Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am going to consume about 1 minute, so I would ask the Chair to keep an eye on the clock for me so that I leave time for my colleague from Minnesota.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am going to consume about 1 minute, so I would ask the Chair to keep an eye on the clock for me so that I leave time for my colleague from Minnesota.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, Maj. Michael Donnelly of Connecticut flew 44 missions for the Air Force during the Persian Gulf war. He is now afflicted with a neuro-muscular disorder he suspects was caused by chemical exposure in the war. I had the pleasure of meeting with Major Donnelly last week after he testified before the Human Resources Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. His testimony provided a special insight into the plight of some Persian Gulf war veterans who fell ill after returning home. Mr. President, I ask that his testimony be printed in the Record. The testimony follows: Prepared Statement of Maj. Michael Donnelly, U.S. Air Force, Retired Congressman Shays and members of this committee, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Major Michael Donnelly. I am not the enemy. I was medically retired in October of 1996 after 15 years and 1 month of service as a fighter pilot in the Air Force. At the time Iraq invaded Kuwait, I was stationed at Hahn Air Base in Germany flying F-16s. My unit, the 10 Tactical Fighter Squadron, was attached to the 363rd Tactical Fighter Wing and deployed to Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates on 1 January 1991 in support of Operation Desert Shield and then Desert Storm. My unit redeployed to Germany on the 15th of May 1991. During the war, I flew 44 combat missions. On those missions I bombed a variety of targets, including strategic targets (airfields, production and storage facilities, missile sites, etc.), tactical targets (troops, battlefield equipment, pontoon bridges, etc.). I also flew Close Air Support, and Combat Air Patrol missions. Never during any of these missions was I warned of the threat of exposure to any chemical or biological weapons. Although we expected and trained for that eventuality, we never employed any of the procedures because we were never told that there was any threat of exposure. Had we been warned, there were steps we could have and would have taken to protect ourselves. Unlike other veterans who have testified before you, I don't have a specific incident that I can remember during the war that might have caused my illness. However, I can tell you that I flew throughout the entire region of Iraq, Kuwait and much of Saudi Arabia, to include in and around the oil smoke. Evidence now shows that chemical munitions storage areas and production facilities that were bombed by us released clouds of fallout that drifted over our troops through the air, and that's where I was. I know also of other pilots who do remember a specific incident that caused them to later become ill. So while I cannot point to one event to explain my illness, I come before you today to tell you that I am yet another veteran from the Gulf War with a chronic illness. Upon return from the Gulf, I was reassigned to McDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida. It was here that I first started to experience strange health problems. It was nothing you could really pinpoint except to say that I didn't feel as strong as I once had or as coordinated. I felt like I was always fighting a cold or the flu. By the summer of 1995, I was stationed at Shepperd Air Force Base in Texas. It was here that I believe my illness started and that I began to suspect that it was related to service in the Gulf. During the summer, I was exposed several times to malathion, which is a fairly dilute organophosphate- based pesticide used for mosquito control. The base's policy was to spray with a fogging truck throughout base housing where I lived with my family. I was exposed to the malathion fogging while I was running in the evenings. I would like to point out something I learned later: that organophosphate poison is the chemical basis for all nerve agents--it is a poison that kills just like a pesticide does. It was immediately after my exposure to malathion that I started to have serious health problems. After this time, every time I ran I would get a schetoma--or blind spot--in front of my eyes and my heart would beat erratically. I started to have heart palpitations, night sweats, sleeplessness, trouble concentrating, trouble remembering, trouble taking a deep breath and frequent urination. I noticed that one cup of coffee would make me extremely jittery. I noticed that one beer would have an unusual intense effect on me. I was extremely tired much of the time. I had to put my head down on my desk to rest while I was working and I had to lie down at home before dinner after work. It wasn't until December 1995 that I started to have trouble walking and experienced weakness in my right leg. It was then that I decided, right after the holiday season, I would go see the doctor. On the second of January 1996, I went to the flight surgeon at Sheppard Air Force Base. When I finished explaining my symptoms to him and mentioned that I had been in the Gulf War, he immediately started to tell me about the effects of stress. He told me that the other problems--heart palpitations, breathing difficulties, sleeplessness--were probably stress related, but that we needed to look into the weakness in the leg more, and I was referred to a neurologist. During this first visit with the neurologist was when I first heard the line that I would hear throughout the whole Air Force medical system and that was: ``There's no conclusive evidence that there's any link between service in the Gulf and any illness.'' Each time I heard this line, it was almost as if each person was reading from a script. If an active duty field grade officer walks into a hospital and says he's sick and that he was in the Gulf War, why does the military not seize this opportunity to investigate whether there is any connection between service in the Gulf and this illness? How can they say they're looking for an answer when they deny it's even possible? How can they say there's no connection when they don't study the individuals who present symptoms that might prove that connection? Instead, he gets ``the line,'' which proves that no one is looking to see whether there is a problem. Only to deny that one exists. Why should I have to call and register for the Gulf War Registry when I'm active duty? I should automatically be put on the list as another person with a chronic illness who served in the Gulf. Again, if they were really looking for a problem, all they have to do is look. My treatment included several trips to Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio for MRIs, CT scans, muscle tests and multiple blood tests. Each time I mentioned I was a Gulf War veteran, I got ``the line.'' At one point, a doctor in Wilford Hall gave me a three minute dissertation on how my illness absolutely could not be related to my service in the Gulf. One thing I noticed during my four or five visits to Wilford Hall was a room on the neurology ward labeled ``Gulf War Syndrome Room.'' In none of my four or five visits was the door to this room ever open or the light on. I started to realize that because the military medical system would not acknowledge my illness could be related to the Gulf War, I would not get help. Once I realized that, I began to seek help from civilian doctors, many of whom had already made the connection between service in the Gulf and the high incidents of unusual illnesses among the war's veterans. They had all the proof they needed: the thousands of veterans coming to them desperate for medical treatment. Because the military has not acknowledged this connection, my family and I have been forced to spend over $40,000 of our own money in these efforts. Our search led us to people around the country with the same illnesses who were also Gulf War veterans. In the last twelve months, I have traveled all over this country and even to Germany looking for help. Incredible as it may seem, the Air Force medical system initially wanted to retire me with 50 percent disability and temporary retirement with a diagnosis of ALS. Only after we hired a lawyer, at our own expense, and went before the medical board, were we able to change that determination to 100 percent and permanent retirement. All the while, I was contending with my declining health and the trauma to my family. I chose to not to fight over whether my illness was combat related, because I'd already seen the stonewalling that was going on and because I wanted to move my family back home. That was my own personal decision, made at a time when I knew I had other and far greater personal battles yet to fight. Upon my retirement from the Air Force, I found myself worked into the VA medical system. What alternative did I have after my 15 years of service? I guess I'm one of the lucky ones, since I was: 1. still on active duty when I got sick; and 2. given a poor prognosis, which required them to treat me and compensate me. What alternative did they have? The VA bureaucracy is difficult and slow at best. I am suffering from a fatal illness, where every month matters. I can sit here today and tell you that despite my situation-- which you would think would warrant expeditious treatment and action--I ran into a red tape and paperwork nightmare that continues to consume my life today. However, once I finally got to see them, the medical personnel who have treated me have been very kind and understanding, despite the fact that there isn't much they can do. Maybe if we hadn't had six years of cover-up, there would be something they could do. To this day, no one from the DOD or VA has contacted me personally to involve me in any tests or studies. I myself have found more than nine other Gulf War veterans, some who have already come before you, who are also suffering from ALS, an unusual disease that rarely strikes individuals under the age of 50. In fact, with the ten of us who have ALS--and we are certain there are more out there whom we just haven't found--the incidence of ALS already far exceeds the normal incidence given the number of soldiers who served in the Gulf. Why is there no special emergency study of this outbreak? Why is no one worried about what is obviously a frightening incidence of a terrible neurological illness among such a young and healthy population? One thing I can tell you: this is not stress. With every other Gulf War veteran we have found who has ALS, the common thread has been subsequent exposure to some kind of strong chemical or pesticide, such as malathion, diazinon, and lindane--which is used to treat head lice in children. Why aren't the DOD and the VA warning everyone else who served in the Gulf War that they may get sick in the future, just as I got sick four years after I returned to the US. How many other people are out there waiting for that one exposure that will put them over the top? Why is no one putting the word out. A warning could save the lives and health of many individuals, could save them from going through what I am now going through. I'll tell you why, because that would take admitting that something happened in the Gulf War that's making people sick. I wonder how many flight mishaps or accidents that have happened since the war have involved Gulf War veterans. Those numbers shouldn't be hard to find: the military keeps records on all of that. In fact, I wager that someone out there already knows the answer to that question and hasn't shared it either because of a direct order not to or because the right person has yet to ask. How many other pilots are still out there--flying--who are not quite feeling right? Just as I flew for four years after I returned from the Gulf, how many other pilots fear for their livelihood and the repercussions they know they would encounter were they to speak up because they know ``There's no conclusive evidence that there's any link between service in the Gulf and any illness.'' Imagine my dismay when the DOD announces $12 million (a drop in the bucket) to study the Gulf War illnesses and four of those studies are centered around the effects of stress or post-traumatic stress disorder. You would think that the DOD and the VA would have an in-depth knowledge of the effects of stress after all the wars this country has fought. Most of them a lot more ``stressful'' than the Gulf War. Why aren't they taking our illnesses seriously? I'll tell you why, because that would take admitting that something happened in the Gulf War that's making people sick. Part of the ongoing cover up has been to trivialize the illnesses that Gulf War veterans are suffering from. In the press and from the VA, you hear about skin rashes and joint aches, about insomnia and fatigue. There is no doubt that these are real symptoms and are debilitating in and of themselves. But what you don't hear about is the high incidence of rare cancers, neurological illnesses such as ALS, and immune-system disorders that are totally debilitating. This is not stress. This is life and death. Why is it impossible to get the right numbers from the DOD and the VA about how many veterans are sick or have sought treatment? Why is it more important to protect certain high- placed government officials than to care for veterans who are sick? When it comes time to fund the military, budget concerns are usually set aside in the interest of defense and the public good. Well, the national defense issue now is that it's public knowledge that the DOD mistreats people who serve. America will have no one to fight its wars. The primary goal at this point is not to find out whose fault all of this is. Someday, someone will need to investigate what happened and why. The people responsible for this tragedy should be found out and punished. The top priority now for all of us is to help veterans and their families get their health and their lives back. Or at least that should be the goal. That should be your goal. All I want is what I brought to the Air Force: my health. I'm not interested in hearing how surprised General Powell and General Schwartzkopf are about how we were all exposed to chemical weapons, or that the CIA really did know Hussein had these weapons, or that the CIA alerted the DOD to this fact. It's obvious now that there's been a cover up going on all this time as more and more information gets released or discovered. It's time for those people who know something-- and they do exist--to come forward. And maybe we can save some lives. During and after the war, we proclaimed to ourselves and to the world how we learned the lessons of Vietnam and fixed the military. We learned the lessons of Vietnam and we did it right this time. Last week, General Powell stated that we suffered only 149 casualties in the Gulf War. Well, I am here to tell you that the casualty count is still rising. Just like in Vietnam with Agent Orange, it appears that we didn't learn all the lessons. We still mistreat veterans. This country has again turned its back on the people who fight its wars, the individuals to whom it owes the most. I want to thank you for what you are doing for the veterans who went to war for this country. Many of whom were squeezed out of the military right after the war and now find themselves out on the street, fighting the very institution they fought for. In the military, we have a tradition called the salute and it's used to show admiration and respect for an individual who has earned it. I salute you for what you are doing here. You go a long way in restoring this soldiers waning faith in a country that could so willingly desert it's own. Remember: I am not the enemy.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. On behalf, Mr. President, of Senator Sarbanes of this side, we yield back this time as well.

Mr. DODD. On behalf, Mr. President, of Senator Sarbanes of this side, we yield back this time as well.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York. Let me begin these brief remarks by commending our colleague, the chairman of the Banking and Housing Committee, Senator D'Amato, for pushing this as effectively and expeditiously as he has. We know it is hard to get on the agenda here with all the other matters we have to consider. The fact that we are considering this legislation as quickly as we are is a credit to him and also to the leadership of the majority leader, Senator Lott, and the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. It is noncontroversial because all of our colleagues, I think, recognize what is being done to senior citizens. Senator D'Amato has rightfully pointed out the tremendous work done by Richard Bryan, our colleague from Nevada, who has been deeply involved in this issue. Also, Andrew Cuomo, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and his staff have done an excellent job on this issue. He has worked hard to prevent scam artists from taking advantage of elderly Americans in these reverse mortgage opportunities. So many people can rightfully sit at the table and take credit for where we are today--about to pass critical legislation that will help our senior citizens. Mr. President, everyone in this country needs a safe and secure place to live; that is a dream as old as the Republic. In recent years, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has developed a number of innovative programs that are helping many more Americans achieve the dream of home ownership. The National Home Ownership Strategy, a public-private partnership of 62 organizations, has helped to increase home ownership to a rate of 65.6 percent, Mr. President. That is the highest rate in 15 years. As an aside, I am very hopeful that we will continue to work on creative ideas, under the leadership of the chairman of the committee, and others, to increase home ownership in more of our disadvantaged areas. We have subsidized rents for years, and there has been real value in that, in providing decent shelter for people. I would like to see us do more to subsidize equity and ownership. Nothing does more to clean up a street or a neighborhood than people who have an equity interest or financial interest in what happens to the buildings on their block. I know the chairman and others have expressed a strong interest in this. So maybe we can move even further than we already have, and increase home ownership rates even higher. The bill we are considering today will help protect homeowners. It will protect senior citizens who have worked hard, struggled to save, and built decent homes for their families. Our senior citizens fought very hard to get their homes. These are people who didn't have the advantages of a lot of new opportunities that banks provide, and that HUD has provided, to get out and make those downpayments on that first home. These are our retired citizens now, who have fought to keep their homes, who held two, three, four jobs to do so, and paid off those mortgages. They are sitting there holding their home free and clear of any debt. And now, as a result of that, financial institutions very creatively are offering the reverse mortgage, which the chairman has talked about, and are saying you can borrow against that equity in order to take care of medical bills, groceries, or heating bills you may have, and other things that come up. It is a very creative idea to be able to reverse a mortgage, in effect, for things that people need. But what happens, of course, when something like this comes along, there are always the thugs who try to take advantage of people. This is nothing new. They are always out there. They run around and go door to door, literally, Mr. President, where these elderly people live and rip them off, as the chairman pointed out passionately this morning. These are people who have worked hard and done everything right and live alone, in some cases, and their family may be removed and they don't get the kind of advice they should be getting. You can say ``caveat emptor, buyer beware; you ought to do a better job.'' But it is difficult. They are frightened and scared, and some fast-talking salesman comes in with a quick deal and they don't know the difference. As a result of the chairman's efforts this morning and the unanimous support that I think we are going to have from all of our colleagues here, we are going to slam the door on these scam artists--loan sharks is really what they are. That is simple terminology that most people can understand. So I am very pleased, Mr. President, to join my colleague from New York, and others, this morning in urging the adoption of this legislation and urging the House, which I hope will move quickly on this, so that we can submit this bill to the President for signature. I know the President strongly supports our efforts here as well. This is a good example of a Congress working together to take care of a problem that exists in the country. This legislation will provide our elderly citizens, our seniors, with the security of knowing that the reverse mortgage, which they are taking out for their needs, will not cost them more than it should. So I am delighted to be a cosponsor of this. I commend the chairman again, and others, for their work. I thank the Housing and Urban Development Agency, under the leadership of Andrew Cuomo, for being so supportive. I look forward to the passage of this bill, Mr. President. I thank my colleague and I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I needed 10 minutes.

Mr. DODD. May I inquire, Mr. President, from the Senator from Vermont, there are a couple of us here who have requested some time. In fact, I know my colleague from California has made a similar request. My colleague from Maryland also has. I ask if our colleague from Vermont would be willing to yield us some time off his time. We could make some remarks and maybe expedite this process.

Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from Vermont for his generosity in yielding time. Mr. President, yesterday I included some extensive remarks in the Record regarding the overall treaty. I let those remarks speak for themselves today. First, I begin by commending our colleagues, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms; the ranking Democrat on the committee, Senator Biden; the majority leader, Senator Lott; and the minority leader, Senator Daschle, for working out the arrangements of this treaty so we can come up for a vote prior to the April 29 deadline. Let me also say, Mr. President, while there are disagreements--and there will be over the ultimate decision of whether or not to support the treaty--I think the debate and the process we have gone through has been healthy. I suspect those who are deeply involved in the workings of this treaty have improved it. So I commend all of our colleagues for the work they have done on this particular effort. I think it is how the Senate of the United States ought to conduct its business when it comes to matters dealing with obligations to commit our country for many years to come. It was no mistake that our Founding Fathers required supermajorities to commit this Nation to international arrangements, and the fact that we require supermajorities for treaties, I think, is worthwhile. Mr. President, I want to focus my attention, if I can, on the first amendment that will be raised here. The amendment will strike a condition in the treaty that has been included by Senator Helms. I am going to oppose condition 30, which I believe will be the first vote we will cast. This is the rogue states condition. I will explain what that means and express why I think it ought to be struck from this treaty in the brief time I have available to me. Mr. President, we must ask only one question today. We must ask: Is this treaty in the best interests of our country? That is our obligation as Members of the U.S. Senate. That is the question which we must address. This condition 30, the rogue states condition, I think, is not in the best interests of the United States. I think it would prohibit the United States from ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention. It would prohibit us, of course, from ratifying the convention until nations such as North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iraq ratify the treaty. More than any of the other conditions we will vote on, Mr. President, later today, this condition would delay indefinitely, in my view, the ratification of this treaty. The so-called rogue states condition would force the United States of America to wait until all of the pariah states of the world ratify before we, ourselves, would accept the treaty that we, ourselves negotiated. There is a reason, Mr. President, that we use the words rogue and pariah to describe these countries such as North Korea, Libya, Iran. These are the nations that are the loners in the international arena and who routinely disregard international opinion in pursuing their own interests. These rogue nations, these renegade nations, have never given weight to world opinion. There is no reason to expect that they will have a change of heart any time soon. Waiting for these rogue states to accept this treaty is literally like waiting for Godot. Let it be known, then, that a vote against striking this condition is, in my view, without any question whatever, a vote to prohibit U.S. participation in the Chemical Weapons Convention. If we include, Mr. President, this condition 30, the rogue states condition, we might as well include a condition that requires ratification by every single nation on Earth before we ratify, for these are, indeed, the very last nations that would ever accept this treaty. That is because these nations, these rogue nations, fear this treaty and the international determination that it demonstrates. Our country, Mr. President, has decided unilaterally to destroy its aging chemical weapons stockpile by the year 2004. That is a decision we have already made. Regardless of what other nations do, we have decided to take ourselves out of the chemical weapons business unilaterally, and yet the assumption under this faulty condition is that we must not disarm until other nations with chemical weapons or chemical weapons capability disarm as well. We must be clear, Mr. President, that having agreed, ourselves, to destroy our chemical weapons, this treaty deals with whether or not we can act with the backing of the world to bring other nations to do the same. As Secretary Albright has said very simply, ``This treaty is about other nations' chemical weapons, not our own.'' We will destroy, Mr. President, our weapons because they are no longer needed. So this idea that we must wait for other nations to ratify this treaty, I believe, is fatally flawed. This convention would establish an international norm that will allow us to pressure rogue states who decide they would rather keep and enhance their chemical weapons stockpile. On the basis of what we now know about the Persian Gulf war, that many thousands of this Nation's troops may have been exposed to chemical agents, we must not pass up the chance, in my view, to establish a norm that would have made it far more difficult for Iraq to have the weapons in the first place. Remember, Mr. President, there is no law that bars a nation from building, stockpiling, upgrading, or transferring their chemical weapons. In fact, when Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurds, as heinous an act as it was, the Iraqis did not even violate the Geneva Protocol because they did not use the agents in an international conflict. What we need today, Mr. President, is a new agreement. This convention goes much farther in establishing a basis for international action against chemical weapons themselves. I further object, Mr. President, to this rogue states condition because we should not allow our foreign policy decisions to be dictated by rogue states--by a Libya, a North Korea, and an Iraq. Let us remember that the negotiating teams of President Reagan and President Bush anticipated the likelihood that rogue nations would not accept this treaty. That is why President Reagan's and President Bush's teams included sanctions, when they wrote this treaty, against nations that remained outside of this treaty. This condition 30, the rogue states condition, insults those negotiating teams that worked so hard and with such great foresight on this very treaty. It assumes that they were so shortsighted that they did not anticipate that rogue nations would oppose it. That is not the case. The truth, again, is that the negotiators knew very well that these rogue nations would look upon this treaty as something that they would have to oppose, so we and other nations demanded that these renegade nations be penalized. How ironic it is, Mr. President, that unless the United States strikes this rogue states condition, we now will be penalized ourselves. Germany, I point out, has already indicated its intent to impose the sanctions against nonparticipants that this treaty mandates. Let us be aware, Mr. President, we live in a new world. Scholars use the words ``multipolar'' and ``post-nationalist'' to describe today's world. Other nations are increasingly capable of taking action without our leadership, regretfully I might add. Those who think this treaty will not go into effect without our ratification are thinking of an older world, of the days when the United States declined to participate in the League of Nations and it failed as a result. Mr. President, that was over three-quarters of a century ago. Let me assure my colleagues that to the extent we isolate ourselves today, our country will pay a price tomorrow. The question before us this hour with this condition that will come up shortly, is, will we allow a group of rogue, renegade nations to disengage the United States from the international community on this issue of chemical weapons? Mr. President, when this Nation allows itself to be held back by the shortsightedness, the evil of other nations, we make a huge mistake indeed. President Reagan did not wait for other nations when he took the first step forward on the matter of chemical weapons by declaring that the United States would unilaterally destroy its chemical weapons stockpile. President Reagan did not wait for other nations when he initiated negotiations to ban chemical weapons from this Earth. President Bush did not wait for other nations to sign this treaty. Presidents Reagan and Bush did not follow others in making those critical decisions. We led, as great nations must, and others have fallen in behind us. Our Nation set the example. Now it is time for us to set the example once again. Finally, Mr. President, we must keep in mind that opponents of this treaty argue both sides of the issue. On the one hand, they argue that rogue states will reap great benefits from the technology and intelligence available to them as participants in this treaty. That argument assumes that these nations can't wait to participate in this treaty. Yet, on the other hand, this condition that we will vote on assumes that rogue states will avoid participating in this treaty. If parties to this treaty pick up such a technological advantage, why aren't these rogue nations crawling over themselves to ratify the treaty? They should be the first in line if that is the case. Why then do we need this condition? The truth is, Mr. President, that rogue nations fear this convention and this treaty. Waiting for them to ratify is absurd. No one expects them to ratify, so we should at least become a party to a treaty that will severely restrict the flow of chemicals to those nations, rather than assisting them by a reluctance to move forward. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment to strike, and I urge the adoption of the treaty itself. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for U.S. ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention. First, I wish to thank Senators Biden and Lugar for their untiring efforts in seeking ratification of this historic treaty. I also want to commend the majority leader for working diligently with both sides to bring this treaty to the Senate floor for consideration. No matter where one stands on this issue, we all agree that it is proper for this debate to take place while our Nation can still become a full participant in the convention. I think that it is only appropriate that we are having this debate 1 week after we commemorated the second anniversary of the bombing of the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City. That singular event made us all aware that we are vulnerable to terrorism on our own soil. We also remember when terrorists launched a chemical attack in Tokyo's subways, taking 12 lives and injuring thousands more. We must take action to protect Americans from a similar terrorist outrage, and therefore it is incumbent upon this body to approve the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Chemical Weapons Convention is also relevant today in light of recent findings that thousands of our troops may have been exposed to chemical weapons during the Persian Gulf war. Veterans groups across the country have called on the Senate to approve the CWC, and I believe that it is inexcusable for us to forgo this opportunity to take a stand against chemical warfare. If we fail to do so, we will be unnecessarily placing those who volunteer their services in our military at risk. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the votes that will be cast in this Chamber tomorrow. We have an opportunity to consider a proposal that would eliminate an entire class of weapons of mass destruction, and we may never have this opportunity again. Our decisions will have a tremendous impact on the safety of the American people and our Nation's role as an international leader. We are all familiar with the horrifying effects associated with chemical weapons. We remember the use of mustard gas in World War I and the use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. It was the inhumane nature of chemical warfare that prompted President Reagan to initiate the negotiations for an international treaty to eliminate the use of chemical weapons. President Bush was also committed to phasing out chemical weapons, and the United States joined 160 other nations in signing the Chemical Weapons Convention during the final days of his administration. President Clinton has been a strong supporter of the convention, and he has made ratification of this treaty his top foreign policy priority. For nearly a decade, the United States led efforts to develop the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the result was an effective agreement to eliminate chemical weapons that was unprecedented in its scope. Considering its history of bipartisan support, one would have expected this treaty to be easily approved by the Senate. Unfortunately, opponents of the convention have distorted the facts surrounding this treaty, and it is possible that the United States will fail to ratify the treaty that it initiated. I strongly believe that the Chemical Weapons Convention is an effective tool for combating chemical warfare, and I hope that my fellow Senators will look beyond the rhetoric of the treaty's detractors and look at the positive things that this measure would accomplish. The Chemical Weapons Convention bans the development or transfer of chemical weapons by member nations. It also requires participating states to destroy their chemical weapon stockpiles and chemical weapons production facilities under the observation of international inspectors. The convention would also establish the most extensive verification regime of any arms control treaty, that would require inspections of not only governmental facilities but also civilian facilities. This system of monitoring will provide us with a mechanism for knowing who produces what chemicals throughout the world, and where these chemicals are being sent. The convention also prohibits signatory nations from exporting chemicals most frequently used in chemical weapons to non-member countries. The import of some chemicals from non-member nations would also be prohibited. These measures should isolate nonmember nations and provide them with incentive to ratify the convention. In order to oversee the convention's implementation, the CWC establishes the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, or the OPCW. This organization will monitor the chemical production throughout the world and will enforce compliance with the convention. On April 29, the Chemical Weapons Convention will go into effect with or without the United States' ratification. The Senate must provide its advice and consent on the treaty and send a resolution of ratification to the President before next Tuesday, so that he may formally ratify the treaty. Many hours of intense negotiations have yielded the resolution of ratification to the Chemical Weapons Convention that we are now considering on the Senate floor. This resolution contains 33 conditions which cover nearly every objection raised by opponents of ratification. I am pleased that negotiators have reached an agreement on 28 of those 33 conditions. However, the Senate will have a separate vote on each of the five remaining conditions tomorrow. I would like to stress that approval of any of these conditions would be tantamount to prohibiting U.S. participation in the Chemical Weapons Convention and could fatally damage the effectiveness of this treaty. I would like to quickly address these five conditions that threaten ratification of this treaty. Two of these conditions tie our ratification to the actions of other nations. One demands that Russia ratify the treaty first, and the other precludes ratification until the world's rogue nations like Libya and Iraq ratify the treaty. The logic behind these two amendments is that the convention is meaningless if it does not include all nations with the capability to develop and use chemical weapons. This logic is seriously flawed. The CWC would impose trade restrictions on nonmember nations that will curb their ability to obtain the materials used in making chemical agents. In addition, by establishing an international legal standard opposing the manufacture and use of chemical weapons, the United States will be able to isolate these pariah states making it more difficult for these nations to acquire chemical weapons. Also, since when does the United States allow other nations to dictate American policy? It is ridiculous to suggest that we should compromise our position as a world leader by following the lead of fringe countries. President Reagan did not wait for other nations when he declared that this Nation would unilaterally destroy its chemical weapons stockpile. He did not wait for other nations when he initiated negotiations to ban chemical weapons from the Earth. We did not follow others in making those critical decisions. We led and others fell in behind us. This Nation set the example. And now it is time for us once again to lead and set the example. In fact, perhaps the greatest way to ensure that Russia and other countries with offensive chemical weapons programs will not endorse this treaty, would be for the United States to reject this treaty. Seventy-three other nations, including all of our major allies, and two-thirds of all countries with chemical weapon capabilities, have already endorsed this treaty. I hope that we will align ourselves with those who have ratified the convention and not with those outlaw nations. Another condition that will be considered as an amendment would bar individual inspectors because they come from a country that supported terrorism or violated U.S. nonproliferation law. If a particular inspector has a past history of spying or assisting terrorists, we must prevent him or her from inspecting our facilities. But if we bar certain inspectors based solely on their nationality, other countries will certainly bar U.S. inspectors. In addition, these will likely be the countries that we would most like to monitor. Another condition that would surely kill the ratification agreement demands a level of verification that simply cannot be guaranteed. Like every other arms control agreement, this one is not 100 percent verifiable. Certainly, that is not a reason to avoid ratifying this treaty. The question ought to be: Are verification measures under this treaty better or worse than those we have now? The answer to that question must be ``yes.'' This treaty includes tougher verification measures than any existing arms control agreement to the extent that it allows for frequent inspections of both governmental and commercial chemical manufacturing plants throughout the world. And while chemical weapons are generally more difficult to detect than conventional weapons, the U.S. intelligence community has confidence that it will be able to detect a large scale effort to develop chemical weapons. The remaining condition of the ratification resolution is perhaps the most contentious, and it would certainly kill all hopes of ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention if it were to pass as an amendment tomorrow. In today's Washington Post, my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Helms writes: ``* * * the one issue that has raised the greatest concern among Senators--the issue on which the ratification vote will almost certainly hinge--is the Clinton Administration's refusal to modify the treaty's Articles 10 and 11.'' His next sentence is particularly important, ``These controversial provisions require the transfer of dangerous chemical agents, defensive gear and know-how to any nation that joins the CWC.'' With all due respect to my colleague from North Carolina, the simple fact of the matter is that this statement is not true. Article 10 does not require the United States or any other signatory to share advanced chemical weapons defense technologies and equipment with other countries or to assist them in the development of such capabilities. I hope that all of my colleagues, who are considering opposing the CWC for this reason, will simply refer to the actual text of the convention to understand the true implications of the treaty. Paragraph 7 of article 10 states: ``Each State Party undertakes to provide assistance through the Organization and to this end to elect to take one or more of the following measures.'' One of the choices is, ``to declare, not later than 180 days after the Convention enters into force for it, the kind of assistance it might provide in response to an appeal by the Organization.'' In no way does this language require any country to share advanced chemical defense technology and equipment. In fact, 1 of the 28 conditions agreed to in the resolution of ratification will ensure that no assistance other than medical antidotes and treatments is provided by the United States under article 10. Opponents of the convention have also raised concerns regarding paragraph 3 of article 10. It reads as follows: ``Each State Party undertakes to facilitate, and shall have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, material, and scientific and technological information concerning means of protection against chemical weapons.'' The inclusion of the word ``right'' underscores that each signatory state has a right, not an obligation, to exchange materials and information. In fact, President Clinton confirmed this interpretation when he recently stated: ``We have made it clear that, as regards to other countries, we will not do anything to give them our technology * * * and that our response will be * * * limited to helping them deal with the health effects of an attack. We will help people in medical ways and with other things having to do with the health consequences.'' The national security concerns raised by Senator Helms were shared by the representatives of the Reagan and Bush administrations who negotiated this treaty. That is why treaty negotiators took great lengths to ensure that the treaty's language would be carefully crafted to protect America's interests. In responding to the criticisms of article 10 of the convention, I'll simply use the words of former Secretary of State James Baker: ``The suggestion that Presidents Bush and Reagan would negotiate a treaty detrimental to the nation's national security is outrageous.'' I hope that my colleagues will not take the criticisms of this critically important treaty at face value and will closely examine the actual text. The final condition which opponents of the treaty seek to raise relates to cooperation in the field of chemical activities for businesses. Critics argue that the CWC might force industry to share manufacturing and trade secrets with other nations. These criticisms are completely unfounded. Fred Webber, president and CEO of the Chemical Manufacturers Association, criticized these allegations stating that, ``the Chemical Weapons Convention does not obligate us to turn over trade secrets, and it most certainly does not require the U.S. to abolish its system of export controls on dual-use chemistry. The CWC raises the export control bar for other nations to the high standard already set by the United States. That's why this treaty is in the national interest.'' In fact, it is ironic that critics of the treaty argue that they support the interests of America's chemical and pharmaceutical companies. Yet, if we fail to ratify this treaty, these very same companies will be subject to trade restrictions that were devised by the United States. Members of this body must examine the elements that set this agreement apart from others. The Chemical Weapons Convention was signed by nearly every nation in the world; it penalizes nations that refuse to sign on; it provides for routine and challenge inspections; and it creates an international norm that would prohibit the very existence of chemical weapons. We must recognize that there has never been an arms control treaty that better accounted for the skeptic's concerns than this one. Today we live in a world of nations that increasingly act together. In this time of economic unions, coalition forces, and multinational businesses, we can ill-afford to disengage from the international community. If we do not ratify this treaty or if we accept conditions that prevent our ratification, we will careen off the course that we set for ourselves and the other peace-loving nations of the world. Worse, we will force the nations who have ratified the treaty to decide between ridding the world of chemical weapons on the one hand and maintaining good trade relations with the richest nation in the world on the other. If we force our allies to make decisions like that, they'll be justified in looking elsewhere for leadership. I strongly believe that ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention is in the best interests of the United States, and I urge my colleagues to support this historic treaty.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that I may be able to proceed for 10 minutes as in morning business, and I may need a couple minutes beyond that, but I will try to move through the material fairly quickly.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, tomorrow, the 23d of April, will mark the 10th anniversary of a major tragedy in the State of Connecticut. It was April 23, 1987, that 28 workers in Bridgeport, CT, lost their lives at a place called L'Ambiance Plaza, a construction site. My colleague from Indiana may recall that it was the largest industrial accident we had ever had in the State of Connecticut. It occurred during the construction of an apartment building using a technique called lift- slab construction. You would actually construct the floors and then, by hydraulic lift, lift the floors up. Within a matter of seconds, these floors collapsed and took the lives of 28 of my constituents from Connecticut. It was a dreadful day, one that people still talk about in our State. In fact, early next week there will be a memorial service, with the families and others who are still feeling the pain of the loss of their loved ones. We ended up banning, in the State of Connecticut, lift-slab construction. There were Federal regulations put out on that construction as well. As a result of that accident, in fact, my colleague from Connecticut, Congressman Christopher Shays, who represents that congressional district, he and I introduced legislation to create some new requirements to monitor health and safety on construction sites. That legislation would have created an office of construction safety. It would have created a 15-member advisory committee on construction safety. I should back up and point out that of all trades, the construction trades suffer the most injuries and death. Even with a lot of improvements, it is highly dangerous work. So, even with the improvements that have been made in occupational safety and health, construction work, just by its nature, as one would well imagine, is very dangerous. What we were looking for was to create some specific emphasis and focus on the construction trades. So that bill required those two points and further required increased civil and criminal penalties when there were knowing violations of occupational safety and health standards, and it would require employers to develop specific procedures to ensure health and safety on building sites. The bill was never approved. We offered it and had hearings on it, but it was never approved. If you, Mr. President, and my colleagues had seen L'Ambiance Plaza, the devastation there, I think most would have come to the same conclusion that I did, that we need to do a better job in monitoring these construction sites. I pointed out, it was the single largest construction tragedy in the State of Connecticut. The problem is that lift-slab construction had caused hundreds of injuries around the country, yet in most instances, on the specific site, the injury, although it was bad, had not resulted in a death, so reporting was not required. So there was no warning ahead of time about the dangers of this type of construction. As a result of our efforts, you would have been required to report those incidents when they happened so the collective information would be gathered and better decisions could be made about this kind of construction. So, next week we will again gather to commemorate the lives of the 28 men whose lives were lost on that date 10 years ago. Like all of my colleagues, I hope never to have to attend another such ceremony. My hope is still that we will do a better job in improving the enforcement and the penalties involved, because that seems to be the only way we get the kind of compliance that is necessary.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a subject about which I know the Presiding Officer has a great deal of interest, and that is the attention that has most recently been focused on the breakthroughs in our understanding of the human brain and in the early development of children. In fact, Newsweek just released a special edition: ``From Birth to Three. What you need to know, how speech begins, a baby's brain, genes, emotions, what is normal, what is not.'' I commend Newsweek for dedicating a special issue to this subject matter. I think it is extremely worthwhile. Time magazine earlier did an issue on education, which I think was extremely helpful to millions and millions of Americans. I encourage everyone in this country to read this edition, particularly young families. It is very valuable information for people to have. We are gathering new information, almost on a daily basis, about the remarkable events that occur in the earliest days of a child's development, about how important it is that we do everything we can to maximize parental understanding and to provide whatever support we can so these earliest days turn out to be productive days in the development of a child's life. As we all know, last week the President and the First Lady hosted an important White House conference on this very topic, bringing together leading voices from around the country to discuss the early development of children and how we could better support that development. Scientists have now presented us with hard evidence of what many parents have long held true--have known, I think instinctively--that children whose lives are stimulated from birth by words, by affection, and by playful interactions with their parents and other devoted caregivers are far more likely to develop to their full intellectual and emotional potential than those who are not. All that we already knew about giving children a good start in life still holds true. Genetics, nutrition, whether a mother drinks or smokes--all these factors still play a role in a child's development. Now we also know that the environment that we provide to children, starting at the moment of birth and into their earliest years, has an astonishing impact on their potential to learn and to grow. I do not pretend to understand all of the scientific studies. In fact, just the language of it, the jargon of it, can be dazzling for those of us who are lay people in this area. But I am trying to gain a basic grasp of the facts. Scientists have now discovered, for instance, that the brain of a baby is wired to learn. Starting at the very first days, each time a parent holds, rocks, or talks to her child, connections are formed between the neurons of the child's brain. These connections, the building blocks of a child's cognitive and emotional development, grow exponentially in the earliest years. Just consider this. By the time a child is 3 years old, that child's brain has formed 1,000 trillion synapses, or connections between brain cells. Just to give some idea of the magnitude of this, this evening if you have a starry night and you look up at the stars, you should know that 1,000 trillion synapses is more than all the stars in the Milky Way. So, as you gaze at the heavens tonight and you look at the Milky Way with all its stars, know that just in 36 months of a child's life there are more synapses and more connections formed than all those stars. That will give you some idea of what is occurring in these earliest days of a child's life. Scientists have found that these connections in a child's brain only survive if they are reinforced, a sort of ``use-it-or-lose-it'' phenomenon. As an example, and I am very familiar with the one I am about to give you, studies have found that children who develop cataracts at an early age lose their ability to see, even after those cataracts are removed because the brain pathways for sight were not allowed to develop during the critical period for achieving sight. Why do I know about this? My oldest sister, Carolyn, a teacher in Connecticut, was born with cataracts many years ago. She is blind today. Had we known, had we had the information we have today, my parents might have been able to do something differently. She has been a wonderful teacher and an independent individual, but I was struck when I read of this particular fact by what we know now that we did not know then. So this particular discovery came racing home to me in relation to my oldest sister--what a difference the current advances of knowledge and information might have made in her life. Although she has been tremendously successful with her physical handicap, it struck me life might have been a little different for her had the information we know now about the development of the brain been available then. Other information shows that a baby who is not read to--the simple act of reading, even before a child can understand the words--that child may later struggle with language skills. Similarly, a child who does not get the chance to play may later have difficulty interacting with peers. As the Carnegie Corporation's seminal publication, ``Starting Points'' so succinctly states: How individuals function from preschool years all the way through adolescence and even adulthood hinges, to a significant extent, on the experiences children have in their first three years. What does this exciting research mean to us as policymakers? I think it means that what we thought of as ``early interventions'' to help children learn may not have been early enough. It means that programs for school-age children and even for preschool children miss a window of opportunity, the extraordinary potential for learning that exists in a child's brain before the age of 3. It means we need to start even earlier, at the first day of a child's life with guaranteed parental leave, for instance, which the Chair was so instrumental in helping us pass a few years ago. Providing even those few months for parents who have to work to be with their children is a lot better than they used to have. As the Chair knows, I would like to lower the threshold from 50 employees to 25, so we can include 13 million additional people in the country who today cannot take advantage of family leave. I am still going to try to persuade him to support this. I hope we will lower the threshold so more families can take advantage, even for 12 weeks, of the opportunity to stimulate a child's early development. In short, I think it means for us as policymakers that we need to think carefully and critically about what we are doing for children in their earliest years. I believe we in the Senate have an extraordinary opportunity to help families, to ensure that our Nation's children are able to grasp and reach the highest rungs of their potential. I have also joined with several of my colleagues to introduce the Working Family Child Care Act of 1997. Given these scientific findings, quality child care can no longer be considered a luxury. This bill will provide $500 million to meet supply shortages, including the acute shortage of high-quality infant care. Let's talk about the families who have no choice--not the families who have the choice of working or not. I have my own feelings about that issue--but, let's talk about the families who have no choice, they have to work. Or let's talk about the parent who is raising children on her own. The best thing is a caring parent, but if for whatever reason that caring parent cannot be with that child all the time, then we have to make sure that in child-care settings there are quality caregivers so these infants, in the earliest days, get the next best thing to a mom and dad. I am hopeful, as a result of this new information, we can develop broad-based, bipartisan support for quality child care. We have done a lot on the availability of child care, but the quality of the care has to be good as well. If a parent cannot be there with that child, then the child care provider has to know what they are doing. Hopefully, we will get support on this issue. Our chairman, Senator Jeffords of Vermont, is taking a leadership role in this area, and I commend him for it. I am soon going to introduce a bill that will put us on a path to fully funding Head Start. Again, this has been a controversial matter. We have authorized full funding, but we have never come up with the money. We know Head Start works and makes a difference in the lives of children. Hopefully, we can get broad-based support. It is expensive, I know it. But, we have to come up with a means to do it. We have to look at our priorities in light of this new information. Whether it is 5 years, 7 years, or 8 years, we need to say that at the end of that time, we will fully fund Head Start. I am willing to talk with anyone about the fastest possible way to do this. Recently, our colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, with Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, introduced legislation to insure our children and to thereby ensure that untreated injuries or illnesses do not impede a child's development in the most critical years. I commend them for their work. Mr. President, there are a lot of good things going on that our colleagues are working on. I urge, in light of some of these studies--I mentioned a moment ago this Newsweek article which I think will be very helpful--that we try to pull together here to figure out how we can support these families, these children, recognizing the economic pressures, all the things that make it more difficult today than in earlier days to raise families the way the Presiding Officer and I may have been raised. That is not possible for many people today. So we need to try to come up with support structures that will allow families to at least approximate that world that existed for many of us--not for ala--in a time when one parent worked and another stayed home and raised the family. I know the Presiding Officer cares about this very much. I have had the privilege of working with him on these issues. I look forward to being involved with him on this one as well. There are a lot of good things we can do to assist families. With this new information coming to us, not only is it desirous, but I think we have no other choice but to act and to see to it that these children get the best start they possibly can. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's indulgence in allowing me a little more time than I otherwise would have taken. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, let me address if I can--and there are a couple matters I want to speak on--the issue of Alexis Herman. I have listened here to my colleagues address their concern about the Executive order regarding project labor agreements. My hope is that we would not be holding Alexis Herman hostage over a particular matter that Members have some concern about. And I respect that. I note my good friend and colleague from Oklahoma is still on the floor. It was back in I think 1991 when President Bush issued an Executive order to prohibit project labor agreements. I do not recall a similar outcry that this was acting without legislative authority. I do not disagree, I say to my colleague, by the way, with his concern where executive branches, regardless of party, try to exceed their authority here. But nonetheless, I hope that despite the legitimacy or illegitimacy, whatever one's point of view is, on project labor agreements, Alexis Herman's nomination can go forward. She was proposed in December. The election was in November. This is almost May. We are missing a Secretary of Labor. And whether it is organized labor, unions, management, it is important there be someone at that table to represent the interests of management and labor. And the Secretary of Labor needs to be there. My colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, I think addressed this issue appropriately back, as the Presiding Officer will recall, when there was some question of whether or not the nomination was going to move through the committee which the Presiding Officer and I sit on together, the Labor and Human Resources Committee. There, the Senator from Pennsylvania noted we ought to vote on these people up or down, but we ought to at least vote. The committee voted unanimously to send Alexis Herman's name to the full Senate for consideration. As I said a moment ago, now it is getting to be late April. I am told her nomination will not be considered until something is worked out on these project labor agreements. I think that is regrettable. Again, I will discuss in a moment the project labor agreement issue. Six months after an election, to be missing yet a meaningful and important member of the President's Cabinet, I think is an unfortunate use of our power here, to deny the Senate even a vote on this nomination. So I hope we would have that nomination come sooner rather than later, so we could have that individual sitting at the Cabinet table.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me briefly address these project labor agreements. Again, this is maybe confusing to some people because it sounds rather esoteric: Project labor agreement. There is nothing new about project labor agreements. They go back to the 1930's. They have been a very effective means by which governing bodies, States, cities and the Federal Government, where there have been major public works projects, have been able to bring people together to try to work out arrangements, in terms of wages, benefits, hours and so forth, in return for which there would be no work stoppages, strikes and the like. I note Governor Pataki of New York has very effectively used project labor agreements on projects in the State of New York. Christine Todd Whitman, the Governor of New Jersey, has used project labor agreements on major public works projects in the State of New Jersey. There are numerous projects around the country, Federal projects--the Boston Harbor is the one I am most familiar with in New England--where there is a project labor agreement there. I might point out it was noted by our colleague from Texas that these project labor agreements result in tremendous cost overruns. It is estimated right now, and the project is not complete--the estimated cost of the Boston Harbor project was $6.1 or $6.3 billion. It is estimated now, in no small measure because of the project labor agreement, that project may be completed for about $3.4 billion, substantially under the original estimates. So there is nothing inherent in this that says it is going to increase costs. In fact, it has worked very, very well. The suggestion was also that nonunion businesses would be prohibited from bidding. Nothing could be further from the truth. That would be against the law. In fact, I think, as someone pointed out, in one of the Boston projects--102 of the 257 subcontractors were nonunion firms; 102 of the 257. So the notion that nonunion firms would be prohibited from being a part of these projects is unfounded. As I noted earlier, in October of 1992, President Bush issued an Executive order which prohibited Federal agencies and Federal contractors from entering into these project labor agreements. So the outrage that is being expressed because an Executive order has been issued to reinstate them--as I said, I would be sympathetic if the outrage had been focused equally vociferously when President Bush banned these project labor agreements--as we now hear with this President's decision to issue or allow these project labor agreements to be used on Federal projects. So, again on the Alexis Herman issue I hope she will go forward. On these project labor agreements, I think it is important we utilize what has been a very effective tool for being able to complete very, very important public works projects. As I said earlier, these are not just used by the executive branch at the national level, they have been used by Governors all across the country.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this past Tuesday, more than 34,000 baseball fans, including President Clinton, came to Shea Stadium in New York to honor Jackie Robinson on the 50th anniversary of his breaking the color barrier for major league baseball. For all Americans, and especially for African-Americans, Jackie Robinson's historic achievement was a source of inspiration, and it forever changed the face of our society. Jackie Robinson's legacy is of particular importance to the State of Connecticut, because Jackie Robinson's family retired to Stamford in 1956. Among those in attendance at Shea Stadium on Tuesday were 640 children from Stamford, who are participants in the Jackie Robinson Park of Fame project. The project's goal is to celebrate Jackie Robinson's life and instill our young people with courage and confidence. Hopefully, these children will learn about Jackie Robinson's heroic feats on the baseball diamond, and, most of all, the grace with which he overcame the many obstacles that were placed in his path as he sought to almost single-handedly integrate our national pastime. More important, I hope that these children and all Americans will learn about Jackie Robinson's sacrifices away from baseball and his undying commitment to uplifting his race and his country. For anyone who saw Jackie Robinson play, they would probably be surprised to learn that some believe baseball was Jackie's worst sport. He was UCLA's first-ever four-sport letterman, starring in football, basketball, and track, as well as baseball. While there were many Negro League players who were talented enough to play in the major leagues, Jackie Robinson was a special person whose intelligence, character, and athleticism uniquely qualified him to become major league baseball's first African-American player. When Brooklyn Dodgers' President Branch Rickey signed Jackie Robinson to break baseball's color line, Jackie had to agree that, for two full seasons, he would turn the other cheek no matter what abuse was directed at him by opposing players and fans. Jackie Robinson withstood a seemingly endless barrage of verbal, physical, and psychological assaults and was still able to excel in nearly every facet of the game with an uncommon dignity. When Robinson would slide into second base with an easy double, the opposing shortstop would sometimes slam Jackie in the face with his glove so hard that you could hear it in the dugout. In response, Jackie Robinson would simply stand up, dust himself off, and then steal third on the very next pitch. Jackie Robinson's quiet humility and devotion to principle stand in sharp contrast to today's pro athletes who seem more interested in corporate sponsorships and performance bonuses in their multimillion dollar contracts than in giving back to their communities. For Jackie Robinson, baseball was about more than individual statistics and lucrative contracts. It was about breaking down barriers and instilling others with a sense of hope. Jackie Robinson's silence did not last forever, and his actions after retiring from baseball are often overlooked but equally deserving of praise. Many would argue that, by integrating baseball, Jackie Robinson had done more for the cause of racial justice than any other individual of that era. But Jackie Robinson did not view his baseball career as the peak of his life, and his greatest contributions to American society may have come after his retirement. Whereas his fame and wealth would have allowed him to enjoy a very comfortable retirement, Jackie Robinson remained committed to the fight against racism and social injustice until his death. He helped to establish the Freedom National Bank in Harlem, which provided loans to African-Americans trying to start their own businesses. He also founded his own construction company which built housing for low-income families in New York. Jackie Robinson was also active politically. He spoke throughout the country in support of civil rights, participated in protest marches, and raised large sums of money for civil rights organizations. He also worked actively for several politicians who promoted the cause of racial equality. Despite all the sacrifices in his life, Jackie Robinson always maintained that there was more work to be done. Hence, he entitled his autobiography, ``I Never Had It Made.'' He wrote, ``I am grateful for all the breaks and honors and opportunities I've had, but I always believe I won't have it made until the humblest black kid in the most remote backwoods of America has it made.'' Unfortunately, 50 years after the fall of baseball's color barrier and 25 years after Jackie Robinson's death, America still has a long way to go if it hopes to ever meet Jackie Robinson's vision of what America should be. But while we still have not evolved into a society that is completely free from prejudice and social injustice, there are countless visible signs of Jackie Robinson's impact on this country. Last week, we all witnessed a true testament to Jackie Robinson's legacy as we watched 21-year-old Tiger Woods become the first person of color to win the Masters--golf's most prestigious tournament. But perhaps the most encouraging aspect of Tiger Woods' performance came during his acceptance speech. Tiger Woods specifically credited Lee Elder, Charlie Sifford, and Teddy Rhodes, the first African-Americans to ever compete at Augusta, for opening doors for him. He acknowledged that, without the sacrifices of trailblazers like these men and Jackie Robinson, very few of today's minority athletes would know the success that they have grown accustomed to. This is why we must celebrate the achievements of Jackie Robinson and other pioneers, because the lessons that they taught us are as relevant today as they were decades ago, and we must heed their words and actions or we will cease to be a progressive society. Tuesday night's event at Shea Stadium had many special moments, but the most touching came when Rachel Robinson, Jackie's widow, spoke in honor of her husband, and the audience gave her the warm ovation that she so richly deserved. Her sacrifices were as great as her husband's, and too often we forget that Jackie Robinson, who was described as the loneliest man in sports, endured and prevailed only with the support of his partner Rachel, who was always by his side. Rachel Robinson sacrificed her own personal aspirations during Jackie's playing career and dedicated herself to raising their children and supporting her husband. But upon their retirement to Connecticut, she earned her master's degree in psychiatric nursing at Yale. She later operated a day clinic for acutely ill psychiatric patients, taught at Yale's School of Nursing, and served as director of nursing for the Connecticut Mental Health Center. Despite her own personal success, Rachel Robinson again displayed tremendous selflessness after Jackie's death in 1972. Upon his passing, it would have been easy for Rachel Robinson to continue the pursuit of her own career, but instead she gave up her medical career and dedicated her life to preserving the legacy of her husband. In 1973, she formed the Jackie Robinson Foundation, which has awarded more than 450 college scholarships to minority and disadvantaged students who have exhibited leadership potential and shown a commitment to community service. Throughout his life, Jackie Robinson always stressed the importance of education, and for a man whose life was dedicated to creating opportunities for others, providing young adults the chance to go to college is perhaps the most fitting tribute one could ever pay to this great man. I am proud to say that Rachel Robinson still resides in my home State of Connecticut, and we are truly fortunate to call her one of our own. While many glorious words have been spoken in honor of Jackie Robinson, I truly believe that the greatest tribute that we could ever pay to this man would be through our actions. As Rachel Robinson eloquently said, ``This anniversary * * * has given us an opportunity to reassess the challenges of the present. It is my passionate hope that we can take this reawakened feeling of unity and use it as a driving force so that each of us can recommit to equality of opportunity for all Americans.'' I hope that America will listen to the words of Rachel Robinson and work together to fulfill Jackie's and her dream. America is a better place because of Jackie and Rachel Robinson, and I want to thank both of them for their courage and sacrifice.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate Resolution 72, to allow disabled people with floor privileges to bring supporting services onto the floor with them when appropriate. For years, the disability community has fought for the right to be included and to be brought into the economic and social mainstream of American life. This resolution represents one more step forward in that long struggle to win equal treatment. Throughout our history, the rules of the Senate have served us extraordinarily well. They enable us to preserve order and decorum so that the affairs of our Nation can be debated, discussed, and considered in a reasoned, deliberate manner. Yet, as is true of any set of rules, occasionally the need for change becomes apparent. Such a moment occurred in the Senate on Monday when a Senator sought floor privileges for a member of his staff who is blind and utilizes a guide dog in her work. As a body, we responded to this moment as we should have: Carefully, deliberately, and swiftly. The staff member in question was granted access to the floor, and Senate Resolution 72 was promptly referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. I am hopeful that, in due course, we will revise our rules to allow all people with disabilities to bring supporting services with them to the floor when appropriate. Former Senator Lowell Weicker of my home State once said that people with disabilities spend a lifetime overcoming not what God wrought but what man imposed by custom and law. This resolution gratefully eliminates some of those customs and laws. It is an important step for disabled Americans, for the Senate, and for the entire country.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Yantic Fire Engine Company, located in my home State of Connecticut. It serves the largest territorial district in Norwich. This year, the Yantic Fire Engine Company celebrates its 150th anniversary. Perhaps the oldest volunteer fire company in Connecticut, and possibly the United States, this company has been providing an invaluable service to Yantic and the city of Norwich for 150 years. The Yantic Fire Company was created on June 17, 1847, when the Connecticut General Assembly approved its application for charter. The official name of the fire company was Yantic Fire Company No. 1. Rich in tradition and history, this company is unique for many reasons. It still houses some of its original equipment, including an 1847 Waterman hand tub, an 1891 Silsby steamer, and a Silsby hose carriage. These pieces, well maintained and restored, are national treasures. In July, the Village of Yantic will host a parade in honor of the Yantic Fire Engine Company's 150 years of service. This sure-to-be impressive celebration will include over 100 fire companies and numerous marching groups. I applaud the efforts of the Yantic Fire Engine Company to commemorate their distinguished history. This fire company has worked hard, with pride and distinction to ensure the health and safety of the members of its community. I join with them in paying tribute to those who have given their lives to protecting others, while serving the Yantic Fire Engine Company.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor two Connecticut citizens whose art, talent, and marriage are truly inspirational--Janet Cummings and Peter Good. On April 16, Janet and Peter will receive the University of Connecticut's highest honor--the University Medal. The University Medal recognizes outstanding professional achievement, leadership, and distinguished public service on a community, State, national, or international level. As a resident of East Haddam, which is just across the Connecticut River from their home in Chester, I have long been familiar with their impressive contributions to Connecticut's artistic community, and I am very pleased that the University of Connecticut has chosen to honor their careers. Janet and Peter first met while attending UConn's Fine Arts College in the mid-1960's, and for more than 20 years they have worked together at their own graphic design studio in the river-valley town of Chester. The philosophy of their design studio, Cummings & Good, has been to extend their own nurturing and collaborative relationship to their clients. This philosophy has proven to be immensely successful, as they have done work for many respected corporate clients. This commercial success has allowed Cummings & Good to sustain the cost of providing quality design, but, perhaps more important, it has allowed the studio to do an inordinate amount of work for non profit organizations. Cummings & Good has provided designs for the International Year of the Child, the National Theatre of the Deaf in Chester, Wadsworth Atheneum in Hartford, and the Special Olympics, which were held in New Haven in 1995. On a personal level, Peter's design of the symbol for the University of Connecticut's year-long symposium ``Fifty Years After Nuremberg: Human Rights and the Rule of Law,'' holds special significance for me. This symposium began with the opening and dedication of the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, which was named for my father who served as a prosecutor at the Nuremberg tribunal. The dedication of this center was one of the proudest moments of my life, and Peter's design truly captured the spirit and essence of the event. I am also particularly fond of Peter's designs for the U.S. Postal Service's official 1993 holiday stamps. In fact, I reproduced the image of these stamps for the front of my 1993 Christmas card, and I greatly appreciate Peter's kind permission to use his designs for this purpose. It's hard to imagine two more deserving recipients of this award than Janet and Peter, and I congratulate the University of Connecticut for its decision to bestow its highest honor on two members of the artistic community. The arts are at the root of our Nation's cultural heritage, and if we fail to promote the arts and recognize the achievements of creative individuals like Janet Cummings and Peter Good, we run the risk of becoming a society that is devoid of passion and imagination. Again, I congratulate Janet Cummings and Peter Good on receiving University Medals, and I hope that they will enjoy at least 30 more years of collaborating in art and marriage.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Michael Goldblatt, who was recently honored as Citizen of the Year by the Eastern Connecticut Chamber of Commerce. A longtime civic leader and lifelong resident of Norwich, CT, Michael has utilized his passion for antique cars and ice skating to help better the local community. In 1986 he founded the Eastern Connecticut Antique Auto Show. Currently in its 12th year, the show serves as one of the largest and most successful fund-raising events for the chamber of commerce. Today, he is still on the show's executive board and is its chief technical judge. What's more, he was the catalyst for efforts to build the Norwich Municipal Ice Rink, which today is home for the New England Sharks Double A youth hockey program. Starting with virtually no financial resources, Michael mobilized local officials and helped raise millions of dollars to make his dream of a year-round, fully enclosed ice rink a reality. Michael Goldblatt also serves as treasurer of the Norwich Community Development Corp. and has been a member of the board of directors for the Eastern Connecticut Chamber of Commerce, the Norwich Recreation Advisory Board, and the Connecticut Society of CPA's. In all his endeavors, Michael has been a tremendous asset to both the city of Norwich and to the entire State of Connecticut. His humanitarian and altruistic efforts are an example that all Americans should emulate. I commend the Eastern Connecticut Chamber of Commerce on their fine choice and I once again congratulate Michael on his selection as Citizen of the Year. He is a deserving choice.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. My State of Connecticut is heavily dependent on nuclear power. I have long supported this energy source, and long been concerned about how to safely dispose of its waste. I support the need for a national, permanent, geological repository for nuclear waste, but I cannot support the bill before us today. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act mandates construction of an above-ground, interim storage facility even before the scientific findings on the permanent repository at Yucca Mountain are completed. The Department of Energy has said that the viability studies for Yucca Mountain should be completed in 1998. I remain concerned that construction of an interim facility would effectively stifle efforts to establish a permanent, geological repository. It is a costly and risky diversion from what should be our primary goal in this area: finding a safe, permanent place to store our nation's nuclear waste. We have already spent almost $5 billion on the permanent facility and it is not even finished. It is estimated that the interim facility would cost an additional $2 billion. Let me remind you that the interim facility is above ground. If for any reason the scientific assessments for Yucca Mountain are negative, either the interim facility would become the de facto permanent repository without establishing its suitability as such, or the waste would have to be moved again. Either alternative is unacceptable. One of the main reasons that I cannot support this bill, is my fear of what could happen if we must move the nuclear waste multiple times. Let us not forget that transporting nuclear waste is inherently risky and any accident or act of terrorism could prove disastrous. I do not want our communities in Connecticut and around the Nation to be at risk because we acted imprudently. The supporters of this bill have tried to assure us that transporting nuclear waste is safe, and that environmental safeguards would be in place. I am convinced that this bill does not adequately protect public health and safety and that too many environmental laws are weakened. In fact, this bill restricts the Environmental Protection Agency's [EPA] ability to set a drinking water standard at the nuclear waste repository. Let me remind you that last Congress the Senate passed the Safe Drinking Water amendments by a resounding vote of 98-0. Clearly, upholding Federal drinking water standards should be a priority in Nevada no less than in Connecticut. EPA is further restricted in its ability to adequately protect the population from radiation emissions. Granted, EPA can continue to set the annual acceptable dose limit for radiation exposure, but the bill remains vague on any further action that EPA could take to protect the public health and safety from dangerous emission levels. Furthermore, language in the bill is so vague that it is unclear whether compliance with the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act would be required. It seems to me that threatening public health and safety is the price of expediency. State laws that could slow the process of interim storage are simply preempted. The National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA], passed by Congress in 1969, establishes an environmental impact process for major Federal projects, like Yucca Mountain. The goal of the environmental impact process is to look at all alternatives to ensure that the most environmentally sound alternative is chosen. This bill severely restricts the NEPA decision-making process regarding transportation and the design of either repository. In effect, the public has no role in the decision-making process. Now, I would like to clarify a few statements that have been made during this debate regarding the State of Connecticut. I recognize the importance of safely storing nuclear waste and the impact this has on my State. It has been said that the situation in Connecticut is urgent. However, it is my understanding that there is sufficient capacity. The fuel pool at one of the facilities in my State should be able to accommodate waste from the other reactors until the end of their licenses and well into the next century. Decisions concerning the fourth facility, Connecticut Yankee, await a final decommissioning plan. Last week, my colleague from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski, mentioned a Hartford Courant editorial that, I might say, only marginally supported the bill. In fact, I believe the editorial was entitled, ``The Lesser of Two Evils''--hardly a rousing endorsement. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the Record another Connecticut editorial. This one is from the New London Day, a newspaper located in the southeastern part of Connecticut, just down the road from three of our nuclear reactors. The editorial, entitled, ``Nagging Nuclear Waste Problem,'' states that ``Many safety advocates believe that waste should not be sent to Yucca Mountain unless the facility is designated as suitable to hold the material long-term.'' The editorial goes on to say that, ``Otherwise, opponents say, if the site is ultimately found to be unsuitable, waste will have to be shipped out again. It doesn't make any sense to have nuclear waste from 109 plants shipped all over the country unless it can be shipped once.'' Mr. President, I concur with the rationale of the New London Day. We should wait for scientific verification of Yucca Mountain as a permanent storage site, before shipping nuclear waste throughout Connecticut and our country.