Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. There is a good editorial in the Hartford Courant, entitled ``Mexico's Bloodless Revolution.'' I ask unanimous consent that that article be printed in the Record to underscore the point the Senator from Arizona and I have made with this amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside.

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

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very briefly, this is an amendment that was adopted in the other body's consideration of the authorization for the Armed Services of this country, adopted 417-0. But I thought it was worthwhile for this body to speak as well to this issue. I speak of the gulf war illnesses, Mr. President, that virtually every Member of this body and others have expressed deep concern about to the members of their own States who served in the gulf war. We know now that at least 10 percent of the 700,000 that served in the war may have been afflicted with a gulf war illness of one kind. To the credit of General Schwarzkopf and others who testified in recent weeks, it was suggested this matter ought to be pursued. It is mystifying and disturbing to many exactly what kind of exposure those men and women were subjected to. I do not know that anyone can tell you categorically what the answer is yet, but this amendment tracks some of the conclusions reached by the General Accounting Office that they revealed in a recent report about the gulf war illnesses. The author of the amendment in the House, as well as myself, tracked that report, drafted this language, and are asking our colleagues to support it so that we might not only get to the bottom of this and provide the kind of treatment that our veterans deserve, but also maybe minimize in future situations being faced with the kind of difficulties that we have all heard about in various hearings that have been held in this body and the other over the last number of months regarding this issue. This amendment, as I mentioned a moment ago, will provide, I think, some real solace, not to mention significant help, particularly help to the 700,000 members of the Armed Forces who served in the Persian Gulf war. And perhaps as many, as I said, as 10 percent of them who may be suffering from some form of these Persian Gulf war illnesses. It is a modest attempt to help those people. In a $268 billion defense bill, I do not think we ought to find it too difficult to provide $4.5 million, which is what this amendment does, to study the most effective treatments of gulf war illnesses and encourage efforts to replicate those treatments. If there is one thing I think this body and this Nation can agree on, it is to do better by our gulf war veterans. Clearly, our colleagues in the House recognized the imperative here. That body approved an amendment 417-0. Mr. President, let me just briefly describe this amendment and why I think it is necessary. This amendment will require the Defense Department and the Veterans Administration to work together to determine what is working in the treatment of gulf war illnesses. While the DOD and VA have taken an important step of offering examinations to all who fought in the Persian Gulf war, those agencies have not examined the adequacy and effectiveness of treatments after those initial examinations. Mr. President, let me, just as an aside here, suggest as well utilizing the forum of this body to urge the gulf war veterans to visit their veterans hospitals in their States to be examined. There are 5,000 people in my State who served in the gulf war. Only about 400 to 500 have showed up at the veterans hospital in West Haven to be examined to determine whether or not they may be suffering any of the effects of the gulf war illnesses. Many have had no effects whatsoever. But we are being told by experts that some of the reactions are delayed reactions, and they may not be showing up in the normal predictable course of events in a timely fashion. But if more people would just go for that half an hour examination, I am confident that the overwhelming majority will not find that they suffered any consequence, but it would be helpful for them and their families, but it would assist us immeasurably as we try to get to the bottom of this issue. This, as I said, is an amendment that would help us identify some of the treatments that are working. This is based on the General Accounting Office report that was recently released and called ``Improved Monitoring of Clinical Progress and Reexamination of Research Emphasis Are Needed.'' It clearly asserts that neither the DOD nor the VA has a mechanism in place to monitor the effectiveness of treatment after those initial exams. This amendment would provide such a means, one that I feel is long overdue. But it is not enough, in my view, to take just a close look at the present treatments. I think we must look ahead to make sure we do not repeat the mistakes. And this amendment will take steps on that front as well. For example, the Defense Department has been unable to provide the location of military units at certain times during the Persian Gulf war. Specifically, we are apparently uncertain of troop movements in the proximity of the ammunition depot at Khamisiyah when it was destroyed. That is why this amendment, I think, would be helpful in requiring the Defense Department to develop a plan to collect and maintain information regarding the daily location of units engaged in a contingency or combat operation. Had we done that during the gulf war, we would know where our troops were when the emissions of chemical or biological agents occurred. That is vitally important information. Furthermore, both the General Accounting Office and the President's Advisory Committee on Gulf War Illnesses have highlighted the loss or incompleteness of military medical records. Now, years later, as researchers attempt to determine who is and who is not suffering from an illness that resulted from their service in the Persian Gulf war, the fact that in many cases they cannot piece together medical histories does not allow them to make an informed decision. This amendment, Mr. President, would therefore require the Department of Defense to put a system in place that would accurately record the medical condition of service members prior to their deployment and retain such data in a centralized location to ease future access. Again, this is a modest proposal that would have prevented, I think, our current difficulties had it been in place prior to or during the Persian Gulf conflict. Concerning the fact that troops in the Persian Gulf were given drugs that did not yet receive FDA approval for usage, this amendment would require that members of the Armed Forces at least be notified when they receive an investigational new drug. That way, if such drugs are required, at least our troops will not have any mistaken impressions about them. Finally, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It gives the Defense Department and the Department of Veterans Affairs wide discretion and simply guides their action in areas where I think there have been some shortcomings. The final objective is a better understanding of the best treatments of these illnesses and to guard against similar problems in the future. Again, even though we have passed legislation banning the use of chemical weapons--the treaty--I think we all realize that this may be a reoccurring problem in the future. And this modest amendment, I think, would go a great distance to alleviating some of these problems. Again, I emphasize that this has been adopted by the other body unanimously. I think it would be worthwhile if this body were to express its opinion on this issue as well. For those reasons, Mr. President, I offer this amendment and urge its adoption. Mr. President, I am not asking for a rollcall vote on this. One may be necessary.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arizona. Parliamentary inquiry. I would not have to at this moment then make a request for a recorded vote, but I could wait on that if that became necessary?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and my colleague from Arizona, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I understand from the distinguished chairman of the committee there is no objection to this amendment. My colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, and I offered this amendment. We are asking for a recorded vote here because in so many instances over the past 5 years when we have had votes on Mexico, every one of them has been over a negative issue. This resolution merely commends the people of Mexico and the Government of Mexico for the very fine election that they had last Sunday. I thought it would be worthwhile for this body to say to Mexico how much we appreciate and admire their process last week and hope it portends great news for the coming years. With that, Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to offer some brief comments, if I may, regarding a good friend to many of us here who will be returning to his country in the next few days. I speak of Dermot A. Gallagher, Mr. President, the current Ambassador of Ireland to the United States. Mr. President, Dermot Gallagher can leave the United States with pride in the work that he has done for his Government and his country. I have had the privilege, Mr. President, of working closely with Dermot over the last 6 years, as many of us have. It has been an extremely positive experience, and I have come to consider Dermot not only a competent diplomat, but a good friend, and a good friend to this country. Without doubt, Dermot Gallagher is a consummate professional, an able and talented diplomat, and an individual who has served his country with skill and grace. And in no small measure, he has been assisted in that process by his lovely wife Maeve who has been a partner in this endeavor of theirs over the last number of years. It goes without saying that Ambassador Gallagher has had an extraordinarily busy and productive tenure as Ireland's Ambassador in Washington. From early 1994 until the present, Ireland, and particularly the Northern Ireland peace process, have been front-burner issues for the Irish, the British, and our own Government. Naturally, Dermot Gallagher has been in the thick of all of it. He has been an effective spokesman for his Government with the State Department, the White House, and the Congress. He has also been enormously helpful, I might point out, Mr. President, to those of us who have been actively involved in trying to get the peace process back on track in that country following the tragic decision of the IRA last year to break the August 1994 cease-fire. Ambassador Gallagher may be returning home to Dublin, but I am confident he will remain actively involved in many of the same issues with which he has become so intimately knowledgeable. I say this because Ambassador Gallagher will be returning to Dublin to assume the position of Second Secretary General within the Department of Foreign Affairs, where he will continue to play a major role in Anglo-Irish issues, especially in the Northern Ireland peace process. Given the recent events in Drumcree, where once again violence erupted, Mr. President, in connection with the annual Orange Order parade season, he will have his work cut out for him. Dermot will play a critical role in advising the newly elected Irish prime minister, Bertie Ahern, on the most effective policies for the Irish Government to pursue in order to restore a climate of trust, peace, and reinvigorate the currently stalled peace process. So, Mr. President, I know again I speak for all of my colleagues here when I bid Ambassador Gallagher and his wife Maeve and their family a farewell and a thank you for a job very well done. We continue to look forward to working with him in the years ahead.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, with Wednesday's passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Senate with some trepidation, has taken a number of courageous steps toward ensuring long-term solvency of the Medicare Program. Specifically, I believe that the adoption of means testing of Medicare premiums moves us in the right direction toward the long-term solvency of this critically important program. It is important to remember that this provision will affect only those seniors with individual annual incomes over $50,000 and married seniors with incomes above $75,000, on a sliding-scale basis. While some tried to portray this provision as a retreat from protecting our Nation's seniors, I view it as a step toward ensuring that our seniors will be well served for a long time to come. The adoption of this provision simply says that those Americans who can afford to contribute a little more for their health care should do so. Such a measure is surely needed if we are to sustain the safety net that Medicare provides to millions of senior citizens. While I supported that particular part of the bill, I must share my deep concern over other provisions that I feel go too far. I find particularly unacceptable the provision which will raise the age at which individuals are eligible to receive Medicare from 65 to 67. The likelihood of these seniors finding affordable private insurance is slim--many will be forced to forego coverage. At a time when the number of uninsured individuals in this country is growing and employer- sponsored insurance is declining, I find it astonishing that some would choose to exacerbate the current problem further with this measure. I also opposed a provision that will require the poorest and sickest seniors to pay up to $700 a year in home health costs. One-quarter of the home health users are over 85; 43 percent have incomes below $10,000. Forcing the most vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries to bear this significant financial burden under the guise of addressing the long-term financial challenges of this program is indefensible. Because of these concerns, I was unable to support this bill. It is my sincere hope, however, that these issues will be resolved in conference and that ultimately we will pass into law a measure that truly will protect our Nation's seniors and the vital safety net that Medicare provides to them.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997. First, I would like to commend the Finance Committee on the job it has done. Chairman Roth and Senator Moynihan should be praised for their efforts to craft a bipartisan bill, something that the House clearly failed to achieve in its tax- writing committee. The Finance bill contains many good measures, including a $500-per- child tax credit, which brings much needed relief to working Americans. This bill provides tax relief for higher education, making college more accessible to millions of Americans. The underlying bill also expands Individual Retirement Accounts helping many Americans to meet the financial demands of raising a family and planning for retirement. The bill before us today also recognizes the importance providing tax relief for businesses by extending the research tax credit for 31 months, encouraging more investments in research and development. In addition, the Finance bill provides funding for Amtrak, and creates an inner-city passenger rail fund that would help finance improvements in public transportation. This bill facilitates environmental cleanup efforts in many urban and rural areas, helping to make our country a healthier place to live. While I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues who worked so hard to craft a bipartisan tax relief bill, I am concerned that this measure misses opportunities to provide meaningful tax relief for American families. During Senate consideration, I voted for a number of amendments to make this bill more equitable. Some of these amendments succeeded. Many did not. In particular, I was pleased when my colleagues accepted my amendment concerning student loan forgiveness for people who choose a career in community service and public sector work. This amendment will help us to deal with the growing problem of student indebtedness. I also supported the Nickles amendment to extend self-employment health insurance deductibility to 100 percent. This measure will prove extremely helpful to self-employed business men and women. I was also pleased to support the Kohl amendment which creates a tax incentive for businesses to provide child care for employees. Each of these amendments make this bill better for American families. Regrettably, other amendments that would have strengthened this bill did not succeed. Most notably, I, along with my colleague from Vermont Senator Jeffords, offered an amendment that would have increased the child tax credit for most families by making it refundable for the many low- income families with little or no tax liability. It is a fair and equitable measure, one that would have tremendously helped our working families, and I am disappointed that this amendment failed. In addition, the Daschle amendment would have invested an additional $10 billion in education and more in the child tax credit. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated. Finally, my colleague from Massachusetts Senator Kerry offered his own amendment to make the $500-per-child tax credit refundable against payroll taxes, a measure that would have brought much needed relief to many working Americans struggling to raise a family. Once again, an opportunity to make tax relief more equitable was defeated. Despite my reservations about this bill, and my disappointment in the failure of several amendments, I am encouraged by the fact that today, on the floor of the United States Senate, we came together in a bipartisan manner to enact tax relief to millions of American families. I hope that the conference committee will report a bill that is both fair and equitable, benefitting working families, small businesses and family farms. Finally, Mr. President, it is imperative that during the conference negotiations, we remain committed to preserving the integrity of the balanced budget agreement. The American people will not be served by a budget that achieves balance briefly in 2002 and then veers back out of balance afterward. Mr. President, I am pleased to join a bipartisan group of Senators today in supporting the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1997. It brings us much closer to enacting legislation easing the tax burden which weighs heavily on too many Americans. Pension Provisions

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to say a thank you on behalf of myself and I feel a thank you as well on behalf of my 99 colleagues to his Excellency, Christopher F. Patten, the outgoing Governor of Hong Kong. Governor Patten has the particular distinction of being the last of 28 British Governors to preside over Hong Kong before this territory reverts back to the People's Republic of China on July 1--in just a few days. Chris Patten, as those of us in this body have come to know him over the years, is a truly remarkable individual. He has been a superb administrator and an inspiration to the people who he has sought to govern in Hong Kong. During his 5 years there, Chris Patten has watched the economy flourish under his stewardship. It grew by more than 30 percent in real terms over that period--a truly impressive performance. He has presided over a capable and honest civil service. Crime has fallen. The political situation has been stable and further democratized. These are all important achievements, but, in my view, the most important legacy of the Patten administration is that it leaves behind the seeds of democracy firmly planted in the minds and hearts of the people of Hong Kong. Thanks to Governor Patten and the people of Hong Kong, they were able to experience democracy firsthand by electing members of their local legislature, thereby making good on the British commitment to put in place a solidly based democratic administration. Sadly, Mr. President, the Chinese have already made the decision to dismantle the elected legislature and to replace it with an appointed council, hand-picked by Beijing. That may work for the moment. In time we will know whether the ``provisional legislature'' installed by Beijing is only a temporary setback to democracy or the first step down a very dark, dark road, indeed. I hope it is not the latter. Hopefully, Beijing will come to appreciate that it is virtually impossible to totally destroy democratic aspirations. As Governor Patten recently so eloquently put it, ``You can dismantle institutions but you can't dismantle benchmarks. People now know what a fair election is like, and they will surely know what an unfair election is like if one takes place.'' Many political leaders leave office, Mr. President, less than popular with those that they have governed, some deservedly so and others unfairly so, because they have had to make hard choices that only history will record kindly. Not in the case of Chris Patten, in my view. Although few have had to make tougher decisions than he has, he leaves Hong Kong enormously popular, with 79 percent of the people of Hong Kong viewing him as having done a very good job, indeed. On Monday, June 30, Governor Patten and his wife, Lavender, and his daughters, Kate, Laura, and Alice, will depart Hong Kong. I am confident that the people of that place will hold Chris Patten in their hearts for years and years to come. As one who considers him a personal friend, I would like to add my personal congratulations and thanks to him for all that he has endeavored to do, and I know that his many, many friends here in this body and the other and across this country, and particularly in Hong Kong, will not forget the challenges he has placed before the Government of the People's Republic of China. (The remarks of Mr. Dodd pertaining to the introduction of S. 983 and Senate Joint Resolution 34 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the indulgence of my colleagues, Senator Byrd of West Virginia, Senator Graham of Florida, and Senator Baucus of Montana, for their time here this afternoon. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, I come to the Senate floor to introduce legislation designed to send a signal to the Clinton administration that the current United States policy of banning the sale or transfer of sophisticated fighter aircraft and other armaments to Latin American countries--which has by and large been United States policy for some 20 years--should not be altered. The bill I am introducing today would call upon the President to respect the requests of a number of Latin American leaders and prominent political figures to maintain a moratorium on the export of United States advanced weapons to that region. It would also prohibit the issuances of the necessary licenses for such exports unless the President first certificated that such sale was in the national security interest of the United States and the Congress concurred with that finding. The Clinton administration is currently in the process of reviewing that policy predominantly as a result of heavy lobbying by those who are seeking to open up a new front for high dollar sales of state-of- the-art defense technology to countries in the Western Hemisphere--particularly those in South America. Mr. President, President Clinton has a record he can be proud of with respect to the Western Hemisphere. The 1994 Summit of the Americas, hosted by the United States, to which all but one head of state in the hemisphere was invited, was hugely successful. Since that time, the President, together with his colleagues throughout the region, has endeavored to pursue the hemispheric agenda that the region's leaders agreed to during the course of that summit-- namely to strengthen democracy, increase trade, bolster national security and combat drug trafficking. I would respectfully assert that were the United States to alter our policy of arms restraint with respect to the region, we would be undermining efforts to implement those important hemispheric objectives. Heretofore, the President had been on the record in support of arms restraint, particularly with respect to sales to developing countries. Last year, President Clinton joined with other members of the so called G-7 countries at the Lyon Summit to underscore the importance of developing and transition countries giving priority to avoiding unproductive expenditures, in particular excessive military spending. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is responsible for monitoring economic policies and balance of payments throughout the world, has also given high priority to warning against the dangers of arms purchases. Most recently, on June 19, during the Article IV consultations with the United States, where the performance of the United States economy was reviewed, the IMF staff, ``urged the United States, together with other major countries, to administer their policies on military sales to developing and transition economy countries in a way that avoids encouraging unproductive expenditures and heightening security tensions.'' It would be the ultimate irony, after all the time and effort that the President and his administration has expended in helping to plant the seeds of democracy in our own hemisphere, and in so carefully nurturing those seeds as they have germinated and bloomed, if he were to make a decision that would undermine all of those efforts. I believe that a decision to alter our current policy to permit the export of highly advanced weaponry to the region would do just that. Over the medium term it could only serve to disturb the delicate regional military balance and thereby pose a serious threat to regional peace and economic prosperity. Mr. President, if you were to listen to American defense contractors you would think that our current policy has prevented them from earning even 1 dollar on arms sales to Latin America. Nothing could be further from the truth. Between 1992-1995 the United States was the single largest supplier of weapons to Latin America, capturing more than 25 percent of that market. According to the Congressional Research Service during fiscal years 1993-1996, U.S. arms sales to Latin American nations averaged nearly $200 million annually. No one is suggesting that Latin American countries, or that Latin American militaries do not have legitimate defense and national security requirements that can only be met from foreign sources. I would strongly argue that our current policy is absolutely compatible with those countries being able to fulfill their legitimate requirements. Sales of appropriate U.S. defense articles and equipment have and should continue. But, collective arms restraint should also be a part of any effort by regional leaders to prepare their armed forces for their role in the 21st century. In that regard, I believe that the Governments of Argentina and Brazil deserve special recognition for the very significant progress they have made in this area. Mr. President, the region is at peace. Democracy is the order of the day. The demands on governments throughout the region to meet pressing economic and social needs have never been greater while government resources are severely constrained. Now would seem a perfect opportunity to make real progress in reaching a regional arms control agreement to deter future arms races, and thereby better marshal scarce resources. The entire region has just recently recovered from a decade of negative growth. And, while growth is now on the upswing in many countries, more than half of them currently have per-capita income levels below those achieved by them 10 years ago. The educational systems throughout the region need major infusions of resources to prepare the children of the Americas for the next decade. Currently, less than half of those children who enter the first grade remain in school through the fifth grade. This is a staggering statistic and one that needs to be changed. However, that isn't going to happen unless government resources are devoted to this objective. Perhaps that is why there has been no drumbeat from governments throughout the hemisphere that President Clinton abandon our policy of arms restraint. In fact, heads of state from Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay have publicly expressed their concerns about our altering the current United States policy. They know better than we do, the kinds of pressures that they will confront from their own militaries once this proverbial cat is out of the bag. One military instititution after another will seek to justify demands for more and more costly defense expenditures in order to maintain parity with neighboring militaries--in some cases militaries that they have been in conflict within the last 20 years--Peru and Ecuador as recently as 1995. I am strongly supportive of efforts designed to improve U.S. export performance. Certainly we all want to see U.S. exports continue to grow--exports are critical to the health of our own economy and are a primary source of jobs for hard working American men and women. However, I would argue that it is shortsighted on our part to push countries in the hemisphere to divert scarce resources for nonproductive, one-time, arms purchases. These resources could be more wisely spent repairing badly eroded infrastructures and on other productive investments that will reduce unemployment in these countries and generate domestic purchasing power that will provide for a more stable and sustainable market for U.S. nondefense exports. Mr. President, it is my hope that the legislation I am introducing today will call attention to the issues and concerns I have raised today, and hopefully will provoke a serious debate on the wisdom of altering a policy that has worked so well to promote U.S. interests in this hemisphere. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from former President Jimmy Carter in support of this legislation, along with the text of the bill.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I send to the desk a joint resolution on behalf of myself and Senator John McCain which we believe will lead to more cooperative and effective efforts to meet the international threat posed by international drug trafficking. The resolution that we are introducing today calls upon the President to establish a high level, interdisciplinary task force under the direction of Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, to develop a comprehensive strategy for dealing with the supply and demand side of the drug problem. It also urges the President to encourage other drug producing and transit countries to undertake similar efforts. Within a year's time it calls for an international summit to be held, at which time, the efforts of all the parties would be merged into a multilateral battle plan to engage the illegal drug trade on every front. In order to create the kind of international cooperation and mutual respect that must be present if this effort is to produce results, the resolution would also suspend the annual drug certification procedure for a period of 2 years, while efforts are ongoing to develop and implement a new strategy. As you know, Mr. President, the issue of how best to construct and implement an effective counter narcotics policy has been the subject of much debate in this Chamber, and I would add much disagreement. My intention in introducing this resolution today is to try to see if there is some way to end what has become a stale annual event that has not brought us any closer to mounting a credible effort to eliminate or even contain the international drug mafia. We all can agree that drugs are a problem--a big problem. We can agree as well that the international drug trade poses a direct threat to the United States and to international efforts to promote democracy, economic stability, human rights, and the rule of law throughout the world, but most especially in our own hemisphere. While the international impact is serious and of great concern, of even greater concern to me personally are effects it is having here at home. Today, approximately 12,800,000 Americans use illegal drugs, including 1,500,000 cocaine users, 600,000 heroin addicts, and 9,800,000 smokers of marijuana. This menace isn't just confined to inner cities or the poor. Illegal drug use occurs among members of every ethnic and socioeconomic group in the United States. The human and economic costs are enormous: Drug related illness, death, and crime cost the United States approximately $67 billion in 1996, including costs for lost productivity, premature death, and incarceration. This is an enormously lucrative business--drug trafficking generates estimated revenues of $400 billion annually. The United States has spent more than $25 billion for foreign interdictions and source country counter narcotics programs since 1981, and despite impressive seizures at the border, on the high seas, and in other countries, foreign drugs are cheaper and more readily available in the United States today than two decades ago. So, despite the fact that we have had this drug certification procedure in place since 1986--more than 10 years--drugs continue to pour into this country and to wreak havoc on our families and communities. I think it is time to be honest and admit our international drug strategy isn't working and that means the entire certification process. Nor are efforts to revise the certification process to make it easier, politically, for the U.S. Congress to stick a finger in the eye of other governments by unilaterally grading them, likely to materially improve the situation--especially when we are not prepared to subject ourselves to similar unilateral grading by others. Rather, I believe that we need to reach out to other governments who share our concerns about the threat that drugs pose to the very fabric of their societies and our own. It is arrogant to assume we are the only Nation that cares about such matters. We need to sit down and figure out what each of us can do better to make it harder for drug traffickers to ply their trade. It is in that spirit that I commend the resolution that Senator McCain and I are introducing today to our colleagues. Together, working collectively we can defeat the traffickers. But if we expend our energies playing the blame game, we are certainly not going to effectively address this threat. We aren't going to stop one additional teenager from becoming hooked on drugs, or one more citizen from being mugged outside his home by some drug crazed thief. I would urge my colleagues to give some thought and attention to our legislative initiative. We believe it is worthy of support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I send to the desk a joint resolution on behalf of myself and Senator John McCain which we believe will lead to more cooperative and effective efforts to meet the international threat posed by international drug trafficking. The resolution that we are introducing today calls upon the President to establish a high level, interdisciplinary task force under the direction of Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, to develop a comprehensive strategy for dealing with the supply and demand side of the drug problem. It also urges the President to encourage other drug producing and transit countries to undertake similar efforts. Within a year's time it calls for an international summit to be held, at which time, the efforts of all the parties would be merged into a multilateral battle plan to engage the illegal drug trade on every front. In order to create the kind of international cooperation and mutual respect that must be present if this effort is to produce results, the resolution would also suspend the annual drug certification procedure for a period of 2 years, while efforts are ongoing to develop and implement a new strategy. As you know, Mr. President, the issue of how best to construct and implement an effective counter narcotics policy has been the subject of much debate in this Chamber, and I would add much disagreement. My intention in introducing this resolution today is to try to see if there is some way to end what has become a stale annual event that has not brought us any closer to mounting a credible effort to eliminate or even contain the international drug mafia. We all can agree that drugs are a problem--a big problem. We can agree as well that the international drug trade poses a direct threat to the United States and to international efforts to promote democracy, economic stability, human rights, and the rule of law throughout the world, but most especially in our own hemisphere. While the international impact is serious and of great concern, of even greater concern to me personally are effects it is having here at home. Today, approximately 12,800,000 Americans use illegal drugs, including 1,500,000 cocaine users, 600,000 heroin addicts, and 9,800,000 smokers of marijuana. This menace isn't just confined to inner cities or the poor. Illegal drug use occurs among members of every ethnic and socioeconomic group in the United States. The human and economic costs are enormous: Drug related illness, death, and crime cost the United States approximately $67 billion in 1996, including costs for lost productivity, premature death, and incarceration. This is an enormously lucrative business--drug trafficking generates estimated revenues of $400 billion annually. The United States has spent more than $25 billion for foreign interdictions and source country counter narcotics programs since 1981, and despite impressive seizures at the border, on the high seas, and in other countries, foreign drugs are cheaper and more readily available in the United States today than two decades ago. So, despite the fact that we have had this drug certification procedure in place since 1986--more than 10 years--drugs continue to pour into this country and to wreak havoc on our families and communities. I think it is time to be honest and admit our international drug strategy isn't working and that means the entire certification process. Nor are efforts to revise the certification process to make it easier, politically, for the U.S. Congress to stick a finger in the eye of other governments by unilaterally grading them, likely to materially improve the situation--especially when we are not prepared to subject ourselves to similar unilateral grading by others. Rather, I believe that we need to reach out to other governments who share our concerns about the threat that drugs pose to the very fabric of their societies and our own. It is arrogant to assume we are the only Nation that cares about such matters. We need to sit down and figure out what each of us can do better to make it harder for drug traffickers to ply their trade. It is in that spirit that I commend the resolution that Senator McCain and I are introducing today to our colleagues. Together, working collectively we can defeat the traffickers. But if we expend our energies playing the blame game, we are certainly not going to effectively address this threat. We aren't going to stop one additional teenager from becoming hooked on drugs, or one more citizen from being mugged outside his home by some drug crazed thief. I would urge my colleagues to give some thought and attention to our legislative initiative. We believe it is worthy of support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, I come to the Senate floor to introduce legislation designed to send a signal to the Clinton administration that the current United States policy of banning the sale or transfer of sophisticated fighter aircraft and other armaments to Latin American countries--which has by and large been United States policy for some 20 years--should not be altered. The bill I am introducing today would call upon the President to respect the requests of a number of Latin American leaders and prominent political figures to maintain a moratorium on the export of United States advanced weapons to that region. It would also prohibit the issuances of the necessary licenses for such exports unless the President first certificated that such sale was in the national security interest of the United States and the Congress concurred with that finding. The Clinton administration is currently in the process of reviewing that policy predominantly as a result of heavy lobbying by those who are seeking to open up a new front for high dollar sales of state-of- the-art defense technology to countries in the Western Hemisphere--particularly those in South America. Mr. President, President Clinton has a record he can be proud of with respect to the Western Hemisphere. The 1994 Summit of the Americas, hosted by the United States, to which all but one head of state in the hemisphere was invited, was hugely successful. Since that time, the President, together with his colleagues throughout the region, has endeavored to pursue the hemispheric agenda that the region's leaders agreed to during the course of that summit-- namely to strengthen democracy, increase trade, bolster national security and combat drug trafficking. I would respectfully assert that were the United States to alter our policy of arms restraint with respect to the region, we would be undermining efforts to implement those important hemispheric objectives. Heretofore, the President had been on the record in support of arms restraint, particularly with respect to sales to developing countries. Last year, President Clinton joined with other members of the so called G-7 countries at the Lyon Summit to underscore the importance of developing and transition countries giving priority to avoiding unproductive expenditures, in particular excessive military spending. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is responsible for monitoring economic policies and balance of payments throughout the world, has also given high priority to warning against the dangers of arms purchases. Most recently, on June 19, during the Article IV consultations with the United States, where the performance of the United States economy was reviewed, the IMF staff, ``urged the United States, together with other major countries, to administer their policies on military sales to developing and transition economy countries in a way that avoids encouraging unproductive expenditures and heightening security tensions.'' It would be the ultimate irony, after all the time and effort that the President and his administration has expended in helping to plant the seeds of democracy in our own hemisphere, and in so carefully nurturing those seeds as they have germinated and bloomed, if he were to make a decision that would undermine all of those efforts. I believe that a decision to alter our current policy to permit the export of highly advanced weaponry to the region would do just that. Over the medium term it could only serve to disturb the delicate regional military balance and thereby pose a serious threat to regional peace and economic prosperity. Mr. President, if you were to listen to American defense contractors you would think that our current policy has prevented them from earning even 1 dollar on arms sales to Latin America. Nothing could be further from the truth. Between 1992-1995 the United States was the single largest supplier of weapons to Latin America, capturing more than 25 percent of that market. According to the Congressional Research Service during fiscal years 1993-1996, U.S. arms sales to Latin American nations averaged nearly $200 million annually. No one is suggesting that Latin American countries, or that Latin American militaries do not have legitimate defense and national security requirements that can only be met from foreign sources. I would strongly argue that our current policy is absolutely compatible with those countries being able to fulfill their legitimate requirements. Sales of appropriate U.S. defense articles and equipment have and should continue. But, collective arms restraint should also be a part of any effort by regional leaders to prepare their armed forces for their role in the 21st century. In that regard, I believe that the Governments of Argentina and Brazil deserve special recognition for the very significant progress they have made in this area. Mr. President, the region is at peace. Democracy is the order of the day. The demands on governments throughout the region to meet pressing economic and social needs have never been greater while government resources are severely constrained. Now would seem a perfect opportunity to make real progress in reaching a regional arms control agreement to deter future arms races, and thereby better marshal scarce resources. The entire region has just recently recovered from a decade of negative growth. And, while growth is now on the upswing in many countries, more than half of them currently have per-capita income levels below those achieved by them 10 years ago. The educational systems throughout the region need major infusions of resources to prepare the children of the Americas for the next decade. Currently, less than half of those children who enter the first grade remain in school through the fifth grade. This is a staggering statistic and one that needs to be changed. However, that isn't going to happen unless government resources are devoted to this objective. Perhaps that is why there has been no drumbeat from governments throughout the hemisphere that President Clinton abandon our policy of arms restraint. In fact, heads of state from Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay have publicly expressed their concerns about our altering the current United States policy. They know better than we do, the kinds of pressures that they will confront from their own militaries once this proverbial cat is out of the bag. One military instititution after another will seek to justify demands for more and more costly defense expenditures in order to maintain parity with neighboring militaries--in some cases militaries that they have been in conflict within the last 20 years--Peru and Ecuador as recently as 1995. I am strongly supportive of efforts designed to improve U.S. export performance. Certainly we all want to see U.S. exports continue to grow--exports are critical to the health of our own economy and are a primary source of jobs for hard working American men and women. However, I would argue that it is shortsighted on our part to push countries in the hemisphere to divert scarce resources for nonproductive, one-time, arms purchases. These resources could be more wisely spent repairing badly eroded infrastructures and on other productive investments that will reduce unemployment in these countries and generate domestic purchasing power that will provide for a more stable and sustainable market for U.S. nondefense exports. Mr. President, it is my hope that the legislation I am introducing today will call attention to the issues and concerns I have raised today, and hopefully will provoke a serious debate on the wisdom of altering a policy that has worked so well to promote U.S. interests in this hemisphere. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from former President Jimmy Carter in support of this legislation, along with the text of the bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I understand.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a modest amendment that will make a major difference to thousands of young men and women who chose careers in community service. As is well-known, the rewards of a community service job are not the salaries. Few choose teaching in Head Start, working for the Jesuit Volunteer Corps, or a career in nursing with the expectation of riches, big houses or luxurious vacations. In fact, for too many in these fields the salaries are substandard and pension and other benefits are questionable. The rewards come from knowing at the end of the day that they have made a difference in the lives of children and others in their communities. Many of these careers require post-secondary education, and today, higher education means debt. In 1995-96, total federal student loan debt rose to over $24 billion dollars; $264 million in my home state of connecticut. Nearly 7 million students borrowed to meet the costs of college. Mr. President, I believe we must do more about this problem of rising student debt. Not only are students deterred from pursuing rewarding, community-related work, but they and their families are also being scared off from pursuing the dream of higher education at all. This undermines our economy and nation as a whole; it is clear we will not be able to meet the challenges of the next century without harnessing and nurturing the talents of all Americans. For nearly 40 years, this is what federal higher education policy has been about--from the GI bill to Pell grants, the federal government has provided the means for millions of Americans to attend college. Rising costs, and the increasing reliance on loans to finance them, is beginning to undermine our central federal commitment. There are some good things, but many missed opportunities, In the bill before us today. The modified HOPE Scholarship should be improved and I support amendments to do so. The tax deduction for student loan interest, and some of the family savings provisions will also assist families in meeting the costs of higher education. But there is a great deal missing. Most notably, the President's proposal to support lifelong learning through a $10,000 tax deduction for tuition. This tax relief is critical to America's families and others pursuing higher education beyond the first two years. Continuing education is vitally important for nurses, teachers, technical workers and others. Yet this package does little for them to assist in these efforts. The Democratic alternative rightly restored this critical benefit. In addition, few of these tax advantages go to the neediest students and their families, despite the fact that this is the group with the most limited access to higher education. I hope that we can make progress on these fronts during today's consideration of this bill. Mr. President, this amendment also helps fill in the gaps in this bill. With rising student indebtedness, students literally cannot afford to take jobs as Head Start teachers, nurses or police officers. As a result, we and all our communities lose the talents and energies of these trained and motivated young people. The Dodd amendment supports the work of students who chose a career in community service by ensuring that they are not disadvantaged in the treatment of loan forgiveness associated with their work. It is not uncommon that public and private non-profit student loan programs provide for the forgiveness of a student's loans should that student chose to go into certain community service fields. For instance, the Federal Perkins Loan programs provides forgiveness for Head Start teachers, teachers in certain urban and rural areas, police officers, nurses, members of the Armed Forces and certain others. However, the Tax Code currently disadvantages those students who receive loan forgiveness from the private sector. The amount forgiven by nonpublic entities is currently treated as income, which can result in much higher tax liability for the student, undermining the effect of this important benefit. Specifically, this amendment would expand section 108(f) of the Internal Revenue Code so that an individual's gross income does not include forgiveness of loans made by tax-exempt charitable organizations, such as universities or private foundations, if the proceeds of such loans are used to pay costs of attendance at an educational institution or to refinance outstanding student loans and the student is not employed by the lender organization. As under present law, the Section 108 (f) exclusion would apply only if the forgiveness is contingent on the student's working for a certain period of time in certain professions for any of a broad class of employers, so long as a public service requirement is met. The exclusion also corrects an oversight in the enactment of the income contingent repayment option under the current student loan program, which provides low-income, high-debt students with the option of stretching out their payments over 25 years. This program allows students to pursue interests in lower paying fields while continuing to meet their obligations to the tax payers to repay their student loans. If the student makes payments for 25 years and still has a remaining balance, the Government forgives their loan. Unfortunately, when we enacted this vital program, we neglected to clarify that this forgiveness should not be taxable. This amendment would make this correction and fulfill the Government's promise to needy students. This initiative has been scored by the Joint Tax Committee to have a minimal impact on revenue and therefore this amendment does not require offsetting revenues. The administration supports this initiative and it is also included in Chairman Archer's house bill. Mr. President, I believe this is a simple step we can take to assist thousands of young people who chose careers in community service, and I urge my colleagues to support it. amendment no. 559 (Purpose: To exclude from unrelated business taxable income for certain charitable gambling) ``(j) Qualified Games of Chance.-- (1) In general.--The term ``unrelated trade or business'' does not include the activity of qualified games of chance. (2) Qualified games of chance.--For purposes of this subsection, the term ``qualified games of chance means any game of chance, other than provided in subsection (f), conducted by an organization if-- ``(A) such organization is licensed pursuant to State law to conduct such game, ``(B) only organizations which are organized as nonprofit corporations or are exempt from tax under section 501(a) may be so licensed to conduct such game within the State, and ``(C) the conduct of such game does not violate State or local law.''

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly about an amendment that I have submitted with my colleague from New York, Senator D'Amato, to benefit firefighters and law enforcement officers in our respective states of Connecticut and New York. For the firefighters and police officers of Connecticut, this amendment seeks simply to correct a wrong that, while unintentional, has cost these committed public servants a great deal of money and anguish. It has always been the intention of the state of Connecticut to provide its police officers and firefighters heart and hypertension benefits tax-free by considering them workmen's compensation for tax purposes. Based on that intention, these individuals accepted benefits with the understanding that they were not taxable. However, the original version of Connecticut's Heart and Hypertension law contained language which made the benefits from the statute taxable under a ruling by the IRS in 1991. As a result of the problem with the state law, and through no fault of their own, these citizens have been charged with millions of dollars in back taxes, interest, and penalties by the IRS. Connecticut has since amended its law, but that change does not help those police officers and firefighters who received benefits prior to the amendment. This legislation would remove their tax liability for heart and hypertension benefits for the years prior to the IRS ruling (1989, 1990, and 1991). The bill is narrowly drafted to accomplish that limited purpose, and would not affect the tax treatment of benefits awarded after January 1, 1992. Mr. President, the police officers and firefighters of Connecticut serve our state's citizens with courage and compassion. The least we can do is provide them with this small measure in recognition of their bravery and commitment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The measure has been scored to cost $11 million for FY98 only.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Just a quick point. I want to point out this amendment of ours is phased in over 5 years, so there will be plenty of notice and time here for providers to try to get themselves ready to met quality standards. We do not rush this in; we allow time for providers and families to learn about and to prepare for higher quality care. My second point is that accredited or certified settings cost a bit more. If parents want to place their children in those situations, given the fact it costs more, our providing a tax incentive with a bit more of a break makes sense. I thank my colleague for allowing me to make those points to my colleague.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for time just to make one quick point to my colleague here.

Mr. DODD. I do not disagree. There is an incentive. You still get the credit for using a non-accredited provider, but you simply get a larger one if you use one that has been accredited or certified. Our goal here is to try and get standards up for all child care setting, whether a home-based care program, a church-based care program, or a public setting. I am not arguing that a parent or a grandparent can't provide terrific child care. But, we just want to make sure that at least we are encouraging quality standards, whether State established or private nonprofit standards, to increase the opportunity for that child to get the proper kind of care.

Mr. DODD. We are very sensitive to these concerns, as my colleague has raised these issue on numerous occasions. I should have stated at the outset that the Senator from Indiana chairs the Subcommittee on Children and Families, on which I have been proud to serve as ranking member. He has been instrumental for so many years in helping children and families. I hold him in high regard on this issue. If I can read this briefly from the amendment for my colleague from Indiana--the terms credentialing and accreditation are used to refer to formal credentialing and accreditation processes by a private nonprofit or public entity that is State recognized (minimum requirements: age- appropriate health and safety standards, age-appropriate developmental and educational activities as an integral part of the program, outside monitoring of the program/individual accreditation/credentialing instruments based on peer-validated research programs/facilities meet any applicable state and local licensing requirements, and on-going staff development/training which includes related skills testing). There are several organizations and a few states that currently provide accreditation and/or credentialing for early childhood development programs, child care and child care providers. That language was drafted with help by religious and non-profit groups. We specifically provide that they may create standards. We have really gotten away from the notion that standards must be set at the Federal level. Centers and providers certified and accreditated by private nonprofits would qualify for the tax credit.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield for a second?