Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce legislation to provide new support to needy college students struggling to balance their efforts in college with their role as parents. The CAMPUS--Child Care Access Means Parents in School Act will support the participation of low-income parents in college by supporting campus- based child care. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Snowe and Senator Kennedy. The stereotypical college student is no longer an 18-year-old high school graduate. Increasingly, nontraditional students--older, with children and various job and life experiences--are filling the ranks of college classes. These students recognize the importance of college to future success. But these students face new barriers unheard of in earlier times. Many are parents and must provide for their children while in school. Campus-based child care is a vital necessity for parents attending college. It is conveniently located, available during the right hours, and of high quality and lower cost. Unfortunately, it is unavailable at many schools. Even where programs exist, they are often difficult to access, particularly for low-income parents who struggle with the costs. In the wake of welfare reform, new pressures are also coming to bear on low-income student parents. With the work requirements of the welfare reform bill, it will become increasingly difficult for students who are low-income parents to obtain Federal child care funds. States are likely to shift these funds to support welfare recipients returning to work, rather than to support low-income parents pursuing higher education. This outcome is particularly perverse given the impact of obtaining a college education on family earnings over time. Studies are clear: public assistance recipients who attend college are significantly more likely to leave welfare permanently. This bill will offer new hope to these students. It will provide support to campus-based child care programs serving low-income parents. Colleges can apply for these 3-year grants to assist the institution in supporting or establishing a campus-based child care program serving the needs of their low-income students. Funds will be targeted to institutions serving low-income students and programs focused on meeting these needs. Mr. President, this is a modest measure that will make a major difference to students. I am hopeful that it can be considered and enacted as part of the Higher Education Act which we will consider later this year. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important measure forward. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce legislation to provide new support to needy college students struggling to balance their efforts in college with their role as parents. The CAMPUS--Child Care Access Means Parents in School Act will support the participation of low-income parents in college by supporting campus- based child care. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Snowe and Senator Kennedy. The stereotypical college student is no longer an 18-year-old high school graduate. Increasingly, nontraditional students--older, with children and various job and life experiences--are filling the ranks of college classes. These students recognize the importance of college to future success. But these students face new barriers unheard of in earlier times. Many are parents and must provide for their children while in school. Campus-based child care is a vital necessity for parents attending college. It is conveniently located, available during the right hours, and of high quality and lower cost. Unfortunately, it is unavailable at many schools. Even where programs exist, they are often difficult to access, particularly for low-income parents who struggle with the costs. In the wake of welfare reform, new pressures are also coming to bear on low-income student parents. With the work requirements of the welfare reform bill, it will become increasingly difficult for students who are low-income parents to obtain Federal child care funds. States are likely to shift these funds to support welfare recipients returning to work, rather than to support low-income parents pursuing higher education. This outcome is particularly perverse given the impact of obtaining a college education on family earnings over time. Studies are clear: public assistance recipients who attend college are significantly more likely to leave welfare permanently. This bill will offer new hope to these students. It will provide support to campus-based child care programs serving low-income parents. Colleges can apply for these 3-year grants to assist the institution in supporting or establishing a campus-based child care program serving the needs of their low-income students. Funds will be targeted to institutions serving low-income students and programs focused on meeting these needs. Mr. President, this is a modest measure that will make a major difference to students. I am hopeful that it can be considered and enacted as part of the Higher Education Act which we will consider later this year. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this important measure forward. 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 to pay tribute to six elementary schools from my home state of Connecticut whose achievements have earned them the honor of being named blue ribbon schools. The blue ribbon schools program was established in 1982 to honor the best elementary and secondary schools in the country. This program promotes excellence in education by providing national recognition to a diverse group of schools that display an uncommon ability to help their students to reach their potential. These blue ribbon schools, with their varied socioeconomic, geographic, and educational needs, prove that, with the right tools, all of our schools can be successful. They display the qualities of excellence that are necessary to prepare our young children for the challenges of the next century. Their formula for success is no secret. Each has strong leadership, a sense of mission, parental involvement, high quality teaching, and high standards and high expectations for each and every student. It is important that we make every child in this country believe in themselves, and blue ribbon schools are challenging our students to try harder and demand more from themselves. Of the 76,000 elementary schools across the country, only 263 are honored as blue ribbon schools, and I am proud of the fact that all six nominated schools from Connecticut were chosen to be honored. These six schools from Connecticut are Ellen B. Hubble Elementary School in Bristol, Highland Elementary School in Chesire, East Farms School in Farmington, the Center School in Litchfield, the Peck Place School in Litchfield, and West District School in Unionville. Each is different and unique, but they hold in common a commitment to helping all their students achieve high standards. I would like to briefly mention some of the unique accomplishments of each of these schools. Ellen P. Hubble School in Bristol is a center for innovation in education, where learning is fun. The school brings excitement to learning by developing building-wide themes. In the past, the school has been transformed into a farm, a forest, and a circus, and the children have responded by bringing uncommon enthusiasm to their schoolwork. The students of Ellen P. Hubble have also been very active in their community. Through the random acts of kindness and make a difference day program, students have worked on activities ranging from supporting a shelter for battered women to providing help for Bosnian refugees. Highland Elementary School is a reflection of the town of Cheshire's dedication to provide each young person with a nurturing, motivating, and enjoyable learning environment. Highland Elementary has formed a collaborative intervention team, composed of teachers and administrators, whose role is to identify and address the complex needs of each individual student. The teachers set high standards for their students, but the results have shown that great teaching inspires active learning. In addition, Highland is a member of the national network of Partnership 2000 schools, which fosters home-school partnerships. The East Farms School in Farmington is centered around the belief that all children are capable of becoming skillful, lifelong learners. The staff works within collaborative teams which develop an engaging inter-disciplinary curriculum. East Farms is the first school in Connecticut to establish their own publishing center. For 3 years, parents have assisted children and teachers in the publication of over 1,000 original books each year. This effort has not only brought students, parents, and teachers together in a learning exercise, it has also reinforced the value and importance of written work. At the Center School in Litchfield, lessons are planned around student inquiry, and teachers serve as facilitators rather than lecturers. In addition, students at the Center School are taught that the best way to solve a problem is by cooperating with others, and students are instilled with a strong sense of community. The school has been at the forefront of instructional reform, and the school's thematically arranged, interdisciplinary units of instruction have been hailed as exemplary by local, state, and national educators. The Center School was the first elementary school in Connecticut to be accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, and they recently received the Connecticut Award for Excellence. Teachers are at the center of efforts to provide children with a quality education at the Peck Place School in Orange. This school has invested in highly-qualified staff with 92 percent of the staff holding advanced degrees. Beyond an excellent traditional elementary schools curriculum, Peck Place also offers both French and Spanish to its students. Students and parents are enthusiastic partners in this effort. The Peck Place School proves a strong learning environment leads to improved performance by students. Connecticut mastery test scores have shown significant improvement in every grade, and grade four scores have jumped from 25 percent meeting or exceeding the State goals in 1993 to 74 percent in 1995. West District School in Unionville is a true neighborhood school where nearly half of the students walk to school every day, and many of them are the children of former students. West District is committed to the belief that all students are capable of learning at a high level if you nurture each student's special strengths. West District has formed a school development council, made up of teachers, staff, and parents, to work on ways to improve the school and to develop priorities for each school year. Last year the school chose to focus its efforts on addressing the needs of low-performing students, and the school worked diligently to bridge the gap between their most successful students and those who struggle with their classwork. The results have been successful as the vast majority of students are now performing at the high levels. West District boasts some of the highest Connecticut Mastery scores in the State, with 84 percent of sixth graders and 80 percent of fourth graders reaching the excellent level on the Connecticut mastery test in math. In addition, 80 percent of sixth graders achieved excellence in reading and 75 percent of fourth graders reached the excellence level in writing. Once again I would like to congratulate these six schools for being honored as blue ribbon schools. I believe that they all serve as models for other schools and communities seeking to provide young students with a nurturing environment that will enable each child to develop into a life-long learner.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, spring has always been known as a season of rebirth, but, sadly, the Spring of 1997 saw the passing of one of the true culinary landmarks of Washington, D.C. as the Roma Restaurant closed its doors after 77 years. In the days since the Roma closed, the local newspapers have been filled with articles and letters to the editor paying tribute to the Washington institution. All of the writers had different memories of what made the Roma so special to them. For some it was the outdoor courtyard with the elaborate garden and grape arbor. For others it was the unique experience of dining amongst stuffed tigers, lions, and other wild game that Roma founder Frank Abbo had killed on safari. For some people it was simply the linguine with clam sauce. But for everyone who frequented the Roma, there are fond memories of the wonderful people who worked at this restaurant and made it such an enjoyable place to spend an afternoon or an evening. Patrons of the Roma have described members of the Abbo family, who owned and operated the Roma since it was founded in 1920, as having the biggest hearts in Washington. While most restaurants are closed for Thanksgiving and Christmas, the Roma was always open, as the Abbos cooked countless turkeys and prepared thousands of meals over the years for unfortunate people who could not afford to buy a warm holiday meal. The Roma was not just a business. It was more like a club where friends would meet regularly to get together and enjoy some good food and have a good time. Whenever I dined at the Roma, it felt like going to dinner at a friend's house. In a sense, it was, since the Roma's owner, Bobby Abbo has been a friend of mine for many years. But while I know that my friendship with Bobby will persevere and I will continue to see him, I will surely miss the many friendly faces that I may no longer see now that the Roma has closed. It would be impossible for me to remember all of the people whom I befriended at the Roma. However, I would specifically like to mention Maria Amaya, Hugo Terzi, and John Squitero and thank them for the kindness that they extended toward me over the years. In closing, I will miss the gardens, and I will miss the food. But, most important, I will miss the people that made the Roma such a special place. I wish all of them well, and I thank them for all of the wonderful memories they have provided me and so many others.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my views on this historic moment as we offer the American people a balanced budget for the first time in almost 30 years. Mr. President, this agreement is truly a remarkable accomplishment for both President Clinton and Members of Congress, and it is a well-deserved victory for the American people. This means less debt for our children's generation, lower interest rates for families seeking to buy a car or a home, and a more vibrant economy for businesses to expand and create jobs. This moment must not be viewed in isolation because, in many respects, the victory we claim today stands on the shoulders of the progress we have made to reduce the deficit over the past few years. Let's give credit where credit is due. In 1990, President Bush put this country above his party and above his own political ambitions by endorsing a plan that lowered the deficit by $500 billion. It was wildly unpopular in his own party because it raised taxes on affluent Americans. But it was the right thing to do. President Bush's efforts on behalf of his country should be remembered and commended. When President Clinton came into office, he, too, stepped up to the challenge of combating the deficit. He proposed a far-reaching economic plan in 1993--more appropriately called the balanced budget plan of 1993--and it was enacted into law without a single Republican vote. President Clinton's balanced budget plan, which I supported, has reduced the deficit by more than 75 percent from $290 billion in 1992 to an estimated $67 billion this year. That $67 billion represents less than 1 percent of gross domestic product in 1997, the best we've seen since Harry Truman's presidency. We have now seen four consecutive years of deficit reduction, something that has not occurred since before the Civil War. And our economy is only getting stronger as a result of what we did in 1993. The unemployment rate is at 5 percent, representing the lowest level in 24 years. There have been 12.5 million new jobs created in these past 4\1/2\ years of the Clinton administration. That's more than any prior administration. Home ownership has increased from 63.7 to 65.4 percent--the highest percentage on record. Median family income is up $1,600 since 1993, representing the fastest growth since the Johnson administration. And the stock market continues to break records, growing from 3,200 to 8,000, the fastest growth rate since World War II. The list goes on and on. Clearly, Mr. President, we no longer hear the voices that predicted that President Clinton's plan in 1993 would not balance the budget, but instead would cause a recession, raise interest rates, and put American families out of work. Those voices of opposition have been drowned out by our overwhelming record of successes. And without this tremendous record of progress, we could never have what we have today--the first time in a generation that our government will not run a deficit. The underlying bill represents the first tax cut in 16 years. It provides much-needed tax relief for working American families. The 1981 and 1986 tax cuts, which I voted against and which set the Reagan economic program in motion, blew a hole in the deficit and left us with an astronomical national debt. By contrast, this bill promotes fiscal responsibility, sustains balance, and is the most progressive economic package since the Lyndon Johnson package in the 1960's. Mr. President, I am particularly pleased with the child tax credit included in this budget agreement. Because of the efforts of President Clinton and a number of my colleagues in Congress, the child tax credit will be expanded to cover 7.5 million more children from lower income working families than would have been covered under the congressional leadership's original plan. In my State alone, upwards of 692,000 families will be eligible for this credit--almost 80 percent of families in my State. We succeeded in making this credit largely refundable against income and payroll taxes, benefiting 27 million families with 45 million children. Clearly, Mr. President, this is great news for the millions of families in America who, although they work very hard, still struggle just to make ends meet. Mr. President, this bill clearly reflects our commitment to expanding educational opportunity, as it is the largest investment in higher education since the GI bill in 1945. There are few issues more critical to American families than education. I think we can all agree that unless we tap and nurture the talents and energies of all our people, we won't be able to meet the challenges of the 21st century. This budget agreement recognizes this by providing American families with more than $35 billion in tax relief for education. The bill before us today provides increased funding for Head Start, provides the largest Pell grant increase in two decades, includes community service loan forgiveness, and allows students to deduct the interest on their college loans. Further, this bill includes a $1,500 HOPE scholarship credit for the first 2 years of college, and provides a credit for the second 2 years of college and for life-long learning, as well. For Connecticut, this package means that as many as 149,000 students will benefit--85,000 more Connecticut students than under the Republican proposal. This bill also provides targeted tax relief to middle class investors, small businesses and family farms. It reduces the capital gains tax rate in a way that encourages longer term investments and in a way that provides relief to a growing percentage of middle-class Americans reporting capital gains income on their tax return. And we provide measured relief without indexing these gains for inflation, a provision originally contained in the congressional leadership's proposal, which surely would have threatened to throw our budget out of balance. Further, if you've worked to own a home, and that home has increased in value, we exempt up to half a million dollars of that increase from capital gains taxes. This provision allows homeowners to reap the rewards of home ownership, and encourage more people to buy homes. This part of the tax package is particularly meaningful to homeowners in my State of Connecticut who were hurt disproportionately during the recession of 1991. And, if you're a farmer of a small business owner, we exempt the first $1.3 million of the value of your estate from taxation, so you can pass on the fruits of your labor to your children. Clearly, Mr. President, the bill before us today, makes a difference to small investors, small businesses, and hard-working Americans. It is reasonable and responsible, and recognizes the value of providing measured relief to American families, small businesses, and family farms. But fundamentally, this bill isn't about statistics. It's about meeting vital family needs and providing additional resources to meet the many challenges our working families face. This bill strengthens families and puts working families first. And yet, the underlying bill is not a perfect bill. In the midst of providing tax relief that is fair and equitable, I believe it is imperative that we not lose sight of our obligation to enact legislation that is fiscally responsible. We should be enacting legislation that will allow us to maintain the fiscal discipline we have worked so hard to achieve in recent years, dating back to the wise decisions we made in 1993. That is way I offered an amendment during the budget reconciliation negotiations which demanded we adhere to our budget agreement in which we agreed to a net tax cut of $85 billion through 2002, and not more than $250 billion through 2007. And that is why, today, I have serious concerns about Joint Committee on Taxation reports estimating that these tax cuts will cost $95 billion through 2002 and upwards of $275 billion by 2007. Nevertheless, this bill takes several steps to ensure that the cost of the tax cuts will not spiral in later years. Most significantly, it drops the proposal to index capital gains. In addition, it puts income limits on individual retirement accounts. Mr. President, we must be committed to preserving the integrity of the balanced budget agreement. The American people will not be served by a budget that reaches balance briefly in 2002 and then veers back out of balance afterward. Mr. President, on the whole, this agreement is more fair and more disciplined than any in recent history. The bill before us today does more for working families, more for small businesses, and more for family farms. We have stimulated jobs and growth, and encouraged investment, and most importantly, we have put America's families and their children first. I am proud of these accomplishments, Mr. President, and, let us not forget that we did it all while balancing the budget, benefiting Americans today and in the future.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, for most Americans, mornings are a time of routines. People like to eat the same thing for breakfast, drink their coffee with just the right amount of cream and sugar, and duck out the door at the same time every day. Over the past 40 years, a central part of the morning routine for thousands of Connecticut residents has been the voice of Walt Dibble reading the news over the radio. During this time of the day where so many people are rushing around, Walt Dibble's calm presence served as a soothing influence that made each morning more pleasant. Sadly, the mornings in Connecticut will never be the same, as Mr. Walt Dibble died last week at the age of 65. A lifelong Connecticut resident, Walt Dibble was loved by all of the people in the state who listened to him. It didn't matter if they worked as a school teacher in Manchester, in the Inventory Control Division of Pratt & Whitney, or as a financial analyst in Hartford, all of Walt Dibble's listeners felt that he was a man whom they could relate to and whom they could trust. Walt Dibble was an institution in Connecticut radio. For the past 20 years, Mr. Dibble was the voice of WTIC news in Hartford, where he was the News Director and Managing Editor. Hartford was familiar with Walt Dibble even before he came to WTIC, since he had worked for 10 years at Hartford's WDRC radio station. Before coming to Hartford, Walt had been the radio voice of the news in New Haven and Bridgeport. Throughout his career he was always quick to pick up a microphone and hit the street to cover a breaking news story. And it was in these situations that Walt Dibble flourished. His colleagues always marveled at his ability to deliver extended live coverage of major news events without any script as a safety net. Whether it was covering the collapse of the Hartford Civic Center roof, Hurricane Gloria, or the debate over the state income tax in 1991, he always kept his cool and offered a professional news report that, in many cases, he made up as he went along. People may have wondered why Walt Dibble always seemed more sincere than other newscasters. The reason probably stems from the fact that Walt Dibble reported the news in his own words that came from his own mind and his own heart. Walt Dibble loved his profession, and he was a father figure for hundreds of Connecticut broadcasters. He treated the interns at the radio station with the same respect as lifelong colleagues, and he would always encourage them to embark on a career in radio. Mr. Dibble brought a similar approach to the classes he taught at the Connecticut School of Broadcasting and Southern Connecticut State University. He did not need to teach, but he did so because he wanted to pass the torch on to future broadcasters. In this day and age where most people get their news from television, and more and more radio stations are broadcasting nationally syndicated radio shows, Walt Dibble was a throwback to an era when the radio was the place where people went to get their local news. While it will be difficult for anyone to deliver the news with the style and grace of Walt Dibble, I only hope that somebody will carry on his tradition of excellence in broadcasting to ensure that Connecticut residents will still be able to receive local news, on local radio stations, from local broadcasters whom they know and trust. Walt Dibble lived a truly charmed life. He interviewed Presidents of the United States, he saw his son pitch in the World Series, and for more than 40 years he got to go to work to do a job that he loved. But in the end, it is the people of Connecticut who are charmed for having known this great man.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, any town in America can find somebody to run their local government. But few cities ever have a leader whose courage, hope, and humor serve to inspire others to expect more from themselves and their community. East Lyme was fortunate enough to know one of these leaders--David L. Cini. Mr. Cini served as East Lyme's first selectman since 1989, and, sadly, he died earlier this month at the age of 60. Eight years ago, I attended a political rally for David Cini that was held in a vacant lot behind a beauty salon in the small town of Niantic, CT, which is part of East Lyme. Also in attendance at this rally were Senator Joe Lieberman, Congressman Sam Gejdenson, and a host of other local dignitaries. Upon realizing that there were two U.S. Senators, a Congressman, and many other elected officials in attendance at this rally, I asked aloud, ``Why are all of these important people gathered behind a beauty salon in Niantic?'' David Cini quickly stood up and responded, ``Because Niantic is the center of the universe, and I am going to be the first selectman.'' For David Cini, Niantic and East Lyme was the center of the universe, and he really loved and took pride in this town and its people. One time, David cut short a week-long vacation in Florida to come back to East Lyme. He said that East Lyme was the best place to live and work so why leave? Mr. Cini loved the city of East Lyme and his primary concern as first selectman was improving the quality of life for these people. But while David Cini was completely committed to the people of East Lyme, he also recognized that the interests of one town are often connected to the interests of neighboring communities. He worked tirelessly to see that the towns in southeastern Connecticut worked together to preserve prosperity in the region. Mr. Cini was instrumental in the formation of the Council of Governments, which is comprised of the chief executive officers of 20 southeastern Connecticut towns, and he served as the council's first chairman. Throughout his tenure as East Lyme's top official, Mr. Cini had to overcome various health problems, but he always maintained a positive attitude, and you never saw him without a smile on his face. David was always too concerned with the welfare of others to dwell on his own personal interests. When you ask his friends what they will remember most about David Cini, they all mention his sense of humor. He was frequently seen joking with workers at Town Hall, and with his modest and unassuming manner, he could always make people laugh and put them at ease. His humor will be missed in Town Hall, and so will his leadership. David Cini was known and respected by his colleagues in politics, but, more important, he was admired by the people that he was elected to represent. He is survived by his wife Sally, seven siblings, five children, and four grandchildren. I extend my heartfelt condolences to them all.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to extend my sincere congratulations to the students of Trumbull High School, who recently won an award at the ``We the People * * * The Citizen and the Constitution'' national finals in Washington, DC. The ``We the People * * *'' program includes a comprehensive curriculum on the history and principles of American constitutional democracy. It culminates in a competition testing student teams' knowledge of the Constitution, structured as a congressional hearing with students testifying as constitutional experts. This innovative approach has received critical acclaim from educators and scholars alike, and the curriculum stands as a model for future educational programs. Students involved in the ``We the People * * *'' program not only gain an understanding of constitutional history, but many of them also show a much stronger commitment to democratic principles and feel more involved in the political process. The students from Trumbull High School were recognized for their expertise on Unit 6 ``Role of Citizen'' of the ``We the People * * *'' curriculum. I'm very proud of their accomplishment, and would like to recognize them all by name: Katherine Baker, Scott Baker, Heather Beardsley, Annette Besso, Andrew Braverman, Meredith Bryk, Christopher Cheng, Jonathan Chin, Jessica Cohen, Vimala George, Kristy Gordon, Travis Halky, Stephen Henshaw, Ryan Leichsenring, Jennifer Liu, Devon Nykaza, Nicole Perreault, Diane Perry, Anne Rackliffe, Sophia Rountos, Rachel Simonds, and Alan Stern. In February 1963, President John F. Kennedy said that ``the future promise of any nation can be directly measured by the present prospect of its youth.'' Frighteningly low voter turnout has recently raised concerns about public frustration with our political system. And yet, when I had the opportunity to meet with these Trumbull high schoolers, I was struck by the students' optimism and thoughtfulness about our great constitutional democracy. Their strong sense of civic responsibility provides me with great hope for our future.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, with today's passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Senate has taken a historic step toward ensuring the long-term solvency of the Medicare program. I am pleased that many of the provisions that I found to be so objectionable when this bill first came to the floor of the Senate one month ago, have since been removed. In stating my reasons for originally opposing the bill, I shared my deep concern over the proposal to raise the age at which individuals are eligible to receive Medicare from 65 to 67. The likelihood of these seniors finding affordable private insurance would have been slim--many would have been forced to forego coverage. It was a wise decision on the part of my colleagues serving as conferees on this bill that they did not decide to exacerbate the current problem of lack of health coverage for early retirees further with this measure. I am also pleased that a provision that would have required the poorest and sickest seniors to pay up to $700 a year in home health costs has also been dropped. Looking to the most vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries to shoulder this level of cost under the guise of addressing the long-term financial challenges of this program would have been indefensible. In addition to the removal of these onerous provisions, this legislation has been improved since the vote in the Senate by the commitment to continue Medicaid coverage for the 30,000 disabled children who will lose their Supplemental Security Income benefits as a result of eligibility changes in the welfare reform bill enacted last year. This provision, which was highlighted as a priority in the original budget agreement between President Clinton and Congress, was noticeably absent in both the House and Senate bills. Along with Senator Conrad, I offered an amendment to continue health insurance for these children and was disappointed to see it fail by only nine votes. However, I am grateful to the conferees that protection for these children of working poor families was achieved in the conference negotiations. This legislation will also significantly increase health coverage for children who currently lack insurance. We certainly have come a long way on this issue since the debates of earlier years. Even as recently as last year, the question was still whether or not to provide health insurance to our nation's children, rather than how we might accomplish this admirable goal. By adopting the Senate provision, which calls for $24 billion for this new initiative, we can now offer the hope to more than seven million children that cost will not be a barrier to securing health care. Of course, I am disappointed that the important and courageous attempt to ask those Americans who can afford to contribute a little more for their health care to do so was dropped. It is important to remember that only the wealthiest 8% of seniors would have seen a rise in their premiums. I maintain my conviction that the adoption of means testing of Medicare premiums was a step in the right direction toward the long-term solvency of the critically important safety net that Medicare provides to millions of senior citizens. I also continue to have significant concerns about the reductions in Medicare and Medicaid payments to hospitals and managed care organizations. In order to ensure that our nation's seniors and lower- income citizens receive the affordable and high-quality care they need, health care providers must continue to be adequately funded. I am particularly concerned about the reduction in payments to teaching and disproportionate share hospitals. These hospitals serve a population that is sicker and poorer than most hospitals. Reduction in payments of this magnitude threaten the ability of these hospitals to continue to serve as a safety net for the most vulnerable in our society. In addition, I am concerned about the impact of the new HMO payment structure on low-income seniors who selected managed care plans because they truly need the additional benefits and low out-of-pocket costs that these plans can offer. These seniors cannot afford the high deductibles and copayments of Medicare fee-for-service, nor can they afford to purchase expensive Medigap coverage. While I am pleased that Congress has attempted to provide more health care choices for Medicare beneficiaries, I believe that without adequate funding, these choices will not be viable ones. Despite these concerns, this legislation goes a long way toward providing many of our nation's citizens with the care they need and expect from Medicare. I view it as an important step toward ensuring that Medicare is here to serve future generations of Americans. It is for this reason, Mr. President, that I am pleased to support the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I'm introducing two pieces of legislation intended to address the ongoing and utter failure of our Nation's child support efforts. Last week, the General Accounting Office released a long-awaited report on efforts to collect child support throughout the country. It paints a picture of a broken child support system: One where four out of five parents legally required to pay child support simply ignore court orders to do so; one where nearly three in four custodial parents--and their children--who receive no child support live in poverty (as of 1991); and one where a staggering $34 billion in child support payments remain uncollected. The current system of child support is not just a failure by the States to collect money. It's a nationwide failure to care for America's children. Imagine what parents could do for their kids with these billions in unpaid child support obligations. Currently, Congress and the President are engaged in a heated debate over how to provide health insurance to the 10\1/2\ million kids who don't currently have it. We might not be having that debate if the child support system was working. Imagine how much better parents could prepare their children to get the right start in life. With each passing day, we are learning about how incredibly important the first years, months, even days of life are to a child's future well-being. Most importantly, they need what money can't buy: Love, affection, and attention--preferably by two parents rather than one. But they also need wholesome food, a clean and safe neighborhood, child care that nurtures rather than warehouses, and early learning that stretches young minds. Yet, nearly two in three--64 percent--of children under the age of 6 who live only with their mothers live in poverty. For two decades, the Federal Government has tried to help States crack down on deadbeat parents. For two decades they have, by and large, failed to get the job done. It's time now to try a different approach. In 1975, we established the child support enforcement program, which paid the majority of the administrative and operating costs incurred by States in enforcing child support rules. In 1980, we passed legislation to help States pay to computerize child support orders. In 1988, we passed a law requiring States to establish computer registries, and committed $2.6 billion to the effort. We set a deadline of 1995 for implementation and certification of those registries. But only a handful of States met that deadline. So in 1995, we extended the deadline 2 years, to October 1, 1997. Yet, at this moment, only 15 States have met the requirements of certification. And GAO predicts many will not meet them by October 1--a result of mismanagement, interagency squabbles, and a failure to accurately assess the cost and complexity of computerizing child support enforcement. Note that Connecticut at the moment is conditionally certified. That's a nice way of saying that it's close to meeting the requirements of certification, but not there yet. And while there has been some improvement in enforcement efforts, overall our State's performance is weak by any standard. Some $663 million in child support obligations remain unpaid and uncollected. The child support payment rate in our State--the percentage of payments that are on time and in full--is only 16 percent. That's below the national average. My legislation will do several things. First, and most importantly, it will federalize the child support system. It will make paying child support as much of an obligation as paying taxes. Instead of 50 or more entities struggling to create a coherent system of collection, we'll have one collector: the IRS. People may not like the IRS--but that's partly because it gets the job done. This bill creates a new child support enforcement division within the IRS, and allows the IRS to use its normal tax collection methods to collect child support. My legislation would also allow the use of Federal courts to enforce child support orders--which will immensely help track deadbeat parents across State lines. And it preserves the role of States in determining paternity and establishing child support orders in the first place. Second, this legislation tries a new approach to help States do a better job in child support enforcement. It's an approach that a number of States have tried with considerable success. It's called child support assurance. The bill I introduce today would provide demonstration grants to three, four, or five States. Those States would in turn guarantee child support payments each month to children and custodial parents. When this approach was tried in New York, a number of positive developments occurred. First, children got the support they needed. Second, welfare payments dropped. Third, New York could devote more resources to enforcing child support orders because it had to worry less about caring for parents and kids who weren't receiving child support payments. Overall, New York saved $10 for every $1 it invested in this program. Last week's GAO report demonstrates that it's time for our Nation to take a new approach in efforts to enforce child support obligations. This legislation can work. And now is the time to try it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I'm introducing two pieces of legislation intended to address the ongoing and utter failure of our Nation's child support efforts. Last week, the General Accounting Office released a long-awaited report on efforts to collect child support throughout the country. It paints a picture of a broken child support system: One where four out of five parents legally required to pay child support simply ignore court orders to do so; one where nearly three in four custodial parents--and their children--who receive no child support live in poverty (as of 1991); and one where a staggering $34 billion in child support payments remain uncollected. The current system of child support is not just a failure by the States to collect money. It's a nationwide failure to care for America's children. Imagine what parents could do for their kids with these billions in unpaid child support obligations. Currently, Congress and the President are engaged in a heated debate over how to provide health insurance to the 10\1/2\ million kids who don't currently have it. We might not be having that debate if the child support system was working. Imagine how much better parents could prepare their children to get the right start in life. With each passing day, we are learning about how incredibly important the first years, months, even days of life are to a child's future well-being. Most importantly, they need what money can't buy: Love, affection, and attention--preferably by two parents rather than one. But they also need wholesome food, a clean and safe neighborhood, child care that nurtures rather than warehouses, and early learning that stretches young minds. Yet, nearly two in three--64 percent--of children under the age of 6 who live only with their mothers live in poverty. For two decades, the Federal Government has tried to help States crack down on deadbeat parents. For two decades they have, by and large, failed to get the job done. It's time now to try a different approach. In 1975, we established the child support enforcement program, which paid the majority of the administrative and operating costs incurred by States in enforcing child support rules. In 1980, we passed legislation to help States pay to computerize child support orders. In 1988, we passed a law requiring States to establish computer registries, and committed $2.6 billion to the effort. We set a deadline of 1995 for implementation and certification of those registries. But only a handful of States met that deadline. So in 1995, we extended the deadline 2 years, to October 1, 1997. Yet, at this moment, only 15 States have met the requirements of certification. And GAO predicts many will not meet them by October 1--a result of mismanagement, interagency squabbles, and a failure to accurately assess the cost and complexity of computerizing child support enforcement. Note that Connecticut at the moment is conditionally certified. That's a nice way of saying that it's close to meeting the requirements of certification, but not there yet. And while there has been some improvement in enforcement efforts, overall our State's performance is weak by any standard. Some $663 million in child support obligations remain unpaid and uncollected. The child support payment rate in our State--the percentage of payments that are on time and in full--is only 16 percent. That's below the national average. My legislation will do several things. First, and most importantly, it will federalize the child support system. It will make paying child support as much of an obligation as paying taxes. Instead of 50 or more entities struggling to create a coherent system of collection, we'll have one collector: the IRS. People may not like the IRS--but that's partly because it gets the job done. This bill creates a new child support enforcement division within the IRS, and allows the IRS to use its normal tax collection methods to collect child support. My legislation would also allow the use of Federal courts to enforce child support orders--which will immensely help track deadbeat parents across State lines. And it preserves the role of States in determining paternity and establishing child support orders in the first place. Second, this legislation tries a new approach to help States do a better job in child support enforcement. It's an approach that a number of States have tried with considerable success. It's called child support assurance. The bill I introduce today would provide demonstration grants to three, four, or five States. Those States would in turn guarantee child support payments each month to children and custodial parents. When this approach was tried in New York, a number of positive developments occurred. First, children got the support they needed. Second, welfare payments dropped. Third, New York could devote more resources to enforcing child support orders because it had to worry less about caring for parents and kids who weren't receiving child support payments. Overall, New York saved $10 for every $1 it invested in this program. Last week's GAO report demonstrates that it's time for our Nation to take a new approach in efforts to enforce child support obligations. This legislation can work. And now is the time to try it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to support the restoration of funding for the National Endowment for Democracy in the Justice, State, Commerce appropriations bill. The amount is very modest--$30 million-- and the same level of funding as the NED currently receives for this fiscal year. What is the NED? It is a grant-making organization that is governed by an independent, nonpartisan board of directors. NED monies are utilized to fund the activities of the four independent institutes--the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, the Free Trade Union Institute, and Center for International Private Enterprise. In addition to funding the programs of these institutes, NED also provides grants directly to support democratic activist groups throughout the world. This includes grass roots organizations in Nigeria and Zaire, women's groups in moderate Islamic countries, civic groups who worked to make the recently held Mexican elections open and transparent, pro-democracy groups in Cuba, China and Burma. These are just a small handful of the activities funded by NED. The endowment also sponsors the Journal of Democracy, a well known and highly regarded scholarly publication on global democracy issues. The journal is part of the work of the International Forum for Democratic Studies--NED's research center. In addition to the publication of the journal, the Forum holds important conferences on issues of particular relevance to democratic societies, such as civil- military relations, economic reform, and the role of political parties. In other words, NED has become an important focal point for democracy-promotion activities around the globe. For those who say they don't know what NED or the grantee agencies have been doing with the funds they receive, I would urge them to take a long look at the annual report which NED issues every year. I have with me the latest report for 1996--that report goes into great detail where the monies are being spent. It is my view that if my colleagues would take a look at this publication they would be impressed with the extensive activities being undertaken with relatively small amounts of money. Mr. President, I strongly agree with President Clinton's assessment of the NED. Earlier this year he said of the NED, ``through its everyday efforts, the Endowment provides renewed evidence of the universality of the democratic ideal and of the benefits to our Nation of our continued international engagement.'' I urge my colleagues to support the restoration of funding for the Endowment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment of my colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry]. This amendment will restore the COPS antidomestic violence grants created by the Violence Against Women Act--a program of vital importance that funds local police and community initiatives to combat domestic violence. Domestic violence is a serious scourge on our society. Once every 9 seconds, a woman is beaten by her husband or boyfriend, according to FBI crime statistics. Four women are killed each day at the hands of their domestic attackers, according to the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women. And 16 people were killed by family violence in Connecticut between September 1995 and September 1996. That is totally unacceptable. Mr. President, for quite some time I have been extremely concerned that antidomestic violence programs currently funded through domestic violence COPS grants will no longer have a source of funding as the COPS grants for this purpose are eliminated. For too long before Congress enacted the 1994 crime law and Violence Against Women Act, domestic violence was considered a private matter-- something to be dealt with inside the home, and outside of public view and public policy. The Violence Against Women Act represented a consensus that government and our communities should work together to prevent and stop domestic violence, and that it should be one of our highest priorities. In Connecticut, many communities were able to rise to that challenge when they received anti-domestic violence grants under the COPS program. More than ten Connecticut cites and towns have used these grants to establish law enforcement infrastructures to support a diverse range of anti-domestic violence programs, each specifically tailored to the needs of that local community. I recently had the opportunity to visit with two police chiefs who are using anti-domestic violence COPS grants to run domestic violence prevention and intervention programs in Bridgeport, CT, and Groton, CT. They have developed different programs that make use of a wide range of resources to fight domestic violence, utilizing police officers, involving victims' shelters and services, incorporating counseling for both victims and batterers, and aggressively pursuing prosecution of batterers. Programs like these send a message from our communities to victims and batterers alike. These programs say that domestic violence has no place in Connecticut or anywhere in our country. These programs say that if you are a batterer, we will stop you, we will catch you, and we will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law. And I am told by police chiefs throughout Connecticut that that is why these programs, and the funds that make them possible, have truly improved their ability to combat domestic violence. Domestic violence is preventable, if we provide the funding for initiatives to stop it. Now, however, the elimination of antidomestic violence COPS grants threatens to force an untimely end to successful programs like those in Connecticut. Law enforcement officials would be hindered in their effort to prevent domestic violence and catch and punish perpetrators, and victims of domestic violence would continue to suffer. Let's not abandon police chiefs when they've just begun to win the battle against domestic violence. Let's not turn our backs on the victims who need our help. I wrote to the Commerce-State-Justice appropriators to ask them to maintain the funding for these important programs, and I am pleased today to cosponsor the amendment that would do just that. Hundreds of police chiefs and countless victims across the country are counting on us to do no less. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his amendment, and I join him in urging my colleagues to adopt it. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, earlier this month, the American flag was flown proudly throughout Connecticut and across this great land, as we celebrated our Independence Day. But the previous Friday, Old Glory was flying at half-staff in the town of Fairfield, CT, as the town mourned the passing of its longest serving first selectman--John J. Sullivan. John Sullivan came to Fairfield from Salem, MA, in the 1930's, and for more than 20 years, he was known throughout town as the owner and operator of Sullivan's Flower Shop on the Post Road. But in 1959, John Sullivan ran for public office for the first time in his life, and he was elected as the town's first selectman. His election was particularly significant, because it broke a 51-year Republican hold on Fairfield's top job. Although John Sullivan was a Democrat in a town dominated by Republicans, he was reelected 11 times, and his 24-year tenure stands as the longest in the town's history. I think that a large reason John Sullivan was so successful in reaching across party lines to be an effective leader is because his first concern was people, not politics. When describing his management style as the head of the board of selectmen, John Sullivan said, ``I don't tell them how to vote * * * I tell them it's good for the community.'' One of the most notable battles of his political career came in 1965, when John won reelection over a popular young challenger named Stewart B. McKinney. After this defeat, Mr. McKinney went on to serve seven terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, and John Sullivan often joked that if it weren't for him, McKinney would have never been a Congressman. The two of them went on to form a close political friendship. In fact, the only building in Fairfield which bears John Sullivan's name is the Sullivan-McKinney senior housing complex. During his tenure as first selectman, the population of Fairfield increased by 25 percent and the town's annual budget increased fourfold. But while John Sullivan oversaw the growth and development of Fairfield, the greatest sign of his legacy is the 1,200 acres of land that he had set aside as open space. Under John Sullivan's leadership, the town of Fairfield was able to secure Federal funds to purchase open space land and beach-front property. John Sullivan fought to maintain the small-town character of Fairfield, and there are now parks and woodland areas in Fairfield that serve as a peaceful refuge in this area of rapid urbanization. John Sullivan remained active in the community long after his political career ended. He worked on behalf of many charitable organizations, in particular St. Vincent's Medical Center Foundation in Bridgeport where he served as associate executive director. A devout Roman Catholic, John was a longtime member and trustee of St. Thomas Aquinas Church. He went to Mass every day, and in 1984, John was appointed a Knight of St. Gregory by Pope John Paul II. I think that the one quote that best illustrates what kind of person John Sullivan was came in 1983 when he retired from public office. John said, ``I am the richest man in the world. I ask for nothing. I want to give as much as I can.'' I attended John Sullivan's funeral, and having known him personally, I was not surprised to see how many people came out to pay tribute to this wonderful man. John Sullivan was a true patriot, and he will be dearly missed by all who knew him. John was the husband of the late Mary B. Cahill Sullivan. He is survived by his brother Edwin Sullivan, his daughter Mary Donahue, and his seven grandsons, John, James, Brian, Robert, Paul, William, and Patrick. I offer my most heartfelt condolences to all of them.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to join my colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, as we introduce the Creating Improved Delivery of Child Care: Affordable, Reliable, and Educational (CIDCARE) Act of 1997. This legislation will go a long way toward giving parents peace of mind. Child care shouldn't be like going to Las Vegas--where you roll the dice and hope for the best. Parents should be confident that when they are not able to be with their children, their children will still be well cared for. We shouldn't be gambling with our children's health and safety. Up to this point Mr. President, we in the federal government have largely deferred the issue of quality of child care to the states. The sole significant contribution of the federal government to improving the quality of this nation's child care is the modest 4% setaside for quality improvement that we struggled to create within the child care development block grant. This lack of federal support for quality has not served children well. A few years ago my good friend, Professor Ed Zigler of Yale University, did a survey of state child care regulations. He found, in short, that states are failing the ``quality test''--no state had child care regulations in place that could be characterized as good quality standards. Only a third of states had minimally acceptable regulations. Two-thirds of states had regulations that didn't even address the basics--caregiver training, safe environments, appropriate provider- child ratios. Keep in mind, we're not even talking about how well or whether states actually enforced those standards. This study was simply asking a question about the first step in quality--whether states had basic child care quality standards on the books that providers could be held to. This legislation addresses, for the first time on a federal level, the issues of quality child care. We have safety standards for the food we eat and the cars we drive. Is it too much to have some basic standards for child care providers--individuals who literally hold a child's life in their hands? I think not, Mr. President. And even beyond basic health and safety standards, we must consider how we can assist caregivers in supporting children's growth and development. Mr. President, this legislation will help working families afford child care. Specifically, this bill more equitably distributes the child care tax credit by making the credit refundable for lower income families, increasing the credit for families under $55,000, and phasing down the credit to a minimum of 10% for higher income taxpayers. Further, it increases the amount that employees can contribute to Dependent Care Assistance Plans (DCAP). The CIDCARE bill further provides incentives for parents to choose high quality child care by providing a higher tax credit and larger DCAP allowances for families that use accredited or credentialed services, reflecting the higher expenses associated with higher quality care. Additionally, this legislation encourages child care centers and providers to offer high quality child care. It gives child care providers a higher deduction for the educational expenses related to achieving or maintaining accreditation. It further provides $50 million to create and operate a technology-based training infrastructure, that builds upon existing distance learning, Internet, and satellite resources, to enable child care providers nationwide to receive training, education, and support. It also provides loan forgiveness for Perkins and Stafford educational loans for child care workers who obtain a degree in early childhood education or receive professional child care credentials. This bill would also require federal child care centers to meet all state and local licensing and other regulatory requirements related to the provision of child care. This legislation will also give businesses incentives to support quality child care for their employees and the community at large. It will allow businesses a charitable deduction for donating educational equipment to non-profit child care providers, support entities, and public schools and provides a tax credit for employers who develop child care centers for their employees. Finally, Mr. President, the CIDCARE bill will provide grants to states to support quality child care. It establishes a $260 million competitive grant program to assist states in improving the quality of child care through mechanisms such as: salary increases for credentialed child care providers: developing standards for the accreditation and credentialing of child care providers; scholarship programs to help child care providers meet the costs of education and training; expanding training and technical assistance activities; consumer education efforts, and increased rates of reimbursement for the care of children with special needs. Mr. President, quality child care can no longer be considered a luxury reserved for the very few. This should not be a partisan issue. All of us want the best for our children. And when they can't be with their parents, we want them to be in high quality care. This legislation will move us in that direction. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Jeffords and myself in support of the CIDCARE bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to join my colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, as we introduce the Creating Improved Delivery of Child Care: Affordable, Reliable, and Educational (CIDCARE) Act of 1997. This legislation will go a long way toward giving parents peace of mind. Child care shouldn't be like going to Las Vegas--where you roll the dice and hope for the best. Parents should be confident that when they are not able to be with their children, their children will still be well cared for. We shouldn't be gambling with our children's health and safety. Up to this point Mr. President, we in the federal government have largely deferred the issue of quality of child care to the states. The sole significant contribution of the federal government to improving the quality of this nation's child care is the modest 4% setaside for quality improvement that we struggled to create within the child care development block grant. This lack of federal support for quality has not served children well. A few years ago my good friend, Professor Ed Zigler of Yale University, did a survey of state child care regulations. He found, in short, that states are failing the ``quality test''--no state had child care regulations in place that could be characterized as good quality standards. Only a third of states had minimally acceptable regulations. Two-thirds of states had regulations that didn't even address the basics--caregiver training, safe environments, appropriate provider- child ratios. Keep in mind, we're not even talking about how well or whether states actually enforced those standards. This study was simply asking a question about the first step in quality--whether states had basic child care quality standards on the books that providers could be held to. This legislation addresses, for the first time on a federal level, the issues of quality child care. We have safety standards for the food we eat and the cars we drive. Is it too much to have some basic standards for child care providers--individuals who literally hold a child's life in their hands? I think not, Mr. President. And even beyond basic health and safety standards, we must consider how we can assist caregivers in supporting children's growth and development. Mr. President, this legislation will help working families afford child care. Specifically, this bill more equitably distributes the child care tax credit by making the credit refundable for lower income families, increasing the credit for families under $55,000, and phasing down the credit to a minimum of 10% for higher income taxpayers. Further, it increases the amount that employees can contribute to Dependent Care Assistance Plans (DCAP). The CIDCARE bill further provides incentives for parents to choose high quality child care by providing a higher tax credit and larger DCAP allowances for families that use accredited or credentialed services, reflecting the higher expenses associated with higher quality care. Additionally, this legislation encourages child care centers and providers to offer high quality child care. It gives child care providers a higher deduction for the educational expenses related to achieving or maintaining accreditation. It further provides $50 million to create and operate a technology-based training infrastructure, that builds upon existing distance learning, Internet, and satellite resources, to enable child care providers nationwide to receive training, education, and support. It also provides loan forgiveness for Perkins and Stafford educational loans for child care workers who obtain a degree in early childhood education or receive professional child care credentials. This bill would also require federal child care centers to meet all state and local licensing and other regulatory requirements related to the provision of child care. This legislation will also give businesses incentives to support quality child care for their employees and the community at large. It will allow businesses a charitable deduction for donating educational equipment to non-profit child care providers, support entities, and public schools and provides a tax credit for employers who develop child care centers for their employees. Finally, Mr. President, the CIDCARE bill will provide grants to states to support quality child care. It establishes a $260 million competitive grant program to assist states in improving the quality of child care through mechanisms such as: salary increases for credentialed child care providers: developing standards for the accreditation and credentialing of child care providers; scholarship programs to help child care providers meet the costs of education and training; expanding training and technical assistance activities; consumer education efforts, and increased rates of reimbursement for the care of children with special needs. Mr. President, quality child care can no longer be considered a luxury reserved for the very few. This should not be a partisan issue. All of us want the best for our children. And when they can't be with their parents, we want them to be in high quality care. This legislation will move us in that direction. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Jeffords and myself in support of the CIDCARE bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the funding for the Federal Election Commission (FEC), as allocated in the Treasury, General Government, Civil Service Appropriations Bill. All of us know that Congress' appropriators are tasked with guiding one of the most difficult of our duties--deciding how to spend the taxpayers' money. While I appreciate the magnitude and difficulty of this task as approached by the Subcommittee on Treasury, General Government, and Civil Service Appropriations, I am disappointed that the committee did not provide the FEC with full funding at its request of $34.2 million, as supported by the President. Mr. President, the citizens' cries for campaign finance reform are growing louder and louder. Why? Because campaign spending is out of control. As money floods endlessly into our electoral system, however, I fear the voice of the average American will be drowned out and democracy will be the victim. Much must be done to truly and effectively clean up our political campaigns. But one thing we can do to start right now is provide the FEC--the agency charged by Congress with overseeing our campaign finance system--with the finances it needs to promptly and effectively enforce the laws that govern our campaigns. Consider that, in just eight years, we have seen a fourfold increase in the amount of money raised and spent by both parties, from $220 million raised by both parties in 1988 to $881 million raised in 1996. In just four years, we have seen a 73 percent increase in political costs. A 73 percent increase in political costs since 1992--while wages rose 13 percent and education costs rose 17 percent during that same period. Congressional spending in 1996 general elections was $626.4 million, 6.3 percent higher than the record 1994 levels. And an unprecedented $2.5 billion in financial activity was reported to the commission in 1996. And it was the FEC that had to oversee all this spending, to be sure it complied with the law. This increase in campaign spending has therefore generated a sharp increase FEC's workload. Between 1994 and November of 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. Yet, providing adequate funding for the FEC has been a constant battle. Recent rescissions and funding rollbacks have prevented the FEC from keeping up with its ever- increasing workload and meeting inflation in rent and salary costs. This combination of a decreasing budget and an increasing workload have hamstrung the FEC's ability to fulfill its watchdog role in a timely and effective manner. At the same time the FEC's caseload has risen, staff cuts required by the post-FY '95 budget reductions have led to a 25 percent drop in the FEC's ability to handle those cases. Perhaps that is one reason why the FEC has become known as a toothless tiger. I believe it is time to give this tiger the teeth it needs to carry out its duties. Mr. President, we are in the midst of multiple government investigations into campaign financing--investigations I wholeheartedly support. But as Congress has allocated millions of dollars for burgeoning Congressional campaign finance investigations, the least we can do is provide adequate funding for the independent and bipartisan FEC to do its job. Many of my colleagues have said that campaign finance reform is not the issue for 1997. The illegalities of 1996, they say, is the issue. Yet, at the same time, they refuse to fund the very agency that should be first to uncover and punish any illegalities. In October 1996, following news reports of alleged irregularities in fundraising by both political parties, I initiated a request that the FEC conduct an investigation of the Democratic National Committee, and pledged to make available all relevant records and personnel. At a Rules Committee hearing earlier this year, I was shocked to learn that as of February 1997, due to the tremendous backlog of cases and funding shortfalls at the FEC, that investigation had not even begun. While I am informed today that the investigation has now begun, I believe the delay in commencing the audit is illustrative of the magnitude of the FEC's budget problems. Earlier this year, after learning of the FEC's long delay in beginning to address the cases generated by the 1996 election, I introduced a bill to strengthen the FEC and authorize full funding for the agency. I was also recently joined by my colleagues Senators Kerrey, Reed, and Dorgan in writing to Senate appropriators to request that they provide the FEC with full funding. I ask unanimous consent that those letters be printed in the Record. I am disappointed that we have not fully funded the FEC at this time, but I remain hopeful that we will provide full funding--and enact other much needed FEC reforms--when we debate comprehensive campaign finance reform in what I hope will be the near future.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, during the consideration of the foreign operations appropriations bill yesterday, I offered an amendment along with Senator McCain on the drug certification issue. During the course of that debate, some references were made to Gen. Barry McCaffrey that I thought were unfortunate and incorrect. John McCain, our colleague from Arizona, rightly stood up and pointed out that Barry McCaffrey, whatever one's views may have been on the certification issue, enjoys, I think, without any question, the tremendous confidence of the Members of this body. We may disagree on various policy issues. I wanted to associate myself with Senator McCain's remarks and express my gratitude to General McCaffrey for taking on this job, one of the most difficult jobs in Government, that is, to be the drug czar. Mr. President, I wanted to express my confidence, and I am confident the confidence of my colleagues, in Barry McCaffrey. This is a very difficult job he has taken on. It is tremendously complex. It is obviously a source of great, great disturbance in this country to watch the ever-increasing proliferation of illegal drugs, and obviously there is a domestic feature to this and there is an international feature to it. His job is not an easy one and he has to deal with people all over the globe. I think he does so with a great deal of integrity, seriousness, and forthrightness. He has been tremendously responsive to those of us up here on Capitol Hill who care about this issue. I thank Senator McCain for his remarks yesterday and associate myself, as I said, with those remarks, and once again express my high degree of confidence in the General and my appreciation as well for the work he has done. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to rise to comment on the amendment that may be offered by the distinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin]. His amendment would seek to close, once and for all, the U.S. Army School of the Americas, presently located at Fort Benning, GA. I am totally sympathetic with the intent of the Senator's amendment. Clearly the entire history of the School of the America's, and particularly the period from 1982-1991, is shameful. It has left a legacy that is an ugly blemish on our country's credibility as an advocate of full respect for human rights and the rule of law in a region where human rights violations have occurred with impunity. Like Senator Durbin, I believe that the United States has a special obligation to promote democracy throughout the world, and most especially in our own hemisphere. Given the recent history of military rule in many countries in the region, it is particularly important that the United States strongly support the concept of civilian control over national military institutions. It also means highlighting the importance of respecting the human rights of all the peoples of the hemisphere. And, in particular, the obligation of military and security forces throughout the region that they do so. Finally it means stressing the principle that national military and security forces are accountable for acts that fall short of acceptable international human rights standards and practices. I would say to my colleague from Illinois, that if closing down the School of the Americas would remedy all of the evils that have been perpetrated by a number of individuals trained there over the years, I would strongly support his effort. Unfortunately, even if we were to shut the doors at the School of the Americas tomorrow, that would not be the case. Moreover, the School of the Americas is not the only location where Latin American military personnel receive United States-supported training. Equally important is acknowledgment that countries throughout the region have legitimate national security interests that necessitate the existence of national armed forces in these countries. Shutting the School of the Americas doesn't obviate the need that regional militaries get the right kind of training for their personnel. I have had the opportunity to review excepts from the manuals that were utilized in the training of Latin American personnel throughout the 1980's and into the early 1990's. Clearly these manuals espoused practices that can only be described as coercion, torture, and assassination. I know that the Defense Department has looked into the background of these manuals, and has found, not once but twice, that mistakes were made--but that no one is really responsible. Frankly, it defies credibility to accept one of the central conclusions of the 1997 Defense Department inspector general's review of this. Among other things, the IG concluded that while, . . . five of the seven manuals contained language and statements in violation of legal, regulatory, or policy prohibitions, such as motivation by fear, payment of bounties for enemy dead, false imprisonment, and the use of truth serum . . . . Army personnel involved in the preparation and presentation of the intelligence courses did not recognize that the training materials contravened DOD policy and [there was] no evidence that a deliberate and orchestrated attempt was made to violate DOD or U.S. Army policies. So much for any sensitivity with respect to human rights that United States troops are supposed to be indoctrinated in. School of the Americas instructors tutored Latin American military personnel in how to use threats of force with prisoners, neutralize opponents, hold prisoners in clandestine jails, and infiltrate and spy on civilian organizations and opposition political parties for at least 10 years. Despite the fact that such training explicitly violates U.S. policy. The IG does not deny that such training was a clear violation of U.S. policy, but attributes it to the equivalent of staff error. The IG found that-- . . . from 1982 to 1991, many mistakes were made and repeated (with respect to use of these manuals) by numerous and continually changing personnel in several organizations from Panama to Georgia to Washington, DC. Lack of attention to the Department of Defense and U.S. Army policies and procedures by those personnel and organizations perpetrated the assumption that the materials in the Spanish language intelligence manuals were proper and doctrinally correct. I don't know anything about the background of the current IG who came to this conclusion. But I think it is safe to say that if he/she had bothered to review the extensive Congress debate that occurred during much of this same time period over United States policy with respect to Latin America--he would have found the often stated concern about the substantial human rights abuses that were being perpetrated by members of these military forces, particularly those in Central America. Those of us who were here remember only too well that the Department of Defense was being queried on a weekly basis about all aspects of U.S. policy during that time period--including the training and other support the United States was providing to these military and security forces. Many of us in this body who participated in those rancorous debates could take up hours here today reliving that period. But that isn't a good use of the Senate's time, nor does it do anything to address the underlying concerns with respect to the nature and content of United States-sponsored military training programs for the Latin American and Caribbean region. The amendment that I will offer at the appropriate time would go to the heart of this. It would not close the School of the Americas. Rather, it would mandate that at least 36 percent of IMET-supported course curriculum be for, so-called expanded IMET courses--namely those devoted to training Latin American Armed Forces in skills that will better prepare them to serve their democratic countries as we enter the 21st century. It would also require that these courses be available to nonmilitary government officials with responsibilities for defense policies in their countries as well. As many of my colleagues are aware, in 1989 Senator Leahy first introduced the concept of this new, so-called expanded IMET. Simply put, to qualify as an expanded IMET course its purpose must be to educate Latin American military and civilian personnel in the proper management of their defense resources, in improving their systems of military justice in accordance with internationally recognized principles of human rights or in fostering greater respect for and understanding of the principle of civilian control of the military. Despite the fact that Senator Leahy first proposed the creation of expanded IMET more than 8 years ago, even today Latin American military students are afforded very few opportunities to avail themselves of such courses. Only 4 of the more than 50 courses offered in the 1997 School of the America's curriculum quality as expanded IMET courses. That is totally unacceptable and is additional evidence that the U.S. Army just doesn't get it when it comes to the importance that must be accorded to promoting respect for human rights throughout the hemisphere. For that reason this amendment would specifically mandate that 30 percent of Latin American IMET funds be spent in support of preparing Latin American military and appropriate civilian and legislative defense personnel for their appropriate roles in democratic societies as we begin the next millennium. I would hope that all of my colleagues would support this amendment. amendment no. 913 (Purpose: To recommend that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam be placed on the list of terrorist organizations by the Department of State) At the appropriate place, insert the following:

Mr. DODD. In response to my colleague's questions, I would agree with him. That is one of the problems with this. It is so uneven in its application, and as such one might argue that the effectiveness of it is thereby debilitating--that, if we are going to certify some, and waive others where the problem arguably is the same, although one might make a case that there are various efforts in certain countries, I think you end up with the kind of situation we are in today where the desire for cooperation and the efforts of cooperation have been severely curtailed as a result of it. So even if you are trying to send a message here, it gets lost in the process. I note in the case of Colombia-- which is certainly a major source country problem without any question whatsoever--but I pointed out, as I know my colleague from Arizona has from time to time, that this has paralyzed the country of Colombia. Many may recall that a number of years ago the entire supreme court of that country was assassinated. One attorney general after the other, the chief prosecutor, all of these people have been assassinated. Presidential candidates get assassinated. One might argue that they are paying an awful price in that nation. If we decertify, we lose any kind of cooperation in terms of what we ought to be trying to seek there. In the case of Mexico, as my colleague has pointed out--he certainly knows Mexico as well as any Member of this body--there are serious problems there and well documented. Yet, both of us are aware of the fact that there are serious economic implications. So we send a signal of waiving and apply a different standard, and that message is not just heard in both Colombia and Mexico, it resonates throughout this hemisphere. Again, my colleague from Arizona spends a great deal of time on hemispheric issues. He has heard what I have heard over and over again; this is not helping at all. There are other countries involved. We have laundering, transit countries, other countries producing, and, frankly, this effort of cooperation is just collapsing in our midst. So this has not worked.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in response to my colleague's questions, I would say, First, the price of drugs is lower today, the lowest they have been in two decades. We just came from a hearing chaired by our colleague from Georgia, which my colleague from Massachusetts, who is on the floor, attended. We heard at that hearing that the problem is getting worse--not better. In the countries that we have decertified, I say to my colleague from Arizona, over the last couple of years the problem gets worse--not better. We are getting less cooperation in many places. There is a sense of antagonism about how we approach this issue. So while I applaud the intentions of those who authored this process--and I understand the rationale for it back in 1986--from time to time I think we have to step back and ask ourselves blunt questions as to what we have tried to do, no matter how well intended. Is it working? If it is not, and if the problem is getting worse, then I would say to my colleague from Arizona, in response to his question, that maybe we ought to think anew. That is what this amendment does, without repealing the certification process but merely suspending it for a couple of years to see if we can't come up with a better idea.

Mr. DODD. I gladly yield to my colleague from Arizona.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me just emphasize, if I can, that I don't necessarily agree with all of the conclusions in these editorials. Some have suggested repeal. There is a part of me that finds that appealing. But I am not sure what we are going to offer over the next 2 years is necessarily going to work either. I don't have any absolute certainty of guarantees that what we offer as an alternative will work. But I think all of us can agree that suspension for a couple of years, as General McCaffrey has suggested, to try the cover the dynamic here is worth the effort and worth a try. This doesn't mean you are less strong or less outraged or less concerned about what is happening to narcotics trafficking. Quite the contrary. I think those who support this recognize that we are trying to get a better handle on this to see if we can't have better answers because the current process is not working. We need a better idea. Hopefully people of good intention, good will, and putting their shoulders to the wheel in this country and elsewhere can come up with some better ideas over the next 2 years and really begin to make some headway in this effort. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it would. I urge my colleague at the appropriate time to ask unanimous consent that these letters be a part of the Record. I thank General McCaffrey for his letter and Sandy Berger for his letter. Again, they state it very well. My colleague from Arizona has stated it well. We offer this suspension--and, again, I want to emphasize ``suspension,'' Mr. President--for 2 years of the present law, not a repeal. There are some who would like to repeal it, and I might be counted among those, but I respect the fact that a suspension is the best way to go at this point. But our colleague from Arizona states it well. The present system is broken. It is not working. We need some new, fresh efforts here. And with the commitment of General McCaffrey here saying to us, look, my office is prepared to lead an interagency task force to develop a new strategy. His letter to us today, I think it says it all. What better way to get started, if you will, than to have a clean slate for a couple of years to allow General McCaffrey and his team to go forward and try to do that without repealing the law of certification but merely suspending it. You are going to get a lot more cooperation, it seems to me, with a suspension for 2 years and trying to bring these countries in than there will be if we gather as we do annually and go through this process, as our colleague from Arizona pointed out here, again on the certification. We are out here debating 11th-hour negotiations on waivers, all efforts to try to avoid a catastrophe, and once again find ourselves in a mess with certification practices and no advance strategy to deal with this issue. I am grateful to the Senator from Arizona, the administration and General McCaffrey for this effort. I think this is a good, bipartisan effort, Mr. President, to come up with a new dynamic, and I thank again my colleague for his support and leadership on this effort. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

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