Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Vermont. Amendment Nos. 556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, and 565, en bloc, and 553 Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I want to commend my colleague from Vermont. This is an amendment which will be offered by the distinguished Senator from Vermont, along with myself, Senator Roberts of Kansas, Senator Kohl of Wisconsin, Senator Landrieu, Senator Snowe, Senator Johnson, and others. Mr. President, this is a modest proposal that is designed to do what all of us agree needs to be done. We have provided over the last number of years some significant support for child care in this country. For example, there is the Child Care Development Block Grant program which Senator Hatch and I authored back in the mid-1980's. There is also the Head Start program, which has been very, very helpful to so many families in this country in providing a positive learning environment for children. There is also the current child care tax credit. All of these are designed to provide assistance to those families today who are trying to juggle the very difficult task of providing an income for their families and also a safer environment for their children. Good quality child care can no longer be considered a luxury. There are 13 million children every day in this country who are placed in child care settings. There are an awful lot of single parents out there raising families. There are two-income families that are providing for their children. These families want to be sure that their children are in a safe place. We have done a great deal to help families with the affordability of child care. We have done a lot to increase the availability of child care. What Senator Jeffords, Senator Roberts, Senator Kohl, myself, Senator Snowe, Senator Landrieu, Senator Johnson, and others are trying to do is to use the Tax Code to try to do a better job of dealing with quality. I want to be very clear that there is nothing in this amendment which sets national standards for quality--as our colleagues over the years have had some serious reservations about setting national child care quality standards. This amendment simply defines a quality setting as one that meets standards or certification set by States, local governments or private, non-profit entities--we don't specify any standards--what those standards must be. With this amendment we just try to create incentives so that child care settings will get some encouragement to improve quality. Let me just enumerate what some of those incentives are. We expand the tax deductions for businesses who contribute educational equipment and supplies to public child care providers. We provide tax incentives to families who seek out higher quality care, realizing that such care is more expensive. Let me step back, if I can, for a minute. Mr. President, earlier this year, national magazines had cover stories on early childhood development. We now know that in the earliest stages of a child's life--zero to 36 months--it is absolutely critical that they be nurtured and cared for so that they can develop to their fullest potential. We've all heard by now about how the synapses in the brain of a child are formed --1,000 trillion of them just in those earliest years. Now we have scientific evidence of how important it is to read to children, to hold children, and to play with children in order to wire their brains for the skills they'll need later. Obviously, the best caretakers of children are loving parents. That is the best child care--be cared for by prepared parents. No one can argue against that. But we also know that there are a lot of these parents who can't be there all day with their children. So what do we do to proximate that caring, prepared parent situation when the parent is unable to be there? What are we trying to do? Do we leave the situation to chance and say to parents, ``Good luck. Do what you can. Hopefully you can find the kind of care you would provide if you were there.'' That is a difficult statement to make to parents since we all understand that not every setting is a safe one or a healthy one, that in fact there are vast differences in the quality of child care. Rather than applying any rigid standards here, however, we will leave to the States and to communities to decide what works best. And then we provide the tax incentives to businesses to contribute equipment and supplies to help to improve the quality child care. We provide the incentives to those parents who seek out quality child care because it can cost a bit more. In doing all this we will hopefully encourage other child care providers to improve their own quality and to ultimately raise the levels of quality around the country. With this amendment we also make the child care tax credit refundable because we realize that as we go from welfare to work that we are going to have a lot of these poorer families out there who are going to have difficulty affording quality child care. Refundability is critical--if we only provide tax credits to those who pay taxes, then we miss helping a lot of these poorer families who can truly use the assistance. It is certainly a lot more expensive to provide child care than it is to provide welfare in most States. So as people move from welfare to work, do we want them leaving kids in the street, where hopefully a neighbor or someone else is around to keep an eye on them, or should they be in a quality environment? I think all of us agree they should be in a quality environment and one that their parents hopefully can afford. Senator Jeffords has provided us with a way to reach this goal by using the Tax Code. It is not a direct appropriation. We realize how difficult it is to get funding for child care programs. Through the largess of our membership here over the last number of years, we have increased the child care block grant to $1 billion. That amount of money, but it does not even approximate the demand. And only 4 percent of that total amount is there for quality--hardly enough, really, when you think of the tremendous increase in demand for child care that is now going to occur across the country as a result of the enactment of welfare reform. This proposal is designed to provide incentives to businesses to set up quality child care center and to families to seek quality care. We pay for this by making minor adjustments for those receiving the tax credit at the highest income levels by reducing the credit progressively by 1 percent, but never going below a credit of 10 percent of allowable expenses. So by just adjusting the benefit a bit we can provide the resources here to promote quality. I urge our colleagues' support. This is going to need 60 votes, and that is a hard number to reach, but we ought to be doing everything we can to improve the quality of child care. This ought not to be a partisan debate. We have come up with an offset. We pay for this with minor adjustments to the Tax Code. This is a bipartisan amendment. With my colleagues from Vermont, Kansas, from Maine, from Louisiana, from Wisconsin and South Dakota, we have come up with a good proposal that we think meets the concerns that some have raised and still provides a way to ensure through the Tax Code that child care is not only available and affordable but also high quality. And so, at the appropriate time, Mr. President, when the amendment is offered by the distinguished Senator from Vermont, we would urge our colleagues to be supportive.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer an amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, rather than confuse this situation even further, I am going to yield for the purposes of offering an amendment to the distinguished Senator from Vermont. It is his amendment, and I am a cosponsor with him. I yield for that purpose. I ask unanimous consent that I may yield for that purpose.

Mr. DODD. On the bill?

Mr. DODD. I understand. If my colleague will yield, I understand this. Time is running out. If we don't debate it this evening or during morning business, tomorrow we will be limited to a 1-minute explanation of process amendments that have to do with the budget process that I think are rather significant. I am concerned that something as profound as dealing with the budget process is left to seconds to debate them, and unnecessarily so. I raise the issue of whether we ought to set that for a separate time, rather than deal with this?

Mr. DODD. I inquire of our leader or our friend from New Mexico, is it necessary the process amendments be considered as part of this budget agreement, or would it not be better to deal with that as a side issue and deal with the amendments that bear directly on the tax bill and then bring up the process amendments on a separate occasion? Is there reason that has to be a part of this, I inquire of the leader or distinguished Senator from New Mexico?

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Daschle alternative tax cut amendment. First, let me commend the Finance Committee on the job it's done. Chairman Roth and Senator Moynihan should be commended for their efforts to craft a bipartisan bill, something that the other body failed to achieve in their tax-writing committee. Clearly, the Finance bill is better than the bill offered in the House in several respects. However, I believe we can do better, and we must do better to assist America's working families. And that is what the Daschle substitute is all about. It offers families fair and equitable tax relief. And let's be honest: even in the midst of the strongest economic recovery of the century, many families at the lower income levels are still struggling. They worry about job security, pensions, meeting the costs of higher education, and finding good quality child care. Appropriate, targeted tax relief for these families can help them meet these challenges. The House and Senate bills, regrettably, shower most of their tax cut benefits not on working families, but on those who least need relief. They deny relief to taxpayers and small businesses in the middle and at the bottom of the income scale. The Finance Committee bill grants 65 percent of its tax cuts on the wealthiest 20 percent of the population. Mr. President, the Daschle amendment seeks to right these wrongs by bringing relief to working Americans and small businesses. Unlike the competing proposals, the Daschle amendment promotes fairness and puts working families first. In contrast to the Finance Committee bill, our amendment provides 65 percent of tax relief not to the most affluent 20 percent, but to the middle 60 percent. That's about twice as much tax relief for the middle class as the Republican Finance Committee proposal. Under the Daschle amendment, the affluent would get their fair share of the tax cuts, but no more. The top 1 percent of taxpayers would only receive 1 percent of the tax cut, compared to the Archer and Roth proposals which give 19 percent and 13 percent, respectively, of their tax cut to the top 1 percent of income earners. But fundamentally this debate isn't about statistics. It's about meeting vital family needs and providing additional resources to meet the many challenges they face. The Daschle amendment strengthens families and puts working families first. It provides payroll tax relief by making the child tax credit refundable against all payroll taxes, not just income taxes. An average family of four earning $35,000 pays $2,700 in income taxes, and another $5,300 in payroll taxes. These are the families who desperately need tax relief, and these are the families who would benefit from the Daschle amendment. This provision alone would extend the child tax credit to 10 million more children and families. The House Ways and Means and the Senate Finance bills deny credit to many working families. Families making less than $25,000 would receive no credit due to their negligible income tax liability. Further, these bills would cut the child credit for families qualifying for the Earned Income Tax Credit. There are few issues more critical to American families than education. The Daschle amendment recognizes this and provides $10 billion more in education benefits to working American families. The Daschle amendment provides more for school construction, more for Pell grant recipients, and more for tax credits for families to send their children to college. The Ways and Means and Finance bills provide less--less for school construction, less for Pell Grant recipients, and less for tax credits for families to send their children to college. 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. The Daschle amendment also offers fair and equitable relief to middle class investors, small businesses, and family farms. Under the Daschle amendment, all investors would get the same 30 percent capital gains break that the top 1 percent of income earners already have. This proposal cuts the capital gains rate nearly twice as deeply for most small businesses and provides much needed relief. Under the Ways and Means and Finance bills, however, primarily the wealthiest taxpayers would reap the benefits of an across-the-board capital gains tax cut. For example, a person who makes $45,000 would receive an average capital gains tax cut of $255, while one who makes $200,000 or more would receive an average cut of $11,520. Clearly, these bills are skewed to benefit the wealthiest income earners and disadvantage those who most need tax relief--working families. Further, the Democratic alternative targets all estate tax cuts to family businesses and family farms, in an effort to relieve the tax burden felt by many. Again, however, the Ways and Means and Finance bills favor the wealthy by providing $35 billion in estate tax cuts to the wealthiest 1.4 percent of estate owners. Clearly, Mr. President, we must do better to bring relief to a much larger percentage of estate owners in America. Finally, Mr. President, in the midst of providing tax relief that is fair and equitable, it is imperative that we not lose sight of our obligation to enact legislation that is fiscally responsible. The Daschle amendment allows 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. The Finance Committee bill is heavily backloaded. The Joint Tax Committee estimates that the cost of that measure will explode in the out years, costing $830 billion by the year 2017. I have grave concerns about facing the prospect of losing some $830 billion in revenue. And that is why I offered an amendment during the budget reconciliation negotiations which demanded that 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. Mr. President, we must be committed to preserving the integrity of the balanced budget agreement and adopt a tax package that is fair and responsible. The American people will not be served by a budget that reaches balance briefly in 2002 and then veers back out of balance afterward. The Daschle amendment balances the budget by the year 2002, and does not threaten to push the budget out of balance beyond 2002. Mr. President, Senator Daschle's alternative plan is fair, it puts families first, and it stimulates jobs and growth. And not least, it is not a ticking time bomb that threatens to push the budget out of balance, blowing a hole in the deficit in later years. And that, Mr. President, is why I urge my colleagues to support this fair, equitable, and modest measure.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help communities that suffer when nuclear power plants operate in an unsafe manner. As most of my colleagues know, when the NRC discovers safety violations at a nuclear power plant, it is authorized to fine that facility for its transgressions, and these fines have been as high as $1.25 million. Under current law these fines go directly into the federal treasury, with no allowances being made for the communities that are home to these deficient nuclear power plants. When a nuclear facility is poorly operated, it often creates severe safety, environmental, and economic concerns for surrounding communities. Therefore, it is only fair that those communities should receive a portion of any NRC fines to go toward addressing matters of local concern. That is why I have introduced the Distressed Communities Support Act. This legislation is simple and straightforward--it would allow 50 percent of the fines levied by the NRC against nuclear facilities to be funneled back to communities adversely affected by the plant's mismanagement. The Distressed Communities Support Act would be extremely helpful to towns adjacent to nuclear plants which may be trying to develop special health, safety, and environmental programs. More important, this bill would help communities where the safety violations of the nuclear plant require that the plant be permanently shut down and decommissioned. It is a fact that nuclear plants around the country are aging, making it increasingly difficult for many of them to meet safety standards and remain operational. Therefore, it is important that communities throughout the country have increased access to resources to deal with problems caused by negligent nuclear plants. In my home state of Connecticut, the time to help local communities is now. The Connecticut Yankee nuclear plant in Haddam, Connecticut is in the beginning stages of decommissioning. In light of numerous safety violations, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ordered the plant closed until these safety concerns were addressed. Then, in December of 1996, the owners of Connecticut Yankee decided to permanently close the facility. This decision came despite the fact that the license for the facility was set to expire in 2007. While the owners of Connecticut Yankee had chosen to permanently close the plant, the NRC continued its review of the safety violations, and fined Connecticut Yankee $650,000. This early decommissioning of this plant will have a dramatic impact on Haddam and other surrounding towns. Connecticut Yankee was the area's largest employer and represented almost half of the tax base in the town of Haddam--a town of just under 7,500 residents. It employed more than 300 individuals. The sudden loss of tax revenue and jobs will have a devastating impact on this area, and the town may well be forced to raise local taxes and make cuts in town services, including the public schools. In addition to the economic impact is the serious health and environmental impact of the way in which this facility was run. The people of Haddam and surrounding towns are facing difficult days as they contend with radioactive waste and related problems. While local officials and residents are looking at innovative ways to rebuild their town's tax base, Haddam needs and clearly deserves financial assistance to get on the road to economic recovery. As we look for ways to provide financial assistance for this community, it only seems logical that some portion of the $650,000 in fines should go toward helping these people. It is even more fitting that a town like Haddam should receive some federal assistance, because the federal government is partly responsible for this town's problems. NRC Commissioner Shirley Jackson has stated that the NRC failed to adequately regulate this plant to ensure safety, and stricter monitoring could have prevented a number of the problems that this plant has experienced. A recent GAO report released by Senator Lieberman details the failings of the NRC in overseeing CT Yankee and other plants. In most every case where a nuclear power plant's negligence prompts a fine by the NRC, the communities surrounding the plant will feel some negative repercussions. Therefore, I believe that a portion of these fines should be available to the affected communities. While the Distressed Communities Support Act will not solve all of the problems of towns like Haddam, Connecticut, it is a fair and simple initiative that will provide relief to thousands of Americans. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill. 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 introduce legislation to help communities that suffer when nuclear power plants operate in an unsafe manner. As most of my colleagues know, when the NRC discovers safety violations at a nuclear power plant, it is authorized to fine that facility for its transgressions, and these fines have been as high as $1.25 million. Under current law these fines go directly into the federal treasury, with no allowances being made for the communities that are home to these deficient nuclear power plants. When a nuclear facility is poorly operated, it often creates severe safety, environmental, and economic concerns for surrounding communities. Therefore, it is only fair that those communities should receive a portion of any NRC fines to go toward addressing matters of local concern. That is why I have introduced the Distressed Communities Support Act. This legislation is simple and straightforward--it would allow 50 percent of the fines levied by the NRC against nuclear facilities to be funneled back to communities adversely affected by the plant's mismanagement. The Distressed Communities Support Act would be extremely helpful to towns adjacent to nuclear plants which may be trying to develop special health, safety, and environmental programs. More important, this bill would help communities where the safety violations of the nuclear plant require that the plant be permanently shut down and decommissioned. It is a fact that nuclear plants around the country are aging, making it increasingly difficult for many of them to meet safety standards and remain operational. Therefore, it is important that communities throughout the country have increased access to resources to deal with problems caused by negligent nuclear plants. In my home state of Connecticut, the time to help local communities is now. The Connecticut Yankee nuclear plant in Haddam, Connecticut is in the beginning stages of decommissioning. In light of numerous safety violations, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ordered the plant closed until these safety concerns were addressed. Then, in December of 1996, the owners of Connecticut Yankee decided to permanently close the facility. This decision came despite the fact that the license for the facility was set to expire in 2007. While the owners of Connecticut Yankee had chosen to permanently close the plant, the NRC continued its review of the safety violations, and fined Connecticut Yankee $650,000. This early decommissioning of this plant will have a dramatic impact on Haddam and other surrounding towns. Connecticut Yankee was the area's largest employer and represented almost half of the tax base in the town of Haddam--a town of just under 7,500 residents. It employed more than 300 individuals. The sudden loss of tax revenue and jobs will have a devastating impact on this area, and the town may well be forced to raise local taxes and make cuts in town services, including the public schools. In addition to the economic impact is the serious health and environmental impact of the way in which this facility was run. The people of Haddam and surrounding towns are facing difficult days as they contend with radioactive waste and related problems. While local officials and residents are looking at innovative ways to rebuild their town's tax base, Haddam needs and clearly deserves financial assistance to get on the road to economic recovery. As we look for ways to provide financial assistance for this community, it only seems logical that some portion of the $650,000 in fines should go toward helping these people. It is even more fitting that a town like Haddam should receive some federal assistance, because the federal government is partly responsible for this town's problems. NRC Commissioner Shirley Jackson has stated that the NRC failed to adequately regulate this plant to ensure safety, and stricter monitoring could have prevented a number of the problems that this plant has experienced. A recent GAO report released by Senator Lieberman details the failings of the NRC in overseeing CT Yankee and other plants. In most every case where a nuclear power plant's negligence prompts a fine by the NRC, the communities surrounding the plant will feel some negative repercussions. Therefore, I believe that a portion of these fines should be available to the affected communities. While the Distressed Communities Support Act will not solve all of the problems of towns like Haddam, Connecticut, it is a fair and simple initiative that will provide relief to thousands of Americans. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I hope this amendment will be agreed to. This is an amendment I think all of our colleagues can support. I am offering it on behalf of myself and the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Conrad. It will preserve the Medicaid coverage for some 30,000 children who, if we do nothing else, are going to lose it. These are the most severe disabled children in the country. This was a slip, more than anything else, I think, when we passed the welfare reform law last year. We learned these children might lose their Medicaid coverage as a consequence of losing their SSI. Since then there has been a broad agreement we should step in and try to preserve health care for the most needy of all children. In fact, the bipartisan budget agreement called for continued Medicaid coverage for these children. So, this amendment merely plugs that gap that we had all agreed on. It simply honors the agreement. Its cost is modest. It is about $100 million over 5 years. I can argue if we can find $16 billion to provide insurance for kids who lack it, surely we could set aside a fraction of that to provide insurance for children who stand to lose it. That is what we are faced with. If we do not do this, these 30,000 severely disabled children would be cut off.

Mr. DODD. I realize we are running out of time. Let me, on the Senator's time--I raised this earlier, I say to the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. We are not convinced that is the case. I understood that was the argument made to me and that has not been confirmed. So we are running the risk here, if it is not the case. I would rather adopt the amendment. If it turns out it is OK, then we protected these children. If you do not do it, it's not part of the $16 billion, 30,000 disabled children lose their Medicaid benefits. We have to do it by law, and I would rather err on that side than err on the other side.

Mr. DODD. I move to waive that. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. Do you want to explain them or not?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this amendment is very important to the hospitals across the country. Under the law, the first hospital that cannot provide care would have its fees reduced if the patient is sent to a second hospital that can provide acute care. That is a good idea. What happens, however, is that patients that are moved from the first hospital to a home setting, no longer needing acute care, the fees of the first hospital are also reduced. We did not intend that to be the case. This amendment corrects that mistake. This is broadly supported by every hospital across the country. My colleague from New York, Senator D'Amato, is my cosponsor on this, along with Senator Leahy. We hope it will be accepted.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there are $26 billion outstanding in student loans. This amendment has two parts. It does away with the automatically required administrative cost allowance, which is unnecessary. That can be dealt with in the higher education bill. And it cuts in half the origination fees, 4 percent to 2. It is a very big issue for families.

Mr. DODD. I move to waive. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute, if I may, 1 minute on means testing Medicare.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, briefly, I supported the amendment which would means test this program, but I think a 24-month delay on this, while there is some loss of revenue here, is a wise move to make. We are moving very rapidly here on some major changes. I believe the means testing is the right way to go.

Mr. DODD. Briefly, it seems to me, a 24-month delay on this--I supported means testing, but I think we ought to know the full implication of what we are doing, and while there is a loss of revenue here by not implementing, it is for 2 years. It seems to me that proceeding with a degree of caution to make sure all the people that we want to benefit will be benefited and those to be excluded will be excluded properly, is not a lot to ask. I urge the proposal of the Senator from Massachusetts be adopted. It seems to me we ought not to be fighting over 24 months. We have agreed to means test. We waited a long time to get to this. Now we should do it intelligently.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the more colorful characters in my home State, Ron D. Aliano, who on June 24, 1997, will celebrate the 25th anniversary of the creation of his first business in Norwich, CT. Ron is renowned throughout my State for his positive attitude and his determination to tap the potential that he saw in the town of Norwich. He challenged Norwich residents to commit themselves to the revitalization of their hometown, and he is one of the leaders of this community's urban renewal. Ron Aliano is a man who believes that you can achieve any goal through commitment and hard work. He is also an ardent believer in the theory that, ``if you're going to do something, you do it right.'' The best illustration of Ron's commitment to doing a task first rate would be the Marina at American Wharf. For years, people talked about developing the Norwich waterfront, but these plans never amounted to anything more than talk. But Ron Aliano was the man who had the determination to make this project come to fruition. Before construction began on the Marina at American Wharf, Ron visited 86 successful marinas around the country to see what worked, and he tried to incorporate the best elements of each into his project. Today, boaters from Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and all over Connecticut have rented slips in Norwich. Many people would argue that American Wharf is the nicest marina in New England, and it is the central spoke in Norwich's revitalization efforts. Another, more unique illustration of Ron's commitment to doing things first rate would be the miniature golf course that Ron constructed in downtown Norwich. Instead of windmills and plastic dinosaurs, this course is lined with waterfalls and finely manicured gardens. It even has a volcano, a claim that very few miniature golf courses can make. This course has attracted people to the downtown area, stimulating the Norwich economy. While Ron has worked diligently to develop Norwich, he also recognizes the fact that Norwich's strength lies in its history and tradition. As a result, he is deeply committed to preserving the town's rich heritage. In a misguided effort, certain developers uprooted cobblestone streets and destroyed several 19th century homes in Norwich, replacing them with a parking garage. In addition, many other deteriorating old buildings were in danger of being demolished. Fortunately, Ron Aliano and other members of the private sector invested substantial resources to purchase and renovate these old buildings, and Norwich is currently home to more significant historic buildings than any other city in Connecticut. Although Ron has been associated with a number of high profile projects in Norwich, his first business priority has always been his ambulance service, which will be 25 years old next Tuesday. Ron's ambulance service has enjoyed a dramatic evolution since its birth. Ron founded the company with a business partner, but, in 1981, he became the sole owner of the company and changed its name to American Ambulance Service. While the company started with only two used ambulances, Ron now operates a fleet of 21 ambulances, nine invalid coaches, two paramedic response vehicles, one watercraft ambulance, as well as numerous administrative and support vehicles. American Ambulance has provided ambulance coverage to U.S. Presidents, and this business continues to offer the highest quality care to Connecticut citizens. What makes Ron Aliano's passion for Norwich so unusual is that he is not a native son. Ron is actually from Bristol, Connecticut, and he didn't move to Norwich until he started American Ambulance Service in 1972. Therefore, as Ron Aliano celebrates the 25th anniversary of his oldest business, I think it is only appropriate that the town of Norwich, which once named Ron Aliano as their ``Citizen of the Year,'' should celebrate the day when Ron became one of its own.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the bill to halt the unmitigated spread of landmines sponsored by Senator Leahy and Senator Hagel. In particular, I laud Senator Leahy's tireless efforts in lining up over half the Members of the Senate behind this important legislation. Also, Senator Hagel's experience as an Army sergeant in Vietnam and his unrelenting support for veterans and the military make his leadership role on this bill quite appropriate. This bill would halt new deployments of U.S. antipersonnel mines starting on January 1, 2000. What better way to open the new millennium than to clamp down on these hidden, unmanageable devices that kill or injure someone somewhere every 22 minutes. Let's not lose sight of the fact that landmines kill and maim without impunity--men, women, and children alike will continue to lose their lives or limbs as long as landmines remain buried around the globe. That attribute, the completely random killing, sets these devices apart from all other weapons of war, with the possible exception of weapons of mass destruction. Yet, even a hydrogen bomb cannot kill a child playing in a pasture a decade after the bomb was dropped. Today there are 100 million land mines in 68 countries that wait potently to explode, be it tomorrow, years from now, or decades hence. More soldiers, U.N. peacekeepers, and children will surely lose their lives before the world acts to stem the tide of these horrible weapons. The question is: How many hundreds more must die needlessly before we pursue vigorously a treaty banning antipersonnel landmines? Late last year, the U.N. General Assembly resolved, without a single dissenting vote, to do just that. Having introduced that resolution in our customary role as world leader, we must now take action.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to join with Senator Coverdell in introducing the Charitable Donation Antitrust Immunity Act. The bill would strengthen the Charitable Gift Annuity Antitrust Relief Act, which enjoyed broad bipartisan support when it passed the Congress in 1995. Every day across this country, charitable organizations help build better lives for millions of Americans. They are on the front lines in the effort to provide food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and educational support to less fortunate individuals. Their efforts help prevent our social fabric from fraying. Over the years, charities have used gift annuities as a means of making it easier for people to donate money. Generally, these transactions work as follows: a person donates money or some other asset to a charity and receives a tax deduction. The charity then invests the money and makes fixed, periodic payments to the donor. When the donor dies, the remainder of the gift goes to the charity. These arrangements help both donors and charities, and it was never the intent of Congress to unduly restrict their use. Regrettably, the benevolent endeavors of charities have been jeopardized by a lawsuit, Ozee and Richie versus The American Council on Gift Annuities. The lawsuit alleges that the use of annuity rates published by the Council constitutes price fixing, and thus a violation of the antitrust laws. The suit also alleges violations of securities and insurance laws. The plaintiffs ask that money donated to charities through charitable gift annuities be returned, along with additional damages. I have heard from a broad spectrum of charitable organizations in Connecticut and across the country who say that this lawsuit is undermining their ability to raise funds and continue their work. In order to save our Nation's charities millions of dollars in legal fees, and to preserve a critically important fundraising tool for charities, I joined with Senator Hutchison and introduced the Charitable Gift Annuity Antitrust Relief Act of 1995. With the help of many of my colleagues in both the House and Senate, we passed that measure quickly. The intent of the legislation was to exempt the use of charitable gift annuities from antitrust laws. Regrettably, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit did not interpret the legislation in this manner and the lawsuit continues. Consequently, we now need to make a few technical changes to clarify the intent of the law. Although these changes would put an end to the litigation and ensure that charities can continue to do their good work, they will not make it easier for charities to commit fraud. The legislation would not change the antifraud provisions in Federal securities law or affect Federal tax laws relating to fraud. People could still bring appropriate lawsuits against cheats or swindlers attempting to disguise themselves as charities, or charities acting fraudulently. Mr. President, charitable organizations work hard every day to help fill some of the gaps in the American safety net. We must support their efforts. The Charitable Donation Antitrust Immunity Act will help. I applaud Senator Coverdell's work on this legislation, and I urge all of my Senate colleagues to help move it forward expeditiously.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to join with Senator Coverdell in introducing the Charitable Donation Antitrust Immunity Act. The bill would strengthen the Charitable Gift Annuity Antitrust Relief Act, which enjoyed broad bipartisan support when it passed the Congress in 1995. Every day across this country, charitable organizations help build better lives for millions of Americans. They are on the front lines in the effort to provide food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and educational support to less fortunate individuals. Their efforts help prevent our social fabric from fraying. Over the years, charities have used gift annuities as a means of making it easier for people to donate money. Generally, these transactions work as follows: a person donates money or some other asset to a charity and receives a tax deduction. The charity then invests the money and makes fixed, periodic payments to the donor. When the donor dies, the remainder of the gift goes to the charity. These arrangements help both donors and charities, and it was never the intent of Congress to unduly restrict their use. Regrettably, the benevolent endeavors of charities have been jeopardized by a lawsuit, Ozee and Richie versus The American Council on Gift Annuities. The lawsuit alleges that the use of annuity rates published by the Council constitutes price fixing, and thus a violation of the antitrust laws. The suit also alleges violations of securities and insurance laws. The plaintiffs ask that money donated to charities through charitable gift annuities be returned, along with additional damages. I have heard from a broad spectrum of charitable organizations in Connecticut and across the country who say that this lawsuit is undermining their ability to raise funds and continue their work. In order to save our Nation's charities millions of dollars in legal fees, and to preserve a critically important fundraising tool for charities, I joined with Senator Hutchison and introduced the Charitable Gift Annuity Antitrust Relief Act of 1995. With the help of many of my colleagues in both the House and Senate, we passed that measure quickly. The intent of the legislation was to exempt the use of charitable gift annuities from antitrust laws. Regrettably, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit did not interpret the legislation in this manner and the lawsuit continues. Consequently, we now need to make a few technical changes to clarify the intent of the law. Although these changes would put an end to the litigation and ensure that charities can continue to do their good work, they will not make it easier for charities to commit fraud. The legislation would not change the antifraud provisions in Federal securities law or affect Federal tax laws relating to fraud. People could still bring appropriate lawsuits against cheats or swindlers attempting to disguise themselves as charities, or charities acting fraudulently. Mr. President, charitable organizations work hard every day to help fill some of the gaps in the American safety net. We must support their efforts. The Charitable Donation Antitrust Immunity Act will help. I applaud Senator Coverdell's work on this legislation, and I urge all of my Senate colleagues to help move it forward expeditiously.