Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support, as an original cosponsor of the reauthorization of the Mammography Quality Standards Act [MQSA]. I first lent my support to this effort when the MQSA was initially introduced and passed in the 102nd Congress. For the past 5 years, this critically important legislation has provided women with safe and reliable mammography services. As the Mammography Quality Standards Act comes up for reauthorization, I urge all of my fellow colleagues to once again make a commitment to the health and well being of America's women by supporting this legislation. Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer to affect women. In fact, almost 1 in 9 women will develop breast cancer at some point in their lives. Mammography, while not a cure for cancer, provides the best detection system for diagnosing this dangerous and deadly disease. And, early detection of breast cancer is often the key to effective treatment and recovery. The Mammography Quality Standards Act ensures that mammography service providers comply with Federal requirements. These quality standards guard against inaccurate or inconclusive mammography results, thereby reducing the costly procedures associated with false positive diagnoses. Before this legislation was originally enacted, women were often at the mercy of their mammography service provider, unaware if these providers lacked the necessary equipment, or even adequately trained technicians. The MQSA is helping to effectively eliminate concerns of substandard mammography and its possibly tragic results by assuring that only the correct radiological equipment is used in mammography testing. Further, this legislation is assuring women that only physicians adequately trained in this medical area are interpreting mammograms. New to this legislation are some additional requirements which seek to further assure women that their mammogram service produces the most accurate and timely detection of any irregularities. Mammography service providers will now be required to retain women's mammogram records so that an accurate medical history is maintained. Reauthorization of these quality standards will also ensure that patients are notified about substandard mammography facilities. I wish to commend Senator Mikulski for her leadership on this crucial legislation. Again, it is my pleasure to join my colleagues in ensuring that quality mammography service is readily available, and I urge the Senate to act quickly and approve this critically important measure for American women.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the need for increased attention to gun safety. Increasingly, children are gaining access to loaded and unlocked guns with fatal consequences. Recently, an 8-year- old girl in Bridgeport, CT, took a gun that was left behind a couch and shot and killed her 10-year-old sister. These tragedies happen far too frequently. A report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes that nearly 1.2 million latch- key children have access to loaded and unlocked firearms each day. Children cause over 10,000 unintentional shootings each year in which 800 people die. This violence is not limited to the home. The Connecticut Department of Health recently completed a survey of 12,000 Connecticut teenagers called the Voice of Connecticut Youth. More than one-third of boys in 9th and 11th grades said they either had a gun or could get one in less than a day. When you consider intentional and unintentional shootings, 16 children are killed with firearms every day in this country. We must put an end to the tragedy of gun violence. We need to take steps to ensure that gun owners are storing their guns safely-- unloaded, locked, and out of the reach of children. That is why I am cosponsoring Senator Kohl's legislation, S. 428, which requires licensed manufacturers, importers, and dealers to sell handguns with a child safety or locking device. The bill also requires a warning that the improper locking or storage of a handgun may result in civil or criminal penalties. Today I am also introducing a separate measure that would simply add another section to Senator Kohl's bill. The section would authorize the National Institute of Justice to conduct a study on possible standards for gun locks. As we move to have greater use of gun locks, we ought to make sure that those locks are high quality. These small steps forward could save thousands of lives. They will not affect responsible gun owners who are already doing the right thing, but they will remind careless gun owners of the need for increased safety. My home State of Connecticut is out in front on this issue. One of our State laws requires locks on handguns, another State law requires that guns be stored away from children. But one State can only do so much. A gun bought outside our State can become an instrument of tragedy within our State. And we also need to make kids across the Nation safer. In many ways, this issue is simple--if we require safety caps on medicine to protect kids, we should clearly require safety locks on guns. I urge my colleagues to join with me and Senator Kohl in support of these gun safety measures. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my bill, the Handgun Safety Act of 1997, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support, as an original cosponsor of the reauthorization of the Mammography Quality Standards Act [MQSA]. I first lent my support to this effort when the MQSA was initially introduced and passed in the 102nd Congress. For the past 5 years, this critically important legislation has provided women with safe and reliable mammography services. As the Mammography Quality Standards Act comes up for reauthorization, I urge all of my fellow colleagues to once again make a commitment to the health and well being of America's women by supporting this legislation. Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer to affect women. In fact, almost 1 in 9 women will develop breast cancer at some point in their lives. Mammography, while not a cure for cancer, provides the best detection system for diagnosing this dangerous and deadly disease. And, early detection of breast cancer is often the key to effective treatment and recovery. The Mammography Quality Standards Act ensures that mammography service providers comply with Federal requirements. These quality standards guard against inaccurate or inconclusive mammography results, thereby reducing the costly procedures associated with false positive diagnoses. Before this legislation was originally enacted, women were often at the mercy of their mammography service provider, unaware if these providers lacked the necessary equipment, or even adequately trained technicians. The MQSA is helping to effectively eliminate concerns of substandard mammography and its possibly tragic results by assuring that only the correct radiological equipment is used in mammography testing. Further, this legislation is assuring women that only physicians adequately trained in this medical area are interpreting mammograms. New to this legislation are some additional requirements which seek to further assure women that their mammogram service produces the most accurate and timely detection of any irregularities. Mammography service providers will now be required to retain women's mammogram records so that an accurate medical history is maintained. Reauthorization of these quality standards will also ensure that patients are notified about substandard mammography facilities. I wish to commend Senator Mikulski for her leadership on this crucial legislation. Again, it is my pleasure to join my colleagues in ensuring that quality mammography service is readily available, and I urge the Senate to act quickly and approve this critically important measure for American women.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the need for increased attention to gun safety. Increasingly, children are gaining access to loaded and unlocked guns with fatal consequences. Recently, an 8-year- old girl in Bridgeport, CT, took a gun that was left behind a couch and shot and killed her 10-year-old sister. These tragedies happen far too frequently. A report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes that nearly 1.2 million latch- key children have access to loaded and unlocked firearms each day. Children cause over 10,000 unintentional shootings each year in which 800 people die. This violence is not limited to the home. The Connecticut Department of Health recently completed a survey of 12,000 Connecticut teenagers called the Voice of Connecticut Youth. More than one-third of boys in 9th and 11th grades said they either had a gun or could get one in less than a day. When you consider intentional and unintentional shootings, 16 children are killed with firearms every day in this country. We must put an end to the tragedy of gun violence. We need to take steps to ensure that gun owners are storing their guns safely-- unloaded, locked, and out of the reach of children. That is why I am cosponsoring Senator Kohl's legislation, S. 428, which requires licensed manufacturers, importers, and dealers to sell handguns with a child safety or locking device. The bill also requires a warning that the improper locking or storage of a handgun may result in civil or criminal penalties. Today I am also introducing a separate measure that would simply add another section to Senator Kohl's bill. The section would authorize the National Institute of Justice to conduct a study on possible standards for gun locks. As we move to have greater use of gun locks, we ought to make sure that those locks are high quality. These small steps forward could save thousands of lives. They will not affect responsible gun owners who are already doing the right thing, but they will remind careless gun owners of the need for increased safety. My home State of Connecticut is out in front on this issue. One of our State laws requires locks on handguns, another State law requires that guns be stored away from children. But one State can only do so much. A gun bought outside our State can become an instrument of tragedy within our State. And we also need to make kids across the Nation safer. In many ways, this issue is simple--if we require safety caps on medicine to protect kids, we should clearly require safety locks on guns. I urge my colleagues to join with me and Senator Kohl in support of these gun safety measures. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my bill, the Handgun Safety Act of 1997, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding. Let me begin these brief remarks by commending him and, of course, our good friend and colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, who is the lead sponsor of this legislation, for his efforts here, along with our colleague from Massachusetts who historically, of course, has taken the leadership role over the last number of decades on health-care-related issues. Our colleague from Utah and I have had the pleasure and privilege of working together on major legislation. When he says, if you have a bill with Orrin Hatch's name on it, there is a good chance it is going to become law, I can testify to that, having worked with him on the act for better child care. Today millions of people have accidental health care and decent child care because of his efforts. So I commend, Mr. President, both of our colleagues. I offered the first child health care package almost 4 years ago to deal with children's health. As both of our colleagues have pointed out, Mr. President, we have about 10 to 10.5 million children in the country who do not have any health care at all. In my State of Connecticut, about 110,000 children are without any health care coverage at all. What makes this so ironic in many ways, Mr. President--as we have gone through a debate on welfare reform fairly recently--is that 88 percent of the parents of these children without health care are working. The assumption I think a lot of people must have is that children without health care are the children of parents who are living on public assistance. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you are on public assistance, you get health care, you get Medicaid. If you are out of work on welfare, you get Medicaid. If you are in jail, you get health care in this country. But God help you if you are a working family out there working at the lower income levels trying to provide for your family when we have a seen a dramatic increase in the reduction of private health care coverage. Mr. President, I asked for a General Accounting Office study a number of months ago, the results of which came back about a few weeks ago on what has happened to private health insurance for working families. We have seen about a 4.5 to 5 percent increase nationwide in the number of families who have dropped or been dropped from private health insurance. In 1993, 29 million families lost their health care coverage in this country. And the premium costs went up. Small employers decided to drop it altogether. So we have watched a tremendous increase in the number of families, working families, with children without any kind of health care coverage at all. Many of our State laws, Mr. President, require, under law, that you insure your automobile. Many of our State laws, if not all of them, require that if you have a home mortgage, there be insurance on your house. All that we are suggesting here today is that if you have a child, there ought to be health care coverage or insurance for that child. If it is mandatory that your home be insured, if it is mandatory your car be insured, if you are out of work and on public assistance you get health care, if you are in prison you get health care, what our colleagues from Massachusetts and Utah, and those of us who are supporting them, are suggesting, is that if you are a working family in this country, your children--your children--also ought to have a safety net for health care. So this proposal does just that. Mr. President, I will just conclude with a story. We had a press conference announcing this GAO study a few days ago. I brought with me a woman from Connecticut. Both she and her husband work. Her husband is in construction. She works for a nonprofit organization in the State of Connecticut. They have two children. Their oldest boy has a serious mental health problem. It is a serious mental health illness with a cost of over $1,000 a month, on average, for medication. They have run out of support from the State program. There is not going to be any more. They were left with this choice--until someone stepped in and made an exception in their case--but left with this choice: Either they could quit their jobs and go on public assistance and get health care for that child, that is one option, or the other was to take their child and turn him over to the State, give up custody and let him become a ward of the State, so that then the child could get health care coverage. We hear people talking of family values and families staying together all the time. But somehow, in this situation, this family wants desperately to keep custody of their child, and they keep working and they get no help whatever. There is something fundamentally erroneous about the situation that presently exists that if you work and want to keep your children, you run the risk of losing the health care, whereas if you go on public assistance or give up the custody of your child, you can get health care coverage. Mr. President, the suggestion of both of our colleagues is to fill in this gap that exists for these 10\1/2\ million children today that are without any health care coverage. The numbers are growing, by the way. This is not a number that is declining, but is a number that is growing. They have come up with a funding scheme that I think most people will support in this country. It is controversial. Obviously, some will object to how this is paid for. I think it is a very sound idea to come up with this funding scheme and also to allocate some of the resources for deficit reduction. Again, Mr. President, if we can insure our cars by law, our homes by law, if you are on welfare or in prison and you get health care coverage, at the very least, we ought to do the same for America's children. This legislation allows us to do that. I commend both of our colleagues and look forward to adoption of the law.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding. Let me begin these brief remarks by commending him and, of course, our good friend and colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, who is the lead sponsor of this legislation, for his efforts here, along with our colleague from Massachusetts who historically, of course, has taken the leadership role over the last number of decades on health-care-related issues. Our colleague from Utah and I have had the pleasure and privilege of working together on major legislation. When he says, if you have a bill with Orrin Hatch's name on it, there is a good chance it is going to become law, I can testify to that, having worked with him on the act for better child care. Today millions of people have accidental health care and decent child care because of his efforts. So I commend, Mr. President, both of our colleagues. I offered the first child health care package almost 4 years ago to deal with children's health. As both of our colleagues have pointed out, Mr. President, we have about 10 to 10.5 million children in the country who do not have any health care at all. In my State of Connecticut, about 110,000 children are without any health care coverage at all. What makes this so ironic in many ways, Mr. President--as we have gone through a debate on welfare reform fairly recently--is that 88 percent of the parents of these children without health care are working. The assumption I think a lot of people must have is that children without health care are the children of parents who are living on public assistance. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you are on public assistance, you get health care, you get Medicaid. If you are out of work on welfare, you get Medicaid. If you are in jail, you get health care in this country. But God help you if you are a working family out there working at the lower income levels trying to provide for your family when we have a seen a dramatic increase in the reduction of private health care coverage. Mr. President, I asked for a General Accounting Office study a number of months ago, the results of which came back about a few weeks ago on what has happened to private health insurance for working families. We have seen about a 4.5 to 5 percent increase nationwide in the number of families who have dropped or been dropped from private health insurance. In 1993, 29 million families lost their health care coverage in this country. And the premium costs went up. Small employers decided to drop it altogether. So we have watched a tremendous increase in the number of families, working families, with children without any kind of health care coverage at all. Many of our State laws, Mr. President, require, under law, that you insure your automobile. Many of our State laws, if not all of them, require that if you have a home mortgage, there be insurance on your house. All that we are suggesting here today is that if you have a child, there ought to be health care coverage or insurance for that child. If it is mandatory that your home be insured, if it is mandatory your car be insured, if you are out of work and on public assistance you get health care, if you are in prison you get health care, what our colleagues from Massachusetts and Utah, and those of us who are supporting them, are suggesting, is that if you are a working family in this country, your children--your children--also ought to have a safety net for health care. So this proposal does just that. Mr. President, I will just conclude with a story. We had a press conference announcing this GAO study a few days ago. I brought with me a woman from Connecticut. Both she and her husband work. Her husband is in construction. She works for a nonprofit organization in the State of Connecticut. They have two children. Their oldest boy has a serious mental health problem. It is a serious mental health illness with a cost of over $1,000 a month, on average, for medication. They have run out of support from the State program. There is not going to be any more. They were left with this choice--until someone stepped in and made an exception in their case--but left with this choice: Either they could quit their jobs and go on public assistance and get health care for that child, that is one option, or the other was to take their child and turn him over to the State, give up custody and let him become a ward of the State, so that then the child could get health care coverage. We hear people talking of family values and families staying together all the time. But somehow, in this situation, this family wants desperately to keep custody of their child, and they keep working and they get no help whatever. There is something fundamentally erroneous about the situation that presently exists that if you work and want to keep your children, you run the risk of losing the health care, whereas if you go on public assistance or give up the custody of your child, you can get health care coverage. Mr. President, the suggestion of both of our colleagues is to fill in this gap that exists for these 10\1/2\ million children today that are without any health care coverage. The numbers are growing, by the way. This is not a number that is declining, but is a number that is growing. They have come up with a funding scheme that I think most people will support in this country. It is controversial. Obviously, some will object to how this is paid for. I think it is a very sound idea to come up with this funding scheme and also to allocate some of the resources for deficit reduction. Again, Mr. President, if we can insure our cars by law, our homes by law, if you are on welfare or in prison and you get health care coverage, at the very least, we ought to do the same for America's children. This legislation allows us to do that. I commend both of our colleagues and look forward to adoption of the law.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a true public servant and a dear friend, Bernard Neville of Cromwell, CT. Bernie was honored this past Saturday as the Democrat of the Year by the Cromwell Democratic Town Committee, for his nearly 25 years of service as Cromwell's town clerk and treasurer. I join all the residents of Cromwell in congratulating and honoring Bernie on his impressive record of achievement. Over the past 30 years, Bernie has also been a loyal and faithful Democrat. He's not only served as chairman of the town committee, but several times worked as cocoordinator of Congresswoman Barbara Kennelly's election campaign. Most of all, he s been an invaluable asset in energizing and registering Democratic voters. The fact is, public servants like Bernard Neville serve as the backbone of our democracy. They don't receive much attention, but they are truly an essential element of our representative government. You don't often see them on Sunday talk shows or on the front page of the New York Times, Washington Post, or Hartford Courant. They're not much interested in partisanship or political maneuvering. But, on a local level they ensure that public services are provided and local tax dollars are spent wisely. For the past 25 years, Bernie ensured that town elections ran smoothly, citizen petitions and lawsuits were filed correctly, local funds were shrewdly invested and Cromwell's government was working for the benefit of its citizens. In that time, he's done his job with professionalism, integrity, and a strong commitment to serving the people of Cromwell. I congratulate and thank him for his efforts. I am also pleased to note that even at 83 years young, he plans to continue working toward his degree at Trinity College, where he is majoring in history. I wish Bernie the best of luck in all his future endeavors and congratulate him again on this wonderful honor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes of leader's time, and I will try to use less than that time. Let me begin these remarks by thanking the sponsors of this resolution that is pending before the Senate. I want to especially thank our colleague from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, with whom I have the pleasure of serving with as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, Narcotics and Terrorism of the Committee on Foreign Relations. He played a very major role in shaping the compromise that is now before us. I would mention as well our colleagues, Dianne Feinstein from California, Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas, John McCain of Arizona, and others who worked tirelessly in helping put this resolution together. I commend them for their work in putting this resolution together. I am happy to have been a part of it. Even though I do not agree with every word in it, on balance I believe it is a very constructive approach to a very difficult problem. I am sure that all of us who worked to forge this compromise would have liked to see things added or subtracted depending upon our points of view. But, that is the nature of how a resolution like this is assembled. I think the pending amendment captures the views of this body fairly accurately, and I suspect, the views of the American people whom we represent. Yes, there is a sense of outrage, fear, worry, and frustration over the ongoing threat posed by the Mexican drug cartels. We have paid a very heavy price for their relentless efforts to ply their trade whereever they can get away with it. The human costs of drug use are real and mounting. This scourge that still ravages this country called drugs has caused great damage to millions of people in this country and elsewhere. The pending amendment is an attempt to express to our neighbor and ally to the south of us, Mexico, where more than 50 percent of all the drugs that come to this country are produced or transit through, that we would like to see more cooperation in our efforts to eliminate drugs from both our countries. Mr. President, the economic costs to the American people from the illegal use of narcotics is in excess $67 billion annually. Estimates are that nearly 13 million Americans regularly use illegal substances. The revenues generated by the drug kingpins totals more than $49 billion annually--a rather remarkable statistic. The Mexican drug cartels allocate more than $6 billion of ill gotten gains for the sale of drugs in order to bribe, or otherwise corrupt Mexican law enforcement and judicial authorities involved in counternarcotics programs. We consume 50 percent of all the illegal drugs produced in the world. We represent 5 percent of the world's population. So clearly the United States is at the heart of the international drug problem. More and more, this is not solely an American problem. Drug consumption is beginning to ravage countries which in the past never had a problem with illegal substances and drugs. But today that is changing, and even in producing countries--transit countries--nations where money laundering goes on, consumption and the ravages of consumption are beginning to wreak havoc in these nations as well. I cite just of few statistics. There are clearly many more. I know my colleague from California provided some other statistics in the course of her remarks concerning, for example, the amount of product coming into this country. Let me say that I think it is perfectly appropriate and proper that we raise the issue of the effectiveness of our allies and neighbors' counter-narcotics efforts. But we should admit as well that we could do a better job here at home in helping to wage an all out effort against illegal drug use. We need to take a good hard look in the mirror as well. I would argue very strenuously that were it not for the consumption in this country, were it not for our consumption problems, that we would have far less of a problem with nations like Mexico and others. I don't say that is an excuse to let those nations off the hook who produce, process, and tranship these illegal drugs that wind up on our streets. But if we are going to have an intelligent and thoughtful discussion about drug abuse and illegal drug production, and the problems these create, then we need to spend at least as much time in analyzing what we in the United States are doing or are not doing in our own country that creates the market for these products as we do pointing the accusing finger at those who are involved on the supply side. Simply put, if we did not have a domestic consumption problem we would not have the magnitude of the problem of the supply side that exists in Mexico today. With enough resources we can probably deal with Mexico. Or we can deal with Peru, and Colombia. But what we have learned historically is that as we begin to put pressure on narcotraffickers in one country, they simply relocate to another. This will continue to be the case so long as our domestic consumption rates continue to go up. The producing countries, the transit countries, the money laundering countries, are only temporary locations in the transnational international drug trafficking business. So the first line of defense has to be a far more aggressive effort here at home to try to educate young people against the dangers and the problems associated with illegal drug use. We also need better treatment programs so that those who are hooked on drugs who want to change will have someplace to go to for help in breaking these incredibly debilitating habits. Yet today, there is a long waiting list at our drug treatment centers--a list of addicts wanting treatment that is currently unavailable to many of them. The waiting period to get into treatment can be as long as 4 years in some instances. Having to wait months and months for treatment certainly doesn't contribute to our efforts to reduce the problem of consumption. I hope as we attempt to seriously come to grips with the international drug threat to the United States --and it is not going to disappear overnight--that we focus a lot of our attention on reducing domestic drug abuse. Just as I believe we need to place more emphasis on the demand side, I think we need a serious rethinking of how we approach the supply side of the equation. The current approach as embodied in the annual certification process is not working. In 1986 when Congress enacted the drug certification law there was a great deal of frustration that neither the United States nor other countries were doing enough to fight the drug war. So Congress, on a bipartisan basis, set up a certification process in order to bring attention to the issue and try to do something about it. I strongly suggest to my colleagues--and I realize that I may be in the minority on this issue--that we ought to scrap this certification process and try to come up with some alternative idea that would allow us to develop a working partnership with other governments, particularly those in our own hemisphere. There are good people in Mexico who want to see this problem stopped as well. In fact, I made note the other day--it is worth repeating here today--that when President Zedillo of Mexico came forward and took some significant steps in dealing with the people in his own country who had been corrupted by this process, his favorability rating rose more than 10 percent in Mexican public opinion polls. It isn't just American citizens who are deeply troubled by the rising cost of illegal substances and drugs. The people of Mexico, the average citizen in the street, is worried about this. The mother in Mexico City is just as worried about her child becoming hooked on these substances as a mother in Hartford, or a mother in Atlanta, or a mother in Los Angeles. We need to be sensitive to that because they have to help us as well in trying to build a base of public support in Mexico that will encourage Mexican authorities to get tough on narcotraffickers and corrupt government officials. My colleague from Georgia may have addressed this already. I will just state it briefly. I think our colleague from Georgia has a very sound idea in terms of how we might look at this problem a bit differently. He has proposed that all countries that are involved in the various aspects of the drug trade, whatever their level of involvement, sit down and start figuring out how we can work together to solve this problem. It isn't going to be solved in one year or two. It isn't going to be solved at all unless we come up with a common plan--a plan developed by coequals trying to deal with this issue. That is the only way to get the kind of cooperation that is absolutely critical if we are going to be successful in dealing with our allies and others who are producing these products. I see my colleague. I will be glad to yield to him because I raised his name and mentioned his program.

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

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for mentioning that. I strongly urge the administration and others to take a strong, hard look at this and come forward with ideas so we can get off the certification track that brings us back here year in and year out picking winners and losers and deciding whether or not they are going to be on the good list, or the bad list, or the marginally good list. Whether they are going to be certified, decertified, or granted a national interest waiver. Debating that kind of question and getting votes of 55 to 45 or 65 to 30 for the various legislative initiatives surrounding certification doesn't get us anywhere. We have significant evidence that decertification has not fostered better cooperation from other countries. For the last 11 years we have decertified a handful of countries year in and year out. None of these countries counter narcotics efforts have improved as a result of that action. The simple question that must be asked about the current procedure is if it is not working should it continue? Shouldn't we consider an alternative that might really be effective in achieving the cooperation that is necessary to reduce the ravages of this problem? If we don't try something new, we will be sitting here, I promise you, with more charts next year and more charts the year after that, and more charts the year after that, and we can beat our chests, pound the table, and scream at neighbors and allies. But my fear is that it doesn't get any better. So, when your idea is not working very well, you ought to think anew. What the Senator from Georgia has done in my view is think anew on this. I commend him for it. I don't think he thinks nor do I think it is a perfect idea. But I think it has the seeds of success written into it. If we give it a chance and try to make it work, then I think it can produce the results that we all are looking for. Mr. President, again I commend the authors of this amendment. I think they have expressed the views of all of us more or less. We are all blessed to have General McCaffrey heading up narcotics efforts. He has done an excellent job and he enjoys universal support for his efforts. I urge the adoption of this amendment. But, more importantly, Mr. President, I urge that we find a different way in the coming weeks and months to address this issue before we find ourselves back again engaged in an exercise that isn't achieving the kind of results that many of us would like to see accomplished. With that, Mr. President, I urge adoption of the resolution and yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. How much time remains?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for the Chafee-Rockefeller Safe Adoptions and Families Environments Act [SAFE]. What's more, I commend each of them for their tireless and bipartisan efforts on behalf of this issue. As I come to the floor today, it is difficult for me to imagine a more outrageous and disgraceful form of violence than child abuse. However, while national attention to the problems of abuse are increasing, regrettably, so too are incidents of child abuse and neglect. In fact, the number of abused and neglected children nearly doubled from 1.4 million in 1986 to over 2.8 million in 1993. During that period the number of children who were seriously injured quadrupled--from about 143,000 to nearly 570,000. In my own State of Connecticut incidents of child abuse and neglect increased 118 percent from 1984 to 1994. In fact, between 1993 and 1994 alone there was a 43-percent increase. Unfortunately, many child welfare agencies lack the resources to effectively deal with the increase in child abuse cases or efficiently place children in safe, permanent, and loving homes. Legislation introduced today by Senators Chafee and Rockefeller, of which I am an original cosponsor, would do more to not only protect these abused children but also ensure that they are not returned to environments where they will be abused or neglected. First, it would work to ensure that abused and neglected children are placed in safe and protected settings. Second, it would more rapidly move children out of the foster system and into permanent homes. If there is one thing that all of us can agree upon it is the importance of assuring the safety and well-being of our Nation's children. This bill would improve our child welfare system and help ensure that every child is given the opportunity to grow up in a safe and healthy home. I urge all my colleagues to join me in a bipartisan manner, and support this critically important legislation for our children's future.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before the chairman of the committee leaves the floor, I have been listening to his statement. I do not know how many others you have as cosponsors, but I would like to be listed as one.

Mr. DODD. This is one of the most serious problems we face, not only when there is stockpiling, but in other areas. I think most Americans, when they go by and see ponds drained down, know that one of the things that always show up is tires. It is a real pollution problem, beyond just the collection in one site. I think the Senator from Rhode Island has offered a very creative and worthwhile suggestion that all of America will benefit from, so I commend him for the effort.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. That is a good point.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in his recent announcement that our friend from Kentucky, Wendell Ford, will retire at the end of the term, he said something very instructive and most of us may recall it. It was only a few days ago. Those who love and know the Senator knows he never fails to be instructive in his uniquely witty way. The Senator from Kentucky said one major reason he was not running again was because he did not want to spend the next 2 years raising $100,000 a week. Those were his words, $100,000 a week to raise the necessary dollars to run for reelection in Kentucky. With that statement, Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky captured, I think, with crystal clarity, the essence of this debate over campaign finance reform. I think most of us would agree there is just too much money in our political system, and it takes far too much money for the average American to be a part of the political system. So I rise this afternoon to speak about campaign finance reform and what I believe we must do to fix our campaign finance system. As my colleagues know, I just completed a 2-year term as the general chairman of the Democratic National Committee. I did not ask for that job, but, nonetheless, I am very proud to have been asked to serve in that capacity, an honor bestowed on two other Members in recent years. The former majority leader, Bob Dole, served as general chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Paul Laxalt served as general chairman of the Republican National Committee. My tenure as general chairman brings a unique perspective to campaign finance reform. I wish to speak briefly about the Hollings campaign finance reform constitutional amendment and the McCain-Feingold finance reform bill that is pending before this body. I will also, as I said earlier, speak about the role of the Federal Election Commission in our campaign finance system and will introduce a bill shortly that I think will strengthen the FEC and enable it to do the job with which it has been charged by the U.S. Congress. Mr. President, we have been speaking over the last few days about amending the Constitution, and, like most of my colleagues, I am extraordinarily wary of constitutional amendments. I believe, as I think most do, that our Constitution is a sacred organic document that has guided our lawmakers and this Nation and protected our rights successfully, by and large, for the past 200 years. The citizens of this Nation have found it necessary to amend the Constitution only 27 times in over 200 years, 17 times since the Bill of Rights was written, and they have been wise, I think, in that restraint. But more than 20 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in what I believe to be a flawed decision by that Court, the Buckley versus Valeo decision, that very simply, money equals political speech. I have never quite seen the logic in that decision. I believe that the poor woman next door who can only make a very small or no contribution at all has just as much right to be heard as someone who can make a sizable contribution, and, yet, obviously the voices have different weight. So I do not believe we ought to necessarily assume because people can or cannot make a contribution that their voices are going to be heard with the same volume and intensity. I am not alone in this assessment that the Buckley decision is flawed. Fifty prominent constitutional scholars led by Ronald Dworkin, and 24 attorneys general, believe the Buckley decision was simply wrong. So, while money floods endlessly in our election system, the voice of the average American too often is drowned out. My fear is democracy will be the victim. I repeat, I am extremely wary of amending the Constitution, much less the first amendment, but I have come to the conclusion that there is simply too much money in the system and that our campaign finance troubles are so great that I think an amendment is warranted in this case. Therefore, I am lending my name as a cosponsor and will be supporting the constitutional amendment when it comes for a vote before this body. But I think we must also be realistic. The fact is that this amendment is going to fail. There are not enough votes to carry it. I know that, and I think the Senator from South Carolina does as well. The process of passing this amendment would be a long and arduous one, if it is ever passed, and I understand that as well. We simply cannot, however, let our democracy languish, in my view, in the current campaign finance system any longer, much less until we are able to pass a constitutional amendment, which makes clear everyone has a right to be heard regardless of how much money they have, how deep their pockets are. That is why I am a strong supporter of the McCain- Feingold legislation that has been the subject of much discussion over the past several months. One of the McCain-Feingold's great advantages is that it is written with the Supreme Court's Buckley versus Valeo decision, in mind. Trying to avoid the assertions that have been made by many, and I believe with good reason, they are concerned whether or not this bill would actually pass constitutional muster. But I think Senator McCain and Senator Feingold have gone out of their way to try and craft this bill in such a way as to answer those concerns that have been raised by legitimate scholars of the Constitution and legitimate scholars of the Buckley versus Valeo decision. The bill acknowledges, as I am sure the Presiding Officer knows, the constitutional constraints laid out in Buckley, and it tries to fashion a workable solution to most of our campaign finance problems, including the soft money issue, within those constraints. Since the opening gavel of the 105th Congress, the Senate and the House, and much of Washington--of course the media--have spent countless hours discussing the fundraising practices that have been raised during the 1996 elections. Finally, a couple of days ago, the Senate finalized the budget and scope of the investigation into most of these alleged improprieties. It will be an investigation that will examine aspects of both Presidential and congressional elections, performed with a reasonable amount of money, in my view, and within a reasonable amount of time. Mr. President, you may recall, and others may recall, that I abstained during those votes. I did so not because I did not support the investigation. On the contrary, I do support the investigation. I think it is necessary. Rather, as I explained before the Rules Committee last week, I did abstain in order to avoid any question about the motives that I might have in casting votes on various matters that could have come up. As it turned out, we had only a couple of votes, and they were carried unanimously in this Chamber. I could not have anticipated that, given the division during the consideration of the resolution in the Rules Committee and prior to the consideration of it when it came to the floor of the Senate. I did not want my motives to be impugned or second-guessed and decided, having served as the general chairman of the Democratic National Committee, I would abstain on the votes affecting that investigation and that committee's work. I am glad, as I said earlier, that an agreement has been reached unanimously, and I hope it will get us to the bottom of all of the alleged misdeeds that have been raised by everyone in this process, Republicans, Democrats, and others. That said, I think it is clear that while Americans want us to find out what happened in 1996, it is just as clear that they are also asking us to fix a system that led to the alleged problems that occurred in 1996. Indeed, Americans have been urging us for quite some time to fix our campaign finance system, and I do not think we need to wait much longer or go through lengthy hearings to analyze the various proposals and ideas that have been suggested. We need not wait for an investigation. We do not have to wait for the conclusion of a debate on a constitutional amendment. The McCain- Feingold legislation, I think, is the way we can do that, and I believe we should do it now. Indeed, the questions raised during the last election about campaign finance spending serve, I think, to highlight the critical importance of the need for immediate legislative action. Over the past 10 years, Mr. President, this Congress has spent a great deal of time looking at our campaign finance laws. Let me share with you a litany of how much we have accumulated in terms of testimony and ideas that have come forward. The Congress has produced in 10 years 6,742 pages of congressional hearings on campaign finance reform. There have been 3,361 speeches that have been given on the floor of this body on campaign finance reform. There has been over 1,000 pages of committee reports on campaign finance reform. There have been 113 votes in the U.S. Senate on campaign finance reform. We have heard from 522 witnesses before the U.S. Senate on campaign finance reform. And we have had one bipartisan commission established to examine campaign finance reform and make suggestions. And yet, at the conclusion of all of that, Mr. President, we are no better off today than we were 10 years ago on this issue. So while I am certain there will be additional hearings this year, I would urge those who may be interested in examining various ideas--I am quite confident the bulk of the speech and documents and hearings and testimony already accumulated, the amount of evidence, I think, would provide us with the basis for crafting legislation and answering the questions that have been raised. Survey after survey of Americans in this country indicates that people believe our campaign system is in desperate need of reform. What is worse, the same surveys indicate that the American people's lack of faith in the campaign system is translating itself--this may be the most serious problem aside from the issue of campaign contributions and donations--the most serious problem may not be that, as bad as that is, but the lack of faith, the declining level of faith that the American people have in our democratic institutions. For that is at the very heart of what is at stake here. Some of our colleagues who oppose reform have said we need more, not less, money in politics. Well, Mr. President, we have gotten more. There is no question about it--a fourfold increase in campaign finance donations in just the past 8 years, from $220 million raised by both parties in 1988, to $881 million raised in 1996, a 73-percent increase over 4 years ago--a 73-percent increase in political costs since 1992. While wages rose 13 percent and education costs rose 17 percent during that same period of time, the cost and expenditures of campaigns rose 73 percent. And what has all that money done? How has it paid off? One might assume, well, if we spent more money and more people are involved today, more people are participating, maybe it is worth it. That assumption is clearly wrong. Last November, Mr. President, only 49 percent of the eligible population in the United States of America bothered to vote in a Presidential election. That is the lowest turnout since the 1920's, more than 70 years ago. So while the dollar volume has increased, the amount of ads have risen, and proliferation about people's points of view have certainly grown tremendously, we are watching an inverse reaction and fewer and fewer people seem to be participating in the process. While there is a great deal of attention, obviously, in the media and here on Capitol Hill on the Democratic Party's efforts to raise campaign funds, I think it is important that we try to put this issue in perspective. First of all, let me say at the outset, Mr. President, I think that my party, the Democratic Party, made a huge error in 1993 when President Clinton was inaugurated into office. The Democrats were in the majority in the U.S. Senate. We were in the majority in the House of Representatives. We should have passed, in my view, campaign finance reform, and we did not. I think those who wish to take us to task on that issue are right in doing so. We made a mistake. And we missed an opportunity. Having said that, Mr. President, the mistake should not be compounded, in my view, by letting the succeeding Congresses go on without trying to come to terms with this issue. And if nothing else comes out of the great attention to what happened in 1996, then maybe, just maybe, that as a result of the attention being paid to what happened, we might finally get an opportunity here to come together and pass some meaningful campaign finance reform. But, Mr. President, I cannot resist in pointing out as well that when it comes to the question of dollars raised in these efforts, of course, in the last cycle our friends on the Republican side raised $549 million compared to the $332 million raised by the Democratic Party. Second, of course, Democrats have long supported reform. Many Republicans do as well. In fact, the lead cosponsor of the bill that I mentioned earlier, the McCain-Feingold, is a Republican. For those who may not be familiar with our colleague from Arizona, John McCain is a Republican, and Russ Feingold is a Democrat from Wisconsin. And yet despite that, in the previous Congress we had 46 out of 47 Democrats support John McCain's bill along with Russ Feingold. But it failed to muster the necessary votes to break a filibuster. We had a majority of people here that were willing to at least bring the McCain-Feingold bill to the floor, but you need, of course, a supermajority to break a filibuster. We never could produce the supermajority even to bring the bill up so the people could offer their ideas and suggestions on how they might modify or amend the McCain- Feingold proposal. Mr. President, I have been involved in these issues for some time, going back to 1979 when some of the first proposals were offered on limiting political action committees. I count about 6 proposals that have come up in the past 10 years or so, mostly in the mid-1980's, which I supported and was anxious to see come to a vote. I am a cosponsor of the McCain-Feingold bill and was when it was first introduced in 1995. Let me quickly say about the McCain-Feingold bill, Mr. President, this is hardly what I would call a perfect piece of legislation. I have never seen one of those anyway, and this certainly does not fall into that category either. And there are areas, clearly, where I think some changes may be necessary. But, in my view, Mr. President, it represents the best place to begin. If our standard is going to be that we will not bring up legislation unless it is perfect, then we would never bring up any legislation. And so, McCain-Feingold, I think, ought to be the proper vehicle. It is the one that has garnered the most attention and support, and, as I said earlier, it does try to track very carefully the concerns that were raised by the Buckley versus Valeo decision. It is clear, I think, if we were truly and effectively to clean up our campaigns, we must provide the appropriate agency, however, with the tools to do so. Mr. President, we must give, in my view, the Federal Election Commission the power to promptly and effectively enforce the laws. It has been suggested that we do not need new laws; we just need to make the present ones work. There is some legitimacy in that. It is not entirely wrong. We need also, I argue, to be able to enforce the laws that today prohibit certain activities. But I think one thing that was said over and over again last fall and this winter is, the very agency we created and charged with being the cop on the beat when it comes to campaign finance reform is basically a toothless tiger. We created an agency and then deprived it of the tools and the resources necessary to do the very policing that ought to be done to help try and avoid some of the problems that some have suggested have occurred, in this past campaign. Over the past few years, the sheer number of cases, Mr. President, that the FEC has dealt with is growing, and the growing complexity of campaign laws and a series of counterproductive court cases are making it increasingly difficult for the Federal Election Commission to fulfill, in my view, its watchdog role in a timely and effective manner. I sat through the testimony of the FEC before the Rules Committee a few weeks ago, Mr. President. I was shocked to learn, for instance, the tremendous backlog in the caseload at the Federal Election Commission and the sharp increase in the activity that the Federal Election Commission has been asked to oversee. At the end of December, the FEC had a total caseload of 361 cases. Because of reductions in staff, only 112 of those cases are active, compared to 160 active cases in 1995. And the case filed in October, I might point out, by the Democratic National Committee, in which the Democratic National Committee asked the FEC to investigate its campaign fundraising in the 1996 elections--I might point out, even before the election had occurred--I discovered has not even begun yet. Here we are in the middle of March, and a request was made in October to look at allegations involving the Democratic National Committee has not even begun. That was prior to the election, and they have not even begun to look at the issues because they lack enough staff to do so. Here is the body and the organization, the agency, as I said earlier, that is the cop on the beat, and they have not even begun to look at the questions that were raised last fall. Add to that heavy 1996 workload of regular cases, Mr. President: In 1996, the FEC was asked to examine 33 percent more complaints than it did in 1994. Congressional spending in 1996 general elections was $626.4 million-- just the congressional elections here--$626.4 million. That was an increase of about 7 percent since 1994 levels, 2 years earlier. It was the FEC that had to oversee this spending. And an unprecedented $2.5 billion in financial activity was reported to the Commission in 1996. In my view, Mr. President, a restructuring and strengthening of the Federal Election Commission is long overdue. That is why today, Mr. President, I will be introducing Federal Election Commission improvement legislation. I have not written an aggressive or radical proposal to overhaul the FEC. Rather, this bill stands as a modest effort to give the FEC the resources and the authority it needs to properly enforce our campaign finance laws. Because, Mr. President, I so strongly support the FEC improvement provisions in the McCain-Feingold bill, the proposed legislation I will offer shortly simply repeats them. I also add a few other provisions of my own. I have heard numerous colleagues say over and over again, campaign finance reform is not the issue in 1997. It is the illegalities of 1996 that many say must be the issue. Yet, at the same time as they make that assertion, we hear that they are against funding and providing the authority to the very agency that should be the first one to uncover and punish any wrongdoing. If we are serious about enforcing the law, Mr. President, then the bill I introduce today deserves serious and, I hope, favorable consideration by my colleagues. The Federal Election Commission has been called a toothless tiger, and it is; an ineffectual agency, and it is; a monument to congressional paralysis, and it is. It is time to change it. My bill authorizes full funding for the FEC, including a $1.7 million supplemental fiscal year 1997 appropriation to enable the Commission to handle this increased workload that I have enumerated. And to satisfy our friends who have said that we must try and get as much reporting and disclosure as soon as possible, this legislation also requires electronic filing. Increased disclosure is the magic elixir, some have suggested, so by mandating electronic filing at the Federal Election Commission for all Federal candidates' reports, we would ensure that disclosure reports are available in a timely fashion. Too often the reports become available weeks and months after the election is all over with. Electronic filing would allow you to know instantaneously exactly where the campaign contributions are coming from prior to an election, on a timely basis during a campaign. Today the technology exists to do it. This legislation would require, mandate, electronic filing by all candidates for Federal office. Furthermore, the legislation would allow the FEC to establish standard fines for minor reporting violations and conduct random campaign audits. That had been stopped and prohibited. Nothing, I think, would have a more salutary effect on campaigns than to know that you could be the subject of a random audit at any time. This, I think, would help strengthen the FEC's ability to report to the Congress on the kinds of practices that ought to give us concern, and possibly the subject of further reform. I think we must acknowledge, Mr. President, that the Federal Elections Commission was charged with the responsibility of enforcing our election laws, and that part of the reason our election system is so out of control is that Congress, in my view, has refused over the years to provide the FEC with the ability and the tools to carry out the duties that we have charged them with performing. As we rush to establish Federal investigations into election law violations, let us not forget we do have an Agency balanced with Democrats and Republicans that is charged with the very responsibility we have just taken upon ourselves. In my view, Mr. President, the FEC must be given the ability to do its job, and that is the goal of the legislation I will be proposing. I conclude, Mr. President, by adding that genuine campaign finance reform will not occur it we do not elevate the issue above partisanship. It is not a Democratic or Republican issue. As I mentioned earlier before the Presiding Officer arrived in the Chamber, I think the Democrats made a huge error in 1993 and 1994 when we had an opportunity to do something about campaign finance reform. The Presiding Officer was a Member of the House of Representatives in those years, and so we are properly criticized, in my view, for not acting. Having said that, I do not think we need to necessarily perpetuate that by not stepping forward in these coming weeks and try to take steps to strengthen the FEC, pass McCain-Feingold with whatever amendments people want to offer, and try to provide some framework. I think there are issues which we will find great unanimity of support, given the chance for expression here on the floor of the U.S. Senate, obviously while going forward with the investigation, and to allow the Justice Department and others to do the work, of course, which they are charged with doing. All of these efforts, if done properly and well, I think, can at the end of the day, provide us with a different system than we presently have. So the future Wendell Fords of this body who, when they consider whether or not they ought to seek reelection, as he announced in his statement, would not look at the prospect in March, as many as 18, 20 months before election day, of raising, as he felt he would have to do, $100,000 a week for 80 weeks in order to be a viable candidate for a State the size of Kentucky--not to mention, of course what it costs in other States like my colleague from Pennsylvania, or California, New York, Florida, Illinois, or Ohio. In large States with huge populations, these numbers become astronomical. If it is going to take that on the part of individual candidates, then, I think, obviously the results speak for themselves. I appreciate the opportunity to address this issue. I am going to send to the desk and ask that this bill be reported to the appropriate committee to strengthen the Federal Election Committee so it can do its job. I thank the Presiding Officer and my colleague from Pennsylvania.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague, Mr. President, for his observations. I do not think I asked that question because I think I was so stunned by the response, I assumed things were moving along. I do not know how they determine--of course, it is a bipartisan Commission--how they determine what basis they look at matters, but I do not disagree. My colleague has been generous in his comments.

Mr. DODD. I made the point last October when the allegations arose about the Democratic National Committee, Don Fowler, who is the chair of the DNC, and myself, asked the FEC to immediately conduct an investigation into these allegations. The FEC came before the Rules Committee a couple of weeks ago to present its budget, as they do on an annual basis. I asked them how the investigation was going. This was now March. I was stunned to have them report they have not even begun to look at this. So here is a request made 6 months ago on, obviously, a very serious matter, and they have not even begun to work on it. The reason, they say, is the caseload is backed up so much on them and there has been a reduction in their staff allocations. Now, obviously, more probing about that may be necessary.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the resolution that is before us, and is the question of whether or not there ought to be an independent counsel. Let me suggest here that there are three or four other items I want to talk about later. I am also interested in talking about the investigation that will be moving forward now as a result of last week's vote; the Federal Election Commission and some idea on a piece of legislation I will introduce with regard to that, and then the proposed McCain-Feingold legislation. I presume this has been somewhat confusing to someone watching this out there, with all these various resolutions and debates going on. But they are issues all related to the same subject matter. Mr. President, let me just briefly say, with regard to the resolution before us, as someone who appreciates the role of having a statute dealing with independent counsel, I, for one, along with others--and I am not alone in this regard--have expressed some reservations and concerns about the independent counsel route generally, putting aside any specific matters. I was one who voted against establishing an independent counsel in the case of former President Bush when there were allegations raised involving Iran and Iran-Contra. I felt that those motivations were purely political. There were those in my party, principally in my party, who pushed a resolution, and I felt it was unwarranted. If felt it was politically motivated, and voted against it. I felt that the independent counsel's Iran-Contra investigation went on way too long. It went on for years and cost an incredible amount of money. So I am leery of this general approach because of how it is self- sustaining and goes on indefinitely. The passage of the statute was to try and do something to take politics out of this a bit, to set some very clear guidelines so we would not be involved in partisan debate over whether or not there ought to be an independent counsel. Obviously, Members are going to express themselves on the issue, and I understand that. But with the independent counsel law we tried to remove the political debate in deciding these issues. I urge my colleagues in this matter to allow the Attorney General to make her decision. She is about as independent as any Attorney General we have had and certainly has not been intimidated by invoking the independent counsel statute in the past, as expressed by the Senator from Vermont. I want to express the worrisome feelings I have about this. We have seen independent counsel investigations go on way too long. They are self-fulfilling. Today, we have the Justice Department, the FBI looking at the matter that is the subject of the request that an independent counsel become involved.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. This is one of the most serious problems we face, not only when there is stockpiling, but in other areas. I think most Americans, when they go by and see ponds drained down, know that one of the things that always show up is tires. It is a real pollution problem, beyond just the collection in one site. I think the Senator from Rhode Island has offered a very creative and worthwhile suggestion that all of America will benefit from, so I commend him for the effort.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before the chairman of the committee leaves the floor, I have been listening to his statement. I do not know how many others you have as cosponsors, but I would like to be listed as one.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay a special tribute to one of the U.S. Senate's most revered and remarkable Members. I speak of our senior Senator and our friend from Kentucky, Wendell Ford. Mr. President, I should note on a personal level I was a law student in Kentucky when Wendell Ford was Governor of the State of Kentucky, and I developed a fondness and affection for him from afar as a student in that State at the University of Louisville many years ago. I had an opportunity to watch this man preside over State government in the State of Kentucky. He did a remarkable job. In those days I never thought, as I was sitting there as a student, that one day I would be serving in the U.S. Senate with him and calling him my colleague and my friend. It is with bittersweet emotions and sensations here that I rise to recognize, as others already have, that Wendell Ford, as we all know, has announced he will not seek reelection in 1998 and will be retiring from the U.S. Senate. I say bittersweet because on the one hand I am confident that our friend Wendell Ford and his lovely wife Jean will enjoy some years of retirement, away from the hectic life of public service. So I am glad for him and glad for his wife and for his family. Obviously, on another level, I think all of us would agree, regardless of political persuasion or ideology, that we have come to develop a deep and sincere affection for Wendell Ford. He will be truly missed in this body. Just this past Monday, as of course we all know, Senator Ford announced his intention to retire from the U.S. Senate at the end of this term, concluding what I think has been one of the most remarkable and distinguished careers in the history of Kentucky. Wendell Ford served his fellow Kentuckians for the past 30 years, first in the State senate of that State, then in the Governors Mansion, as I have already mentioned, and finally here in the U.S. Senate, where he has been a Member for the past 22 years. By the time he completes his term in 1999, Wendell Ford will be the longest serving U.S. Senator in the history of the State of Kentucky. Throughout my tenure as U.S. Senator, it has been my great honor to serve alongside this remarkable man. He has brought integrity and honesty and a wonderful sense of humor to a body that is far too often devoid of such characteristics. Although narrow and snappy sound bites and polished television appearances seem to garner the most attention in Washington, Wendell Ford stands in sharp contrast. As long as I have known him, Wendell Ford never saw a television camera he didn't want to simply walk past. As always, he is more interested in working behind the scenes, crafting legislation, seeking coalitions, seeking compromises. This is the essence of making the Senate function as a body that requires that we get along and work together to seek solutions that Americans look for. Certainly Wendell Ford is capable of being outspoken and passionate and as resolute as any Member of this body, but he has also understood there is a time for politics and a time for legislating and the two shall rarely intertwine, in his view. Throughout his career, he remained true to the people and places of his beloved Kentucky. Few Senators fought harder for their States than Wendell has. As a Member of the subcommittee on aviation issues, he helped bring two international airports to Louisville and northern Kentucky. During the debate in the last Congress on the telecommunications bill, Senator Ford sought to ensure that the interests of rural communities all across America, such as those in his home State, would receive the attention that they deserve. On a national level as well, he has been a leader in aviation, energy, campaign finance issues, and his efforts have been instrumental in expanding airport improvement programs and other critical civil and Federal aviation issues. As chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing, Senator Ford has helped cut millions of dollars in Government printing costs. What is more, he has spearheaded greater use of recycled paper by the Federal Government. These issues don't always get as much attention as they should, but certainly, as all of us appreciate as we try to reduce the cost of Federal Government to make it more efficient, things like bringing down the costs of printing, which is voluminous at Federal Government level, and to also see that recycled paper is used, are no small efforts indeed. I know the major issue for many Americans, of course, was Wendell Ford's effort to spearhead motor voter registration, which has made it possible for millions of Americans to become enfranchised. He certainly will be remembered for years to come for those efforts as well. I know that bill had a special significance for Wendell Ford because it gave him a chance to appear on MTV's Rock The Vote. Wendell Ford is certainly an MTV kind of Senator. As most of us would appreciate, I say that with a sense of humor, to all who know and love him. Most of all, I think Wendell Ford has brought a sense of quiet dignity and forthrightness to this Chamber. Always, he kept his word, never betrayed a confidence, and I doubt there is a Member of this Chamber who will not miss his presence. It is worth noting, the other day an editorial in the Lexington Herald-Leader, I think, summed up the feelings all of us would have with the announcement that Wendell Ford will not be with us at the end of this Congress. Let me quote that editorial. It said: We have known people who have disagreed with Wendell Ford. We have seen people get mad at Wendell Ford. We have even heard of people who wish Wendell Ford would finally lose an election. We have never heard of anyone, however, who doesn't like the senior Senator from Kentucky. Certainly if that is true in the State of Kentucky, it is true in the U.S. Senate as well. We will miss him and we wish him and his wife, Jean, the very best in the years to come.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there are several matters I would like to bring up, if I could. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business so as not to interrupt the flow of the debate on the pending matter.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the distinguished Senator from New Mexico and a bipartisan group of my colleagues in co- sponsoring this Senate resolution designating October 19-25 as ``National Character Counts Week.'' This morning, like every morning before it and every morning to come, young Americans are headed off to learn their three ``R's''--reading, writing, and arithmetic--in our Nation's schools. But as we all know, the school day involves more than just the transmission of facts or the relaying of concepts. It's also about character. In the best classrooms in America our children are given the opportunity to learn and practice basic character traits such as sharing, cooperation, and respect. The Character Counts initiative calls on all Americans to embrace the development of six attributes--trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, citizenship--as a fundamental aspect of our children's education and as a critically important means of strengthening our Nation. The lessons our young people learn as children are the ones that will stay with them the rest of their lives. As Eleanor Roosevelt once said: ``Character building begins in our infancy, and continues until death.'' We live in a time when teenage pregnancy and juvenile crime are spiraling out of control. A recent poll suggests that two-thirds of Americans believe most people can't be trusted, half say most people would cheat others if they could and in the end are only looking out for themselves. These statistics and the seeming erosion in the basic norms of civility, even among our Nation's children, are ample evidence of the need for programs that promote character development. No one would argue that Character Counts is a panacea for these complex problems. First and foremost, we need better education, stronger families, and healthy doses of individual responsibility. Clearly the primary obligation for the building of our children's values and belief systems lies with our Nation's families. There is only so much government can and should do. But, with parents being forced to spend more and more time out of the house, our Nation's schools can and should do everything they can to work with parents in helping to build character among America's children. There is nothing inappropriate or heavyhanded about teaching character in our schools. These programs don't impose morality or any one group's world view. These programs teach honesty, courage, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, citizenship, and loyalty, attributes that I believe all Americans agree upon. These principles transcend religion, race, philosophy, and even political affiliation. For those Americans who share the goal of energizing our democracy and strengthening our Nation's character these initiatives are simply common sense. What's more, these programs garner tangible benefits. In Connecticut, the Southwest Elementary School in Torrington implemented a character education program in September of last year and has witnessed positive effects as a result of its efforts. Attendance is up, students are more respectful toward their teachers, and school administrators are convinced that Character Counts is responsible. The school engages parents in the effort, who along with educators and the students themselves, love the program. Additionally, this year in Connecticut, the Leadership Committee of Character Counts will undertake a comprehensive training program to qualify 35 instructors to educate students about the importance of strength of character. These instructors will bring the ideals stressed by Character Counts directly to the students of Connecticut, reaching 100,000 students by year's end. While character education may not be a magical solution to all of America's problems, it represents a positive effort to make a real difference in our children's lives. Character development programs for our children strengthen our lives, our communities, and our Nation as a whole. I commend my friend and colleague from New Mexico for all of his work in this area. And I invite all my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join us in supporting character education as a vital means of molding better individuals, strengthening families, and creating a responsible American citizenry.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Of course not.