Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I am going to shortly yield the floor as well to my colleague from New Mexico, who is also a cosponsor of the amendment. Let me just address the issue of how does this get paid for. We are not allowed specifically here to target revenue sources, but I have tried to lay out in the amendment where the revenues will come from. One source is the foreign sales corporation, which most of my colleagues may be familiar with. This was set up back about 1981 or 1982, in fact, part of another budget agreement, done in a conference report. These are basically paper companies with very few employees, if any, in some cases that enabled American companies to exempt export income from U.S. taxation. That is about $24 billion over 5 years. The cigarette tax is another source here. I cannot dictate a specific revenue source in this amendment--I am prohibited from specifically directing the Finance Committee. But it would certainly be my intention, as we stated here, to take the $14 billion over 5 years from those sources. If you took a little bit from the foreign sales corporation--you do not have to take all of it--some from the cigarette tax increase, it would be easy to pay for this amendment to provide for full funding for Head Start, child care, and Healthy Start programs. My colleague from New Mexico is here, and I yield, Madam President, 5 minutes to my colleague from New Mexico. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. DODD. So with that, Madam President, I will send this amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I would like to spend a few minutes on the overall budget agreement. I know several of my colleagues have talked about it earlier today. I had the privilege of serving on the Budget Committee for a number of years with the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici, and my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, and my colleague from South Carolina, whom I see on the floor, Senator Hollings, and others. It was involuntary servitude, I would say. Serving on the Budget Committee was not a position that I sought at all. I was asked to go on the committee and I served there for a number of years. I enjoyed my service. But it can be a thankless task in many ways to be on the Budget Committee. So, I begin these brief remarks by commending the chairman of the committee and the ranking Democrat, Senator Lautenberg, for their tremendous effort. It is not easy to put these agreements together, this year in particular. Over the last several months, we have seen a major effort here to come up with a budget agreement that would bring the Federal budget into balance over the next 5 years. I commend them for their efforts. I must say that despite reservations that we all have, I don't know of a single Member of this body who wouldn't have written a different agreement had they been king or queen for a day. So I begin by complimenting my colleagues and endorsing their work with reservations. I will offer an amendment to do a bit better for Head Start, Healthy Start and child care issues. I support this agreement. Obviously, I am going to watch what happens in the amendment process and reserve final judgment. I respect, as well, my colleagues on both sides who will have strong feelings about this agreement. But, as it stands today, I think the authors have done a pretty good job with this budget agreement. In 1981, I voted against that budget agreement. In my view, that deal went way too far. As has been pointed out already, this agreement is vastly different from the 1981 agreement that created such huge deficits from which we still are recovering. In many ways, today's agreement is an effort to really try to solve the problem that began back almost 16 years ago with that vote and the problems which were created by that legislation. David Stockman, who many may have forgotten, was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget at that time. He has since written a wonderful book about that agreement, ``The Triumph of Politics,'' which I strongly urge my colleagues to read if they want to know the history of what happened in 1981 when this earlier agreement was reached causing the deficit to reach the magnitude that we have seen in the last number of years. So this agreement I think needs to be seen in a broader context. It is the culmination of a 4-year effort by the President and supporters in this body and the other to try to come up with a budget that would protect American families, that would allow us to reduce that deficit and reduce interest rates, which are like a tremendous tax people pay when they buy homes or automobiles. Obviously, as we have seen over the last several years, the declining deficit has contributed significantly to the growth and expansion in this country. When the President came to office 4 years ago we had an annual deficit of some $290 billion. That annual deficit has been reduced to $67 billion, a major achievement over the last 4 years that has brought significant prosperity to this country. We have seen 12 million new jobs created, the lowest average inflation since John F. Kennedy was President; median family income rise over $1,600, and the list goes on and on of effects of the improved economy in this country. Without this progress, obviously, we would never have what we have today, and that is the first credible chance in a generation to actually eliminate the deficit completely. I believe that we must take advantage of this chance, and that is why I will support this resolution, provided that it is not amended beyond recognition. It is a good framework for a budget that achieves real balance while protecting our Nation's most important priorities. It is, of course, as I said only a framework. We will have to see what the details will be before ultimate passage. Obviously, there will be two sets of debates, the one that we will go through on the outlay side, and then, of course, on the tax-cut proposals, the specifics of which we will not see until the fall, and that will be another debate. I myself am going to be interested, as my colleagues will be, to see the details of the tax plan that is passed by the Finance Committee. Any final tax bill should be designed, I think all of us would agree, so that its cost in the out years is limited. And I listened very carefully to the remarks of my colleague from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes. I know my colleague from South Carolina will address this issue in part. Their concerns should not go unheeded because there is a legitimate concern about what happens at the end of this process. And if we end up where we were at the end of the 1981 process, with an explosion in the deficit, obviously, we may look back on this agreement and wish we had done otherwise. But nonetheless, I think it strikes a good balance here with tax cuts in the education field. I for one might reserve any tax cuts until we actually got down to zero. I think there is a lot of legitimacy in that argument. But I accept the notion that that is not going to happen, that we are going to have some tax cuts here, and some, like the postsecondary education tax cuts, can actually be helpful to many families. I would note as well that in addition to these tax cuts, there are large increases in discretionary spending on education. For instance, the Pell grant is increased to a historic high of $3,000 a year. Many of us have fought for this program, which we think is tremendously important, for years. There also is real progress in the area of children's health insurance. Obviously, we will have a chance with the Kennedy-Hatch proposal tomorrow to do even more in that regard. But nonetheless, I would be less than honest if I did not commend the budgeters for doing a lot in moving in the right direction. Madam President, I think the budget agreement is pretty good and one that I think is going to help the country. This has not been an easy process. There have been weeks and weeks of discussion. I respect that. I also respect the fact that each and every one of us here as individual Members of this body have the right certainly and obligation where we disagree to offer some changes to this agreement. And so for those reasons I will be offering an amendment that will increase funding for Head Start, Healthy Start, and child care. These are three issues that I have spent a good part of my entire career in this body working on. In fact, the Presiding Officer and I, in years past, worked on a number of issues together, as I have with a number of my colleagues here. I never would have passed the original child care development block grant legislation if it had not been for my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, who joined in bringing that bill together. On the issue of Head Start, there have been a lot of people here who supported the efforts over the years to do more. I noted in this budget, there is a determination to serve 1 million children by 2002 in Head Start. That is certainly progress; it is an increase of 200,000 over where we are today. But I think we can do better over 5 years. We should ensure that all eligible children are served. We know it works so well and makes such a difference in children's lives. Particularly now with welfare reform, we are going to have so many more families that are going to need to have child care or Head Start. It is clear we are coming up short in this area. Serving 1 million children in Head Start is a laudable goal--but it is far short of what is needed. With this amendment over 1.4 million children eligible and in need would receive Head Start services. In addition, this amendment would triple the size of the Early Head Start Program, which serves that critical zero to 3 group. We see so many of these families now that have these new infants, with Early Head Start, we can make a real difference in these children and their families to provide them a safe, quality environment where these infants will be while the parents go to work. Welfare reform is all about getting people off welfare and into jobs. However, we know, and the Governors tell us, there will be tremendous need in the child care area. If we are going to move these families off welfare and public assistance into a working environment, there must be someone to care for these children. I do not know of anyone who disagrees with that. No one wants to see children wander neighborhoods or in makeshift baby-sitting operations. In every State, there are horror stories of what has happened when parents have left children unattended and uncared for. We have had dreadful stories in my State in the last year alone; some five deaths have occurred in these settings that are far from high quality. I am not suggesting you are going to solve every one of those problems, but at a most basic level, none of us here could come to work each day if we had a child that we did not have someone to care for. We would miss votes, we would miss committee hearings, if it were a question of placing our child in a unsafe environment. And there is not one of our constituents who would disagree with that. We would be indicted publicly for irresponsibility. This is a fine agreement, but we can do better in this area. This amendment would provide Head Start to 400,000 more children, it doubles the size of the child care development block grant and addresses infant mortality. When we are talking about $85 billion in tax cuts--and I do not disagree with that--do not tell me we cannot find over 5 years less than $15 billion to deal with Early Head Start, Head Start, Healthy Start, and child care so that these kids and families can really have the kind of support they need in their lives. That is the intent of this amendment that I am offering on behalf of myself, Senator Jeffords, Senator Murray, Senator Bingaman, Senator Well- stone, and Senator Landrieu to this resolution. We think it is a modest request to make. It is not as if we do not respect the work of the Budget Committee. I also feel we can do a bit better here. I support the hard work of those who put this agreement together, but let us not suggest somehow that this is totally inviolate. Some suggestions we might offer here would make this a better bill in our view. I think quality child care is one of those issue. I know very few of my colleagues who disagree with that. I know of no one who disagrees with Head Start, the work its done, and the Early Head Start Program. A few more dollars here, shaving off a bit on one end to provide a bit more on the other is really not too much to ask to make this agreement that much more worthwhile. Amendment No. 296 (Purpose: To improve funding of critical programs to assist infants, toddlers and young children by increasing the discretionary spending caps by $15.752 billion in outlays over five years and offsetting this effort by closing corporate tax loopholes)

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from New Jersey.

Mr. DODD. Yes, Madam President. If my colleague will yield, I would like to take a few minutes to discuss the budget proposal generally, and then I will be offering an amendment on behalf of myself and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] and others. We have not reached any agreement on time, but I am sensitive to the needs of the committee to move along. I don't intend to take a long time on the amendment.

Mr. DODD. If I could, I have discussed this with my colleague from Colorado, and we will defer at this moment and let my colleague from Colorado go first and I will follow. Amendment No. 293 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate about the Federal debt and that the President should submit a budget proposal with a plan for repayment of the Federal debt)

Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. DODD. Reserving the request, I withhold, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. This is not in line, I do not believe, on this particular amendment. There are no budget increases in the first year. I changed the amendment, and my colleagues may not have been aware of it, to comply.

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, I apologize to my colleague from New Mexico. What was the last part?

Mr. DODD. Briefly, Mr. President, the modification, as I pointed out a moment ago, obviously, under the way the budget agreement is struck here, we cannot dictate to the Finance Committee where revenues--that is up to the committee to decide. I listed various tax cuts that might be modified or increased to pay for the amendment. You have to offset it. I have listed a number at the end of the amendment. I have added the cigarette tax as one that could also be considered, obviously. So that is the modification I sent to the desk. I listed a couple of those already. As I said earlier, I think this agreement is a pretty good agreement. I began my remarks in offering the amendment by suggesting that I thought the members of the Budget Committee and others have done a good job, certainly, in this process, and the reason we are debating and voting is we have to offer our own ideas to it. My colleagues may reject the idea or accept the idea. I happen to believe that by doing a bit more, a little under $3 billion each year over the next 5 years, in Head Start, in child care, in Early Start, in Healthy Start, is in the best interests of our country. By doing so, by adding a bit more to the cigarette tax or lopping off some of the foreign sales corporation, a program that I think, in fact, we voted on, the billionaire tax cut I listed, 96 Senators voted, 1.6 billion it would bring in. Many times we voted on it. It is there. There are resources that would not in any way get to the issue of middle-income tax cuts that are also included as part of this agreement which I would support.

Mr. DODD. My point was, I say to my colleague from New Mexico, to try to avoid a point of order is the reason we modified the amendment. I am happy to make this a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, and I think that would then get us away from the point-of-order issue, and I would so modify my amendment to make it a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, in which case we can avoid.

Mr. DODD. I send a modification of my amendment to the desk.

Mr. DODD. I yield the Senator from Washington 5 minutes.

Mr. DODD. How much time does my colleague from Washington need?

Mr. DODD. There will no other points of order raised. I will just offer the amendment as proposed with the modification.

Mr. DODD. I accept that. I would prefer we didn't have a tabling motion. But I respect my colleague.

Mr. DODD. Let me have a quorum call so that I can make sure we have the modification correctly.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send the modification to the desk.

Mr. DODD. I think this modification of the amendment conforms with the conversation that I had with the Parliamentarian.

Mr. DODD. I will take 30 seconds. I respect immensely both my leaders, the chairman and the ranking member of the Budget Committee, and their positions on all of this. I understand their positions. I understand as well that, as Senators, we all have a chance to modify this resolution, hopefully without doing damage to the underlying agreement. This resolution is a 5-year commitment to our country. I thought it should also be a stronger 5-year commitment to our children. It seems to me that in the midst of everything else going on here, shifting around a little bit to accommodate those needs is very little to ask for America's kids. I understand again the leadership position on it. I respect it. I offered the amendment. I am one who supports this agreement, by the way. I am not out here to undo it. I simply want to make it better with this amendment. I regret that the leadership will oppose this amendment. But I respect that position, and urge my colleagues to support the amendment when the tabling motion is made.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. My intention was to offer an amendment at the appropriate time. I thought if I got here early, I would be high on the list, if not first, to offer my amendment. I will defer any comment on the bill itself and reserve time to offer an amendment favorably on the budget agreement that was reached. That is my purpose.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote for Senate Concurrent Resolution 6--a resolution disapproving the alarming human rights conditions in Afghanistan and highlighting the deleterious effects increased political strife has had on Afghan women and girls. Intensification of armed hostilities and the proliferation of human rights abuses have characterized Afghanistan for too long. In both the countryside and in urban areas nearly two decades of civil conflict and chaos have wreaked havoc and disaster on innocent Afghan civilians. And, unfortunately the likelihood of peace for Afghans seems to grow dimmer with each new political development. After successfully ousting the Soviet military in 1992, foreign threats to peace were almost immediately replaced by civil threats. Rivalries among political and military Afghan intensified the civil turmoil. Regional conflicts reached a new level of severity in September 1996, after the Taliban coalition seized the capital city of Kabul. Upon seizure of Kabul and approximately two-thirds of Afghanistan, the Taliban imposed extreme restrictions on civilians including banning music and books, and specifically prohibiting women and girls from working or attending school. Penalties for those who do not observe the Taliban's strict code of conduct have been extreme ranging from verbal abuse, street beatings, amputations, to death. Western journalists were quick to report the upsurge of human rights abuses, writing about the summary justice used to punish Afghans, and the unusually brutal methods by which the Taliban killed Mr. Najibullah the former President. Amnesty International and other non-governmental organizations reported on the severity of the human rights situation in Afghanistan and urged greater international attention. The United Nations created a special rapporteur on human rights in Afghanistan to monitor the situation more closely. Among all the accounts of human rights abuses in Afghanistan what has been particularly disturbing to me is the treatment of women and girls. Though under the Taliban women are no longer treated as spoils of war, women and girls have been subjected to a series of extreme restrictions including the prohibition to work, attend school, or leave one's home during the day. Without the ability to work, mothers, many widowed due to armed conflict, have no means to support their families. Without the ability to leave their homes to buy food, clothing, attain medical attention, women are unable to care for themselves and their families. Without education, girls are not being taught how to read or write-- basic skills necessary for adulthood. The conditions under which Afghan women and girls live is unacceptable, and I can think of no reasonable justification for such circumstances. Taliban leaders have been quick to point out in their defense that other political and military factions have committed numerous other human rights abuses. The Taliban is right to point this out. And while it is true that, none of the political factions vying for power in Afghanistan have thus far demonstrated a commitment to uphold international standards of human rights or decency. This does not diminish the gravity of those abuses committed by the Taliban, or the obligation of the international community to speak out against such abuses. The need for peace in Afghanistan is clear, but it is equally clear that peace will not be sustainable in an environment where human rights are routinely violated and disregarded. Internationally recognized rights such as freedom from torture, freedom of expression, and equality before the law regardless of race, gender, religion, or beliefs have long been absent in Afghanistan. Any ruling coalition, must know that the international community, and the United States in particular, will not turn a blind eye to a rights-abusive regime. Though, we, in the United States, can not singlehandedly solve the crisis in Afghanistan, for that is a process which must take place internally, we can and should do something. As a first step I have offered this resolution--a sense of the Congress which emphasizes the plight of Afghan women and girls, expresses support for the United Nations-led peace negotiations, and recommends that the administration re-evaluate United States policy toward Afghanistan. I believe this resolution will send a strong message to the warring factions in Afghanistan that the United States is deeply concerned about the deteriorating human rights conditions. Further I hope this resolution will provide some hope to Afghan women and girls who silently disagree with the Taliban's code of conduct. As the United States strongly supports an end to the armed conflict, we should emphasize that peace is not only defined by the absence of armed conflict but also the absence of human rights abuses. It has long been the experience of many other states that only with a rights- protective regime can there be any lasting prospects for peace.