Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I hope that Senator DeWine would accept my perfecting amendment that I offer to his amendment. I understand that the managers of the bill are prepared to accept it, if the sponsor of the underlying amendment has no problem, which I understand he does not. I believe that those who use violence as a political tool should not be rewarded with a United States visa for those actions. While his amendment covers a number of categories of individuals who have been involved in political killings and other illegal acts, there would seem to be two categories of individuals who played a very prominent role in the reign of terror that characterized Haiti between September 1991 and October 1994 when the duly elected government was restored to office with the assistance of the international community. I am of course talking about the High Command of the Haitian Armed Forces and the paramilitary organization known as FRAPH. Clearly members of the Haitian High Command violated every norm of accepted international law with respect to their efforts to overthrow a democratically elected government. But more importantly, their treatment of the Haitian people during the coup regime was reprehensible. Surely granting entry to the United States of such individuals would serve no useful private or public purpose. Similarly, the paramilitary organization which came to be known as FRAPH undertook such heinous acts as kidnaping, rape and murder as a concerted effort to intimidate the Haitian people. Individuals who were members of this organization should also be excluded from entry into the United States. Mr. President I believe that this amendment adds the necessary balance to the pending amendment and I urge its adoption.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Abraham to introduce a resolution that will allow the National Safe Kids Campaign to use a small portion of the Capitol Hill grounds to provide a very important community service, a Car Seat Check-Up event. This initiative, called Safe Kids Buckle-Up, is a joint project of the National Safe Kids Campaign and the General Motors Corporation. Its purpose is to educate families about the importance of buckling up on every ride. Child passenger safety has received significant attention in the past year, and this program will provide parents and care givers with the essential information they need to ensure that their children are safely restrained in an automobile. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of unintentional injury- related death to children ages 14 and under, yet 40 percent of kids are still riding unrestrained! More disturbing is the fact that, of the children who are buckled up, eight out of ten are restrained incorrectly. Each year more than 1400 children die in automobile accidents, and an additional 280,000 are injured. Tragically, most of these injuries could have been prevented. Child safety seats are proven life savers, reducing the risk of death by 69 percent for infants and 47 percent for toddlers. It will take a nationwide effort to combat this problem. Safe Kids Buckle-Up will be part of such effort. It is a national grassroots effort that will disseminate key safety messages through the more than 200 Safe Kids Coalitions, health and education outlets--such as hospitals and community health centers--and GM dealerships in all 50 states. Additionally, educational workshops and Car Seat Check Up events will be available at participating GM dealerships. On August 28, 1997, this program will be launched here at the Capitol, highlighted by a Car Seat Check Up for Federal employees, Congressional members and staff, and others from the metropolitan area. This event will kick off Labor Day weekend--one of the biggest travel weekends of the year. I am honored to be supporting this event and the overall program with my friend and colleague Senator Abraham. We urge our colleagues to support this Congressional Resolution allowing this event to take place. Protecting our children is a critical national priority that deserves national attention.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my admiration for the thousands of Americans who spent last Saturday morning running to help bring attention to breast cancer and to raise money to aid in finding a cure for this terrible disease--the leading cause of death among women ages 35 to 54. In Washington alone, more than 35,000 runners and walkers, including several members of my own staff, joined the Vice President and his wife to raise more than $1 million for breast cancer research in the Race for the Cure. This effort is even more impressive when you consider that this race took place in 77 cities across the country. Since its inception in 1982, the Race for the Cure has raised $45 million and funded 230 grants in basic science and clinical research, as well as education and screening projects. The incredible turnout for this event displays the widespread concern over the devastation of breast cancer. Every 3 minutes another woman is diagnosed with breast cancer. This year alone, more than 180,000 women will struggle with this disease, and more than 44,000 women will die as a result of it. One in eight women will develop breast cancer within their lifetime, making it likely that every American will be touched in some way by this disease. Until we find a cure for this disease, it is crucial that we educate women about the importance of early detection. If the cancer can be confined to the breast, the survival rate is 93 percent. Women need to understand the importance of mammograms, monthly breast self- examinations, regular exercise and a low-fat, high fiber diet. Mammography screening exams are the best early detection system available, and I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the reauthorization of the Mammography Quality Standards Act. Since it was originally passed in the 102d Congress, this legislation has provided women with safe and reliable mammography services. Through this reauthorization, mammography service providers will be required to retain women's mammography records so that an accurate medical history is maintained. In addition, it will ensure that patients are notified about substandard mammography facilities. It is crucial that we address this need, as early detection is often the key to effective treatment and recovery. Women who undergo treatment for breast cancer deserve the best and most appropriate care. The Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1997, another bill that I have cosponsored, guarantees that health care providers cover inpatient care for mastectomies, lumpectomies, and lymph node dissection. These procedures can be both physically and psychologically traumatizing, and we must provide these women with the option to have an overnight stay in the hospital after surgery. This bill would also require HMO's to provide coverage for reconstructive surgery that is necessitated by breast cancer. Currently, this reconstructive surgery may be considered cosmetic, but this categorization is illogical as it ignores the trauma that results from a full mastectomy and other breast cancer related procedures. Last, this bill will guarantee that HMO's cover secondary consultations when any form of cancer has been diagnosed. I know that my colleagues share my concern with the problem of breast cancer, and I hope that they will support these legislative efforts to help women prevail over this disease. Again, I wish to commend all those who participated in the Race for the Cure, and I only hope that their efforts move us closer to the Race's noble goal: a true cure for this debilitating illness.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the President of Peru, Alberto Fujimori never responded to that letter. The pending amendment would once again call upon the Government of Peru to take all necessary steps to provide her with such a trial. I would hope that President Fujimori would take note of this amendment and act in this case and the others that Senator Durbin has mentioned. I commend the Senator from Illinois for his very thoughtful and timely amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, August 6, 1996. President Alberto Kenyo Fujimori Fugimori, Palacio de Gobierno, Plaza de Armas s/n, Lima 1-Peru. Dear President Fujimori: We write to express our deep concern that Ms. Lori H. Berenson, a United States citizen, has not been afforded her rights of due process of law. Ms. Berenson was recently convicted of treason by a military tribunal in Peru and is currently imprisoned in Yanamayo prison. The lack of due process at her trial leaves the question of her involvement in illegal activity unanswered. We are particularly concerned that Ms. Berenson did not have an open trial; was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses or challenge evidence; and was tried in a military court by judges whose identities were concealed. Such practices preclude a fair trial. We urge you to take steps to ensure that she is retried before a civilian court which upholds internationally recognized rights of due process. We note that Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Peru on April 28, 1978, stipulates that: ``Everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. . . . ``[and is entitled] to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him.'' In addition, it appears inappropriate to try civilians in a military court. We are aware that the Peruvian Government gave assurances to Assistant Secretary of State Alexander Watson over two years ago that civilians would no longer be tried in military courts. We find it troubling that during the trial of Ms. Berenson, the Peruvian judicial system failed to uphold these and other international standards. The Constitution of the Republic of Peru states that: ``It is the duty of the President of the Republic to obey and ensure obedience to the Constitution and all treaties, laws, and other legal provisions. (Article 118)'' While we make no claims concerning Ms. Berenson's alleged guilt, we ask that you take the necessary steps to provide an open and fair proceeding in a civilian court. Indeed, the entire Peruvian judicial system should be brought in line with the solemn international commitments made by the Peruvian Government. We thank you for your attention to our request. Sincerely, James M. Jeffords, Alfonse M. D'Amato, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Christopher J. Dodd, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Carl Levin, Paul Simon, John D. Rockefeller IV, Claiborne Pell, Carol Moseley-Braun, Dianne Feinsein, Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer, Patrick J. Leahy, Dale Bumpers, Daniel K. Inouye, Barbara A. Mikulski, David Pryor, Wendell H. Ford, John F. Kerry.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to commend Senator Durbin for calling attention to the problems with the judicial system in Peru. He has laid out some very specific cases of two United States citizens who are residents of his State of Illinois. I would also like to call to the attention of my colleagues the case of Ms. Lori Berenson of New York. Ms. Berenson was convicted of treason by a secret military tribunal in January 1996. Since then she has been serving a very tough sentence under exceeding harsh conditions in the Yamamayo prison. Mr. President, I do not know about the innocence or guilt of Ms. Berenson with respect to the crimes with which she has been charged. What I do know is that she was not accorded a fair and open trial which is a hallmark of any democratic legal system. On August 6, 1996, I joined with 19 other Senators in a letter to the President of Peru calling upon him to take all necessary steps to provide an open and fair proceeding in civilian court to Ms. Berenson. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr DODD

Mr DODD. Mr. President, I rise to support the Birth Defects Prevention Act. I commend Senator Bond for his work on this legislation, and I am pleased to have been one of its cosponsors. I am confident that this legislation will significantly enhance our understanding of birth defects and lower the frequency with which they occur. Birth defects are the leading cause of infant mortality in this country, and in many cases, children with birth defects face a lifetime of disability. The efforts of these children to cope with and overcome their disabilities are an inspiration to all of us. It is tragic, however, to think that, for so many, their struggles could have been prevented. With better education and health care for mothers, many birth defects can be avoided entirely. Yet, our country still has no national strategy for reducing the incidence of birth defects. That is why I am rising today in support of this legislation. At the root of our prevention efforts is the need to increase the flow of information regarding birth defects. Without well-coordinated research efforts and surveillance, outbreaks of birth defects may go undetected. This bill would provide Federal grants to State health authorities for the purpose of collecting and researching birth defects statistics. These grants are necessary since many States have no system in place for the monitoring of birth defects. This bill would also establish at least five regional research programs that would collect and analyze information on the number, incidence, and causes of birth defects. In addition, it would institute the Center for Disease Control as the coordinating agency for birth defects prevention activities by establishing a clearinghouse within the CDC to collect and store data on birth defects. The CDC would also be responsible for facilitating the coordination of research and policy development to prevent birth defects. But while efforts to prevent birth defects begin with education, the task of changing the behavioral patterns is far more difficult. While progress is being made in this struggle, there remains a great deal of work to be done. The findings of a March of Dimes study that was released this week provides a great illustration of this point. A simple 400 mg daily dose of the B vitamin folic acid could prevent 50 to 70 percent of all cases of spina bifida and anencephaly. The recent March of Dimes survey found that 66 percent of all women know the value of folic acid in fetal development, marking a 14 percent increase over the past 2 years. However, just 23 percent of all women reported taking a multivitamin before their pregnancy began. Women are learning about folic acid but not changing their behavior. As we all know, behavioral patterns do not change overnight, but if we continue to educate the population changes will occur, as evidenced by the fact that the number of women who smoke during pregnancy has dropped 29 percent since 1989. While there is nothing that can be done to prevent most birth defects, it is unconscionable that every day in America children are being born with illnesses that we could prevent, and in the most severe cases, children are dying. I urge my colleagues to make a commitment to fighting the problem of birth defects, and I ask that they join me in supporting the Birth Defects Prevention Act of 1997. cody groce

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1997. It seeks to correct the May 1994 Supreme Court Decision in the matter of Carbone versus Town of Clarkstown which has had a devastating impact on Connecticut and States around the country. This bill is very similar to the proposal that overwhelmingly passed the Senate in the last Congress by a vote of 94 to 6. It protects communities and taxpayers that have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to build economical and environmentally clean solid waste facilities --only to see those dollars now potentially lost because of the Carbone decision. Carbone held that towns and cities cannot control the flow of solid waste to facilities it has built or operated. In this bill, flow control authority, would remain with those communities that were operating or constructing disposal facilities or had contracted for such disposal prior to the Carbone decision. There is no prospective flow control; in fact, the authority would cease 30 years after enactment of the legislation. Approximately 35 States were adversely affected by the Carbone decision, which invalidated local flow control authority an issue that is vital to the fiscal soundness and public safety of States and localities. The Justices left it to Congress to reinstate flow control, and it is my belief that if Congress does not enact this legislation, States will continue to suffer environmentally and financially. State and local governments and State-created entities have a vested interest in how solid waste produced within their borders is transported and disposed of. Flow control is the backbone of Connecticut's integrated waste management plan. My State and many others had the foresight to plan ahead--to move away from landfills toward a more environmentally and economically sound system of recycling and waste-to-energy facilities. And it had been working. Localities made significant capital investments to construct expensive waste disposal facilities. In Connecticut, they incurred almost $750 million in debt. More than 80 percent of municipalities in Connecticut have contracts with the State's six waste-to-energy facilities. By 1991, the recycling rate had increased to 23 percent, but has remained flat since 1994. In 1989, there were 50 landfills, and today, there are only three, a sign of Connecticut's progress in devising a better way to dispose of its solid waste. Revenues from the facilities, used to pay off the bonds, were to be ensured by flow control authority. Without the ability to direct waste to appropriate facilities, these revenue bonds are in jeopardy. Municipalities entered into put or pay contracts--wherein they agree to dispose of a set amount of waste at a designated facility or pay a penalty. Now, after Carbone they are forced to pay for the shortfall created by trash moving to cheaper, less environmentally friendly disposal areas. Facilities in Connecticut are reporting tonnage reductions of more than 20 percent. That translates into hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenue from reduced energy production and tipping fees--what the waste haulers pay to dump the trash. At a time when Congress is working to ease the tax burden on working families, the Carbone case will cause taxes to increase for a great many Connecticut residents if towns are unable to meet their trash quotas. Citizens would be forced to pay twice --first, to have their waste transported, and again to cover the put-or-pay requirement. This legislation strikes an appropriate balance between the interests of communities who must dispose of their solid waste and the interests of the haulers paid to move it. I am confident that if we pass this flow control legislation, Connecticut municipalities, and localities around the Nation will be able to administer their solid waste management systems in environmentally sound and fiscally responsible manners. I understand Senator Chafee is currently working to craft legislation on this subject. I look forward to working with him and my other colleagues to resolve this complex problem facing our States and localities. Furthermore, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1997. It seeks to correct the May 1994 Supreme Court Decision in the matter of Carbone versus Town of Clarkstown which has had a devastating impact on Connecticut and States around the country. This bill is very similar to the proposal that overwhelmingly passed the Senate in the last Congress by a vote of 94 to 6. It protects communities and taxpayers that have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to build economical and environmentally clean solid waste facilities --only to see those dollars now potentially lost because of the Carbone decision. Carbone held that towns and cities cannot control the flow of solid waste to facilities it has built or operated. In this bill, flow control authority, would remain with those communities that were operating or constructing disposal facilities or had contracted for such disposal prior to the Carbone decision. There is no prospective flow control; in fact, the authority would cease 30 years after enactment of the legislation. Approximately 35 States were adversely affected by the Carbone decision, which invalidated local flow control authority an issue that is vital to the fiscal soundness and public safety of States and localities. The Justices left it to Congress to reinstate flow control, and it is my belief that if Congress does not enact this legislation, States will continue to suffer environmentally and financially. State and local governments and State-created entities have a vested interest in how solid waste produced within their borders is transported and disposed of. Flow control is the backbone of Connecticut's integrated waste management plan. My State and many others had the foresight to plan ahead--to move away from landfills toward a more environmentally and economically sound system of recycling and waste-to-energy facilities. And it had been working. Localities made significant capital investments to construct expensive waste disposal facilities. In Connecticut, they incurred almost $750 million in debt. More than 80 percent of municipalities in Connecticut have contracts with the State's six waste-to-energy facilities. By 1991, the recycling rate had increased to 23 percent, but has remained flat since 1994. In 1989, there were 50 landfills, and today, there are only three, a sign of Connecticut's progress in devising a better way to dispose of its solid waste. Revenues from the facilities, used to pay off the bonds, were to be ensured by flow control authority. Without the ability to direct waste to appropriate facilities, these revenue bonds are in jeopardy. Municipalities entered into put or pay contracts--wherein they agree to dispose of a set amount of waste at a designated facility or pay a penalty. Now, after Carbone they are forced to pay for the shortfall created by trash moving to cheaper, less environmentally friendly disposal areas. Facilities in Connecticut are reporting tonnage reductions of more than 20 percent. That translates into hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenue from reduced energy production and tipping fees--what the waste haulers pay to dump the trash. At a time when Congress is working to ease the tax burden on working families, the Carbone case will cause taxes to increase for a great many Connecticut residents if towns are unable to meet their trash quotas. Citizens would be forced to pay twice --first, to have their waste transported, and again to cover the put-or-pay requirement. This legislation strikes an appropriate balance between the interests of communities who must dispose of their solid waste and the interests of the haulers paid to move it. I am confident that if we pass this flow control legislation, Connecticut municipalities, and localities around the Nation will be able to administer their solid waste management systems in environmentally sound and fiscally responsible manners. I understand Senator Chafee is currently working to craft legislation on this subject. I look forward to working with him and my other colleagues to resolve this complex problem facing our States and localities. Furthermore, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD. I do not know Michael Jopling as well as our good friends from Alaska and South Carolina, but I have met him on numerous occasions, having attended a couple of the sessions of the North Atlantic Assembly with Judge Heflin, our former colleague. I remember when I left the other body, Mr. President, and came to the U.S. Senate, our former colleague and delightful raconteur, Morris Udall, pulled me aside and said, ``I want you to know I do not approve of your moving to the U.S. Senate. All I can say is by this move you have improved the intelligence of both bodies,'' and one might suggest I suppose here with our good friend Michael Jopling, being elevated to the status of Lord, that he is certainly going to improve the intelligence of that body. He is a wonderful person, a great individual, and I wish him well.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I want to begin by commending our colleagues from New Mexico and from New Jersey, Senator Domenici and Senator Lautenberg, for their herculean efforts on this budget process. This is a very difficult task. I had--I say guardedly--the privilege of serving on the Budget Committee for a number of years, and it is more of a sentence than a duty in many ways, considering the laborious task day in and day out of going through the number-crunching process. I feel a special sense of appreciation for the work of those who serve on the committee, and for those who lead the committee in the case of the chairman and the ranking Democratic member. I would like to take a few moments if I could to discuss just one aspect of this budget resolution, one that has already been addressed by Senator Lautenberg, the ranking Democratic member of the committee. It is a provision that started out as a rather innocuous suggestion that was adopted unanimously by this body as part of the budget resolution and then became the source, Mr. President, of some controversy over the last several days. But the issue has been resolved, due to the efforts of Senator Lautenberg, Senator Domenici and others, to the satisfaction of everyone, including the author of the original provision, and that is myself. The budget agreement, as we all know, was reached by the President and the Congress and includes a number of provisions designed to protect the priorities that Americans care about while ensuring that the budget would reach balance in the year 2002 and thereafter. One of the stipulations of the budget agreement specified that the cost of the tax cuts would be a net $85 billion over 5 years and a net $250 billion, one-quarter of a trillion dollars, over 10 years. There was a letter, in fact, signed by the majority leader of the Senate, Mr. Lott, and the Speaker of the House, Speaker Gingrich, and sent to the President. I quote it here: ``It was agreed that the net tax cut shall be $85 billion through the year 2002 and not more than $250 billion through the year 2007.'' As I say, this letter was signed by both leaders. I was surprised, however, Mr. President, when the budget resolution came to the floor more than 2 weeks ago with no mention whatever of the cost of the tax cuts over 10 years. The resolution fulfilled the first part of the agreement by instructing the tax-writing committees to craft legislation that would cost no more than $85 billion over the first five years. But when it came to the understanding on the $250 billion, that had been left out of the resolution, entirely. That is a large amount indeed, a quarter of a trillion dollars. Mr. President, in my view, again, I think this budget resolution is a good resolution. I offered amendments to shift some of the priorities here. I lost in that effort. I wish we had done more in the area of early childhood development, Healthy Start, Head Start, child care. I will still make those arguments from time to time. But there are improvements clearly in many important areas of this budget. Even though I disagreed in part with it, I think it is a good resolution. But the provisions on tax cuts left me with a great deal of concern because you could write the tax cut part of this budget resolution, much of which I agree with, in such a way that for the first 5 years the revenue losses would be limited to $85 billion. But we all know how to write these in such a way that the second 5 years they could blow totally out of proportion and we end up where we were in the mid-1980s, again looking at a huge deficit. I might add that even with my language, there is no guarantee that that will not happen after 10 years. But at least over the first 10 years with the agreement we have reached here, we are left with an assurance that that is not going to happen in the short term, and future Congresses will have an opportunity to examine how these tax cuts are working. So this new language that will be included in the agreement, I think, will be a major step forward. I should tell my colleagues what happened procedurally. My amendment to put in place a cap of $250 billion over 10 years was accepted on a voice vote. The distinguished Senator from New Mexico and my colleague from New Jersey agreed with the amendment. It was adopted. In fact, Senator Lautenberg enthusiastically supported the amendment. It ended up in conference, but there was no similar language in the House version. But then John Spratt, the distinguished Congressman from South Carolina, went to the floor on the House side and instructed the House conferees that my amendment should be adopted. To the credit of many of the Republican Members of the House, as well as Democrats, they agreed with John Spratt. So he carried overwhelmingly in a House vote to accept my amendment. So we were left with a situation where the House instructed conferees to take the amendment that had been accepted on a voice vote here, but for reasons that I will allow them to explain, the majority decided on our side that they could not continue to hold this amendment. Instead, they offered a compromise. That was a sense-of-the-Congress resolution that would limit the tax cut to $250 billion over 10 years, and require that the Joint Tax Committee and others would certify that we had not broken that ceiling of $250 billion over 10 years. In addition, a letter has been signed by our colleagues Senator Roth, the chair of the Finance Committee, and Congressman Archer, chairman of the Ways and Means committee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Roth and Archer letter be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. DODD. Let me read from that letter: Furthermore, we can assure you that, consistent with the May 15, 1997 letter from the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate to the President which stated, ``It was agreed that the net tax cut shall be $85 billion through 2002 and not more than $250 billion through 2007,'' the 10-year net revenue loss will not exceed $250 billion. This language confirms the agreement made by the President, the Senate, and the Congress, as well as the sense-of-the-Congress resolution and the certification. Some may argue you have given up, it is not exactly law. I do not see it that way. I am satisfied people have made their commitments, and those commitments have been confirmed. This letter has been signed by the two chairs of the committee, and that ought to be satisfactory enough for people that we mean what we say in these resolutions. What good is it going to be to have a budget in balance by the year 2002 that goes immediately out of balance in 2003 because we did not keep an eye on the tax expenditure side of this equation? So, with this new language that Senator Lautenberg and Senator Domenici worked on here, I am very satisfied this is a good resolution. I believe that those of us who have been concerned that this resolution, while balanced in the initial stages, could end up out of balance very quickly, have seen our concerns eased by this progress. So I want to thank once again the leadership of Senator Lautenberg, Senator Domenici, Senator Roth and Congressman Archer, as well as Congressman Spratt, for their work in this regard, and lastly just point out, Mr. President, I know that there are legitimate issues that have been raised by those who say, ``Well, what happens in the second 10 years? You can craft the tax expenditure provisions so they could end up pushing us out of balance in the second 10 years.'' I cannot argue with that. That could happen. We will have to look at it very closely. Obviously, the economy could change dramatically in 10 years. We may have to come back and revisit parts of this. So there are no reassurances for the second 10 and there are those who will lay out for you scenarios that show there is significant ballooning, if you will, of those tax cuts in the second 10 years. We may have to come back and revisit that. But by putting in the net cap of $250 billion over the next 10 years, I think we have done a great deal to avoid the kind of problem that occurred in the early 1980's when no such caps were put in place and we saw as a result of the 1981 tax program a major deficit created in this country. I voted against that 16 years ago. I am glad I did. I think I was proven correct by what happened. I think we have avoided any likelihood of that occurring, certainly in the short run, here, and we will have plenty of opportunities in the Congress to respond if for whatever reason that begins to happen later on. I thank the leadership and my colleague from New Mexico and the Senator from New Jersey for this agreement and look forward to supporting the resolution.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a group of outstanding students from my home State of Connecticut. Each of these young people has been recognized by the greater Hartford regional YWCA for essays they wrote on the elimination of racism. As authors of the winning essays, these young people attended the second annual ``In the Company of Women'' luncheon with featured speaker Maya Angelou. I was privileged to attend that luncheon and meet some of the essay contest winners. Their words have inspired me and I am proud to share some of their insight with you today. Danalyn Elder of Weaver High School in Hartford, says ``I do not consider color (except perhaps if I am saying it is beautiful.)'' Courtney Yuen of Hall High School in West Hartford talks about dreams ``* * * that offer a glimpse of a world without racism * * *'' Richardo Solomon of Bloomfield High School quotes Dr. Martin Luther King in considering whether people can ``* * * search deep down in their hearts to see a world without racism.'' In her winning essay, Julie Meslin explains that ``A world without racism would not be an easy place to live.'' Julie concludes, however, that * * * ``we would be pioneers in a movement that the human soul has longed for since the beginning of time. And it would be worth it.'' Frederick Jelks of Bloomfield High School describes the pursuit of a world without racism as a collective effort of individuals regardless of race or heritage. This effort, he explains, ``will not happen over night. The change will come about gradually * * * we may speed up that day when we can all kiss the glass of equality.'' In his essay entitled ``Color Me This,'' Greg Binstock of Hall High School considers the innocence of a young girl who loves all the colors of the rainbow equally and sees no reason to segregate the black and red pieces in a checkers game. In a moving biographical sketch, Radmila Khamzina shares her experiences with racism in her home country of Azerbaijan, and her insights on racism here in America. Cheryl Vasquez of Wethersfield High School also uses personal experiences to share her thoughts on a world without racism. As a Puerto Rican girl, Cheryl has felt the pain of racism. In the end, she concludes that ``A world without racism would be a world of more hope, a world of more dreams and a world of equality as God intended it to be.'' Samantha Allaire of Manchester High School discusses a world without racism in which all employees receive equal opportunity and equal pay. This would produce a ``more efficient and productive workforce altogether.'' In his short story about a world without racism, Jamilla Deria of Weaver High School imagines a scenario in which his ``Little Africa'' is inhabited by people of every nationality, living in harmony. In this world, Jesus has ``an afro and piercing black skin instead of having blonde hair and blue eyes.'' This seemingly mixed up world is, in the end, ``groovy man, real groovy.'' Simshindo Msola of Weaver High School talks about the devastating effects that racism has had on members of the black community. The elimination of racism would enable African- Americans and indeed all people to perform to their fullest potential and ``People would begin to have a positive and good attitude about themselves, and society at large would benefit and improve.'' Nayoka Rose of Weaver High School sees a world without racism at ``. . . the time of birth and death.'' Infants lay side by side in a nursery, regardless of color, creed or heritage, and at death we lay side by side as ``. . . death knows no color or race.'' Michelle Davis of Weaver High School imagines a world without racism in which we would not have war, fewer people would be incarcerated and more people would have jobs. This world, Michelle says, does not have to be a dream. Mizzara Belton of Weaver High School says that ``The thought of excluding racism from my world is a joy.'' She envisions a society where the color of one's skin would not affect the treatment you receive in a department store, your educational opportunities or prospects for employment. Finally, Kelly Citroni of Bolton High School considers those who have died as a result of racism. The holocaust and slavery might never have happened, there would be no Ku Klux Klan, and Dr. Martin Luther King would not have been killed at the hands of a ``. . . person prejudiced against his skin color.'' Our world, Kelly concludes, would experience ``dramatic change for the better'' without racism. I am extremely proud of these young people and their thought- provoking essays. Each student is able to describe the beauty of a world without racism while sharing personal experiences and dreams. These Connecticut students are well aware of the effects of racism. Most of them have experienced first-hand the pain of hatred and prejudice. Their essays, however, illustrate the hope that lies in each and every city throughout our great country. One must only stop to listen to the dreams of our youth to see that blossoms of hope and optimism are flourishing among us. These young people can help us appreciate that we do not have to live with racism. If we close our eyes and imagine all people are one, we can envision the joy of a world without racism.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I see my other colleagues here on the floor. I, too, wish to rise this afternoon and pay tribute to my friend and colleague from South Carolina. This past Memorial Day, we recognized the significant achievements and accomplishments of many Americans who sacrificed their lives for this country. In a matter of days, we will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the famous speech that Gen. George Marshall gave at Harvard University announcing the Marshall Plan on June 7, 1947. But this past Memorial Day, we also recognized a milestone achieved by our colleague from South Carolina, who became the longest serving Member in the history of the U.S. Senate. I was recalling the words of another famous American given in a Memorial Day address in 1884. Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, another great American known for his longevity, said on that day, ``Life is action and passion. It is required of a man that he should share the passion and action of his time at peril of being judged not to have lived.'' Mr. President, whatever else may be said about our friend and colleague, Strom Thurmond, he is a man of action and passion. That has been the history of his public life. It is a distinguished career that has covered so many milestones, many of which have been mentioned here this morning. One of his accomplishments which impressed me the most was the fact that at age 41, when a lot of people are preparing to play a round of golf, Strom Thurmond got into a glider and flew behind enemy lines on D-day as a volunteer. It was not required of him. He was not ordered to do it. But at that age he decided this is something he ought to do, to be a part of a major effort to retard one of the greatest threats in history, certainly in the history of this country, to democracy and freedom. A remarkable statement about an individual. I am also deeply impressed by the fact that he was elected to the Senate under four different banners: as a Democrat, as a Republican, as a Dixiecrat, and, the most impressive of all, as a write-in. The fact that citizens of the State had to go and write his name in, that they had to make the conscious decision to write his name on a ballot--it wasn't just a question of going in and supporting a political party-- but for people to consciously go in and write his name on the ballot was truly a remarkable achievement. It is something that I think clearly demonstrates the significance of the affection with which he is held. Senator Thurmond has had to tolerate many things during his Senate career, not least of which, he has had to put up with two generations of my family. One of the dearest friends my father had when he served in the U.S. Senate was the Senator from South Carolina. In fact, among the dozens of pictures I have hanging in my office's conference room, I have just two pictures with colleagues of mine. One of them happens to be a photograph which I cherish of myself standing with the senior Senator from South Carolina, which he very generously inscribed to me, and he made special mention of my father and their relationship. I am deeply appreciative of the loyalty and friendship which Strom Thurmond shared with my father, who has been gone these many years now, some 27 years. He passed away that long ago. But theirs was a wonderful friendship. They didn't always agree on issues, but they did agree on some matters. They agreed about the great threat that communism and Marxism posed to this country and stood shoulder to shoulder in that regard. While they disagreed on other issues, there was still a great affection. So today I stand here, not just as a colleague from Connecticut, but on behalf of a family that deeply appreciates the loyalty and friendship that Strom Thurmond has demonstrated over these many, many years. Let me just conclude because so many other things have already been said which I would endorse and second. Strom Thurmond and I don't always agree on the issues. We agree on some, but not many. But what I love about Strom Thurmond, and what I think America and what the people of his State love about him, is not his particular views on issues that come and go, that pass with the time; these issues that are temporal. What people love about Strom Thurmond, what his colleagues love about him, Democrat and Republican, is that he is a man who, as Oliver Wendell Holmes described, is a man of passion, action and conviction. Whether or not we agree with Strom Thurmond is really not the point. It is so refreshing, at a time when everyone seems to end up sort of muddled, that you have an individual who has deep, deep convictions and is willing to stand alone and defend them even when he is the only person in the room doing so. Even to people who disagreed with him over the years, he ought to stand, as I know he does to our colleagues, as a monument to principle, to individuality, to conviction and to that passion and action that Oliver Wendell Holmes talked about more than a century ago. Mr. President, I am deeply honored to be able to stand here today. When Strom completes this term, he will be 100. I look forward to standing on the floor of the Senate with him sitting here, celebrating that milestone with him, I hope, as his colleague. The fact that he has been sent back here by the people of South Carolina eight times through all sorts of changes in the political climate in this country is a great tribute to the people of South Carolina. But I think all of them would agree with me when I say it is a greater tribute and higher tribute to the man who represents that State and represents America in so many different ways. I am deeply honored to stand with my colleagues to pay tribute to truly an American original, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very briefly, let me explain, as I said when I offered an amendment earlier in the week, I intend to support this budget resolution. I think it is a good resolution. I commend the leadership for putting it together. There is some disagreement around the fringes. Fundamentally, this is a good agreement. I am impressed with the balance that is included in here. One of the ways this balance is accomplished is by limiting, of course, as we know, the size of tax cuts, both initially and in the latter years. The agreement entered into by the President, the majority leader, my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Lott, and Speaker Gingrich specifies tax cuts should cost no more than $85 billion in the first 5 years and no more than $250 billion over the 10-year period. I read from the letter signed by our distinguished majority leader and the Speaker. I quote from the letter, Mr. President: It was agreed that the net tax cut shall be $85 billion through 2002 and not more than $250 billion through 2007. As I said, this was signed by the majority leader and the Speaker. I was surprised, however, Mr. President, to learn that this budget resolution does not fully conform in a sense because there is no reflection of the $250 billion over 10 years. It does include the $85 billion over the first 5 years. There is no particular reason they should not be included. It was part of the agreement. In my view, the resolution ought to reflect the agreement. We do not specify, obviously, what is to be done. That is up to the specific committees; in our case, the Finance Committee; in the House, the Ways and Means Committee. All it does is conform to the overall agreement of tax cuts should not exceed $250 billion over 10 years. The absence of that reference in the resolution, I think, leaves open the question whether or not we are going to meet those guidelines. So, Mr. President, I offer this modification with reconciliation instructions so that the tax cuts are not limited to $85 billion but also be limited to $250 billion in 10 years. This language would be binding, but not in the sense of how it is done. We are not out of the woods, obviously, at the end of 10 years. There are reports we could have a ballooning problem, as we did after the 1981 agreement. I think by including the $250 billion here, it does conform very explicitly, as I said, with the letter. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the distinguished majority leader and the Speaker be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have an amendment that is on the list. I am going to do this very briefly to accommodate our colleagues who are anticipating a series of upcoming votes. The distinguished chairman of the committee has given me a couple of minutes to explain my amendment. It is at the desk.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, so my colleagues can appreciate this, this is not gamesmanship or trying to be cute about this in any way, but merely to have our reconciliation instructions conform to what the letter says we do. I think that would certainly put everyone at ease about the commitments we are all making to this resolution when it comes to deficit reduction. The great tragedy would be if we got to the end of 5 years and have no requirement that we try to limit it to $250 billion at the end of 10 years, and you have deficit reduction and balance for 1 year, and then it will explode out of proportion after that period of time. That is the reason for the amendment. I appreciate, again, my colleague providing me these few minutes to explain the amendment. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. I am sure the Senator from New Mexico will try. I say to my colleague, I think the cuts are there. If not, I will join him in an amendment.

Mr. DODD. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills which seek to address one of the most critical problems tearing at the fabric of American society: substance abuse. When we consider health care costs, lost time on the job, increased crime, and other related factors, it is estimated that drug and alcohol abuse cost this Nation more than $300 billion in 1993. While some efforts to address this problem have been successful, there is still a great deal of work to be done. The two bills that I am introducing, the Services for Children of Substance Abusers Act and the Substance Abuse Treatment for Adolescents Act, seek to provide additional tools for families to fight the battle of addiction and its debilitating social consequences. Addiction threatens the American family in several ways. The long term emotional health of an individual is shaped during childhood, and the children of substance abusers face numerous obstacles during their development. The children of substance abusers are typically deprived of the parent's attention and concern, and often the financial support to provide food, clothing, and shelter. In the most dramatic cases, children are exposed to substances prenatally and are deprived of a healthy future before they are even born. An estimated 7 million children are growing up with at least one substance abusing parent, and more than 200,000 women who gave birth in the United States in 1992 used illegal drugs at some time during their pregnancy. In addition, alcohol consumption by pregnant women has recently surged, despite public campaigns about the effects of alcohol on the developing fetus. Clearly these parents will need help if they hope to overcome their addictions and raise healthy children. Unfortunately, these parents often face several obstacles on the road to recovery. The basic problem with our current drug and alcohol treatment programs is that they fail to address the wide range of problems that addicted parents face. Many were physically or sexually abused as children. Many are victims of domestic violence. Many lack any formal job skills. Many will need child care assistance if they hope to enroll in a treatment program. Many fear that they will lose their children if they come forward for treatment. In short, these parents face several problems which extend far beyond their addictions. The Children of Substance Abusers Act is currently authorized in the Public Health Services Act, but it has never been funded. Today, I introduce a revised version of this legislation that seeks to give families affected by substance abuse somewhere to turn. The heart of the bill is the grant program which will provide $50 million for a comprehensive range of health, developmental, and social services to children, parents, and other family members. These services will enhance the ability of parents to access drug and alcohol treatment and promote family preservation, where appropriate. The bill ensures that all children whose parents are substance abusers can enter the program and receive a range of services. The legislation addresses another critical need by providing grants to train professionals, child welfare workers, and other providers serving children to identify and address the effects of familial substance abuse. For years we have talked about the impact of substance abuse on families. We have all visited the neonatal intensive care units, and we have all seen reports on children who were abused and neglected because their parents were on drugs. The time has come for Congress to respond to what is going on in this country and take an aggressive step toward alleviating these problems. The Children of Substance Abusers Act is critical to our efforts to reach out to those families that are struggling with substance abuse, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation I introduce today and fund this critical program. On another front, the increased prevalence of substance abuse among young Americans poses an additional public health crisis. Last year, the percentage of teens using drugs within the past month rose from 8.2 to 10.9 percent, and the rate of drug use among 12 to 17 year-olds has doubled since 1992. I am particularly disappointed to learn that Connecticut's students report higher rates of drug use than their peers nationwide. Annually, more than 400,000 Americans under the age of 18 are in need of treatment, and in Connecticut approximately 6,700 students need substance abuse treatment. However, young people have few places to turn. Most treatment programs are designed for adults, and there are limited resources available for the treatment of adolescents with drug and alcohol problems. Federal and state initiatives have focused on preventing children from becoming substance abusers. While prevention efforts are effective and necessary, they do not provide for those adolescents with substance abuse problems. In addition, most substance abusing adolescents have co-occurring disorders, such as depression, learning disabilities, post-traumatic stress disorders, and other health problems which make treatment even more challenging. The Substance Abuse Treatment for Adolescents Act seeks to create a funding stream for adolescent treatment. This would be the first time that any money has ever been earmarked specifically for adolescent treatment, setting aside an estimated $70 million annually to address this problem. This bill would also eliminate the need within the public system for adolescent providers to compete with other groups for scarce treatment dollars, thereby allowing them to focus upon the real problem: successfully treating adolescent substance abusers. Mr. President, this legislation marks a significant step on the road toward improved treatment for adolescent substance abuse. It tells families that we care about their children's health and well-being, and it sends a signal to those individuals who struggle to help our kids overcome addiction that their hard work is not for naught, but will soon be rewarded. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in strong support of the amendment offered by Senator Moseley-Braun to begin a vital undertaking--the rebuilding of America's crumbling schools. Mr. President, we all talk a good game here about children. We say time and time again that America's children are at the center of our efforts--be it education, job training, or tax policy. However, this amendment asks us to support more than rhetoric, it asks us to support the actual foundations of our schools. Unfortunately, our schools are in desperate need of help in this area. In the richest Nation in the world, we have schools without adequate heat or plumbing and leaky roofs. One-third of all students in this country go to school in buildings that are considered inadequate, and 60 percent of American students attend school in buildings that are in need of repair. There are schools just minutes from us here today, where whole sections of the school are unusable because they are too dangerous for children to be in. Beyond basic repairs, schools are also lacking electrical and telephone capabilities necessary to install computers in the classrooms. These problems are everywhere, but here are a few examples from my State. Seventy-seven percent of Connecticut's schools report a need to upgrade or repair on-site buildings to reach a good overall condition. Sixty-eight percent of schools report at least one unsatisfactory environmental factor, 32 percent inadequate roofs, 23 percent inadequate exterior walls or windows, and 29 percent inadequate electrical systems. One of the stated goals of our national education policy is to connect every school in the country to the Internet and teach every student to use the Internet by the age of 12. Well, I have heard from principals in my State who can only dream of computers in the classroom, and they simply hope to obtain a few telephones with voice mail capacity to improve communications with parents. Mr. President, this is a national travesty. We expect children to be ready for the 21st century, and we encourage them to stay in school, go to college, and work hard. But we are not keeping up our side of the bargain. Schools with no heat, plumbing that doesn't work, windows that don't open, and no capacity for technology--these are schools that fall short of anyone's expectations, particularly the expectations of our students. The amendment we are debating here today takes a modest step to begin to address this serious challenge. The General Accounting Office has estimated that over $110 billion is needed to repair our schools. This amendment would dedicate an additional $5 billion that would be significantly leveraged at the State and local level to $20 billion to begin this task and lead the way in this effort. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills which seek to address one of the most critical problems tearing at the fabric of American society: substance abuse. When we consider health care costs, lost time on the job, increased crime, and other related factors, it is estimated that drug and alcohol abuse cost this Nation more than $300 billion in 1993. While some efforts to address this problem have been successful, there is still a great deal of work to be done. The two bills that I am introducing, the Services for Children of Substance Abusers Act and the Substance Abuse Treatment for Adolescents Act, seek to provide additional tools for families to fight the battle of addiction and its debilitating social consequences. Addiction threatens the American family in several ways. The long term emotional health of an individual is shaped during childhood, and the children of substance abusers face numerous obstacles during their development. The children of substance abusers are typically deprived of the parent's attention and concern, and often the financial support to provide food, clothing, and shelter. In the most dramatic cases, children are exposed to substances prenatally and are deprived of a healthy future before they are even born. An estimated 7 million children are growing up with at least one substance abusing parent, and more than 200,000 women who gave birth in the United States in 1992 used illegal drugs at some time during their pregnancy. In addition, alcohol consumption by pregnant women has recently surged, despite public campaigns about the effects of alcohol on the developing fetus. Clearly these parents will need help if they hope to overcome their addictions and raise healthy children. Unfortunately, these parents often face several obstacles on the road to recovery. The basic problem with our current drug and alcohol treatment programs is that they fail to address the wide range of problems that addicted parents face. Many were physically or sexually abused as children. Many are victims of domestic violence. Many lack any formal job skills. Many will need child care assistance if they hope to enroll in a treatment program. Many fear that they will lose their children if they come forward for treatment. In short, these parents face several problems which extend far beyond their addictions. The Children of Substance Abusers Act is currently authorized in the Public Health Services Act, but it has never been funded. Today, I introduce a revised version of this legislation that seeks to give families affected by substance abuse somewhere to turn. The heart of the bill is the grant program which will provide $50 million for a comprehensive range of health, developmental, and social services to children, parents, and other family members. These services will enhance the ability of parents to access drug and alcohol treatment and promote family preservation, where appropriate. The bill ensures that all children whose parents are substance abusers can enter the program and receive a range of services. The legislation addresses another critical need by providing grants to train professionals, child welfare workers, and other providers serving children to identify and address the effects of familial substance abuse. For years we have talked about the impact of substance abuse on families. We have all visited the neonatal intensive care units, and we have all seen reports on children who were abused and neglected because their parents were on drugs. The time has come for Congress to respond to what is going on in this country and take an aggressive step toward alleviating these problems. The Children of Substance Abusers Act is critical to our efforts to reach out to those families that are struggling with substance abuse, and I urge my colleagues to support the legislation I introduce today and fund this critical program. On another front, the increased prevalence of substance abuse among young Americans poses an additional public health crisis. Last year, the percentage of teens using drugs within the past month rose from 8.2 to 10.9 percent, and the rate of drug use among 12 to 17 year-olds has doubled since 1992. I am particularly disappointed to learn that Connecticut's students report higher rates of drug use than their peers nationwide. Annually, more than 400,000 Americans under the age of 18 are in need of treatment, and in Connecticut approximately 6,700 students need substance abuse treatment. However, young people have few places to turn. Most treatment programs are designed for adults, and there are limited resources available for the treatment of adolescents with drug and alcohol problems. Federal and state initiatives have focused on preventing children from becoming substance abusers. While prevention efforts are effective and necessary, they do not provide for those adolescents with substance abuse problems. In addition, most substance abusing adolescents have co-occurring disorders, such as depression, learning disabilities, post-traumatic stress disorders, and other health problems which make treatment even more challenging. The Substance Abuse Treatment for Adolescents Act seeks to create a funding stream for adolescent treatment. This would be the first time that any money has ever been earmarked specifically for adolescent treatment, setting aside an estimated $70 million annually to address this problem. This bill would also eliminate the need within the public system for adolescent providers to compete with other groups for scarce treatment dollars, thereby allowing them to focus upon the real problem: successfully treating adolescent substance abusers. Mr. President, this legislation marks a significant step on the road toward improved treatment for adolescent substance abuse. It tells families that we care about their children's health and well-being, and it sends a signal to those individuals who struggle to help our kids overcome addiction that their hard work is not for naught, but will soon be rewarded. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a truly remarkable man who, on May 30, 1997, will celebrate his retirement after 38 years as an educator--Richard Lloyd Thompson, Sr. of Middletown, CT. Within every middle-sized town in America, there is a small handful of individuals that form the backbone of that community. Everyone knows and respects these individuals, because they are continually working to strengthen neighborhoods and help others. They always place the needs of others above their own, and they continually give of themselves to ensure that their hometown is a better place in which to live. Dick Thompson is one of these individuals. People like Dick Thompson are every bit as important to the city of Middletown, CT as major employers like Aetna, Pratt & Whitney, and Wesleyan University. He has helped to educate more than a generation of students in Middletown, and countless children and their families in this town have had their lives positively impacted by him. Dick has seen Middletown grow and mature before his own eyes. After teaching in the Hartford Public Schools for 10 years, he came to Middletown in 1971 to serve as the principal at Bielefield Elementary School. When Dick accepted this job, he entered a newly racially integrated school as the first nonwhite school administrator in the history of this school system. Through the strength of his own character, he was able to guide the school through a period of social uneasiness, and he has been an institution within the Middletown school system ever since. But Dick Thompson's contributions extend far outside the school. He has served on Middletown's Planning and Zoning Commission, their Charter Revision Commission, and their Salvation Army Advisory Committee. To illustrate the broad variety of his community involvement, he has been named an honorary deputy by the Middlesex County Sherriff's Association, and he has also served as a Middlesex County justice of the peace. I have been fortunate to get to know Dick personally through his involvement with the Democratic Party. He has been a local and State delegate for Middletown's Democratic Town Committee, and he has also served on Middletown's Democratic Nominating Committee. Despite the broad range of Dick Thompson's community service, the driving force behind all of his activities has been his concern for children. As someone who was orphaned at the age of 5, and who lived in an orphanage from ages 5 to 18, Dick is keenly aware of the needs of children and the positive impact that the surrounding community can have on a child's life. Dick sits on Middletown's Youth Services Commission, and he has taken a very active role in the lives of children through his service as a Deacon in his church. Dick has been a mentor for many children, and he has helped to instill these young people with a strong set of values that they will carry for a lifetime. As Dick approaches his retirement, I am certain that he would consider his commitment to his family to be his greatest accomplishment. Dick has been happily married to his wife Betty for more than 30 years, and together they have raised two wonderful children. Following in the family tradition, their daughter, Claudette Renee, worked as an educator of children and adults. She worked for Head Start programs in both Boston and Atlanta, and she currently serves as a technical director for an international corporation in Maryland. Their son, Richard, graduated from law school in 1994, and he is working as an attorney in the Washington, D.C. area. There is no greater source of pride for a parent than to see his children succeed, and Dick should be pleased to know that his pride in his children is exceeded only by their admiration for their father. Again, I want to congratulate Dick Thompson on his retirement, and I wish him the best of luck in all his future endeavors.