Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. My colleague is absolutely correct. They not only say ``wait,'' but they also ask the basic question that we all have to ask. If I were to stand here before you and suggest spending increases of $200.5 billion in the first 5 years, and spending increases of $525.8 billion over 10 years, the words would not be out of my mouth before one of my colleagues, either on this side or the other side, would ask me the very fundamental question, the steely-eyed question we are all asked to address today of, ``Senator, how do you intend to pay for this?'' And, if you cannot answer that threshold question, then you have to go back to the drawing boards. All we are suggesting here is to put our constituencies and the American public on notice of what we are looking at here, that comparing these numbers over the next 10 years, the requests are even larger than they were before, and that we ought to be asking that question, without getting into the specificity of particular tax proposals here, how do we pay for them so we do not find ourselves in the situation that we have been placed in over the last 10 or 15 years with huge deficits? Let me draw my colleagues' attention as well to this next chart which lays it out exactly. These numbers, by the way, are prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Tax Committee. They are not prepared by some partisan group. This is a nonpartisan analysis, a bipartisan analysis. It says, if you took these tax cuts and carried them out to the year 2007, given the baseline deficits already projected, that you are looking at these huge new deficits. This year it is about $120 billion. But if unchecked and unpaid for, those deficits rise to $348 billion, exceeding by almost $50 billion the high-water mark for deficits in the last year, 4 years ago, of $290 billion. So those deficits continue to climb. By the year 2007, or before, we will be right back in the situation we were before. So, I draw the attention of my colleagues to that because I think it needs to be addressed. How do you pay for these? Again, Members can offer their own solutions. But we are not talking about small change here. These are huge items. Obviously, if you look at the budget, where are the big ticket items that could pay for those kinds of proposals? It has been suggested that Medicare, Social Security, health, education, training, veterans, agriculture, infrastructure--these are the big ticket items, particularly up in this part of the bracket, the Medicare, Social Security, natural resources, health and education. Those are the larger items--veterans as well. Defense could fall into this area, obviously. So we ought to be addressing those issues that are before us. So we raise this today because we think it is important that we engage in this debate. We are a legislative body. It is deliberate, it is slow, it can be ponderous. But we are trying to prepare, now, a budget, in the wake of the proposed constitutional amendment to try to get us into balance, to keep those interest rates down so businesses can grow and expand and hire people. We have enjoyed 6 years of sustained economic growth now, in no small measure because we collectively have made progress. And I will not engage in the finger-pointing about who deserves credit or who is responsible--but the fact of the matter is, we have brought those deficits down, now, from $290 billion to $120 billion, actually down to $107 billion at one point. And we ought to be doing everything in our power to see to it we continue on that glidepath so those interest rates do not spike up again, costing American families and this Nation the burdens those increases would bring. So we are suggesting here today, let us begin work on these. Making a request of the President on a daily basis or hourly basis, ``submit yet another budget, yet another budget, yet another budget'' is not productive. We bear the responsibility as legislators, those who control the purse strings, to respond to the budget the President has sent to us, either by rejecting it and submitting our own, or by proposing, in a clear way for the American public to see, exactly what the priorities will be and how you will pay for them. Whether it is a spending increase or a tax expenditure, the American public wants to know the simple answer to the question: How do you intend to pay for this? So we are here today to urge our colleagues, who are in the position to most specifically respond to these matters, that in the coming days, rather than spending time by issuing press releases challenging the President to submit yet another budget, to fulfill our constitutional obligations here and to step forward and explain to the American public exactly what our proposals are. Let me just conclude by saying there are a number of these tax cut proposals that are being suggested which I support. I am not opposed to them. Just as there are spending proposals of which I am in favor. But whether it is a spending proposal I am in favor of or a tax cut I am in favor of, the same question must be asked of either point: How do you pay for them? So, whether it is capital gains tax cuts, estate tax cuts, or child care credits--there are all sorts of things people are proposing. Whatever it is, what the bulk of it is, the question must be raised: How do you pay for it? If, in fact, these tax cut proposals, as some have suggested, would drive us back into the very situation we found ourselves in only a few short years ago, then I think we have to meet our responsibility, that has not yet been met, of following our legislative mandates and responsibilities. With that, I see my colleague from California here. I will leave these charts here for her to peruse, and for others who may want to come over and take a look at them. I know she shares similar concerns and thoughts, coming from the largest State in our Union, a State which has contributed much to the general welfare and health of our country. Obviously, whether you live in a small State like mine, Connecticut, or a large State like California, people on the respective coasts and everyone in between in this country want to know the answers to these questions. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for yielding. I wanted to make some of the same points. I see my colleague from California here as well. There has been a lot of discussion about budgets, Mr. President. There has been an additional request now that the President submit yet another budget. Let me just suggest that I think the reception of the President's budget was, initially, encouraging. Our Republican colleagues can be commended for not declaring it ``dead on arrival,'' as we have seen all too often in past budgets. But as has been pointed out, year in and year out there is a dual responsibility not only for the executive branch to submit budgets, but also for those of us in the coequal branch of Government, the legislative branch of Government, which has control over the purse strings, to respond. We must respond in a way that gives the American public an opportunity, one, to either endorse what the President has suggested or, two, to offer alternatives that can be identified and seen so comparisons can be made. I hope at this juncture the majority here would demonstrate leadership. The Budget Act requires that budgets be sent to the full Congress; that we then submit a budget, have our own budget here, that either duplicates the President or offers some alternatives so that we can then debate out the process and move in the direction that I think all of us have endorsed regardless of where anyone stood on the proposed constitutional amendment. I didn't hear a single Member of this body indicate anything but strong support for achieving a balanced budget as soon as possible, hopefully by the year 2002, for all of the very obvious reasons that the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and others articulated during that lengthy debate. Our colleague from Illinois has already pointed out--and these charts here, I think, give some indication of what we are looking at--the tax breaks that are being proposed. They are actually even larger than last year's proposals. There are Members who endorse last year's proposals and I presume are in favor of having even larger ones. But I think the American public ought to know what the implications are. As it is right now, over the next 5 years we will be looking, here, at additional tax breaks that are relatively large even over the first 5 years, but then move up considerably over a 10-year period. That ought to be a concern to everyone here. Because, obviously, if we find ourselves again in a deficit situation, even a larger one than we were in the past 10 years, then we will be right back again debating, I presume, constitutional amendments and the like. So we have an obligation to be fiscally responsible.

Mr. DODD. Of course. The Senator has the floor.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. I presume we are still in morning business; is that not correct?

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Dodd pertaining to the introduction of S. 426 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise here this morning to introduce a piece of legislation which I have entitled the Better Financial Aid for Working Students Act of 1997. At the appropriate time here, Mr. President, I will send the bill to the desk and ask that it be referred to the appropriate committee. But let me take a few minutes, if I can, to explain what I am trying to do with this proposal. This legislation is designed, Mr. President, to assist America's working students to cope with the growing financial burdens of a college education. One hardly even needs to use the words ``growing financial burden.'' It is to state the obvious. There is not a family in America that does not have children in school or going on to college or who have already been there that does not appreciate what a significant burden the cost of a higher education is in our country. For the parents of college-aged children, of course, this is a trying time of year, not only for the parents, but for those who are anticipating going on to higher education. These parents and students are today anxiously awaiting the acceptance letters or rejection letters from our Nation's colleges and universities around the country. However, for the vast majority of families, beyond waiting for an acceptance or rejection letter in March and April from institutions they have applied to, the biggest concern is not whether they are going to get into college or into a community college or into a university; the biggest question, the biggest challenge facing these families is: How are we going to pay for this? If they get in, how are we possibly going to finance this incredible burden that we see increasing all the time? In fact, Mr. President, I think this week or maybe the past week one of our national magazines--I believe it was Time magazine--has a special issue out on the cost of higher education. It is their cover story. I commend them for it. I believe it was Time, I apologize if it was another periodical. But it is at an appropriate point with these acceptance and rejection letters coming to seniors in high school and others who have been out of school for some time but anxious to get back in. So I am stating again the obvious. This is a time of some anxiety. But I would argue, the greatest anxiety is not ``whether or not I'm going to be able to go on to a higher educational opportunity,'' but rather, ``How am I possibly going to afford this? How are we going to afford this so our children or myself will be able to acquire the skills and educational levels that are going to be necessary for us to succeed or for my children to succeed in the future?'' That is why the letter they await, Mr. President, with the most anxiety, of course, is the financial aid letter. Working families understand as well as anyone that a college education has never been more important than it is today. Thirty years ago, Mr. President, a high school diploma could get you a good job, not the best job, but you would get a good job. You could raise a family. You could buy a home. You could have a good life, retire with a decent level of financial security. I suspect that the Presiding Officer, his family, my family, certainly we saw that in case after case in our communities, whether it was Arkansas or Connecticut. Today, both of us understand that whether it is Arkansas or Connecticut, that is just not the case any longer. Even though you need a high school diploma today, you have to have even more education if you are going to fit into the economy of the 21st century. Presently, the mean income of a high school graduate in the United States is $18,700 a year; that's the mean income. That would be barely enough to sustain a working family. In fact, if you have a family of four, $18,700 just doesn't do it today; I don't care where you live in the United States. But with a bachelor's degree, earnings nearly double, to $32,600 a year. So that additional 4 years can make a fantastic and huge difference in an individual's ability to provide for themselves and their families. As you might anticipate, Mr. President, the higher the education, the greater the financial benefits. On average, a holder of a professional degree earns more than $74,500 a year. But making the college opportunity a reality for our children, and for those adults who are going on to higher education, is important beyond simply individual earnings. That is obviously a benefit. But beyond the dollars and cents, beyond the ability of individuals to earn a higher salary, there are benefits to the economy as a whole. According to a new Wall Street Journal survey, Mr. President, two-thirds of academic economists agree that the right Government policies in education would provide a needed shot in the arm to the American economy. The fact is, in today's global economy, higher education is vital if we are to maintain our international competitiveness and to keep our economy strong. Since the passage of the GI bill, Mr. President--which millions of Americans are familiar with--there may be those who are retired today who remember, after coming out of World War II or the Korean conflict, what a difference the GI bill meant to them. There was a significant debate that many may recall about whether or not we could afford to pay for the GI bill. I think in today's dollars, Mr. President, the GI bill--if we tried to adopt something like it today, in 1997--would amount to about $9,000 for every single student who took advantage of it. Obviously, the bulk of them took advantage of it in the late forties and fifties, the generation that came out of World War II and Korea. But can you imagine that, today, if you and I were to stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate and be advocates for something like $9,000 for every eligible person who wanted to go on to a higher education? There is no way in the world we could pass anything like that--not to mention finding the resources to pay for it. So it was a remarkable accomplishment, with all the debt we had at the end of World War II and Korea that hadn't been paid off at that particular time. There was a collective understanding of the value to the country beyond the individual benefit of having a generation that could never, ever have thought about affording a higher education. We, as a country, at the national level, said, let's see if we can't come up and find some resources to help these people who could not afford to go on to school, so they have the resources to do it. I think it is fascinating to note the analysis of how that has worked out. There was an analysis not long ago, Mr. President, that said that, for every dollar spent on the GI bill, the Nation reaped a benefit of $7 in additional revenues--a 7-to-1 ratio. So as expensive as it was, our country as a whole benefited tremendously beyond the obvious individual benefits that those men--primarily men, but men and women--who were recipients of the GI bill received. The country as a whole was a tremendous beneficiary of that program. At any rate, from this very first effort in higher education--on to policies today--the hallmark of the Federal Government's role in education is not to set aside the curricula in our higher education institutions, or be involved in the workings of these institutions; our role is to try and come up with creative ways to help students and families afford the financial burden of a higher education. Today, Mr. President, student assistance is determined by a complicated analysis of family and student assets and earnings. I am destined to make my colleagues' eyes glaze over if I try to explain it on the Senate floor, but suffice it to say, it is a rather significant morass of various loans, grants, and other forms of assistance. However, what must remain crystal clear is that, for millions of Americans, college is not simply a time of tranquil learning and weekend parties or weekend gatherings on campuses. For many college students today, Mr. President--if not most--full and part-time work is a fundamental part of their college education. This bill that I am introducing this morning would help protect these students and ensure that when considering students' financial needs, work is rewarding. Today, Mr. President, under current law, $1,750 of a student's earning from work is shielded when determining need for financial aid. Beyond that initial $1,750, students' earnings are assessed at a rate of 50 percent. The proposal I have for us to consider would double that amount, from $1,750 to $3,500, which we would shield, so those students would not have to allocate 50 percent of every dollar over $1,750 to their higher education. It would establish a graduated assessment, from $3,500 to $5,000, which would be assessed at 35 percent, and anything over $5,000 in earnings would be assessed at the 50 percent that today is assessed at $1,750. I don't know exactly when, Mr. President, the $1,750 was set aside. It may have been when the number of students that were actually working to pay for their education was relatively small and that work may have been something that people did to acquire some independent financial means to take care of their daily needs. But as I would say again, no matter where you live in the country, most of our students today are on loans and are out working. College isn't a 4-year deal where you go straight through anymore. You have to have some work experience. This would allow them--since many are paying their own rent, buying their own food, paying for their own transportation--by raising the $1,750 to $3,500, graduated up to $5,000, this would allow them to retain more of that income that they need for their legitimate expenses, before assessing it at a high level that would deprive them of that ability. Again, this is not going to be a panacea for everything students need, but I think it is realistic. We are going to consider major reforms in the Higher Education Act. I anticipate and hope that this bill might be a part of that proposal. This legislation would ensure that the efforts of these families will be rewarded; work would be rewarded and encouraged. However, this effort should not stand alone, Mr. President. Clearly, there are other groups who may require changes, and other groups of legislation that may require changes. Specifically, I think we need to be sure that single students--particularly those with children--are not penalized because they are forced to work in order to pay for their education. The bill I am introducing today is, I think, an important first step. In my view, it will guarantee that low-income students receive the financial aid they so urgently need. I look forward to working on this legislation with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here. I put it out for people's consideration. They may have some ideas to moderate it one way or another. Again, I think that given the common interest and common concern about higher education and how we can at least lighten the burdens of those out there trying to get that education and also holding down jobs, I encourage my colleagues' attention to this proposal. With that, I send the bill to the desk and ask that it be referred to the appropriate committee.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise here this morning to introduce a piece of legislation which I have entitled the Better Financial Aid for Working Students Act of 1997. At the appropriate time here, Mr. President, I will send the bill to the desk and ask that it be referred to the appropriate committee. But let me take a few minutes, if I can, to explain what I am trying to do with this proposal. This legislation is designed, Mr. President, to assist America's working students to cope with the growing financial burdens of a college education. One hardly even needs to use the words ``growing financial burden.'' It is to state the obvious. There is not a family in America that does not have children in school or going on to college or who have already been there that does not appreciate what a significant burden the cost of a higher education is in our country. For the parents of college-aged children, of course, this is a trying time of year, not only for the parents, but for those who are anticipating going on to higher education. These parents and students are today anxiously awaiting the acceptance letters or rejection letters from our Nation's colleges and universities around the country. However, for the vast majority of families, beyond waiting for an acceptance or rejection letter in March and April from institutions they have applied to, the biggest concern is not whether they are going to get into college or into a community college or into a university; the biggest question, the biggest challenge facing these families is: How are we going to pay for this? If they get in, how are we possibly going to finance this incredible burden that we see increasing all the time? In fact, Mr. President, I think this week or maybe the past week one of our national magazines--I believe it was Time magazine--has a special issue out on the cost of higher education. It is their cover story. I commend them for it. I believe it was Time, I apologize if it was another periodical. But it is at an appropriate point with these acceptance and rejection letters coming to seniors in high school and others who have been out of school for some time but anxious to get back in. So I am stating again the obvious. This is a time of some anxiety. But I would argue, the greatest anxiety is not ``whether or not I'm going to be able to go on to a higher educational opportunity,'' but rather, ``How am I possibly going to afford this? How are we going to afford this so our children or myself will be able to acquire the skills and educational levels that are going to be necessary for us to succeed or for my children to succeed in the future?'' That is why the letter they await, Mr. President, with the most anxiety, of course, is the financial aid letter. Working families understand as well as anyone that a college education has never been more important than it is today. Thirty years ago, Mr. President, a high school diploma could get you a good job, not the best job, but you would get a good job. You could raise a family. You could buy a home. You could have a good life, retire with a decent level of financial security. I suspect that the Presiding Officer, his family, my family, certainly we saw that in case after case in our communities, whether it was Arkansas or Connecticut. Today, both of us understand that whether it is Arkansas or Connecticut, that is just not the case any longer. Even though you need a high school diploma today, you have to have even more education if you are going to fit into the economy of the 21st century. Presently, the mean income of a high school graduate in the United States is $18,700 a year; that's the mean income. That would be barely enough to sustain a working family. In fact, if you have a family of four, $18,700 just doesn't do it today; I don't care where you live in the United States. But with a bachelor's degree, earnings nearly double, to $32,600 a year. So that additional 4 years can make a fantastic and huge difference in an individual's ability to provide for themselves and their families. As you might anticipate, Mr. President, the higher the education, the greater the financial benefits. On average, a holder of a professional degree earns more than $74,500 a year. But making the college opportunity a reality for our children, and for those adults who are going on to higher education, is important beyond simply individual earnings. That is obviously a benefit. But beyond the dollars and cents, beyond the ability of individuals to earn a higher salary, there are benefits to the economy as a whole. According to a new Wall Street Journal survey, Mr. President, two-thirds of academic economists agree that the right Government policies in education would provide a needed shot in the arm to the American economy. The fact is, in today's global economy, higher education is vital if we are to maintain our international competitiveness and to keep our economy strong. Since the passage of the GI bill, Mr. President--which millions of Americans are familiar with--there may be those who are retired today who remember, after coming out of World War II or the Korean conflict, what a difference the GI bill meant to them. There was a significant debate that many may recall about whether or not we could afford to pay for the GI bill. I think in today's dollars, Mr. President, the GI bill--if we tried to adopt something like it today, in 1997--would amount to about $9,000 for every single student who took advantage of it. Obviously, the bulk of them took advantage of it in the late forties and fifties, the generation that came out of World War II and Korea. But can you imagine that, today, if you and I were to stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate and be advocates for something like $9,000 for every eligible person who wanted to go on to a higher education? There is no way in the world we could pass anything like that--not to mention finding the resources to pay for it. So it was a remarkable accomplishment, with all the debt we had at the end of World War II and Korea that hadn't been paid off at that particular time. There was a collective understanding of the value to the country beyond the individual benefit of having a generation that could never, ever have thought about affording a higher education. We, as a country, at the national level, said, let's see if we can't come up and find some resources to help these people who could not afford to go on to school, so they have the resources to do it. I think it is fascinating to note the analysis of how that has worked out. There was an analysis not long ago, Mr. President, that said that, for every dollar spent on the GI bill, the Nation reaped a benefit of $7 in additional revenues--a 7-to-1 ratio. So as expensive as it was, our country as a whole benefited tremendously beyond the obvious individual benefits that those men--primarily men, but men and women--who were recipients of the GI bill received. The country as a whole was a tremendous beneficiary of that program. At any rate, from this very first effort in higher education--on to policies today--the hallmark of the Federal Government's role in education is not to set aside the curricula in our higher education institutions, or be involved in the workings of these institutions; our role is to try and come up with creative ways to help students and families afford the financial burden of a higher education. Today, Mr. President, student assistance is determined by a complicated analysis of family and student assets and earnings. I am destined to make my colleagues' eyes glaze over if I try to explain it on the Senate floor, but suffice it to say, it is a rather significant morass of various loans, grants, and other forms of assistance. However, what must remain crystal clear is that, for millions of Americans, college is not simply a time of tranquil learning and weekend parties or weekend gatherings on campuses. For many college students today, Mr. President--if not most--full and part-time work is a fundamental part of their college education. This bill that I am introducing this morning would help protect these students and ensure that when considering students' financial needs, work is rewarding. Today, Mr. President, under current law, $1,750 of a student's earning from work is shielded when determining need for financial aid. Beyond that initial $1,750, students' earnings are assessed at a rate of 50 percent. The proposal I have for us to consider would double that amount, from $1,750 to $3,500, which we would shield, so those students would not have to allocate 50 percent of every dollar over $1,750 to their higher education. It would establish a graduated assessment, from $3,500 to $5,000, which would be assessed at 35 percent, and anything over $5,000 in earnings would be assessed at the 50 percent that today is assessed at $1,750. I don't know exactly when, Mr. President, the $1,750 was set aside. It may have been when the number of students that were actually working to pay for their education was relatively small and that work may have been something that people did to acquire some independent financial means to take care of their daily needs. But as I would say again, no matter where you live in the country, most of our students today are on loans and are out working. College isn't a 4-year deal where you go straight through anymore. You have to have some work experience. This would allow them--since many are paying their own rent, buying their own food, paying for their own transportation--by raising the $1,750 to $3,500, graduated up to $5,000, this would allow them to retain more of that income that they need for their legitimate expenses, before assessing it at a high level that would deprive them of that ability. Again, this is not going to be a panacea for everything students need, but I think it is realistic. We are going to consider major reforms in the Higher Education Act. I anticipate and hope that this bill might be a part of that proposal. This legislation would ensure that the efforts of these families will be rewarded; work would be rewarded and encouraged. However, this effort should not stand alone, Mr. President. Clearly, there are other groups who may require changes, and other groups of legislation that may require changes. Specifically, I think we need to be sure that single students--particularly those with children--are not penalized because they are forced to work in order to pay for their education. The bill I am introducing today is, I think, an important first step. In my view, it will guarantee that low-income students receive the financial aid they so urgently need. I look forward to working on this legislation with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here. I put it out for people's consideration. They may have some ideas to moderate it one way or another. Again, I think that given the common interest and common concern about higher education and how we can at least lighten the burdens of those out there trying to get that education and also holding down jobs, I encourage my colleagues' attention to this proposal. With that, I send the bill to the desk and ask that it be referred to the appropriate committee.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great citizen, a true humanitarian and a dear friend--William F. O'Neill, Jr., of Norwich, CT. On March 14, Bill will be receiving the Outstanding Citizen Award from the Connecticut Rivers Council, Boy Scouts of America for a lifetime of humanitarian and altruistic deeds. A World War II veteran, Bill has, and continues to make, untold contributions to the people of Connecticut. He's been a community activist and humanitarian throughout his life, holding leadership positions in the Norwich Chamber of Commerce; the Knights of Columbus; the Lions' Club; March of Dimes; and the Norwich Centenary Committee, to name only a few. Bill has dedicated his life to making his community a better place for people to live and raise a family. Perhaps his greatest accomplishment was the founding of the Rose Arts Festival. Every year thousands of nutmeggers flock to Norwich to take part in this community event, where they enjoy entertainment, arts and crafts, and good food. Bill has been recognized on numerous occasions for his tireless efforts, perhaps most notably in 1988, when he was presented with the Knight of St. Gregory Award by Pope John Paul II, for his many years of service to the Roman Catholic Church. Most recently Bill received the Successful Aging Award from Connecticut Care, which honors those over age 70 who continue to play an active and vital role in the affairs of their community. Clearly, Bill has touched hundreds, if not thousands, of lives. I have been fortunate to know Bill and his family for many years, and I can attest that he is a man of great integrity, character, and talent. But, Bill is more than just a close, personal friend, he was also a dear friend to my mother and father. Currently, Bill is the chairman of the Thomas and Grace Dodd Memorial Scholarship--in memory of my parents. Bill's work on behalf of my parents' and their memory is something for which I will always be grateful. But, I am just one of many who have been touched by Bill's generosity and acts of kindness. Connecticut is indeed privileged to be able to call William F. O'Neill, Jr. one of its own, and I join all of those who have known Bill in wishing him congratulations and the very best for the future.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield to make that 6 minutes so I could get a minute in?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. Let me begin my brief remarks by commending our colleague from New Mexico for, once again, taking leadership on a significant health issue. I have had the privilege, Mr. President, of working with my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, on numerous issues, most recently things like frivolous lawsuits and mental health. I am delighted to join him as a principal cosponsor of this proposal of the Genetic Confidentiality and Nondiscrimination Act of 1997. Mr. President, this legislation is critically important. It deals with basic concerns that people have today. It is of critical importance to our country, important to individuals and to researchers. We are not claiming here this is perfect, but the kind of work that Senator Domenici has done already, in communication with those who would be most directly interested in the legislation, I think has taken us a long way. We are fortunate, Mr. President, to live in an extraordinary--an extraordinary--crossroads in the history of our Nation and, indeed, of our species. I can only compare it, Mr. President, to the dawn of the nuclear age. Then, by the elemental act of splitting an atom, we became able to generate seemingly unlimited energy but, also, as we all know, the ability to destroy all forms of human life. Today, Mr. President, we stand at the dawn of the genetic age and once again confront heretofore unknown power over our destiny on this small planet. The recent reports of the cloning of mammals places this power in sharp relief. Within a few short years, Mr. President, the human genome project will decipher the entire human genetic code. The entire genetic human code will be deciphered in our lifetime, providing a blueprint of a human being's most personal and potent information. This blueprint, Mr. President, will hopefully allow us to understand and remedy illnesses in all its forms. We are already reaping some of the benefits of this newfound knowledge of our genetic makeup. Genetic testing, as many are already aware, is available for several serious diseases and illnesses, including breast cancer and colon cancer. Armed with this genetic information, individuals can take additional steps to safeguard their health. For instance, more frequent screenings and checkups. However, Mr. President, it will allow the exploitation of the human frailty to which one might be genetically predisposed, and concerns have been raised about the privacy of this information. Many Americans are concerned that dissemination of this information could lead to job discrimination and difficulty in getting or maintaining health insurance or life insurance. These are important issues. Clearly, in this area of increasing medical technology, we must be able to ensure a balance between scientific advancement and the privacy rights of individuals. This bill that my colleague from New Mexico has offered begins that critical process. It requires strict informed consent procedures while allowing genetic scientific research to continue. Specifically, this legislation provides protections against unwarranted disclosure of genetic information to employers and insurance companies. Mr. President, I am cosponsoring this legislation because I believe it is important that we address these issues today rather than wait. I know some have voiced concerns about this legislation. We hear them. We recognize this is a complex area of law with many important interests at stake. In fact, Mr. President, we will be having a hearing in the Labor Committee this week on the issue of cloning, to which our colleague from New Mexico will be testifying--not specifically about this bill, but I suspect this bill may be the subject of some dialog in that hearing. So we are already beginning to look to try and raise the questions that people, I think, would want us to address, protecting people's privacy rights, so that that information that we are able to glean will not be misused. I think this is an important step in that effort. I commend my colleague from New Mexico. I am delighted to cosponsor his bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. Let me begin my brief remarks by commending our colleague from New Mexico for, once again, taking leadership on a significant health issue. I have had the privilege, Mr. President, of working with my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, on numerous issues, most recently things like frivolous lawsuits and mental health. I am delighted to join him as a principal cosponsor of this proposal of the Genetic Confidentiality and Nondiscrimination Act of 1997. Mr. President, this legislation is critically important. It deals with basic concerns that people have today. It is of critical importance to our country, important to individuals and to researchers. We are not claiming here this is perfect, but the kind of work that Senator Domenici has done already, in communication with those who would be most directly interested in the legislation, I think has taken us a long way. We are fortunate, Mr. President, to live in an extraordinary--an extraordinary--crossroads in the history of our Nation and, indeed, of our species. I can only compare it, Mr. President, to the dawn of the nuclear age. Then, by the elemental act of splitting an atom, we became able to generate seemingly unlimited energy but, also, as we all know, the ability to destroy all forms of human life. Today, Mr. President, we stand at the dawn of the genetic age and once again confront heretofore unknown power over our destiny on this small planet. The recent reports of the cloning of mammals places this power in sharp relief. Within a few short years, Mr. President, the human genome project will decipher the entire human genetic code. The entire genetic human code will be deciphered in our lifetime, providing a blueprint of a human being's most personal and potent information. This blueprint, Mr. President, will hopefully allow us to understand and remedy illnesses in all its forms. We are already reaping some of the benefits of this newfound knowledge of our genetic makeup. Genetic testing, as many are already aware, is available for several serious diseases and illnesses, including breast cancer and colon cancer. Armed with this genetic information, individuals can take additional steps to safeguard their health. For instance, more frequent screenings and checkups. However, Mr. President, it will allow the exploitation of the human frailty to which one might be genetically predisposed, and concerns have been raised about the privacy of this information. Many Americans are concerned that dissemination of this information could lead to job discrimination and difficulty in getting or maintaining health insurance or life insurance. These are important issues. Clearly, in this area of increasing medical technology, we must be able to ensure a balance between scientific advancement and the privacy rights of individuals. This bill that my colleague from New Mexico has offered begins that critical process. It requires strict informed consent procedures while allowing genetic scientific research to continue. Specifically, this legislation provides protections against unwarranted disclosure of genetic information to employers and insurance companies. Mr. President, I am cosponsoring this legislation because I believe it is important that we address these issues today rather than wait. I know some have voiced concerns about this legislation. We hear them. We recognize this is a complex area of law with many important interests at stake. In fact, Mr. President, we will be having a hearing in the Labor Committee this week on the issue of cloning, to which our colleague from New Mexico will be testifying--not specifically about this bill, but I suspect this bill may be the subject of some dialog in that hearing. So we are already beginning to look to try and raise the questions that people, I think, would want us to address, protecting people's privacy rights, so that that information that we are able to glean will not be misused. I think this is an important step in that effort. I commend my colleague from New Mexico. I am delighted to cosponsor his bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. (When his name was called) Present.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would provide a measure of tax fairness for more than 1,000 police officers, firefighters, and their families in my home State of Connecticut. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Lieberman. This bill clarifies the tax treatment of heart and hypertension benefits awarded to Connecticut's police officers and firefighters prior to 1992. The clarification is necessary because of an error made in the original version of Connecticut's heart and hypertension law. Under that law, Connecticut intended to treat heart and hypertension benefits as workmen's compensation for tax purposes. Unfortunately, because of the language used in the State statute, the heart and hypertension benefits became taxable under a ruling by the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] in 1991. Since the IRS ruling, Connecticut has amended its law. But that change does not help those police officers, firefighters, and their families, who received benefits prior to the amendment. These law- abiding citizens accepted the benefits with the understanding that they were not taxable. Now, as a result of the problem with the State law, and through no fault of their own, they have been charged with back taxes, interest, and penalties by the IRS. This has created serious financial difficulties for a number of families. I hope that my colleagues will join with me in remedying this problem. Across this Nation, our firefighters and police officers work hard to protect our homes and businesses. They face incredible danger, and sometimes risk their lives, to help keep our communities safe. The hazards they face make their jobs particularly stressful. They need the security provided by heart and hypertension benefits. They should not have to contend with back taxes and penalties assessed due to an error in State law. Under this legislation, which would remove their liability for heart and hypertension benefits for the years affected by the IRS ruling-- 1989-91, we can treat these public servants and their families more fairly. This bill is narrowly drafted to accomplish that limited purpose and would not affect the tax treatment of heart and hypertension benefits awarded after January 1, 1992. Mr. President, my efforts to pass this legislation date back to the 102d Congress. During that Congress, Senator Lieberman and I worked with Representatives Barbara Kennelly and Rosa DeLauro and this bill became a part of the Revenue Act of 1992. Although the Revenue Act was passed by Congress, it was vetoed by President Bush 1 day after he lost the election. We tried again during the 103d Congress, but we were unable to move the bill through the relevant committees. Last year, we hoped to move the bill as part of a broader tax and pension package, but that legislation was also stalled. I urge my colleagues to help pass this legislation quickly this year. We must provide relief to the Connecticut police officers, firefighters, and their families, who are facing severe financial hardship even though they have tried to follow the rules. Through no fault of their own, they have been hit with significant back taxes and penalties. We should remedy this problem and help them move on with their lives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wanted to take this opportunity to make clear my feelings on one particular aspect of the debate over the balanced budget constitutional amendment. My opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 1 is strongly felt and clearly stated. I simply do not believe that it is appropriate to enshrine a restrictive fiscal policy in our Nation's most sacred text. The balanced budget amendment would seriously inhibit our ability to set prudent fiscal policy and respond to cyclical patterns in economic growth. Moreover, the amendment has serious implications for our foreign policy. I am also concerned about the balanced budget amendment's effect on Social Security. The Social Security Program is one of the longest running and most successful programs this country has ever undertaken. It has succeeded in virtually eliminating poverty among our Nation's senior citizens. I yield to no one in my commitment to preserving and protecting it. In 1983, when Social Security was faced with changing demographics that threatened its very existence, I supported the reforms that ensured that this vital program would survive to meet the needs of future generations. Today, I am very concerned that the program is threatened by the restrictive provisions of the balanced budget constitutional amendment. If Congress is allowed to count Social Security surpluses when determining if the budget is in balance, this critical safety net for our Nation's seniors could be placed in jeopardy. For these reasons, I support efforts to protect the Social Security trust funds. If a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is to be enacted, certainly, it should not be one that endangers the retirement security of American families. This is why I supported the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Reid, which modified the underlying resolution to state that the Social Security trust funds could not be used to achieve balance. But I am afraid I could not support the amendment offered by my colleague Senator Dorgan. This amendment would have also protected Social Security, but, unlike Senator Reid's amendment, it was a substitute amendment, a fully crafted, alternative balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Mr. President, I have grave concerns about any attempt to amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget. These concerns cannot be satisfied simply by changing one or two components of the legislation, as sincere and as sensible as those changes might be. I find any balanced budget amendment highly problematic, and this is why I have voted against the alternative balanced budget amendment offered by my good friend from North Dakota. I am a stalwart defender of Social Security, and I am committed to seeing that it protects future generations as well as it has protected previous ones. But I remain opposed to any amendment that would taint the language of the Constitution and weaken our ability to make prudent policy.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly today about the President's resolution requesting the release of fiscal year 1997 international family planning funding by March 1, 1997, on which the Senate recently deliberated. I am pleased that the President signed House Joint Resolution 36 on February 28, 1997, and that funding for family planning is now available to those overseas who so desperately need such services. I supported the President's resolution because I believe we must try to limit overpopulation. The world's population increases by 100 million each year. Overpopulation threatens to exert tremendous social, ecological, medical, and economic hardship on much of the world. Family planning is one of the most effective ways to combat overpopulation and its detrimental results. I also supported the President's resolution because family planning is one of the best weapons we have to save the lives of women and their children in developing countries. The longer we delay the funding for family planning, the harder it is to save those lives. Let me explain: Family planning enables women to space their births, preserving their health and improving the odds that their children will be born healthy. Delaying the release of family planning funding results in less healthy mothers and children and increased rates of maternal and infant mortality. Mr. President, I served in the Peace Corps in the Dominican Republic, a developing country. For families living under the conditions that exist in many developing nations, family planning is critical. Without it, mothers have great difficulty spacing their births or limiting the number of children they bear. As a result, they suffer the tremendous physical stress of repeated childbirth, often without the aid of physicians, and sometimes die from the great burden they have placed on their bodies. But mothers are not the only ones who suffer in these cases. Their children suffer too. When women have children too close together, the length of time they can nurse each child is cut short. Mothers' milk is the most nourishing food for children during their early years, providing essential nutrients that are often hard to find elsewhere in the food supply available to families in developing nations. Furthermore, children in such families find themselves competing for food with many other siblings, instead of only the few siblings they might have if their mothers had access to family planning. As a result, they suffer from higher incidents of malnutrition. And family planning programs have the added benefit of slowing the spread of AIDS by increasing access to appropriate contraceptives. Mr. President, the agreement between Congress and the President last year was that fiscal year 1997 international family planning funding could be released by March 1, 1997, if the administration certified that a delay in the release of funds until July 1, 1997 would harm overseas family planning programs and their beneficiaries. Indeed, the administration has issued such findings and documented its case well. Its findings show that a delay in funding would result in serious shortage of contraceptives in at least 60 countries, including 50 million condoms, 500,000 IUD's, and 4.8 million cycles of birth control pills. Additionally, the delay would result in the closure of 17 of 95 overseas programs and higher numbers of maternal and infant deaths. Some, Mr. President, have attempted to circumvent last year's agreement by saying that family planning aid increases the number of abortions. On the contrary, by allowing women to prevent pregnancy, family planning reduces the need for and number of abortions. The administration's findings speak to this issue, showing that a delay in funding would result in increased incidents of unintended pregnancies and more abortions and that family planning helps decrease the number of abortions worldwide. Furthermore, UNICEF reported in 1996 that 600,000 women die annually of pregnancy-related causes; 75,000 of those deaths are due to self-induced, unsafe abortion. Mr. President, it is clear that international family planning aid helps protect the health and lives of women and children around the world. As we aim to improve the socioeconomic conditions in developing countries, let us recognize that family planning is a help, not a hindrance, that must be sustained.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise with my dear friend and colleague, Senator McCain, to introduce legislation of vital importance to Americans who happen to be blind. Its purpose is simply to restore the Social Security earnings limitation for the blind to the same level as that for America's senior citizens. Mr. President, the English poet John Milton once said that ``To be blind is not miserable; not to be able to bear blindness, that is miserable.'' Over the past 20 years, blind Americans have made amazing progress in shouldering those difficult burdens. Today, millions of blind Americans have achieved more independent and rewarding lives for themselves. The legislation that we introduce today will ensure that this progress continues by restoring an important work incentive for close to 150,000 blind Americans. This bill would reestablish the identical earnings exemption threshold for blind and senior citizen beneficiaries under the Social Security Act, which had been the law from 1977 until just last year. Prior to 1977, blind people were overwhelmingly dependent on disability benefits. What's worse, many of them could not afford to work without risking the loss of the basic security that these benefits provided. However, in that year, we raised the earnings exemption for the blind to the same level as retirees--from $500 to $940 a month. That modest step encouraged millions of blind Americans to work by allowing them to keep more of what they earned. Unfortunately, last year, when the Congress raised the earnings limit for seniors, it failed to extend the same benefits to the blind. The impact of this unfortunate step has been significant. As the law now stands, a senior citizen may earn $13,500 in 1997 and $30,000 by the year 2002 without any reduction of benefits. A blind person, on the other hand, may only earn $12,000 today, and only $14,400 in 2002. While this provides terrific encouragement for seniors to work, it reenshrines into law the disincentive for blind people that existed before 1977. There are approximately 1.1 million people in the United States who are blind under the Social Security definition. Of those, 713,000 of the 1.1 million are 65 or older, and they are considered retirees, not blind people. But there are roughly 387,000 people who are blind, and under retirement age, who have been adversely affected by the severed link between retirees and the blind. Of the 332,000 blind people who are 20 or older, more than 70 percent are unemployed. We must not make their efforts to find meaningful and rewarding work more difficult. Rather, we should encourage blind Americans in their noble endeavors. Our legislation would do just that by raising the earnings limit and linking it once again to the senior citizens exempt account. In closing, Mr. President, allow me to commend Senator McCain for his leadership here. He has once again demonstrated his commitment to ensuring that all Americans have a fair and equal opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their labors and the blessings of our great Nation. I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 220th anniversary of the U.S. Cavalry and the contributions the town of Wethersfield, CT, made to the Revolutionary War effort. In my home State of Connecticut, the town of Wethersfield is proud to be recognized as the first home and training ground for the Continental Army's first cavalry regiment, known as Sheldon's Horse, the Second Continental Light Dragoons. In a time when armies were slow moving, the Second Continental Dragoons were unique for their swiftness and daring. The Second Dragoons were composed of mounted and dismounted men able to quickly advance on the enemy's flank. By orders of the First Continental Congress and General Washington, the Second Dragoon Regiment was the first cavalry regiment directly organized by the Continental Army. According to the Connecticut Historical Commission, on December 12, 1776, the Continental Congress appointed Elisha Sheldon of Salisbury as lieutenant colonel commandant of a regiment of the Continental Cavalry, the first such unit of the Continental Army. He was ordered to enlist six troops to form his regiment at Wethersfield. Among the first officers chosen by Colonel Sheldon was Wethersfield resident, Maj. Benjamin Tallmadge. In the late winter and early spring of 1977, Major Tallmadge erected a training ground for the training and breaking of horses for the regiment in Wethersfield. Under Major Tallmadge's direction and leadership, the Second Regiment fought in the battles of Short Hills, Brandywine, Trenton, Saratoga, and White Plains, and during the harsh winter at Valley Forge, the Dragoons patrolled the area for General Washington. Currently, the U.S. Cavalry is based in Fort Riley, KS, but it will be forever linked to the town of Wethersfield and Connecticut. I applaud the efforts of the people of Wethersfield to celebrate their history and the contributions they have made to ensuring the independence of America.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Right. On matters that require a simple majority, will my colleague cite a single example where a simple majority is required in this body where the vote of the Vice President would be excluded?

Mr. DODD. First of all, I raised the issue about the Vice President because it is unclear.

Mr. DODD. Let me ask my question. Under section 5, as drafted in the proposed constitutional amendment, then the vote by the whole of both Houses would exclude the vote by the Vice President. Is that correct?

Mr. DODD. You don't get cloture 50-50.

Mr. DODD. A cloture vote is not a tie vote. There you have to have a number of votes.