have been through this will tell you, it is important to have this device as an option for taking an accurate and safe breast biopsy.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. DODD. Just on this point, if I could, on the point of the needle.

Mr. DODD. I'd like to clear up for everyone why we are discussing the size of the needle for the biopsy. Let's put aside for a moment your question of what the company has or hasn't said since we have been told that the FDA has not found that they are promoting the needle for tumor removal.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, as I said earlier, if U.S. Surgical were promoting for uses beyond those on the label, I think the FDA would be acting on it. But let me again get to the point of why a larger needle is useful in some biopsies situations. I am not a surgeon or a doctor, but I am just sharing with my colleagues here, and my colleague from Massachusetts, why this larger needle may be needed. This Advanced Breast Biopsy device, as it is called, does remove a larger amount of tissue than a conventional biopsy needle. Why? Why does it need to do that? This difference in needle size is not related to tumor removal. Rather, it addresses clinicians' requirements for sampling different types of lesions. Why do they do that?

Mr. DODD. I will just finish the paragraph. Breast lesions exist not only as discrete nodules but oftentimes as clusters of tiny particles known as microcalcifications. These microcalcifications appear diffuse on an X-ray; similar to the Milky Way. That's how surgeons describe it. Due to this fact, obtaining adequate amounts of tissue for biopsy is important in order to optimize accurate diagnosis, so that women don't have to go through surgery unnecessarily. This needle allows clinicians to take a larger single sampling, rather than many, painful, smaller samples that could perhaps miss the tumor tissue. That is why this product was developed. That is why it has been so supported by women and by surgeons. My colleague from Massachusetts can talk about videos that promote purposes other than this one. However, if that is the case, the FDA ought to be in there this very minute. But, they have not acted because no violation has occurred.

Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me begin by commending the chairman of the committee, Mr. President, for the work he has done on this bill and for others who have been involved in it. We are arriving at the point here where we have a 211-page bill put together in the past 2\1/2\ years, where we are, hopefully, down to its last provision, which has been the subject of some discussion over the last number of days. I want to just at the outset commend those who have been involved in it, explaining what the purpose of the intent here is. We have passed this bill out of our committee 14 to 4. There was some disagreement over a number of provisions, but I believe we produced a very fine product which is going to assist tremendously in making this even more secure in the quality of products we are getting but also the efficiency with which those products become available to patients and people in this country. I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for the explanation. This has become an arcane subject matter when we talk about paragraphs and titles and how the FDA process works. That is the reason the committee has spent so much time going back over this material, to try to sort out exactly what would work best and how it would apply. Contrary to how it has been portrayed thus far, the provision in the bill which is the subject of this amendment--what it does, Mr. President, is it shrinks back to current law an authority that the FDA has been stretching, in our view, past the bounds of fair practices. So the effort here is to try to get back exactly to what the intent has been. All we, the authors of the bill, are asking is that the FDA not force manufacturers to supply information on other than the imputed uses for which the manufacturer is not seeking approval and could not market the product even if they wanted to. You can see how the FDA in the current practice of second-guessing manufacturers can certainly create uncertainty not only in terms of the manufacturer but also in terms of consumers. A manufacturer, Mr. President, can spend years designing a product for a specific purpose only to be told by the FDA that it should go back to the drawing board and test the product for uses other than those for which the product was created in the first place. That creates tremendous uncertainty. Let me, if I can, Mr. President, try to describe this process and what we are talking about. That is where it gets a bit arcane. The Senator from Rhode Island, I think properly, characterized some of the differentiations here, but I think he gets lost on some people. What we are talking about here are not high-risk devices but lower risk devices. Ninety-five percent of the products that come out of the FDA for approval in this area are lower risk devices. What is a lower risk device and what is the process that exists today that allows for the approval of these products to be marketed? Well, the lower risk device goes through, as the Senator from Rhode Island has described, a 510(k) process. That is the applicable provisions at the FDA. Under that provision, if a manufacturer wants to bring out a lower risk medical device, they must prove that the new device is ``substantially equivalent''--I am quoting here--``to a device already on the market,'' the so-called predicate device. That is why it is called a lower risk device. There already then has been the approval of a product that is substantially equivalent to a product that the manufacturer wants to bring out. So the decision was made, instead of having a manufacturer go through a de novo process, which can take years, as it should, that we are going to expedite that process as long as there is a predicate out there--there is a predicate out there--there has already been a product that is ``substantially equivalent,'' to quote the FDA. If that exists, then you can go, for the lower risk device, to the 510(k) process. There are two tests--two tests--that you must meet if you are going to get FDA approval under that provision--the lower risk device, not the higher risk device. No one is debating that. We are talking about the lower risk device. The two tests are the following. The first is that the device has the same intended use as the predicate device. That is a subjective test. Does it have the same intended use? Does the label say that? Does the marketing, does the information the company is putting out have the same intended use? That is a subjective test. And if a manufacturer puts on the label some other use, then they would fail that test--the intended use. To say that a manufacturer must also now have some imputed use that you could not imagine, that you did not design, that you did not think about, that some doctor may decide they want to use it for, is not what that paragraph is all about. That is the first test. But the second test is far more important. This bill does nothing to the second test at all. The second test is that the new device's technological differences do not raise new questions of safety and efficacy. That is an objective test, Mr. President. That is an objective test. Nothing in this bill changes anything in that second test. What we are trying to do is to get back to that first test and say it is the intended use of that predicate device, the intended use of the predicate device. If the manufacturer does not meet both of these tests, then the FDA does not have to clear the device. This provision does not change that in any way whatsoever. You have to meet both tests. All that we are asking in this bill, among other things that we have tried to reform here, is that we be able to draw some lines around the first and very subjective test of the intended use while retaining FDA's full discretion on the much more objective tests of the technological differences. Now, in our view, with all due respect, the FDA has been stretching its authority by trying to impute uses that the manufacturer has no intention of doing. We have been given some examples over the past week of how the act would only test the intended use on the label. In fact, as I said, there are two tests under 510(k). In each of the examples that have been given, the FDA had the ability to stop the devices from going on the market because they failed the second test. No reference has been made to that. They failed the second test, not the intended purpose, but the technological differences. All the examples that have been given, of course, are tragic ones, deaths and injuries resulting from the Dalkon shield, a woman who contracted toxic-shock syndrome from superabsorbent tampons, disfigurement caused by artificial jaw joints, and faulty plastic eyelashes that led to blindness. These are all tragic examples without question. But in every single case it was not because they failed the first test, the intended use; it was because they failed the second test. They were technologically flawed. It was not somehow that the manufacturer produced a product that was used for some different purpose than the intended use on the label, but that the product was faulty, technologically it was faulty. So we cite these examples and then say the reason that people lost their lives or were disfigured was because the manufacturer used it for some purpose or someone used for it for a purpose other than was labeled. That is not the case. It just is not the case. So I urge my colleagues when looking at this, as technical and as arcane as it may be--and most Members do not follow FDA regulations, do not get involved in the details of it--but with lower risk devices there are two tests, all within this bill. This amendment we are dealing with is the first test, the intended use. In every example cited, the horror stories cited, the tragic losses cited, in every single case it was the failure of the second test, which is not the subject of the amendment offered by the Senator from Rhode Island. I urge my colleagues to pay attention to those of us who worked on this and understand what we are talking about. We are trying to see if we cannot narrow down the problem on the intended use sections. Mr. President, let me talk here a bit about what our purposes are here. If we allow the FDA to have free rein in the sense of having to guess at what a lower risk product could conceivably be used for once it is in the hands of physicians, then there is no end, in my view, to the studies that could be required of manufacturers to produce. Some suggest perhaps we need a threshold to that guessing; maybe the FDA is ``kind of'' sure that the doctors would not use the device for another purpose. That would be the right threshold. Maybe ``really'' being sure would be sufficient in some cases. Can you see how unworkable a concept like this would be? Anytime the FDA is told they can look into their crystal ball and guess how a doctor might use a product, the result is going to be uncertainty. Mr. President, let me step back a second. There is not a single Member of this body that in any way wants to be associated with or part of an effort that is going to endanger anyone's life at all. In fact, quite the contrary. We want to do everything we can to see to it that people are getting safe products, efficient products, effective products that will serve their interests and protect their lives. That is our purpose and intent. We also want to see patients able to get products and have them reach the market. Certainly there are going to be those who will be fraudulent, bad actors. No one is suggesting they do not exist. Nothing we will do here will stop that, I suppose. But to suggest somehow that because we are trying to in some way tighten up the intended use or purpose on the lower risk devices, that those who support this idea are guilty of somehow jeopardizing people all across this country, I think is an unfair characterization. It is quite the contrary. In fact, a major company in my State of Connecticut, U.S. Surgical, with 9,000 employees, has come up with some of the most creative, imaginative, and effective devices to reduce the risks of injury and to preserve lives. It is a very reputable company. The company has brought to the American people revolutionary technology. They were leaders in creating minimally invasive surgery using laparoscopes. Patients used to be laid up for months, or weeks anyway, after a gall bladder operation. As a result of laparoscopic surgery, now a person can be back at work within days because of the technology developed by U.S. Surgical. The breast biopsy, which has been discussed here, was developed 2 years ago by U.S. Surgical and has been received by surgeons with overwhelming support in this country. Women have benefited from its use in over 7,000 cases worldwide. It is a safe and reputable company. I think it has been unfairly labeled as otherwise. In fact, regarding the biopsy, in trying to approve technology that would improve the technology, they should have received plaudits for that. The FDA approved it. There were questions raised about whether or not this was actually being used as a surgery to remove tumors. Never did the manufacturer ever suggest that was the case. Having listened to some of the debate, that was the implication. Mr. President, I think it is unfortunate that that becomes the manner in which we debate a question here about one provision we are trying to narrow a bit in lower risk products. Mr. President, there are a few examples of instances where the FDA has attempted to second-guess the manufacturers of a device about the device's intended use. One was an endoscope, an example where a manufacturer was asked to submit data on how the materials of a device would hold up after multiple uses. The company, in fact, insisted the label clearly state the product should only be used once and then discarded. That is what the label said. That is what the company and the manufacturer intended--one usage of this endoscope. In the second case, a manufacturer designed a hearing aid to reduce background noise. The FDA decided that the real intended use was better hearing, and required the manufacturer to submit clinical data to prove that the device helped hearing overall. In a third case, Mr. President, a manufacturer developed a catheter that was coated with a substance that enhances the integrity of the device materials when the device is implanted in the body. The FDA decided the coating was really intended to reduce infection, and required clinical data to prove it. Mr. President, in each of these cases the manufacturer was not seeking to promote or market the device for the imputed use at all and would have been prohibited from doing so, and the FDA's authority in no way is eroded. If the FDA believes that the company is off on some imputed use they have the authority to deal with that problem. We don't change that in this law at all. I also point out, Mr. President, in each case a useful device was delayed from reaching consumers in this country. That is what we are talking about here. I talked earlier about the biopsy, the testing device developed by U.S. Surgical. U.S. Surgical received approval from the FDA for a breast biopsy needle to be used for diagnostic purposes only, diagnostic purposes only. After the product was approved and on the market, the FDA asked for more information about the efficacy and the safety of the device for taking adequate biopsy samples--an appropriate request. U.S. Surgical supplied the information, and the second approval for the product was given by the FDA. At no time was the device marketed for another purpose. At no time was the device marketed for any other purpose than for diagnostic purposes. I come back to the section, the 510(k), the lower risk medical devices. Two tests--the subjective test of intended use based on the label; and the second test on the technological questions, which is an objective test. Had the manufacturer said on its label or in its information or its marketing packages, ``By the way, this will be a good diagnostic device and it may just work in terms of dealing with the tumor,'' you have immediately violated the first test because your intended purpose is other than what you are seeking approval. But that is a subjective case. That is the way this works. If you want to scrap 510(k) and put everything on the same footing, why don't we have an amendment that does that? I don't hear anyone suggesting that. We are trying to get these devices out where there is a predicate; that is, there has been a product already approved, which is substantially equivalent, substantially equivalent, to the device seeking approval. I urge my colleagues to remember that when you are considering how to vote on this. This is not high risk. This is low risk. Two tests--subjective test, intended purpose; second test, is it technologically faulty, is it safe? In the case of U.S. Surgical's diagnostic test for breast cancer, which has been overwhelmingly received, by the way--in fact, I think we will hear later from a colleague of ours who is a beneficiary of this-- overwhelmingly accepted. Had they thought to do something else with that biopsy, then they would be in violation of this test. That was not the case and to suggest otherwise is just not true. If it had been, the FDA would have had full authority to request data on the safety and efficacy of the device for the unapproved purpose. It would still have that authority under this provision. At no time did the FDA request any data for U.S. Surgical regarding the use of the breast biopsy device for tumor removal. So when this case is cited now, twice I heard it cited, I hope my colleagues would understand what the facts are. This is a fine company and the suggestion somehow they are producing devices out there for purposes other than what was intended, risking consumers in this country, is unfair to that company and unfair to the people who work there. Mr. President, I urge our colleagues when considering this amendment--and again I respect entirely the motivations behind it; certainly all of us want to see the safest possible devices on the market, but we also want to see a process that will allow the products to get to that marketplace and serve the people they are designed to serve. If we are talking about something new, the tests are different, and they should be. If it is substantially equivalent to a device already out there, we have made the collective determination 20 years ago that the test ought to be different. When you go beyond that, in effect, if you are trying to take a lower risk device and apply it to a standard that exists to a higher risk device you are defeating the very purpose for which 510(k) exists. With all due respect to my colleague from Rhode Island, I urge this amendment be defeated. In my view, the responses here are not arguing this provision on its merits. Instead, we are hearing language that I don't think reflects exactly what the situation is, what the facts are. While appealing on the surface, because some horrible cases have been cited as I pointed out, in every single instance in those cases it was not a debate about whether or not the manufacturer was producing a product for one purpose and used for another. In every single case those devices failed the second test of 510(k), not the first test of the intended purpose. By definition, the process of determining substantial equivalence, a label is neither true nor false. It is the same as the predicate. If it is not the same as the predicate, then it does not pass the first test. In effect, trying to squeeze false and misleading language into a place it doesn't fit means all devices would be undergoing the PMA process, a process that can take up to six times longer, six times longer. When there are patients out there and families out there that want to see this material get to them, we don't need to be complicating a process on low risk devices, delaying that event occurring, causing more pain and suffering. There are people who suffer as a result of a regulatory process that is so overburdened and so complicated that people cannot get these materials when they need them. Mr. President, again, with all due respect, I urge my colleagues reject this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield on that point?