Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Eleven billion dollars.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator. Madam President, the amendment I have sent to the desk that is under consideration basically says I think we can do a little bit more here. That is basically what it comes down to. As I said earlier, it is not to be offered to undo the budget agreement that has been struck by the committee along with the President. I respect and support that agreement. I think we can do a bit more when it comes to investing in our most important resource. Statements are made over and over on the floor of this Chamber, about America's children. I do not know anyone who would list a higher priority than doing what we can to serve the most innocent in our society, who have the most in front of them. There is no lack of people expressing an interest in the subject matter today. I recall going back some 15 to 16 years ago when Senator Specter of Pennsylvania and I formed the first children's caucus of the Senate. We had a difficult time, but we tried to convince people over the years that this was a worthwhile endeavor in which to engage on child care, on the issue of Head Start, and family and medical leave. No one would believe it today, but back then we had to fight hard just to form a caucas. Fortunately, we were successful in that effort as well as in the effort to pass critical legislation on issues affecting families and their children. Today, few argue against these initiatives. Most people agree in our society, as we look to the 21st century, that we want to give our children the best start they can possibly have. We cannot guarantee them success. No one can be guaranteed that in our society. But we want to guarantee them an opportunity. What we are talking about with Healthy Start, Early Head Start, Head Start, and quality child care is trying to give children a good start, the best start we can so they will at least have the opportunity for success. In that regard, the amendment I am offering increases funding for three children's programs that strike at the very heart of the most basic needs of children in our Nation: Head Start, Healthy Start, and child care. These three programs truly are sound investments and, I think, time tested. These are not new ideas. They have been around now, in the case of Head Start, a generation. We have had the benefit of analyzing the programs and know they work. In the case of child care, it has been over a decade, and Healthy Start, almost as long. We know from recent scientific findings that creative, positive environments for children in their earliest years is an investment that yields tremendous returns in the long term. We are now engaged in the process of laying out this Nation's priorities for the next 5 years. In addition to numbers, we are laying out where are our priorities, where do we believe the most important things that need to be addressed over the next half decade are. We managed to find $85 billion in tax cuts intended to spur investment. While I do not necessarily disagree with that, I think it can be tremendously helpful and important. But I believe we can certainly find an additional $14.6 billion over the next 5 years to improve the investment of children, and that is what I am talking about. This amendment would provide for full funding of Head Start by the year 2002. The President's budget and the budget agreement take a positive step in this direction by committing, as I said, to serve 1 million children over the next 5 years. That is up from 800,000 currently to 1 million in 2002, 200,000 additional slots. I think we can do better. This amendment would ensure that all eligible children who need Head Start will get it. By increasing funding to $11.2 billion in the year 2002, Head Start could reach over 1.4 million children. That is 400,000 more who would be reached than under the budget agreement. As my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, related the other day, in Albuquerque, NM, they have a staggering number of children waiting to get into Head Start and were unable to because the resources were not there. I am sure that story can be repeated in every State in the country, where parents are trying to get their children into the programs. Going from 800,000, where we are today, to 1 million, 1.4 million over the next 5 years ought not be an impossibility for us to achieve in this country. This amendment would also triple funding for Early Head Start programs to $560 million by the year 2002. This program, which my colleagues certainly recall, provides high-quality child development for infants and toddlers ages zero to 3. Again, I am preaching to the choir here, I presume, because of the tremendous amount of new information on this 36-month period that occurs in a child's life, to see to it that they get the quality care and development they need. This amendment that I have offered on behalf of myself and Senator Jeffords, along with others, would also make an investment in quality child care. It would double the size of the child care development block grant to $2 billion annually and provide an additional $500 million each year to help increase quality and meet supply shortages in critically underserved types of care, including infant care and nontraditional hours. I heard my colleague from Minnesota speak on the need for child care during nontraditional hours. Most people think of people working from 8 to 5. However, there are a vast number of people in our country who do not work traditional hours because of time shifts and so forth. We have very few child care slots for the nontraditional hours. We need to be doing everything we can as people are struggling to hold their families together economically to provide for that quality child care. Again, I say to my colleagues, when Senator Hatch and I initially offered the Child Care Development Block Grant Program 10 years ago, we made the point over and over again how important it is to working people that their children are in quality child care. The block grant provides vital assistance to working families as they struggle to meet these needs. But it is not enough; it is sorely underfunded. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that in the wake of welfare reform, there will be a $1.4 billion shortage in assistance for child care. This amendment provides an additional $1 billion for supply and another $500 million to address issues of quality and supply in key areas such as infants and the nontraditional hours. Again, as we move people from welfare to work, it is going to be critically important that we have these quality slots out there for people. So that is the second part of this amendment. The additional $140 million is for the Healthy Start Program. Let me just remind my colleagues, I think all of us, I hope, have had an opportunity to visit Healthy Start programs. These programs offer to at-risk mothers prenatal care and other services that have been tremendously successful in seeing to it that new infants and their mothers get the proper care. Again, the studies show how critically important this can be for children's cognitive and emotional development. Overall, this effort dedicates an additional, as I said, $14 billion to meeting the most basic needs of our youngest children. Healthy Start, Head Start, and quality child care are all about the earliest days. Obviously, the quality child care can spill over to school years, to after school programs, but nonetheless, the bulk of it goes to the earliest days of these infants' lives to see to it they have the best possible beginning. I realize $14 billion is not an insignificant amount, but over 5 years, that is less than $3 billion a year to fully fund Head Start, to double quality child care, and to provide more resources for Healthy Start. If we can find the $85 billion over 5 years, isn't it possible to find $3 billion less than that a year to make a difference in the lives of children from zero to 5 years? So tonight, as we begin this process, this very first amendment that will be voted on in this budget debate, to say we have done a good job here and we can do a bit more. In my view, this agreement must serve the children who we talk about endlessly, who we debate and discuss at every meeting. Here is to reset our priorities for children with just a few more dollars. We know it is going to be hard. We realize there are other problems we are faced with, but when it comes to our children, this Congress, this Senate will stand up and say we can find the resources to see to it that these children get the proper kind of beginning that they deserve. But don't look in the faces of innocent children and tell them we can't do a bit more. I know we are going to do a lot for people in the upper income levels, I understand that. If we can do that, we can do this and still balance this budget by asking for a little less in some areas for children, even though they don't vote, don't have political action committees, and don't participate in this process. With all the speeches that are given over and over again, this is the time to let rhetoric become a reality. Madam President, at the proper time, obviously, I will ask for a rollcall vote on this amendment and urge my colleagues to join Senator Jeffords and me in this bipartisan proposal. Senator Jeffords is the chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee and has worked on a number of these issues over the years. He has joined with me, as Senator Coats did, on family and medical leave and Senator Hatch on the child care legislation. With that, I yield the floor and invite my colleagues' comments. Mr. SMITH of Oregon addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, I don't know how many Members want to speak on this, and there may not be that many. So rather than trying to spend the time negotiating an agreement, why not let it roll a little while on the bill; we just got underway, and see how it comes out. We may not need a time agreement. There is probably going to be just on this amendment 45 minutes, just the three of us on the floor who I know are sponsors of the amendment, and I presume Senator Jeffords is coming over, and there may be a couple of others. So we will try to move quickly. It is not my desire--I understand what the chairman wants to do, and we will try to move as fast as we can. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. I will yield to my colleague.

Mr. DODD. Let me, if I can, briefly describe what the amendment does. I see my colleagues here who have come to the floor. I note the chairman standing. Is he looking for a time agreement? When a chairman stands, it usually means he is looking for a time agreement. Is my colleague from New Mexico looking for a time agreement?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent if I can modify it to make it a sense of the Senate.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I introduce the Federal Electronic and Information Technology Disability Compliance Act of 1997. In an effort to make it easier for persons with disabilities to work, this legislation will allow the Federal Government to take the lead in providing Federal employees who have disabilities with critical access to technological tools in the workplace. The Federal Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Compliance Act of 1997 strengthens Federal requirements that electronic tools and information technology purchased by Federal agencies be made accessible to their employees. Additionally, it would require States that receive Federal resources toward disability programs to meet accessibility guidelines when they purchase technology. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires such compliance, but currently there is no enforcement mechanism to assure that this is done. The House of Representatives today passed similar legislation introduced by Representative Anna Eshoo. Barriers to information and technology must be broken down. By giving Federal employees with disabilities the opportunity to utilize technological advancements, we provide them hope and encourage self- sufficiency. Additionally, I believe these new efforts will encourage the private sector to adopt similar procedures. Let the Federal Government provide a good example to the private sector in its efforts. Concrete examples of technological advancements that have aided persons with disabilities include: Telephones and fax machines with voice features for the visually impaired; voice mail that is converted for the deaf or hearing impaired; and CD-ROM or network-based information systems that can be equipped with audio descriptions of visual elements. Nationally, there are 49 million Americans who have disabilities. It is critical, Mr. President, that given the rapid introduction of new technologies, persons with disabilities not be allowed to fall behind. The more we can do to promote their equality, independence, and dignity, the better. I want to commend Mr. William Paul of United Technologies Corp., in my state of Connecticut, for first bringing this matter to my attention. Mr. Paul has identified a critical need among members of our society. His civic-minded actions deserve to be commended not only by people with disabilities, but by all Americans. Mr. President, I believe this a modest measure, that will improve the lives of the millions of Americans who have disabilities across this country and benefit our society as a whole. I hope to have my colleagues support.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Hope springs eternal.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Texas, and my Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, for yielding some time. Mr. President, I have some brief remarks, and I begin by commending the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, for offering what I think is a very thoughtful and reasonable substitute proposal before the Senate. I want to associate my remarks with those of my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, who spoke a few moments ago about the difficult decision that Congresses over the last quarter of a century have grappled with since the adoption of Roe versus Wade by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is never an easy issue. Mr. President, let me also state at the outset that I have deep respect for those who have differing views on this issue. By and large, people in this body have held out a great deal of respect for those with opposing views on this issue. It is not easy. There are those who take the position except where the life of the mother is involved, abortion ought to be banned. I respect that view. I disagree with it. There are those who take the view that abortion ought to be allowed under any circumstance during pregnancy. I respect that view. I disagree with it. What Senator Daschle has offered here today, I think, is a reasonable approach to dealing with the issue of postviability abortion. It does so by addressing concerns that have been raised over the years, putting aside the particular procedure which is the subject, of course, of the proposal being offered by our colleague from Pennsylvania. That is, it tries to limit and define the circumstances under which a fetus would be aborted in the postviability period. I say with all due respect, obviously with the exception of one of our colleagues, none of us are physicians. We are Senators. We are public figures. I have a great deal of hesitancy, Mr. President, to engage in debate and discussion on the floor of the U.S. Senate and to try to take on responsibilities where we lack expertise. What the proposal of our colleague from Pennsylvania suggests is that we ban a particular procedure. I respect that but I do not feel in any way adequately prepared to be engaged in deciding whether or not certain medical procedures are adequate or inadequate. I note that the College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, on behalf of some 38,000 physicians, has endorsed the Daschle proposal. I do not suggest that everyone has. I suspect there are those who disagree within the medical profession about abortion, just as physicians disagree about other medical issues, and just as there are those who are not physicians who have disagreements. But I believe that Senator Snowe and Senator Daschle, as I said, have offered a carefully crafted measure that will actually reduce the number of abortions performed in this country in the postviability period. I share the hope expressed by my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, a few moments ago. It appears there will not be enough votes to support the Daschle amendment. I hope that is not the case, but it may be such. I also hope that we will come to the point where this reasonable proposal becomes the position of the majority, if not unanimously, of Members of this body. There are those who have disagreed on this issue and will continue to do so, but if we can find common ground on this particular proposal where we would deal with the issue in a broader context than the issue of approaching this situation procedure by procedure by procedure by procedure, sitting here as a body trying to determine whether each and every one of those procedures is medically sound or proper or right. The procedure of abortion itself, no matter how it is performed, can be described, of course, in the most brutal terms, and all of us understand that. It does not mean, necessarily, that you are going to ban all the procedures at any time except, of course, if you subscribe to the notion that abortion ought to be banned from conception. So this proposal here, I think, does offer people of different views on this issue a chance to come together to do something in a positive and constructive way and deal with this issue in a much more generic way than the effort to do so on a procedure-by-procedure basis--an effort, by the way, that would not stop a single abortion. Mr. President, regarding the issue of the health of the mother, when a woman and her fetus are both healthy and the fetus is able to survive outside the womb, we should not and do not permit abortion. Roe versus Wade and subsequent decisions do not permit abortion in these circumstances. The Senator from South Dakota's legislation does not permit abortion--by any method--in these circumstances. But, we also recognize that a woman's life and physical health, when either is seriously threatened, should be protected. Tragically, that is sometimes the case when a woman is in the later stages of pregnancy. Thankfully, such instances are rare. But they do occur. And when they do, abortion is sometimes the only way to save the woman's life or preserve her health from grievous, lasting, physical damage. I cannot turn my back on women who, along with their husbands, desperately want the children with whom their are pregnant and then tragically find themselves with their physical health at grievous risk. Such cases should be excepted under a ban on post-viability abortions, and that is what the Daschle proposal does. Some argue, Mr. President, that there are never health circumstances that would require partial-birth abortion. Others say that post- viability abortions are never necessary. Viable babies, they argue, can just be delivered. Mr. President, in those cases where the mother faces a serious health risk and a viable baby can still be delivered alive, it is. But sadly, that is not always the case. As the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has explained, after viability, ``terminating a pregnancy is performed in some circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the mother.'' The Senator from South Dakota, along with the Senator from Maine, worked very, very hard to craft language here that would ban post- viability abortions except to deal with life endangerment or grievous, serious, physical conditions. That is an effort reached through serious consultation. I think all of our colleagues here, as the Senator from Tennessee indicated earlier, have deep appreciation for the time and effort that the Democratic leader has put into this effort. This was not legislation or wording crafted by staff here trying to come up with some words that would make all of us feel comfortable. Rather, the Senator from South Dakota went about the business of asking people all across this country who are knowledgeable to define language which they could support and could relate to. The fact that the College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supports this language, I think, is a good indication that they feel comfortable that this would do what the Senator wants to do. They do not necessarily agree with what he wants to do, but they believe they can function as medical professionals and define clearly what must be done. The fact there is a certification process here is important. The suggestion that this certification is somehow going to allow for widespread violation of the ban is, I think, mistaken. As the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, my colleague, pointed out, a certification process which would place in jeopardy the medical license of a physician has to be taken very, very seriously. I cannot believe that the overwhelming majority of doctors in this country, when considering whether or not circumstances existed which would warrant having a postviability abortion, would not want to know very, very carefully whether or not those circumstances were being met as dictated by the substitute of the Senator from South Dakota. I don't think any doctor would violate this ban when doing so would mean loss of his or her very livelihood. I believe this is a real solution. I believe it would make a difference. I believe it would give this body an opportunity to really speak in a far broader and meaningful way on this issue that I think the Nation would applaud. There will be some who obviously disagree with this because they think it does not go far enough, others who think this goes way too far. But from my point of view, Mr. President, I think this strikes the reasonable balance and reflects where most people are on this issue. None feel terribly comfortable with this. I know of very few who enjoy any sense of comfort in discussing, or considering even, this issue. So, today, we are given an opportunity to do something meaningful on this, not on a procedure-by-procedure basis, but to deal fundamentally with the issue of what and how a woman, her doctor and her family can act under the most serious and troublesome circumstances. I applaud the Senator from South Dakota for this effort. I support this effort. I hope my colleagues will do so, as well.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize the past success of the CFE Treaty and to stress that, in order to continue that success, this body must now offer its advice and consent for the CFE Treaty's Flank Document. Since the CFE Treaty entered into force in 1992 it has made Europe a safer place; not just because it has resulted in the removal or destruction of over 53,000 items of major military equipment; not just because it has enabled international inspectors to undertake nearly 3,000 on-site international inspections; but, above all, because it has fostered a sense of trust between NATO and Russia. Now, as we move to build on that sense of trust and deal with Russia as a new democratic state rather than an old arch-enemy, it is only fair and proper that we address Russia's concerns with respect to some of the arcane provisions of this treaty. The CFE Treaty, as written, establishes zones on an old cold war map, a map drawn before the breakup of the former Soviet Union. The pending revised Flank Document updates alters some of the provisions of this treaty to reflect the fact that we're now dealing with a new map. Clearly the Flank Document does not address all the issues that we must face in adapting the CFE Treaty to the new situation in Europe, but it is a fine first step. The conditions in the resolution of ratification are, for the most part, thoughtful and necessary. I also support the amendment, offered by Senators Kerry and Sarbanes, clarifying condition 5 as it relates to Armenia. Without this amendment, section F of condition No. 5 would have required the President to submit a special report to Congress regarding whether or not Armenia has been in compliance with the CFE Treaty, and, if not, what actions the President has taken to implement sanctions. Why should we single out Armenia? Without the amendment, the language assumed that Armenia and only Armenia violated the CFE Treaty and should suffer sanctions. This amendment was added in the interest of fairness and simply asks the President to examine compliance of all States Parties located in the Caucasus region rather than singling out Armenia for special treatment. While the amendment ameliorates one problem with the resolution of ratification, I have another misgiving about another condition that was adopted by the Committee on Foreign Relations during consideration of the treaty last week. Condition No. 9 would require the President to certify that he will submit to the Senate, for its advice and consent, the agreement to multilateralize the 1971 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. I am of the same mind as my distinguished colleague, Senator Biden, on this issue. While the Senate does not prohibit itself from attaching unrelated conditions to resolutions of ratification, the Senate should exercise some self-restraint in such important matters. The Founding Fathers clearly distinguished the question of treaty ratification by requiring a supermajority in such cases. This is not every day legislation we're dealing with here. We're debating whether or not to ratify a treaty, and this attached, unrelated condition really has no place in today's debate. In short, condition No. 9 links ratification of the Flank Document with the unrelated, but controversial 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty debate. There are merits to both sides of that issue and that debate will surely have its time. This is the wrong way to move that debate forward. Let us be certain of one thing: The Senate, with condition 9, interferes with what has long been a function of the executive branch. In the breakups of the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Ethiopia, when the new States took on the treaty rights and obligations of their predecessors, no request for Senate advice and consent was sought. I ask my colleagues: Why are we treating the ABM Treaty differently? In spite of my objection to condition 9, this treaty and its resolution of ratification are too important to be bogged down today over a debate on the ABM Treaty. I believe that the appropriate course of action is to ratify the pending Flank Document this is a reasonable initial adjustment to the CFE Treaty. In doing so, we will also show Russia that we are willing to work with Russian officials in facing legitimate concerns, and, most importantly, we will maintain the viability of this valuable 30-nation agreement.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with a simple message, a message to the Government of China to release Wei Jingsheng. Who is Wei Jingsheng? Born in China, Wei Jingsheng is a dreamer, a political activist, a writer, a silenced leader, an inspiration, a nurturing older brother, and one who possesses an unparalleled faith in democracy and its place in modern China. He is the kind of man who if living in America would undoubtedly grace these Halls. But Wei Jingsheng does not live in the United States, he lives in China, where the courage of his convictions have not been appreciated, in fact quite the opposite, Wei Jingsheng has been severely punished. In speaking out for democracy and reform, Wei Jingsheng has suffered great consequences--consequences including nearly 18 years of solitary confinement, torturous treatment, the lack of medical attention, and numerous other methods known to squelch a man's spirits and weaken his convictions. Now that we know about his punishment, let us consider Wei Jingsheng's crimes: numerous writings on democracy, a series of letters to China's paramount leader Deng Xiaoping before his death, communicating with foreign journalists, participating in the 1979 Democracy Wall movement, and most recently meeting with John Shattuck, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor in 1994. Frankly, these do not strike me as crimes, or actions that warrant any sanctions by the state, and most certainly are not at all commensurate with the punishment Wei Jingsheng has endured. Respect for human rights is an international concept. We only need look to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to see a sample of the international consensus on human rights. While China may resent United States scrutiny on this topic, we do in fact have a legitimate right, as well as a moral obligation, to call for improved conditions. We can and should have a human rights dialog with Chinese leaders, and I encourage the administration to make more opportunities for such high level discussions to take place. Wei Jingsheng is reported to be near the end of his life--a life of struggle and hardship. His recently published book ``The Courage To Stand Alone: Letters From Prison and Other Writings'' underscore Wei Jingsheng's struggle to promote democracy in China. I stand with my other colleagues in the Senate today to encourage the Government of China to immediately release Wei Jingsheng.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the legislation before us today to reauthorize the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. It is a strong, balanced bill. One that I am a proud cosponsor of and one that I believe we should all be proud to support. Getting to this point has not been easy and I would like to thank our majority leader, Senator Lott, Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, Senator Harkin, and others for all of the time they have invested in putting together this strong and balanced bill and for assigning it such a high priority for consideration by the full Senate. There has been a great deal of debate about this bill in the last several years. But one thing is very clear. In its over 20 years, IDEA has made an incredible difference to millions of American children, their families, and society as a whole. Before the passage of this landmark legislation, children with disabilities were frequently excluded from schools, and some had absolutely no opportunity for education at all. Expectations for these children were low. Not only was great potential undervalued and lost, but also we lost as taxpayers who often picked up the tab for a lifetime of support. State and communities were struggling with increasing litigation and state court rulings requiring them to serve all children in the schools. IDEA brought us all together--the Federal Government, States, local communities, schools, parents and students--behind a firm commitment, a promise to meet the educational needs of children with disabilities. Since that time, we have made huge improvements in affording children with disabilities the same opportunities open to other students. Today, more than half of all students with disabilities go onto college and 57 percent of youth with disabilities are competitively employed within 5 years of leaving school. These students go on to good jobs in every sector of our economy. Not only are they workers, they are taxpayers. But the impact of IDEA is broader; it works for all students. Nondisabled students live, work, and learn alongside all the members of their community. Those are skills that over the long run make our whole society stronger. Unfortunately, over the last several years, concerns have been raised about IDEA--concerns about cost of services, discipline, the low Federal contribution, litigation and inclusion. There is no question, it has been a difficult few years. But we have something to show for all the debates and questions: this bill. One thing has not changed in this bill--children with disabilities remain at its core. But in this reauthorization, we have improved IDEA to ensure that the law does not stand in the way of meeting children's needs. Administrative requirements are clarified and streamlined. Discipline procedures, which have been the focus of so much attention, are modified to provided school officials with additional tools to ensure the safety of all children. Mediation systems to resolve disputes about the placements of children are required in each State. We also clarified that attorney's fees are not allowed during the development of the Individual Education Plan or in pre-complaint mediation. In addition, parents must provide school districts with more detailed information on their concerns to avoid protracted legal battles. This bill also better defines the role of other partners in the effort to meet these special needs. Regular classroom teachers are clearly defined as part of the students' IEP team. The parents' role is strengthened or clarified. In addition, states have new authority to collect from noneducational agencies for noneducational services, such as speech therapy. The IDEA bill before us also provides new enforcement tools for the Department of Education to ensure that this law is properly implemented and enforced. Beyond the larger issues, there were several issues of deep importance to me that I am pleased to see in this final bill. Language is included reaffirming the importance of braille instruction to students with visual impairments. The bill also reauthorizes a program providing support for an unique and wonderful effort, the National Theater of the Deaf. The Theater, which is based in Chester, CT, has traveled across the country and world inspiring and entertaining hearing and nonhearing audiences. Mr. President, fundamentally, this is a good bill--a strong bill that will guarantee us the full potential of all of our children. I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in strong support of this effort. Section 685 Coordinated Technical Assistance Dissemination--National Clearinghouses

Mr DODD

Mr DODD. Mr. President, I am proud of the many distinguished people, places, and enterprises in my great State of Connecticut. One of them is a company in which innovative spirit, entrepreneurial zest, and good will combine to create products that truly make our lives better. I am speaking of HelpMate Robotics of Danbury, CT. HelpMate invented and manufactures the first hospital care robot. The robot performs tasks such as delivering food, medicine, and lab samples, so that nurses and orderlies can concentrate on what they do best: caring for patients. Many hospitals are relying on HelpMate's hospital robot to cut costs while improving patient care. HelpMate's success is due largely to the vision of its founder, Dr. Joseph Engleberger. Dr. Engleberger is widely known as the father of the industrial robot. After building a successful company around the hospital robot, he and HelpMate are now developing an elder-care robot that would help older or infirmed people live at home independently. Mr. President, I speak about this company and its products today not just to share a home State success story, but to make the larger point that research in one sector often leads to applications in several others. Such cost-effective investments of Federal research dollars ought to be encouraged. The HelpMate hospital robot and anticipated elder-care robot exemplify such a process. The technology they use was initially born out of research for space robotics funded by a NASA Small Business Innovative Research award, and this same technology will ultimately help drive down health care costs. I urge my colleagues to read more about this company and their remarkable work in the March 3, 1997, Business Week article that I now submit for the Record. The article follows: [From Business Week, Mar. 3, 1997] Invasion of the Robots (By Otis Port) At age 71, Joseph F. Engelberger knows time is running out on his lifelong ambition. He is already acclaimed around the world as the father of the industrial robot. But the workaholic chairman of the HelpMate Robotics Inc. in Danbury, Conn., would rather be remembered as the father of the home robot. ``Common sense tells you it's got to end up a bigger market than factory robots,'' he says. Don't expect the Smiths and Joneses to turn their housekeeping chores over to a robot soon. The first model-- which Engelberger has promised to his wife, Margaret, even though she's not crazy about the idea--won't roll off an assembly line until 30 months after Engelberger amasses at least $5 million to finish development. ``The clock starts ticking when I get the money,'' he says. People who know Engelberger figure he'll pull it off. ``Joe is a very charismatic guy,'' says Brian R. Carlisle, president of robot maker Adept Technology Inc. in San Jose, Calif. ``He's really able to make you believe in his visions.'' Just ask his kids. Daughter Gay, age 41, is HelpMate's marketing director, and son Jeff, 38, is an engineer at Adept Technology. ``When you grow up with someone like him,'' Gay says, ``how could you not want to get into this business?'' Investors also are under Engelberger's spell. In January, 1996, HelpMate's initial public offering was a sellout, even though the company had an accumulated deficit of more than $13 million. Why are so many people rooting for Engelberger? Because without him, Detroit auto workers might still be welding and painting cars by hand. Today's robot industry stems from a 1956 cocktail party in Westport, Conn., where science-fiction fan Engelberger met inventor George Devol. When Devol mentioned he had applied for a patent on a punch-card- controlled mechanical arm for doing repetitive jobs in factories, Engelberger was hooked. He persuaded his employer, Consolidated Controls Co., to buy Devol's patent. The first prototype dubbed Unimate, was finished in 1959 and went to work unloading a die-casting machine in a General Motors Corp. factory. But two years later, Consolidated lost interest and told Engleberger to close his shop. ``I went to Barnes & Noble and bought six books on finance--and earned my MBA over the weekend,'' he quips. On Monday, he proposed a spin-off and was given four months to find a backer. He did, and Unimation Inc. was born. Sputtering. During the 1960s, Engleberger fought an uphill battle to persuade skeptical U.S. manufacturers to employ his programmable arms. He got a warmer reception in Japan--and Japanese robot makers quickly rose to world domination. Among Japanese managers, Engelberger is ``a legendary figure,'' says Shikgeaki Yanai, a researcher at the Japan Robot Assn. Unimation held its own against the Japanese, but in 1983 its cash-strapped owner, Condec Corp., sold the company to Westinghouse Electric Corp. for $107 million. ``They picked a great time to sell,'' notes Engleberger. America's U.S. robot business soon sputtered, after dozens of companies jumped into the market and sold some systems that didn't live up to promises. Sales peaked in 1984 at $484 million, then headed south. Engleberger had hoped Westinghouse would see an opportunity in home robots. When it didn't, he quit and bought a 62-foot, $800,000 sailboat with part of his $3 million take from Unimation's sale. He planned to enjoy life as a gentleman of leisure. That lasted for two months. ``I got bored pretty quick,'' he admits. In late 1984, he formed HelpMate, initially called Transitions Research Corp. To pave the way for home robots, Engelberger decided to use hospitals as a test bed. In 1988, he sold his first medical unit to Danbury Hospital, which now has two. They roam the hallways running errands--delivering medications, meals, X- rays, and patients' records. Handing these chores to machines frees more time for nurses and orderlies to concentrate on caring for patients, says HelpMate President Thomas K. Sweeny. Word of HelpMate's robots is spreading. Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas has 4 machines, with 11 more on order. All told, 144 have been hired by 85 hospitals in the U.S. Canada, 18 in Japan, and 10 in Europe. Purchased outright, the robots cost $110,000, so most are rented for $4 to $6 an hour. Outwardly, the 4-foot-6-inch robots resemble the box-on- wheels systems that carry the mail in some offices. But there's a crucial difference: A HelpMate doesn't follow a fixed track, such as a wire in the floor. Instead, its electronic memory contains a floor map of the hospital. When summoned by radio or pointed to a location on a built-in video screen, the robot's microprocessor brain calculates the quickest way to get there. En route, the robot uses infrared and ultraviolet beams to dodge people, food carts, and gurneys in busy corridors, and it summons elevators and opens doors with radio signals. Sweeny says large hospitals can economically justify one HelpMate for every 100 beds, so ``our total potential market in the U.S. is 10,000 robots.'' But that number would leap if the robots had arms. Then they could make beds, help patients out of bathtubs, and relieve nurses of other menial tasks. These expanded capabilities would also be needed in home robots, which is why HelpMate with arms are next on Engelberger's list. Once HelpMates have been fitted and arms, they could be programmed for such household chores as cooking, washing dishes, and sweeping. Considering the precision factory jobs that Unimation's arms still perform using yesterday's technology, Engelberger foresees no major hurdles in creating household robots. And his chances of attracting a backer are looking up. In 1992, the U.S. robot business finally turned around. Lately, sales of industrial robots have been posting successive all-time highs (chart). In 1995, American industry found jobs for 10,198 steel-collar workers worth $898 million, according to the Robotic Industries Assn. Now that industrial robots have recovered their sparkle and HelpMate has moved into bigger quarters--Unimation's former home--Engelberger is eager to launch an elder-care robots. Most old folks who enter nursing homes are mentally alert and healthy, Engelberger notes. ``They just aren't nimble enough to care for themselves.'' All the technology developed for patient care would be useful for elder-care robots. Adding certain repetitive household jobs, such as loading the dishwater or microwave oven, would be fairly easy. Others, including meal preparation, might involve special-purpose attachments. And for finding packaged foods, the robot could have a built-in bar-code reader. Even a $100,000 home robot would soon pay for itself by enabling people to stay out of nursing homes. With the population quickly aging, demand could surge, bringing down costs to ``something more in line with the cost of a car,'' says Sweeny. Guess who Engelberger thinks should market them? ``If the auto makers want to diversify, they need a product that sells at roughly the same price point and in the same volume,'' he says. Next, the father of the industrial robot hopes to become the proud papa of Chevybots. Hondabots, and Volvobots.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, I say to my friend from Ohio, I am in a bit of a time crunch. I need 5 minutes. I do not know what your schedule is like.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I would urge my colleague not to travel too far. I was about to talk about a bill we are working on together. Let me begin by thanking my colleague from Ohio. I will be only a few minutes here. I will try to be brief.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Ann Petry's father was a pharmacist who opened up a pharmacy in 1902 in Old Saybrook, CT. Although she learned the pharmacy trade from her father, her contribution, of course, was in literature. Her famous novel, ``The Street,'' written in the 1940's, was a remarkable piece of journalism that is still read today by younger generations. She followed that novel with two others that received wide recognition, ``The Narrows,'' and ``A Country Place,'' about a Connecticut town that many thought could be Old Saybrook. She wrote a number of short stories and articles. Ann Petry was truly a very remarkable person. She did not have much use for fools and academicians, she once said, and she said she was usually speaking about one and the same person when talking of fools and academicians. I do not know that I agree, but she was a person of curt opinion, straightforward talk, and was well admired and loved in the town of Old Saybrook. Her contributions to literature have brightened the lives of many, many people. We express our sorrow for the loss of Ann Petry.

Mr. DODD. Ironically, in the same town of Old Saybrook, CT, we have a sadder piece of news about a wonderful constituent of my State. Ann Petry, an African-American writer whose life is described in an article by David Streitfeld last Saturday in the Washington Post, has died. She was well into her nineties at the time of her death and was truly a remarkable person. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I join my colleague in commending our colleague from West Virginia. For those of us who were here on the floor of the Senate, we had the privilege once again to listen to our distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from West Virginia, eloquently describe the great institution of motherhood and its great contribution made to this great Nation. I recommend everyone in this country, if they did not hear the Senator from West Virginia, that they might read the Congressional Record and enjoy the benefit of his remarks.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I join together with my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, in recognizing the birthday of an individual with whom we are all familiar. Our constituent in Connecticut, Katharine Hepburn, will turn 90 on Monday. She probably will not be happy to have her Senator reveal her age on television. Katharine Hepburn is a national treasure. We take pride in the fact that she is a native of Connecticut, of Hartford, and today lives in Old Saybrook. She is world renown and has made a great contribution to the arts. At the Bushnell Memorial in Hartford, where there is a ``wall of fame,'' she scribbled next to her name, ``Local girl.'' We cannot say that about everyone on that wall. She has a career spanning seven decades and is the only person in the history of film in this country who has received 12 Academy Award nominations. She won four awards, for ``Morning Glory'' in 1933, ``Guess Who's Coming to Dinner,'' ``Lion in Winter,'' and ``On Golden Pond.'' She won three Oscars after she turned age 60. For people in this country who wonder whether you can have a productive life after the age of 60, certainly Katharine Hepburn offers vivid proof that productive years lie ahead. On behalf of all of us in Connecticut, Mr. President, and my colleagues here, we wish Miss Hepburn a very, very happy birthday.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise here this morning to comment on a piece of legislation that my colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, and I introduced actually a few days ago, but because of the pressing nature of the business on the floor of the Senate, did not get a chance to actually discuss it here. I would like to describe what we have introduced and urge our colleagues to join us in this effort and urge the administration to join us as well. The legislation we introduced is called the Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. It is a piece of legislation that we think has great value. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, only one-fifth, or 20 percent, of all drugs on the market in the United States have been tested for their safety and effectiveness in children. Children are not simply smaller versions of adults. Their bodies actually metabolize drugs quite differently as they grow older. The lack of information about how drugs work in children can place pediatricians in an untenable position. They can either prescribe powerful drugs for their young patients that have only been tested in adults or they can deny them access to life-saving therapies. This dilemma is dramatically illustrated in the case of children with AIDS. The hopes of tens of thousands of adult AIDS patients were raised last year by the promising benefits of protease inhibiters. However, the families of very young children have much less to be hopeful about. None of these drugs is yet approved for newborns and infants. This is despite the fact that the earliest days of a child's life may be the most promising time to reverse the effects of HIV. As unbelievable as it may seem, physicians are forced to treat these children without the benefit and guidance of research. Even in adults, getting the proper dosage of these powerful drugs is tricky indeed. Too large a dose can cause severe side effects; too small a dose can make the HIV virus mutate into a far more dangerous, drug-resistant strain. In children, the effects are compounded. A full- strength dose can kill a toddler. Other examples of this problem, Mr. President, are also quite disturbing. Despite the fact that asthma is one of the most common chronic illnesses in children, and the most common cause of children's admissions to hospitals all across this country, there is only one asthma drug that has been tested for children under 5 years of age. In fact, my colleague from Ohio personally and eloquently related a situation with one of his own children who has asthma that I am sure he will comment on at some appropriate time. It is alarming that with asthma we have the single most common reason for admission to the hospital for children and yet we have no drugs tested to treat children under the age of 5. As other examples, despite the fact that sedatives are used to help treat sick and injured children, not a single sedative has been specifically tested for safety and efficacy in children under the age of 2. In addition, virtually every medication currently used to treat stomach and intestinal diseases in children has only been tested in adults. While this so-called off label prescribing is neither illegal or improper, it forces doctors to practice hand-me-down medicine for pediatric cases, which is unacceptable, to put it mildly. I think it is about time, Mr. President, we took the guesswork out of children's medicine. The Better Pharmaceuticals for Children's Act is a simple solution to this problem. It provides a fair and reasonable market incentive for drug companies to make the extra effort needed to test their products for use by children. It grants an additional 6 months of market exclusivity for drugs which have undergone pediatric studies at the request of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. I want to briefly point to something most parents are all too familiar with--the disclaimers that appear on the labels of so many of the pharmaceutical products that are needed and used by children: ``Not recommended for use in children, as no clinical studies have been performed to determine risks, benefits, and dosages.'' Another says, ``Safety and effectiveness in children younger than the age of 2 has not been established.'' Or, ``Safety and effectiveness in children younger than age 12 have not been established.'' And, ``Safety and efficacy in children younger than age 18 have not been established.'' We have labels on the food that children eat; we have labels now for the programs that children watch on television. I think we would all agree that it is about time we have labels that parents and physicians can rely on when they give children medicine. The bill that Senator DeWine and I have introduced is a sensible way to keep our children healthier. That is why it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support both in and outside of the Congress. In fact, the bill is endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, and PHRMA, the trade association of the pharmaceutical industry. Senators Mikulski and Kennedy have signed on as cosponsors, and I know that Representative Greenwood will soon be introducing this bill in the other body. Mr. President, this is commonsense legislation. I call on our colleagues to join Senator DeWine and myself in this effort. We hope we can get passage quickly. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very briefly, I may not even take the 2 minutes. I just wanted to inform my colleagues that about a week ago, Congressman Chris Shays, of Connecticut, and I hosted a program called Debtbusters with a group of 200 of our constituents. We invited people to come together to sit down in groups and try to balance the Federal budget in 5 years. This is an exercise designed by the Concord Coalition, and it is the first time such an event has been done on a bipartisan basis. I highly recommend it to my colleagues. It is a fascinating exercise to watch people act as Members of Congress over a period of 2 or 3 hours, faced with the choices that many of us have to make here in Washington as we work toward a balanced budget by the year 2002. It was a tremendously worthwhile exercise. I want to commend the Concord Coalition for organizing it, for putting together the questionnaire. It was not perfect. Anyone who writes questions and makes choices obviously is going to bring some bias to it. But overall I found it to be rather fair and interesting. I would also like to commend the citizens of Connecticut, specifically the citizens of Stamford and the surrounding area, for taking the time out of their weekends to come together and work in such a constructive spirit. It was curious to see the choices that people made. People, when they sat down and had to work with six or seven or eight other people from their community with many different ideas and issues, were able to compromise and come to conclusions and even give up on things they cared about very, very much. It was instructive. It did not solve the budget problem. But last Saturday I was impressed that, on a gloriously sunny day, people came out and spent the 2 or 3 hours to try and resolve these issues. I thought my colleagues might find it interesting. As we are about to hopefully reach some sort of budget agreement ourselves, I believe it is worthwhile to appreciate what average citizens are able to do, just as I said, in a few hours on a bright sunny Saturday morning. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Vermont for making the time available and I yield back any time I have.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. As a former Peace Corps volunteer and someone who was a Big Brother and served on the national board of Big Brothers, I commend the effort to focus attention on the Philadelphia conference. I would like to make note of the fact, we are 6 months almost to the day since election day and still there is a chair vacant around the Cabinet table, that of the Secretary of Labor. This is a critically important issue to millions of people, a substantive issue that must be addressed immediately. My hope is that the leadership would see to it this week that we would vote. Vote against Alexis Herman if people wish but give her the opportunity to be confirmed or not confirmed. Give us a chair at that Cabinet table for the millions of people representing management and labor. So I urge that the leadership move on this issue. We brought up this issue. I understand that. But the confirmation of the Secretary of Labor 6 months after the election is long overdue. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. As a former Peace Corps volunteer and someone who was a Big Brother and served on the national board of Big Brothers, I commend the effort to focus attention on this. I would like to make note of the fact, with the Philadelphia Conference going on, we are 6 months almost to the day since election day and still there is a chair vacant around the Cabinet table, that of the Secretary of Labor. This is a critically important issue to millions of people, a substantive issue that must be addressed immediately. My hope is that the leadership would see to it this week that we would vote. Vote against Alexis Herman if people wish but give her the opportunity to be confirmed or not confirmed and give us a chair at that Cabinet table for the millions of people who do not have a voice at the table representing management and labor. So I urge that the leadership move on this issue. We brought up this issue. I understand that. But the issue of the nomination of the Secretary of Labor 6 months after the election is long overdue. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. I owe him 1\1/2\ minutes, a minute with interest.