Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is with a great sense of sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to a man who epitomized personal and political courage and a fervent commitment to public service--Senator Paul Tsongas. Paul and I both came to Congress in 1974, as part of the so-called Watergate class and we were together in the Senate from 1981 to 1984. In all that time, while we didn't always see eye to eye on every issue, our deep friendship and appreciation for each other never diminished. Throughout his entire life, Paul Tsongas built on the strong belief in public service that he learned while a Peace Corps volunteer in Ethiopia and country director in the West Indies. Whether it was in his hometown of Lowell, MA, where he served as a city councilor; or as a one-term Senator, who pushed through what President Carter called the most important conservation legislation of the century, the Alaska Lands Act of 1980; or even as a Presidential candidate and later cochairman of the Concord Coalition, preaching the gospel of a balanced budget, Paul Tsongas always had the best interests of his fellow citizens in mind. In all the time I knew him, Paul Tsongas never wavered from the firmly held beliefs and principles that guided his public and private life. What is more, Paul was never afraid to speak his mind or voice an opinion, no matter how controversial or unpopular. The courage was never more evident than in his hard fought battle to conquer the health problems that plagued him for more than a decade and eventually took his life. When Paul was diagnosed with cancer in 1983, he gave up what was then a promising political career in the U.S. Senate to undergo radical treatment and rehabilitation. After his amazing recovery, Paul stayed close to his family arguing that no man ever died wishing he'd spent more time with his business. But the pull of the arena was too strong for Paul Tsongas and after being cleared by doctors to resume his political career he began what most observers termed a futile campaign to unseat George Bush. But, what he lacked in fiery oratory he made up for with a commonsense agenda that appealed to Democrats across the country. While Paul failed to gain the Democratic nomination he never lost his dignity or the trademark dry wit that always characterized him. Teddy Roosevelt once said that of public service ``It is not the critic that counts. * * * The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marked by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasm and great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.'' Paul Tsongas knew well both the joys of victory and the anguish of defeat. No matter what adversity befell him, be it personal or political, he never paused from his tireless efforts to improve the world around him. For all those in the Senate and throughout the country who valued his wise counsel and commitment to public service he will be sorely missed. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife Niki and his three daughters Ashley, Katina, and Molly. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we do a great deal of important business here in the U.S. Senate, but much of it seems arcane and distant from the lives of American families. But last evening, with the airing of a CBS made for TV movie, ``A Child's Wish,'' we had a particularly moving example of the power we have to make a positive difference in the lives of America's families. I don't know how many of my colleagues had a chance to see it. It was a fictional story based on the true life experiences of two families impacted by the Family and Medical Leave Act signed into law by President Clinton in 1993. Dixie Yandle was one of those children. I believe she came from North Carolina, I say to my colleague from North Carolina. Dixie's father lost his job during her struggle with cancer as he sought to spend more time with her. She and her parents testified in fact before the Congress about the need for family medical leave legislation so that what happened to them would not happen to the other parents. The second child, Melissa Weaver, was also diagnosed with cancer that ultimately proved to be fatal. But due to the Family and Leave Act the family was able to spend the last days of her life together. Melissa's story is one of many that I heard in 1994 during a series of public hearings of the Commission on Family and Medical Leave on the impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act. ``A Child's Wish'' took the lives of these two children and wove them together to dramatize how important the Family and Medical Leave Act is and how meaningful it is to families. I am hopeful that this movie may have helped a lot of people understand the legislation better. Today, at a time when many Americans are deeply cynical toward the work we do here in Washington, the family and medical leave stands in sharp contrast. Not only is this legislation making a real difference in the lives of the American people, but it has been judged by a bipartisan commission to be an unqualified success. The Family and Medical Leave Act fulfilled a genuine need among America's working families to take leave in times of medical and family need. With this legislation we established in law a basic standard of decency toward America's families. Eligible employees were guaranteed 12 weeks of unpaid leave during times of genuine family need--such as a birth or adoption, placement of a foster child, or in times of serious medical emergency for a child, spouse or parent. This minimal benefit--unpaid leave--is providing millions of workers and their families with vital assistance during times of crisis. Yet, even with the apparent success of the FMLA there is still more work to be done. Millions of Americans continue to face painful choices involving their competing responsibilities to family and work. Employees not covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act are still often told that they must choose between sick family members and their jobs. In fact today, 43 percent of private sector employees remain unprotected by the Family and Medical Leave Act because their employer does not meet the current 50 or more employee threshold. This legislation I introduce today--the Family and Medical Leave Fairness Act of 1997--will extend the Family and Medical Leave Act to millions of Americans who remain uncovered. This bill would lower the threshold to include coverage for companies with 25 or more workers. This small step would provide 13 million additional workers with the protection of the Family and Medical Leave Act--raising the total percentage of the private sector work force covered by the FMLA to 71 percent. In my view, these workers deserve the same job security in times of family and medical emergency that workers in lager companies receive from the Family and Medical Leave Act. With this legislation they will receive it. Now, for those of my colleagues who still harbor doubts about the success of the Family and Medical Leave Act I strongly urge them to examine a recent bipartisan report that documents the positive impact of this legislation. When the bill was passed in 1993, provisions in the legislation established a commission to examine the impact of the act on workers and businesses. The Family and Medical Leave Commission's analysis spanned 2\1/2\ years. It included independent research and field hearings across the country to learn first hand about the act's impact from individuals and the business community. The report's conclusions are clear--the Family and Medical Leave Act is helping to expand opportunities for working Americans while at the same time not placing any undue burden on employers. According to the Commission's final report, the Family and Medical Leave Act represents ``A significant step in helping a larger cross- section of working Americans meet their medical and family care giving needs while still maintaining their jobs and economic security.'' Due to this legislation, Americans now possess greater opportunities to keep their health benefits, maintain job security, and take longer leaves for a greater number of reasons. In fact, according to the bipartisan commission--12 million workers took job-protected leave for reasons covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act during the 18 months of its study. But, not only are American workers reaping the benefits. The law is working for American business as well. In fact, the conclusions of the bipartisan report are a far cry from the concerns that were voiced when this law was being considered in Congress. The vast majority of businesses--over 94 percent--report little to no additional costs associated with the Family and Medical Leave Act. More than 92 percent reported no noticeable effect on profitability. And nearly 96 percent reported no noticeable effect on business growth. Additionally, 83 percent of employers reported no noticeable impact on employee productivity. In fact, 12.6 percent actually reported a positive effect on employee productivity from the Family and Medical Leave Act, twice as many as reported a negative effect. And not only did employers report that compliance with the Family and Medical Leave Act was relatively easy and of minimal cost, but worksites with a small number of employees generally reported greater ease of administration and even smaller costs than large worksites. Today, I introduce this legislation with the hope and expectation that we can put aside our political differences and build on the success of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Last November, the American people gave us a mandate--a mandate for good governance. The Family and Medical Leave represents the fulfillment of this goal and I urge all my colleagues to join with me in supporting this critically important legislation for America's working families. I think the fact that the law has been working so well has made a sufficient difference in people's lives in moments of crises. The fact that people are able to be there particularly when a child is dying, so that you have the love of parents and a family coming together and you don't have to choose between that job and your family is a wonderful thing. It has made such a difference in people's lives. There have been many issues dealt with in this body over 16 years, and there is none that I am more proud of than the day that this body voted to support the family and medical leave legislation, and when President Clinton signed it into law. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Daschle, Senator Kennedy, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Kerry. Mr. President, I can't miss the opportunity to briefly say that a friend of mine who is here from Pennsylvania, who I know is going to speak on the nomination of Madeleine Albright, but the body should know that the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, was an invaluable ally in that effort beginning in the first day we arrived in the Senate some 16 years ago. We formed a caucus on children's needs. I thank him for his efforts over the years in that regard.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for 10 minutes.

Mr. DODD. I will make it briefer than that then.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Biden and also my colleague from North Carolina for his understanding. I also thank him and Senator Lott for the expeditious manner in which this nomination has been treated. Finally, I thank my colleagues on the committee as well, who engaged in a long day of testimony by Madeleine Albright, under an arrangement that allowed us to move this nomination out of our committee on the day of the inauguration. Now, it will allow us to vote here today in the full Senate. Mr. President, I believe that today's bipartisan cooperation on this nomination will help to forge the kind of working relationship between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate that should make it easier to get the American people's business taken care of here in Washington. I commend the leaders of both sides of the aisle for their efforts in that regard. To be honest, Mr. President, reaching consensus on this nomination was not difficult at all. That's because the nominee we are considering today is so highly respected by everyone in the U.S. Congress--by Democrats and Republicans, liberals, moderates, and conservatives. During her nomination hearing on January 8, Ambassador Albright demonstrated a profound understanding of the foreign policy issues confronting the United States as we prepare to enter the 21st century. In her opening statement on that day, she laid out very effectively, in my view, and succinctly why all Americans should care about foreign policy. I would like to quote her: Do not doubt,-- Speaking of foreign policy interests. Those interests are not geopolitical abstractions, they are real. It matters to our children whether they grow up in a world where the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction have been minimized or allowed to run out of control. It matters to our families whether illegal drugs continue to pour into our neighborhoods from overseas. It matters to Americans who travel abroad or go about their daily business at home whether the scourge of international terrorism is reduced. It matters to our workers and business people whether they will be unfairly forced to compete against companies that violate fair labor standards, despoil the environment or gain contracts not through competition but corruption. And it matters to us all whether through inattention or indifference, we allow small wars to grow into large ones that put our safety and freedom at risk. Mr. President, I believe that summarizes very well why what happens outside of our borders is important to each and every American. I know that time is limited and many of my colleagues wish to speak on this issue as well. So I will just cover some brief points here, if I can. I certainly would not want to allow the time to pass without making some personal observations about Madeleine Albright. Obviously, Ambassador Albright's nomination is historic for a number of reasons, and those reasons have been outlined by the chairman of the committee, the Senator from North Carolina, as well as others, over the last several hours. She will be the first woman to hold the position of Secretary of State. Without a doubt, Madeleine is eminently qualified to discharge the duties of this office. She has the expertise, academic background, and leadership qualities that will make her an excellent Secretary of State. I may also point out, Mr. President, that Madeleine Albright speaks, I believe, four or five languages fluently--which will be a first, I think, for anyone to ever hold this position--including her native language of Czech, as well as Russian, Polish, French, and obviously English. This will provide an invaluable tool for the United States, to have a Secretary of State with such a proficient ability to communicate with leaders throughout the world. I have known Ambassador Albright for many years. Our families have been close. My brother, Tom, was a colleague of Madeleine's at Georgetown University for many years, where they both taught. Madeleine is also no stranger to the Congress and she keenly understands the need to return to a bipartisan consensus on American foreign policy. In fact, Mr. President, if I were asked what is the single-most important foreign policy issue facing this country today, I would say getting the Congress and the legislative branch to work together. I think that is No. 1. Every other issue you can mention is obviously important, but unless we figure out a way to return to a time when there was comity in the foreign policy agenda, it is going to be very difficult to deal with any foreign policy issue. I happen to think Ambassador Albright is eminently qualified because she knows all of this so well. We have dealt with her, we know of her and her competence, and we have confidence in her. That is a very important step in allowing us to work together on behalf of shared goals. I've heard my chairman speak about this subject matter and I have a great deal of confidence that we are going to have great success under his leadership and the leadership of Ambassador Albright in that regard. Madeleine has also worked closely with both Chambers over the past 4 years as the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations. She has been a voice of wisdom and reason at the United Nations during the course of the many debates that have occurred there--on Bosnia, on Iraq, on Haiti, on Cuba, and on the need for institutional reform within that international body. Why has Madeleine been so effective at representing U.S. interests? Perhaps because her own life story, which may not be well known to many people, is the epitome of what makes this country great. Becoming the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations was something of a homecoming for Ambassador Albright. She had, after all, been at the United Nations once before. Madeleine first came to the United States in 1948, at the age of 11, when her father was appointed as the Czech Ambassador to the United Nations. Little did her family realize at that time that their stay in the United States would be more than the usual ambassadorial rotation. Soon after their arrival, the free Czechoslovakia they had left behind was under the grip of totalitarian rule. It had fallen to the dictatorship of communism. I happen to know about that so well, because during that very brief time when Czechoslovakia was a free government, my father was fortunate to receive the Order of the White Lion, which was the highest honor that Czechoslovakia could give to a non-Czech, at the end of World War II. We still prize it as one of my father's most memorable moments in his life. So from that relationship, my family got to know Madeleine's family. It is perhaps because of these unique personal experiences that Ambassador Albright has been such an effective U.S. spokesperson at the United Nations. Whatever the topic, Madeleine is able to speak out passionately--from the heart--about the importance of democracy and respect for human rights across the globe. Even before going to the United Nations, Ambassador Albright already had a distinguished career of public service and academic achievement. She is a graduate of Wellesley College and Columbia University. She was a fellow at both the Woodrow Wilson Center and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. As I mentioned earlier, she was a professor of international relations at Georgetown University and president of the Center for National Policy. Her public service is equally distinguished--as a staff member to the late Senator Edmund Muskie, then as a member of the National Security Council in the Carter administration and most recently Ambassador to the United Nations. Mr. President, I believe the same qualities that made her so effective in these positions will make her particularly effective as the next Secretary of State. Heads of state and foreign ministries around the globe already know that our next Secretary of State is highly respected in the United States and internationally and that she can go toe to toe with the most seasoned diplomats and foreign leaders. But, they should also know that she has the full confidence of both the President and the U.S. Congress. Mr. President, Madeleine Albright is uniquely qualified, at this moment in history, to be America's voice abroad. I am confident that she will be a superb Secretary of State and I urge all to join me in supporting her nomination. I thank our colleague from Delaware and our chairman for moving this along. This is the way we ought to be able to do business around here. I commend him and thank the majority leader, as well.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we do a great deal of important business here in the U.S. Senate, but much of it seems arcane and distant from the lives of American families. But last evening, with the airing of a CBS made for TV movie, ``A Child's Wish,'' we had a particularly moving example of the power we have to make a positive difference in the lives of America's families. I don't know how many of my colleagues had a chance to see it. It was a fictional story based on the true life experiences of two families impacted by the Family and Medical Leave Act signed into law by President Clinton in 1993. Dixie Yandle was one of those children. I believe she came from North Carolina, I say to my colleague from North Carolina. Dixie's father lost his job during her struggle with cancer as he sought to spend more time with her. She and her parents testified in fact before the Congress about the need for family medical leave legislation so that what happened to them would not happen to the other parents. The second child, Melissa Weaver, was also diagnosed with cancer that ultimately proved to be fatal. But due to the Family and Leave Act the family was able to spend the last days of her life together. Melissa's story is one of many that I heard in 1994 during a series of public hearings of the Commission on Family and Medical Leave on the impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act. ``A Child's Wish'' took the lives of these two children and wove them together to dramatize how important the Family and Medical Leave Act is and how meaningful it is to families. I am hopeful that this movie may have helped a lot of people understand the legislation better. Today, at a time when many Americans are deeply cynical toward the work we do here in Washington, the family and medical leave stands in sharp contrast. Not only is this legislation making a real difference in the lives of the American people, but it has been judged by a bipartisan commission to be an unqualified success. The Family and Medical Leave Act fulfilled a genuine need among America's working families to take leave in times of medical and family need. With this legislation we established in law a basic standard of decency toward America's families. Eligible employees were guaranteed 12 weeks of unpaid leave during times of genuine family need--such as a birth or adoption, placement of a foster child, or in times of serious medical emergency for a child, spouse or parent. This minimal benefit--unpaid leave--is providing millions of workers and their families with vital assistance during times of crisis. Yet, even with the apparent success of the FMLA there is still more work to be done. Millions of Americans continue to face painful choices involving their competing responsibilities to family and work. Employees not covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act are still often told that they must choose between sick family members and their jobs. In fact today, 43 percent of private sector employees remain unprotected by the Family and Medical Leave Act because their employer does not meet the current 50 or more employee threshold. This legislation I introduce today--the Family and Medical Leave Fairness Act of 1997--will extend the Family and Medical Leave Act to millions of Americans who remain uncovered. This bill would lower the threshold to include coverage for companies with 25 or more workers. This small step would provide 13 million additional workers with the protection of the Family and Medical Leave Act--raising the total percentage of the private sector work force covered by the FMLA to 71 percent. In my view, these workers deserve the same job security in times of family and medical emergency that workers in lager companies receive from the Family and Medical Leave Act. With this legislation they will receive it. Now, for those of my colleagues who still harbor doubts about the success of the Family and Medical Leave Act I strongly urge them to examine a recent bipartisan report that documents the positive impact of this legislation. When the bill was passed in 1993, provisions in the legislation established a commission to examine the impact of the act on workers and businesses. The Family and Medical Leave Commission's analysis spanned 2\1/2\ years. It included independent research and field hearings across the country to learn first hand about the act's impact from individuals and the business community. The report's conclusions are clear--the Family and Medical Leave Act is helping to expand opportunities for working Americans while at the same time not placing any undue burden on employers. According to the Commission's final report, the Family and Medical Leave Act represents ``A significant step in helping a larger cross- section of working Americans meet their medical and family care giving needs while still maintaining their jobs and economic security.'' Due to this legislation, Americans now possess greater opportunities to keep their health benefits, maintain job security, and take longer leaves for a greater number of reasons. In fact, according to the bipartisan commission--12 million workers took job-protected leave for reasons covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act during the 18 months of its study. But, not only are American workers reaping the benefits. The law is working for American business as well. In fact, the conclusions of the bipartisan report are a far cry from the concerns that were voiced when this law was being considered in Congress. The vast majority of businesses--over 94 percent--report little to no additional costs associated with the Family and Medical Leave Act. More than 92 percent reported no noticeable effect on profitability. And nearly 96 percent reported no noticeable effect on business growth. Additionally, 83 percent of employers reported no noticeable impact on employee productivity. In fact, 12.6 percent actually reported a positive effect on employee productivity from the Family and Medical Leave Act, twice as many as reported a negative effect. And not only did employers report that compliance with the Family and Medical Leave Act was relatively easy and of minimal cost, but worksites with a small number of employees generally reported greater ease of administration and even smaller costs than large worksites. Today, I introduce this legislation with the hope and expectation that we can put aside our political differences and build on the success of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Last November, the American people gave us a mandate--a mandate for good governance. The Family and Medical Leave represents the fulfillment of this goal and I urge all my colleagues to join with me in supporting this critically important legislation for America's working families. I think the fact that the law has been working so well has made a sufficient difference in people's lives in moments of crises. The fact that people are able to be there particularly when a child is dying, so that you have the love of parents and a family coming together and you don't have to choose between that job and your family is a wonderful thing. It has made such a difference in people's lives. There have been many issues dealt with in this body over 16 years, and there is none that I am more proud of than the day that this body voted to support the family and medical leave legislation, and when President Clinton signed it into law. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Daschle, Senator Kennedy, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Kerry. Mr. President, I can't miss the opportunity to briefly say that a friend of mine who is here from Pennsylvania, who I know is going to speak on the nomination of Madeleine Albright, but the body should know that the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, was an invaluable ally in that effort beginning in the first day we arrived in the Senate some 16 years ago. We formed a caucus on children's needs. I thank him for his efforts over the years in that regard.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, earlier today on the third day of the 105th Congress, we cast a historic ballot--on behalf of the first woman to be confirmed as Secretary of State in our Nation's proud history. But, as we prepare to usher in Madeleine Albright as America's new Secretary of State, I wanted to take this opportunity to voice my strong support for the pending resolution that honors the man whose shoes she will soon be filling--Warren Christopher. Over the past 4 years, Warren Christopher provided the steadying hand and reservoir of experience that helped President Clinton successfully weave his way through the minefield of international diplomacy. Through these efforts, he earned a revered statute--as the elder statesman of the President's Cabinet. In the more than 200-year history of our Republic, no Secretary of State traveled more miles in the pursuit of democracy, open markets, and the promotion of American international interests than Warren Christopher. From Beijing to Buenos Aires, Johannesburg to Jakarta, and Mali to Moscow, no journey was too far and no effort unworthy of his personal diplomacy. In the Middle East, his diplomatic endeavors paved the way for the first steps toward reconciliation and cooperation in the age-old conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Generations from now, Bosnians, Serbs, and Croats will look back with fondness and appreciation at his tireless efforts to bring the warring parties together at Dayton. In fact, at Dayton, after the bags were packed and the participants had all but given up, it was Warren Christopher who convinced all sides that a peaceful resolution was the only true hope for the Balkans. Under his watch, the Haitian people were able to finally cast off the evils of dictatorship for the fruits of democracy. The Korean Peninsula took its first tentative steps toward limiting the development of nuclear weapons and curbing tensions in one of the cold war's last hotspots. What's more, over the past 4 years--with the strong support of Warren Christopher and the Clinton administration, democracy spread its wings across every corner of the globe. Today in Latin America every nation but one is a full-fledged democracy. In Russia, 70 years of totalitarian rule are giving way to free elections and open markets. And in Africa, a region scarred for so long by war, famine, and political instability, the seeds of democracy are beginning to take root. However, for all the accomplishments that Warren Christopher achieved overseas, we must not forget the impact of his impressive contributions here at home. Besides helping to make America more secure and protecting our vital national interests, Warren Christopher presided over a period of great economic liberalization--a period that brought greater prosperity and limitless economic opportunity to millions of Americans. Secretary Christopher built on the passage of NAFTA and GATT by working to create a framework for regional-wide trading blocs in all of Latin America and the Pacific rim. The result is increased opportunities for export, and new developing markets for American commerce. But, most of all, Warren Christopher brought a quiet dignity, grace, and gentle demeanor to his role as Secretary of State. At a time when public debate in our Nation is becoming coarser and more partisan, when style seems to take precedent over substance and when shrill voices garner more attention than quiet deliberation, Warren Christopher proved that you can still speak softly, yet carry a big stick. A recent editorial in his hometown Los Angeles Times by Tom Plate describes the traits that define Warren Christopher best: Extreme loyalty to friends and colleagues; a faith in the institutions of government and the Constitution; respect for careerists in the State Department as well as on his personal staff; discretion approaching squareness. These are the attributes that inspired him through four Democratic administrations and years of public service. What's more, they are virtues that every American should expect from their leaders. As he prepares to return to his beloved California with his wife, Marie, to spend more time with his children and grandchildren, I join all my colleagues in wishing him the best. What's more, I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution honoring a man who in all his travels--from the Great Plains of Scranton, ND, to the corridors of power in Foggy Bottom--never lost his sense of dignity, grace, and conviction to principle.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Working Families Child Care Act of 1997. Mr. President, balancing the daunting responsibilities of work with the responsibilities of raising children is always a difficult task. It is especially challenging when so many parents today are working outside the home and are forced to depend on child care. Not surprisingly, these challenges are especially acute for low income, working families. In fact according to a national child care study, when compared to all other income groups, the working poor are the least likely to receive assistance with child care costs--even though it consumes a disproportionate share of their income--24 percent, compared to 6 percent for middle income families. What's more, it's a constant struggle for low income families to remain self sufficient without child care assistance. In a survey of families on a waiting list in one community, it was found that of those paying for child care, 71 percent faced serious debt or bankruptcy. Currently, in 38 States and the District of Columbia the working poor are on waiting lists to receive child care. Georgia has 41,000 on its waiting list; Texas 36,000; Illinois 20,000; Alabama 20,000. Most of the States which don't have a waiting list either don't keep one, are expecting to create one in the future, or currently are experiencing a brief respite. In my own State of Connecticut, new openings for child care assistance were frozen in November 1993. When new slots became available, for only two days this past summer, 5,500 applications were received. During the last Congress, we intensely debated the issue of child care--in the larger context of welfare reform legislation. The original welfare legislation in January 1995 cut funds for child care and eliminated critically important health and safety standards. In the 104th Congress I continued to fight for child care, offering amendments to increase funding and ensure quality. While I disagreed with the final welfare reform bill, I am pleased that many of these amendments succeeded and that in the end, the final bill included child care funding of $14.2 billion over 6 years and restored rigorous health and safety standards. However, while the bill we passed made significant and crucial strides in providing child care for welfare recipients--there is still work to be done. The bill I am proposing today will address the issue of child care for low income working families and make it easier for them to access adequate child care assistance. First, this legislation restores $1.4 billion in child care funding. According to a recent CBO report, even if states meet the work requirements of the welfare bill they will still be short $1.4 billion for money needed to continue serving certain low income working families. These aren't new recipients we're talking about, but instead families who were receiving child care assistance prior to passage of welfare reform legislation. The legislation I am introducing today will prevent working parents from losing child care assistance simply as a result of the welfare reform bill. Second, it begins to address the shortage of assistance for working families, by raising the authorization for child care subsidies for low income working families from $1 billion per year to $2 billion per year. And finally, it authorizes $500 million per year through 2002 to help communities meet supply shortages in areas such as infant care and school age care. Even when subsidies are available, child care can be difficult to obtain. According to the National Academy of Sciences, there is ``Consistent evidence of a relatively low supply of care for infants, for school age children, for children with disabilities and special health care needs and for parents with unconventional or shifting work hours.'' What's more, a 1995 GAO study based in Michigan found a shortage of infant and special needs child care in inner cities and a shortage of all types of child care in rural areas. So, we're not simply talking about financial assistance for child care, but whether child care actually exists. This shortage of child care is a problem for both working families and welfare recipients who want to become self-sufficient. How can we expect someone to make the difficult transition from welfare to work when they cannot find an adequate provider for an infant or are forced to have a 6, 7 or 8 year old spend hours alone at home when the school day ends? This lack of supervision can have a devastating long-term impact. One study found that children who start to take care of themselves in elementary school are significantly more likely to report high use of alcohol by the eighth grade. Eighth graders left home alone for 11 or more hours a week report significantly greater use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana then children not left home alone. We know all this, and yet only one third of the schools in low income neighborhoods offer school age child care, compared with 52 percent in more affluent areas. For those struggling to make the difficult journey to self- sufficiency, the lack of available child care before 9, after 5, and on weekends can be an enormous problem. What's worse, such arrangements put the safety of a child in question. The reality is that nearly 1 in 5 full time workers--14.3 million-- work nonstandard hours. More than 1 in 3 are women. However, only 10 percent of child care centers and 6 percent of family day care provide care on weekends. Yet one third of working mothers with incomes below poverty and one fourth of mothers with income above poverty, but below $25,000, work on weekends. An additional supply problem is that head start and other prekindergarten programs are part day and part year. As a result, they often do not meet the needs of parents who work full time. Less than 30 percent of Head Start programs operate on a full-time, full-year basis. Simply put, child care funds need to be available to make these programs accessible for working parents. In my view, we as a nation have a solemn commitment to guarantee that children will not be left to fend for themselves while their parents are working to put food on the table. Child care is one of the most important ingredients for helping poor working families achieve and maintain economic security. Like parents in any community and of any financial background, low income families need to know that when they go to work, their children will receive the care and assistance they need. The bill I am introducing today will make it easier for low income, working families to balance the responsibilities of work and caring for their children. I urge all my colleagues to join together in supporting this legislation--for the good of America's children.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this coming Sunday, the eyes of 75 to 80 million Americans will be squarely focused on the city of Hartford and the State of Connecticut as they host the first Presidential debate of the 1996 campaign between President Clinton and Senator Dole. For Hartford and the people of my home State of Connecticut the unique opportunity to host this debate is both a great honor and a significant economic and cultural shot in the arm. I salute all those in the Hartford community who have played integral roles in bringing the Presidential candidates to our capital city. In particular, I want to commend the Bank of Boston, Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance, Trinity College, and Southern New England Telephone played critical roles as the four founding sponsors of the debate. In addition, Daniel Papermaster, who has labored tirelessly to bring a Presidential debate to Hartford, deserves special praise. Without his persistent efforts, this debate would never have become a reality. For Hartford, the Presidential debate provides a remarkable opportunity to give the city a much needed boost of civic and community pride. Certainly, no one would disagree that our city has seen rough times of late. And, the debate's impact on our community will be sizable. It's estimated that the event may pump as much as 4 to 5 million dollars into the local economy. What's more, 2,500 journalists from around the world will be descending on Hartford and will, in many cases, have their first opportunity to see the sights, meet the people, and experience the hospitality of our Connecticut and Hartford. Most of all though, the coming Presidential debate is sparking a renewed sense of community spirit that will live on long after our visitors have said goodbye Sunday night or Monday morning when they leave the State. But, as proud a moment as this is for the people of Connecticut it is also a critically important one for our Nation's future and our political process. In our political process, there are few events as singular and unique as Presidential, and Vice-Presidential, debates. Since these are the only two elected offices on which all 265 million Americans cast their ballot, Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates provide the American people a platform and context for choosing not just a political leader, but a governing philosophy for America's future. Now, as every Member of this body knows, our Nation has a long and proud history of political debate. More than 200 years ago, our founding fathers gathered in Philadelphia to debate, discuss and finally establish what they believed to be a ``more perfect union.'' Some 80 years later our Nation's greatest leaders gathered for some of the most storied and significant oration in American history. From the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 to the famous Breckinridge/ Baker Senate debate of 1861, which one commentator called ``perhaps the most dramatic scene that ever took place in the Senate Chamber'' American leaders intensely pondered the issue of slavery and the future of a divided nation. In 1960, this proud legacy entered the TV age with the Nixon/Kennedy debates which set the stage for one of the most closely contested elections in our Nation's history and for the past 20 years, Presidential debates have become an autumnal tradition--an opportunity for voters to not only listen to the views of the Presidential candidates, but to come together as a nation and as a people, participating in America's vibrant political discourse. Debates are so enshrined in our political process that for a significant portion of the American electorate they are the most important source of information for making their decisions on election day. The events of this Sunday will be no different. If anything, they may be even more significant. President Clinton and Senator Dole meet in Hartford against the backdrop of great technological and social change in our Nation. What's more, both men come to this debate with very different proposals and divergent beliefs for the future. On Sunday night, when the American people gather around their televisions, they will witness not simply a competition of candidates, but a contest of ideas. That contest of ideas will be waged by two men who may be among the most skilled debaters in American politics. I have heard a great deal of talk in the past few weeks about our former colleague's supposed lack of rhetorical skill. Even the candidate himself has intimated that he lacks the oratorical ability to be on the same stage with President Clinton and that by just showing up in Hartford he would in fact be the victor. Mr. President, I served in this Chamber for 16 years with Bob Dole. I have great admiration for him as a person and as a public official, and I have even higher admiration for his debating skills. Republicans are certainly not talking about someone I am familiar with when they suggest that Bob Dole lacks the ability to debate an opponent. In my time here as a Member of this body, I have never ceased to be impressed by Bob Dole's debating skills. He is a smart and experienced debater, who understands public policy issues as well, as any Member that I have encountered in public life. What is more, he has been a candidate for national office four times, once for the Vice Presidency and three times for President. He weathered a difficult and trying debate season in the Republican primaries. All told, he has held 13 debates with other candidates for national office. I should also point out he was the chairman of the Republican National Committee back in 1972. Having held a similar position in my own party these past 2 years, I know how difficult that job can be, because of the numerous times that you must debate your opponents. In fact, one might wonder if it is Bob Dole and not Bill Clinton who has the advantage coming into Sunday's debate given the tremendous experience that our former colleague, who served in Congress for 35 years and for many years as minority and majority leader, has in rhetorical skills. If anything, the American people should be extremely grateful to witness a debate between two candidates with such evenly matched debating skills and a similar understanding of the issues. Not for a second do I doubt Senator Dole's ability to debate on a level playing field with President Clinton. If anything, I think his troubles will come more from trying to defend his economic policies and his votes against the Brady bill, family leave, and in support of cutting Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment. But that is another story. Certainly all of us look forward to the world tuning into Hartford, CT, on Sunday night to witness the first Presidential debate of the season, and we wish both of our candidates well in that process. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about domestic violence. This subject has quite literally been brought more clearly into focus in recent days by photographs exhibited in the Russell Senate Building rotunda. As we begin the observance of October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month, the photographs of three Connecticut women who have lived through--and perhaps still endure--the pain of domestic violence are on display in the Russell rotunda, along with the names of many individuals from every state who have died as a result of domestic violence. Mr. President, the statistics on domestic violence are horrifying. While the victims are not only women, women are significantly more likely to be victims of domestic violence than are men. Once every 15 seconds, a woman is beaten by her husband or boyfriend, according to the FBI's crime statistics. Four women a day are killed at the hands of their attackers, according to the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women. And last year's National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted by the Department of Justice, showed that 29 percent of all violence against women by a single offender is committed by an intimate--a husband, ex-husband, boyfriend, or ex-boyfriend. In Connecticut in 1994, there were 18,768 incidents of family violence that resulted in at least one arrest, according to the Connecticut State Department of Public Safety. And 29 people were killed by family violence in Connecticut in 1994 according to the same source. But in the photographs displayed in the Russell rotunda, photographer Annie Liebovitz captures more than just the grim statistics. She brings into focus both the physical pain and emotional anguish suffered by victims of domestic violence. One can see the hurt and the horror, the shame and the solitude, and the fighting and the fear. And while this pain, hopefully, will diminish one day, it will never completely go away. The battered individuals, Mr. President, are not the only victims. Domestic violence leaves scars on all those who live with it--especially the children. Domestic Violence Awareness Month is a time when we can step up the effort to prevent domestic violence. We must educate Americans about this terrible problem and reach out to victims to let them know that help is available and that, sadly, they are not alone. Mr. President, I am proud to support Domestic Violence Awareness Month and other measures to combat domestic violence, including a provision in the omnibus bill recently passed by Congress and signed by the President to prevent anyone convicted of any kind of domestic violence from owning a gun. I look forward to the day when we will no longer need to designate a Domestic Violence Awareness Month, but until then, I remain committed to preventing and healing the wounds of domestic violence.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me congratulate the leadership as well on the conclusion of the 104th Congress. And, once again, to all of our retiring Members, I wish them all the very best in the coming years.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in supporting the passage of the conference report on H.R. 3005, the National Securities Markets Improvement Act of 1996. Allow me to begin by offering my heartfelt congratulations to my fellow conferees: Senators D'Amato, Sarbanes, Gramm, and Bennett, with whom I worked very closely in first creating and now passing this thoughtful and strongly bipartisan bill. I believe that the high quality of this legislation is demonstrable proof of what can be accomplished when we set aside our partisan differences to work for the good of the Nation. As I've said many times, the U.S. capital markets are vitally important for the good economic health not only of virtually every American company but for millions and millions of individual investors who have placed some of their assets either directly in securities or, as has become more and more common, into mutual funds. Sustained economic growth is heavily dependent upon the continuing ability of our capital markets and financial services industry to function efficiently and with integrity. If companies find impediments to obtaining capital, they will not grow. If individuals find impediments to their access to securities and other investments, they will not save. Taking steps to enhance the access of both corporations and individuals to the securities markets is a prudent means by which Congress can help sustain or even increase the Nation's rate of economic growth. Furthermore, the American capital markets are the envy of the world. No other Nation enjoys the international reputation of our capital markets and it is necessary for Congress periodically to review and modernize, where necessary, the laws that make our markets and our financial services industry the world's leader. I will acknowledge that it took us a little longer to get to this point than I had anticipated when the Senate passed S. 1815 at the end of June. Despite the other body's initially leisurely attitude toward conference negotiations, we have collectively achieved an excellent product. This conference report, which I hope that the Senate will adopt today, is the culmination of a lengthy bipartisan effort to reform those aspects of the securities laws that are an outdated impediment to the efficient functioning of the securities industry. The legislation will also provide clearer statutory directives to both State and Federal regulators so that the integrity of--and confidence in--our capital markets and financial services industry is enhanced. Without going into excruciating detail, let me just highlight the main areas that this legislation covers: it improves the regulation of investment advisors by clarifying the proper roles of the SEC and the State regulators; it modernizes and streamlines the regulation of mutual funds on the one hand, and provides badly needed modernization of the statutes covering hedge funds and venture capital funds on the other hand; it provides for clarification on a host of technical matters ranging from treatment of church pension plans to the access by U.S. journalists to foreign issuer press conferences. And, significantly, the bill creates the mechanism for increased regulatory flexibility so that the SEC will have the ability to keep pace with needed regulatory changes as the needs and demands both of investors and the financial industry develop over time. As I mentioned earlier, the legislation will allow the creation of a new kind of private investment company that is exempt from the restrictions of the Investment Company Act of 1940. Because this is a new mechanism for fund managers to use, we provide safeguards for participants in existing private investment companies. Any fund manager seeking to convert their existing fund to a new fund--called 3(c)[7] funds in the bill--must offer all their participants the option to first ``cash out.'' It is further the intent of the conferees that these dissenter's rights not be evaded by fund managers who might seek to either invest their existing fund solely in the new fund or to simply have the old fund exactly mirror the investment decisions of the new fund. The conferees expect the commission to be particularly vigilant in this matter. It is also the expectation of the conferees that the commission act swiftly to define the term ``Beneficial owners.'' It is the intent of the conferees that when such notices are given to institutional investors, the notice be given only to the controlling entity of that institution, not directly to all of the investing institution's underlying investors or participants. I am also pleased that the conference report will require the Commission to study the impact of recent judicial and regulatory rulings that have limited the ability of shareholders to offer proposals at shareholder meetings regarding a company's employment practices. The abilities of shareholders to offer such kinds of resolutions such as the ``Sullivan principles'' for South Africa and the ``MacBride principles'' for Northern Ireland have had a direct impact on ensuring that U.S. corporations do not participate in the loathsome discriminatory practices that occurred--or still occur--in those Nations. I look forward to the results of the Commission's study in a year's time. I would also note a few important provisions from the House bill that were included in this conference report. First, the conference report contains a 10-year authorization for the Securities and Exchange Commission that will reduce registration fees that were a drag on capital formation and will provide a level playing field for transaction fees on the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange, and the NASDAQ stock market. This provision is a huge improvement over the House's original plan, since the plan first adopted by the House would have caused a negative impact upon programs in the Commerce Department, Justice Department and the State Department. The Senate played a critical role in forcing the other body to reach agreement with the administration and Senate appropriators so that the goal of fee reduction could be achieved without harming other important Federal programs. The conference report also contains a requirement for the establishment of uniform State laws on books and records for broker- dealers. While this uniformity has long been sought by State regulators, the SEC and industry, I remain concerned that some States will have to adjust their laws regarding books and records kept at branch offices. It is the intent of the conferees that the SEC work closely with the States to determine what records should be maintained at branch offices and to establish a mechanism so that States could require such records be kept in the branch office, rather than at a back office halfway across the Nation. At this time, it is also appropriate to thank the Senate staffers who have worked so hard on turning ideas and goals into concrete legislation. I extend my congratulations and appreciation to Andrew Lowenthal from my staff; Laura Unger, the majority counsel; Mitchell Feuer, the minority counsel; and, Wayne Abernathy, the majority staff director of the Securities Subcommittee. I would also like to extend my thanks to someone who frequently, though unjustly, goes unmentioned when accolades are given on the floor--Laura Syoud of the Senate legislative counsel's office whose expertise was invaluable in solving some of the most difficult problems we confronted in drafting not only this conference report, but in the original Senate legislation. Mr. President, this is a carefully balanced bill that, upon enactment by President Clinton, will improve our Nation's securities laws to allow the markets to function more efficiently, while balancing those reforms by maintaining, and in some cases enhancing, The full strength of investor protections that have made our markets the best in the world. I urge my colleagues to support adoption of this important legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor, again, of the Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. I have cosponsored this legislation in several Congresses now, and hope that finally, we will pass this enormously important legislation. This act would address a problem that pediatricians first recognized more than 30 years ago: information about safe and effective therapies for their young patients is scarce. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics only about one-fifth of all drugs marketed in the United States today, and only four of the 25 new drugs approved by the FDA last year, have been labeled for use by children. Given this largely adults-only drug market, individual doctors face an uncomfortable dilemma with many of their child patients. Should doctors limit themselves to the handful of proven pediatric drugs? Some might not even exist for certain illnesses, and in such cases this could mean not treating a sick child. Or should they take a gamble on an adult drug and rely on their training, professional judgment, and luck to make it work as intended? Most physicians find the latter option, known as ``off-label prescribing,'' to be the more acceptable choice. As a result, the American Academy of Pediatrics says that off-label prescribing has ``by default become an established standard of care of children.'' This practice is neither illegal nor improper, but it can present unnecessary risk for young patients. Children are not just smaller than adults. Their bodies function very differently from adults. And as any parent can tell you, they change drastically from infancy to childhood to adolescence. For young, growing patients, the only way to be sure whether a medication is safe and effective, and what the dosage should be, is the test it on different age groups. The Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act is a straightforward solution to the unnecessary shortage of pediatric medicine. It grants an additional 6 months of market exclusivity for drugs which have undergone pediatric studies according to accepted scientific protocols. This provides a fair and reasonable market incentive for drug companies to make the extra effort needed to label their products for use by children. Simply put, this bill is a sensible way to keep our children healthier. That is why it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support, both inside and outside this body. In addition to the American Academy of Pediatrics, other supporters include the Pharmaceuticals Research and Manufacturers of America, and the Pediatric AIDS Foundation. I urge my colleagues to support this act.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me also today pay tribute to a great Senator and a close and dear friend from the State of Louisiana, J. Bennett Johnston. Bennett Johnston has served his beloved State of Louisiana for the past 32 years. He began his life in politics in the Louisiana House of Representatives in 1964, and went on to the Louisiana Senate in 1968, and in 1972 he became a Member of the U.S. Senate, where he has served with great distinction and honor for the past 24 years. As much as any man or woman in this body, Bennett Johnston truly understands the critical importance of compromise, bipartisanship, and working across party lines. He always embraced the opportunity to engage an opponent rather than tear them down, and by doing so he has made the Senate a more civil place in which to serve. I think the words of our former colleague, Russell Long, best described Bennett Johnston's tenure. Russell Long said, ``No other Member of the Senate has accomplished more for the people he represents. No State in the Union has had a more faithful servant nor a more powerful advocate than Louisiana has had in Bennett Johnston.'' Bennett Johnston was always looking out for the people and the best interests of the people of Louisiana. He became an expert on issues that make many Senators' eyes glaze over with the mere mention of the subject matter. But they were vitally critical to his State's future: wetlands issues, national defense, and energy policy. For his home State of Louisiana, Bennett Johnston worked to improve educational opportunities and helped to provide funds for new research facilities, better interstate highways, new ports, levies, and three national parks. His knowledge of the minutia of energy issues, his skill at crafting coalitions, and his tireless efforts shepherded one of the most comprehensive energy-related measures through the U.S. Senate in 1992. That bill remains one of the most important achievements of the 102d Congress, and it is a fitting legacy to Bennett Johnston's tenure in the U.S. Senate. When he announced his retirement from this body, he didn't use it as an opportunity to attack the Senate or to decry his service here, but instead to reaffirm his commitment to the principles and values of this institution, and of public service. I would like to quote from his own statement on the day he announced his retirement. He said, ``Politics and public service are synonymous with the pursuit of public office. It is a high calling in our society. It is the best opportunity for helping your State, your country, and your fellow man. The Senate, with its faults and criticisms, remains the bulwark of our democracy, and a hallowed institution. I will stand up for it, will not bash it, and will defend it against those who do.'' Those words, I think, Mr. President, stand in sharp contrast to the voices of cynicism that we often hear not only in this town but also, frankly, too often in this Chamber. They are the words of a man who loves the U.S. Senate and who treasures the opportunity to serve his State and his country. To Bennett Johnston and his wife, Mary, and their family, I wish them Godspeed and the best wishes in their future endeavors.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today as a proud cosponsor, again, of the Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. I have cosponsored this legislation in several Congresses now, and hope that finally, we will pass this enormously important legislation. This act would address a problem that pediatricians first recognized more than 30 years ago: information about safe and effective therapies for their young patients is scarce. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics only about one-fifth of all drugs marketed in the United States today, and only four of the 25 new drugs approved by the FDA last year, have been labeled for use by children. Given this largely adults-only drug market, individual doctors face an uncomfortable dilemma with many of their child patients. Should doctors limit themselves to the handful of proven pediatric drugs? Some might not even exist for certain illnesses, and in such cases this could mean not treating a sick child. Or should they take a gamble on an adult drug and rely on their training, professional judgment, and luck to make it work as intended? Most physicians find the latter option, known as ``off-label prescribing,'' to be the more acceptable choice. As a result, the American Academy of Pediatrics says that off-label prescribing has ``by default become an established standard of care of children.'' This practice is neither illegal nor improper, but it can present unnecessary risk for young patients. Children are not just smaller than adults. Their bodies function very differently from adults. And as any parent can tell you, they change drastically from infancy to childhood to adolescence. For young, growing patients, the only way to be sure whether a medication is safe and effective, and what the dosage should be, is the test it on different age groups. The Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act is a straightforward solution to the unnecessary shortage of pediatric medicine. It grants an additional 6 months of market exclusivity for drugs which have undergone pediatric studies according to accepted scientific protocols. This provides a fair and reasonable market incentive for drug companies to make the extra effort needed to label their products for use by children. Simply put, this bill is a sensible way to keep our children healthier. That is why it has enjoyed broad bipartisan support, both inside and outside this body. In addition to the American Academy of Pediatrics, other supporters include the Pharmaceuticals Research and Manufacturers of America, and the Pediatric AIDS Foundation. I urge my colleagues to support this act.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as we approach the end of another Congress, we engage in our biannual tradition of bidding farewell to those Senators who will not be returning in January. This practice epitomizes the wonderful circle of closure and renewal that marks our service in the U.S. Senate. Senators who have been blessed to serve their country move on to accept new challenges, and fresh lawmakers, intent on serving their constituents and their Nation, take that place. All, of course, of these exits are not always voluntary because they are also contingent on the desires and wishes of the people we represent. But, in some cases, our fellow Members decide on their own, sometimes against the wishes of their constituents, that they will no longer serve in the U.S. Senate. Such is the case this year. Mr. President, the 105th Congress will be a much different place come January 1997, whether it is controlled by Democrats or Republicans. Come January, some of America's finest public servants will be moving on to fresh challenges and embracing new goals. For more than 200 years, some of our Nation's greatest thinkers and most eminent legislators have served in this body, from John Calhoon, Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster to Lyndon Johnston, Everett Dirksen, and Richard Russell. Those who are retiring this year, both Democrats and Republicans, are a distinguished and impressive group of lawmakers. Mr. President, we unfortunately live in an era where the level of partisanship and the level of brinkmanship, I believe, threatens the very foundations of this institution. When compromise has become synonymous with failure, and name calling, too often, and scoring political points is taking the place of legislating, the 13 Senators who are retiring represent, in my view, the spirit of compromise and bipartisanship that must invigorate this institution if we are to regain the abiding faith of the American people. These legislators--these 13, in my view--are the sort of legislators who have sought common ground, not partisan advantage. They have strived to build bridges to their opponents instead of using wedge issues to divide us as a people and as a nation. They are exactly the type of lawmakers I believe our Founding Fathers had in mind when they created this institution more than 200 years ago. Over the past 2 years I have come to the floor on several occasions to bid farewell to our retiring colleagues. Today I would like to focus my remarks on two Members who I know will be particularly missed. Throughout my 16 years as a Member of the U.S. Senate, I have had the great honor to serve alongside David Pryor. I mean that both figuratively and literally, as he has been my neighbor here on the Senate floor for the past 12 years. David Pryor is one of the body's most distinguished and best loved Members. He is an able legislator and, most of all, a very close and dear friend. Mr. President, the small State of Arkansas has an impressive political tradition. By all accounts, it has given this country some of its most influential and distinguished leaders and lawmakers. William Fulbright was a giant in the area of international relations. Senator Bumpers, our colleague in the Senate, is truly one of the great orators of this institution and one of the most passionate voices who has ever served in the U.S. Senate. And, of course, our President, William Clinton. But for all of those wonderful politicians who have served the State of Arkansas, David Pryor remains by all accounts the most popular and the most beloved politician in all of Arkansas. This is certainly no accident, because throughout his career in politics, from the House of Representatives to the Arkansas Governor's mansion to the U.S. Senate, David Pryor never forgot where he came from and he never lost touch with the people who elected him. Our colleague, Dale Bumpers, said of David Pryor that he personifies ``the nobility of public service.'' Mr. President, I could not agree more. As a freshman Senator in 1979, David sent his Senate staff back to Arkansas to work alongside their constituents to learn firsthand the concerns of Arkansans, and as a young House Member he investigated nursing homes by donning an orderly's uniform and going undercover into nursing homes. That subterfuge is one of many burdens David Pryor took on for our Nation's elderly. Throughout his hard work, he helped establish the Special Committee on Aging. And he never stopped fighting to keep drug prices down for elderly patients. David and I didn't always see eye to eye on this issue. In fact, we disagreed on this particular question. But our policy differences never resulted in personal differences. Most importantly, they never got in the way of our friendship and genuine affection for each other. David Pryor has also long been a tireless advocate for American taxpayers, working from his position on the Senate Finance Committee to smooth relations between the Internal Revenue Service and taxpayers. Here in the U.S. Senate he has worked as hard as any Member to encourage civility and a family-friendly atmosphere. Time limits on votes and recess schedules remain a lasting part of his senatorial legacy. But, most of all, David Pryor brought a quiet humility and gentle demeanor to a place that too often is known for its sharp elbows and short tempers. He has earned the respect and admiration of both Republicans and Democrats, which is no easy feat in this day and age. I doubt there is a Member who isn't genuinely saddened to see David Pryor leave the U.S. Senate. He personifies all that we must continue to strive for as politicians and lawmakers, and as national leaders. For myself and all of those whose lives he has touched and for all of those in this Chamber, he will be sorely missed. I wish he and Barbara a happy and healthy and busy retirement.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, several weeks ago, during the consideration of the welfare reform bill, I came to the floor and expressed my views on that legislation. At the time, I characterized the bill as an unconscionable retreat from our Nation's more than 60-year commitment to America's poorest children. Unfortunately, I still believe that to be the case today. In the past 60 years, while we have disagreed and quarreled in this country on some issues, all Americans, regardless of party or ideology, understood that it was in our national interest to protect the most innocent and defenseless of our people--the 9 million children who collect Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Whether you are from Connecticut, California, Maine or Mississippi, if all else fails, your National Government would not rip the safety net from underneath a poor child's feet. With the passage of the welfare reform bill, I believe we have abandoned that 60-year-old commitment. While the welfare reform legislation may have been, in my view, a retreat, it is by no means a surrender. A surrender would indicate that we are throwing up our arms because the struggle is over. A retreat, on the other hand, means it is a temporary setback, not the end of the battle. Unfortunately, the battle is not going to be fought in the remaining hours of the 104th Congress. But I pledge to my colleagues here that one of my first priorities in the 105th Congress will be to propose legislation that will correct what I consider to be major flaws in the welfare reform bill. Already I have instructed the General Accounting Office to begin assessing the effect of the welfare reform bill so that Congress can closely monitor its impact on America's welfare system and particularly on our Nation's children. While I disagree with many aspects of the welfare reform legislation, its passage brings us to a new point, I believe, in how we deal with poverty and social issues in this country. We are now waging this battle on a new front and with a new set of parameters. The blame game on welfare is over. The time has come to move beyond divisive rhetoric and to find innovative ways to make this welfare legislation work for America's poorest children. Simply passing the problem on to the States and our local communities--as if they have all the answers and all of the resources to grapple with this problem--is not a solution. It is, as President Clinton has often stated, only the beginning. There is still significant work to be done. First and foremost, Mr. President, we must redouble our efforts to create good-paying jobs for welfare recipients striving to end the cycle of poverty and dependency. The bill that this Senate and this Congress passed, while professing to move people from welfare to work-- a concept that I wholeheartedly endorse--failed to provide the funds needed to reach that goal. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill is $12 billion short of funds needed to meet the bill's stringent requirements. Consider, for example, that if today every new job in New York City was to be filled by a current welfare recipient, it would take 21 years for all these people to be absorbed into the city's economy. Does any Member of this body really think that millions of jobs offering good wages with health benefits are suddenly going to appear out of thin air? Absolutely not, particularly if we fail to focus on job creation and providing greater funds for assistance, training, and education, that give welfare recipients, in our cities and our States, the chance to achieve the self-sufficiency this bill calls for. As important as job creation is, Mr. President, to the success of welfare reform, it will mean nothing if we do not allocate significant resources to child care. While I was pleased to see that more funds were provided for child care in the legislation than was originally proposed, more is needed on this front. If this bill is to be successful in permanently getting people off welfare, as well as helping those already in the job market, working parents must be sure that their children will be well taken care of. The Congressional Budget Office again estimates that there is close to a $1.4 billion shortfall in the child care funds for the working poor and people in transition from welfare to work. This discrepancy has to be addressed in the next Congress if this legislation is going to succeed. So, too, must the provision allowing mothers with children between the ages of 6 and 10 to be sanctioned and potentially lose benefits if they cannot find or afford child care. Remember, we tried to strike that provision, but we lost. And so today, if you have children between the ages of 6 and 10, and you are out trying to find work, the fact that you cannot find child care and cannot marshal the adequate resources could cause you to lose all your benefits. Again, I do not understand the wisdom of that. What happens to 6- and 7- and 8- and 9-year-olds and 10-year-olds in this situation? If their mothers cannot find child care, who is to take care of them? What happens to these children? And yet, that is not provided for in the legislation. My hope would be that this is one of the provisions we would try and correct in the next Congress. At the absolute least, we, as a nation, should be able to guarantee to children under the age of 10 that they will not be left home alone, to fend for themselves while their parents are out trying to make the difficult adjustment from welfare to work. However, it seems that when it comes to the discussion of welfare reform in this Chamber, there seems to be a constant fundamental disconnect between rhetoric and reality. The fact is, we simply cannot ask welfare recipients, struggling to get by, struggling to make ends meet, struggling to raise a family, to keep a job if Congress does not provide adequate child care. Of course, the issue of child care rubs both ways, for both working parents and, of course, their young children. Obviously, child care is about more than just helping working parents. It is about ensuring that our Nation's poor children will not be neglected. When we debated the welfare reform bill, we came just short of the necessary votes of providing vouchers for children whose families reach the 5-year limit. To my colleague's credit, from the State of Louisiana, Senator Breaux, who tried to include these vouchers so that at the end of the 5 years--whatever else you do to the parents, you do not visit that problem on the children. We lost that vote on a narrow decision here in the Senate. Under the welfare bill which became law, States are prohibited--they are prohibited--from even providing vouchers for children from block grant funds. That we punish children because of the actions of their parents, no matter how irresponsible they may be, is, in my view, abhorrent. By not providing adequate protections for poor children, we risk doing just that. Additionally, Mr. President, the next Congress must work to address issues of concern for food stamp recipients and legal immigrants. These food stamp cuts will be disproportionately borne by families with children. In fact, these families will absorb two-thirds of these cutbacks. Also, as we speak, Mr. President, legal immigrants are being cut off from their food stamp benefits and SSI insurance as well. Many have no idea what is about to happen to them. The poor, the elderly, the disabled will simply lack the means to care for themselves, and, what is worse, they have no grace period to prepare for these changes. Mr. President, to give you an idea of the practical impact of these provisions, I want to bring to my colleagues' attention the plight of some 2,000 Cambodians, legal immigrants--legal immigrants--who live in my home State of Connecticut. Of those 2,000 Cambodians, at least 250 of them suffer from concentration camp syndrome, from living under the murderous Khmer Rouge. Due to this legislation, they will lose access to SSI, food stamps, and health care benefits. What is worse, many of them do not meet the criteria for naturalization. The local Khmer health advocates estimate that people may well die as a result of this elimination of care. Mr. President, is this how we treat the downtrodden and vulnerable legal immigrants we brought to this country because of the circumstances they faced in Cambodia? The number may not seem high, only 250 out of 2,000, but these are people we brought to America because we wanted to give them a better chance and to get away from the murderous regime of the Khmer Rouge. And now we are going to cut them off from SSI benefits and health care? I do not understand the logic of that. These people played by the rules. In many cases, we brought them here. They pay taxes. And yet we voted to cut off essential care to these people, as well as millions of others. Who would have imagined that those Cambodians who bravely fled their nation's killing fields would now find themselves being told by the greatest democracy the world has ever known, ``We're not going to help you out on basic health care needs.'' Mr. President, these are mean-spirited provisions masquerading as budget cuts. Nearly every Member of this body is a descendant of immigrants. By failing to correct the flaws in this bill, we risk repudiating America's legacy of immigration which has defined our Nation for more than 200 years. Let me also say, Mr. President, that one of the most important aspects of this bill is our constant vigilance in monitoring the impact of this legislation. Language in the welfare reform bill allows Congress to closely study how the bill is implemented. This body must ensure that the States remain accountable to the spirit of this legislation. For example, recent press reports indicate that States will receive credit for moving welfare recipients to work simply by dropping them from welfare rolls. That is not reform. That is abandonment of our national priorities. And Congress must ensure that it does not happen. That is why I have already talked to the General Accounting Office, as I mentioned at the outset of these remarks, about monitoring the major areas of this legislation. I will ask the General Accounting Office to examine the impact of the reductions, terminations of cash benefits, and food assistance on the well-being of children. Also, Mr. President, I believe we need to look closely at the financial impact of this legislation on counties and cities who, under the welfare reform bill, bear new and more difficult burdens. We must be sure that we are not giving them unfunded mandates that they cannot afford to carry out. We must also monitor how States plan to implement changes in the Food Stamp Program that are allowed under this new legislation. Additionally, Mr. President, I will ask the General Accounting Office to determine if adequate resources are being devoted to child care for the working poor and parents leaving welfare for work. These are just a few of the issues on which we as a nation, I think, are entering unchartered territory. In fact, a recent article in the New York Times notes that, not only is data ``skimpy'' on the impact of welfare reform measures, but also research results are largely ``ambiguous, contradictory, confusing, or nonexistent,'' to quote that article. This lack of empirical data underscores the need for this coming Congress to keep a close eye on how welfare policies are being implemented across the country. It is my hope, Mr. President, that when we reconvene in January we will address some of these critically important questions. For those of us who both opposed and supported this legislation, we have a solemn responsibility to move beyond rhetoric and ensure that we fulfill the mandate to move Americans from welfare to work, from dependency to self-sufficiency, and from hopelessness to opportunity. My hope is, Mr. President, the coming Congress will focus a lot of its energy and time on these questions so that we might correct some of the shortcomings of the welfare reform bill that was passed in this Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments today to pay tribute to our departing colleague, Senator Jim Exon. Jim Exon's retirement brings to a close 26 years of distinguished public service to the people of Nebraska. In Nebraska's proud political tradition, Jim Exon may be its most celebrated figure having served that State for more than a quarter century--8 years as Governor and 18 as Senator. Over the past 16 years of my Senate tenure, I've had the privilege to serve alongside Jim Exon, and I will sorely miss his spirit of fairness, his sense of humor and his fiery independent streak. Mr. President, one of the most stricken features of the U.S. Senate is the wonderful river of diversity that flows through this Chamber. Case in point; Jim Exon and Chris Dodd. Jim Exon and I come from far different backgrounds. We were born and raised in different parts of the country, he from South Dakota and Nebraska, I from Connecticut. My training is as lawyer, his as a small businessman. And of course we focus on many different issues here in the Senate, he on rural, agricultural and trade issues, me on children's, banking and foreign policy issues. But that level of diversity is what makes this body and this Nation such a wonderful place. Ultimately, our recognition and appreciation for those with different backgrounds and divergent views is what bring such greatness to America. It is in that spirit that while serving on the Budget Committee with Jim Exon I have come to truly cherish his small-town, common sense, Midwestern values. If any trait best epitomizes Jim Exon, it is his overriding desire to make the Federal Government live within its means. Democrats are often unfairly stereotyped as politicians who never met a spending program they didn't like. While I find that characterization unfair, I can guarantee one thing, no one will ever say it about Jim Exon. Jim Exon is certainly no Johnny-come-lately to the issue of deficit reduction. His adherence to the notion of fiscal responsibility has characterized his career, from his days as a small businessman to the Nebraska Governor's Mansion and the U.S. Senate. And, while I may have disagreed with his long-standing support for the balanced budget amendment, I've always deeply respected and appreciated his tireless efforts to trim the Federal deficit. Because, Senator Exon always rallies behind ideas and beliefs and not partisan politics. He has always been a champion of a strong military force. When not fighting to keep our military preparedness at the highest level, he worked to lessen American military dependance on foreign suppliers and stop foreign takeovers that threaten national security. Yet, at the same time he advocated a strong military, he was working tirelessly to end U.S. nuclear testing. Jim Exon can take particular pride that due in part to his efforts, the United States signed on to a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty recently at the United Nations in New York. His unyielding pugnacity in bringing this issue to the fore deserves the appreciation of every American. But, for all his legislative accomplishments his most enduring legacy may be his willingness to stretch out his hand in the name of compromise and bipartisanship. As the National Journal noted, Jim Exon's instincts run toward conciliation. I fear that his intense dislike for conflict, partisan politics, and as he put it, the ever-increasing vicious polarization of the electorate, has hastened his departure from the Senate If anything, this is a body that must embody the spirit of men like Jim Exon and not turn them away from the legislative process. But, Senator Exon has made the decision to return to his beloved Nebraska with his wife of 53 years, Patricia, and I join all my colleagues in wishing him the best of luck in his retirement. Most of all, and I'm sure this is the way Jim would want it, I wish best of his luck to his beloved St. Louis Cardinals, champions of the National League Central division. I know he looks forward to the end of the 104th Congress so he can get out to the ballpark and cheer on the Cards. Mr. President, for almost two decades Jim Exon's dedication, sincerity, and commitment to public service have graced these Halls. I join all my colleagues in saying he will be sorely missed.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in support of my legislation, included in the continuing resolution, to privatize the College Construction Loan Insurance Association, better known as Connie Lee. For 10 years now, I have focused a great deal of attention and effort on Connie Lee legislation. I was there at its birth in 1986 as the author of the legislation creating Connie Lee, which passed as a part of the Higher Education Act amendments. And, today, as this legislation privatizing Connie Lee passes, I feel like a parent watching a child graduate from college to head out on her own. Connie Lee was created with a vital and focused mission--to assist colleges in the repair, modernization and construction of their facilities. Like many institutions, colleges and universities need multi year financing to keep up with their construction and renovation needs. For institutions with strong financial backing and large endowments, issuing bonds and securing capital has not been a major problem. Institutions that are less secure and have a lower bond rating, however, face major obstacles in obtaining the necessary financing. It was clear to us in 1986 that we, as a nation, have a major stake in assuring that our higher education institutions sit on a strong foundation--both literally and figuratively. Connie Lee was created to address this need and, since its incorporation in 1987, it has provided increased access to the bond markets for more than 100 needy institutions through bond insurance. Connie Lee has insured bond issues totaling over $2.5 billion and has assisted institutions such as the University of Denver, the University of Massachusetts Medical School, community colleges, and numerous other institutions in nearly every State. With its significant record, Connie Lee has clearly proven its maturity and strength. Since its founding, Connie Lee has maintained its triple-A financial rating, and a recent Standard and Poor's report confirmed its strong financial position. The initial Federal investment of $19 million has clearly worked to form a strong and vibrant company, ready to sever its ties and fully privatize. The privatization language included in this bill is quite straightforward and very similar to the administration's privatization bill, which I introduced last June. It repeals the section of the Higher Education Act that authorized the creation of Connie Lee and governs its activities. In addition, it requires that the Secretary of the Treasury sell the Federal Government's 15-percent share in Connie Lee within the next few months. Mr. President, as simple as it sounds, this legislation is the product of a great deal of work. I would first like to thank my colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, who has been an incredible partner in this effort. I would also like to acknowledge the assistance of the Departments of Treasury and Education, the staff of Connie Lee, and those in the private sector, who with their broad experience provided invaluable assistance in putting this bill together. In an era when we hear so much about bad government, Connie Lee is an excellent example of how government can and does work well. With a modest Federal investment, Connie Lee has grown to be a dynamo in helping colleges repair their aging facility just as we had hoped in 1986. Connie Lee will continue this work, but no longer needs our venture capital. With this legislation, the Federal Government will sell its shares and recoup a good cash return on its original investment. Mr. President, this is good legislation and I look forward to its passage as part of the larger continuing resolution. Section 208

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to express my disappointment that the banking provisions contained in H.R. 4278, the Omnibus Appropriations bill, do not contain common-sense requirements that bank employees who sell insurance be subject to the same State licensing requirements as insurance agents. There are many parts of the banking section with which I am pleased, particularly the final resolution of the financial crisis that was looming over both the Savings Association Insurance Fund [SAIF] and the Bank Insurance Fund [BIF]. However, while the House and Senate leaders went to great lengths to include regulatory relief legislation that benefits the banks, they failed to include any similar relief for tens of thousands of independent insurance agents across the country. In many respects, the story of most independent insurance agents is the story of the American dream. In cities, towns and villages throughout the Nation, these men and women are the small business people who provide the foundation for local economic success. In addition to providing economic opportunity in their community, independent agents are often the same people who lead the local Rotary Club or Lions Club, who chair the P.T.A. or who spend their weekends coaching little league. But these people are under great strain from a competitive environment that is increasingly favoring the banks over the agents. The banks' advantage is growing because recent court rulings have given great powers to the bank regulators to allow banks to sell insurance products. Let me be perfectly clear: I do not take issue with the way in which the regulators have been performing their duties. The problem stems from the fact that the regulators mandate requires them to make decisions based solely upon the impact those decisions will have on the banking industry. No regulator could--even if it wanted to--take into account how their rulings would impact on tens of thousands of hard- working independent insurance agents. That is why I was so disappointed that this common-sense provision requiring State licensing was not included in the Omnibus Appropriations bill. In point of fact, Mr. President, this licensing provision was taken almost verbatim from the interim guidelines on insurance sales issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the main regulator of national banks. A consumer who is purchasing an insurance product should have the confidence to know that the person selling the insurance has the same education requirements, passed the same tests, is subject to the same rules of conduct--whether that individual sells insurance at a bank or at an independent agency. Yet for some inexplicable reason, this very modest, pro-consumer amendment was vehemently resisted by powerful forces within the banking industry. Mr. President, this is not an issue that will simply go away. Although there was not an appropriate opportunity to offer this amendment to the Omnibus Appropriations bill, neither I, nor many of my colleagues, will stand idly by and watch thousands of hard-working men and women lose their jobs because of a regulatory scheme that cannot, by statute, take their well-being into account. I can assure my colleagues, as well as those representing the financial industries, that when the next Congress considers legislation dealing with bank powers and financial restructuring, I will be a forceful advocate on behalf of the legitimate concerns of America's independent insurance agents. high intensity drug trafficking areas program

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like this opporunity to pay tribute and bid farewell to our distinguished colleague from Colorado--Senator Hank Brown. Hank Brown will be leaving the U.S. Senate after an all-too brief, yet impressive stay in this body. A dedicated and thoughtful legislator, his leadership and intellect will be sorely missed. Beginning with his experiences in the House of Representatives to his one term here in the Senate, he's been an outspoken leader on issues of foreign policy, deficit reduction, trade, and the military. His integrity, fairness, and commitment to principles were evident in his approach to all these issues. I had the pleasure of working with Senator Brown on both the Budget and Foreign Relations Committees. In both committees, I've been impressed with his perseverance and dedication to developing innovative policy options. Senator Brown possesses a rare but important enthusiasm for delving into the Government's fiscal situation. His dedication to discuss budgetary issues is particularly evident in his extra-curricular activities. While many of us are consumed by the lengthy schedules of day-to-day congressional affairs, Hank Brown took the time to earn two graduate degrees while a Member of the Congress. In 1988, while still in the House, he earned a degree in accounting, and 2 years earlier, he received a master's degree in taxation. His scholarly grasp of budgetary matters is evidence of his abiding commitment to be well- informed and aware of all possible policy directions. Senator Brown has been equally dedicated to foreign policy issues. His amendment to expand NATO to include former Communist states in central and Eastern Europe is just one example of his efforts. The NATO amendment gained bipartisan support because of his strong analytical grasp of the issue and an important willingness to seek out compromise. Hank Brown's efforts on this issue stand as an example to us all that a political process often accused of inefficiency and gridlock can work when ideas and cooperation are elevated above the cynical tone too often found in this Chamber. Senator Brown is also a distinguished Vietnam veteran, awarded the Air Medal with gold stars, the Vietnam Service Medal, the National Defense Medal, and a Naval Unit Citation. He served in the Colorado State Senate from 1972 to 1976, and was named ``Outstanding Young Man of Colorado.'' Afterwards, he spent 10 years in the House of Representatives before being elected to the Senate in 1990. Senator Brown's experience as a military veteran and long-term public servant is indicative of his tireless devotion to addressing the problems that face our Nation today. His extraordinary public service has been marked by his intelligence, firm commitment to principle, and genuine sense of duty to the State of Colorado. He has made a place for himself in this Senate that will far outlast the time spent here. I wish him and his wife Nan the best of luck in all their future endeavors.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as the Senate fast approaches the end of the 105th Congress, I would like to take this opportunity to bid a fond farewell to one of our most distinguished colleagues--Senator Paul Simon from Illinois. Throughout his entire life, Paul Simon has been devoted to his fellow citizens and has never wavered from the firmly-held beliefs and principles that guide his public life. From his first job in 1948, at the tender of age 19, as the Nation's youngest editor-publisher, Paul Simon was focused on helping his community. From his position at the Troy Tribune he led an impressive crusade against local criminals and machine politicians. In 1954, he officially began his career in public service as a member of the Illinois House of Representatives. He went on to serve in the State Senate and as Illinois Lieutenant Governor until coming to Washington as a Congressman in 1974 and finally becoming a Senator in 1984. Throughout that time, Paul Simon never lost touch with his Midwestern roots, his reformist ideals or with his constituents, who continued to return him to office, year after year. Paul Simon was one of the first politicians in this Nation to disclose his personal finances, starting in the 1950's. Additionally, throughout his career he focused on helping provide educational opportunity for the American people. In the Illinois Legislature, he was one of the first lawmakers to propose legislation that would provide a public education for children with disabilities. Later he was one of the original sponsors of similar landmark legislation on the Federal level, which became the law of the land in 1975. Paul Simon helped lead the way in attacking the problem of illiteracy by working to pass the National Literacy Act. In 1994, he continued to lead the way on education by working to open up new school-to-work opportunities, and he was the lead sponsor of the President's effort to reform our student loan program. I was pleased to work with Senator Simon and today we can both look with pride to the new direct student loan program. Throughout his career, Paul Simon has represented the traits of fairness, integrity, and honesty, which has earned him the respect of all members of this body. This was never more evident then last week, when all the members of the Senate gathered together to honor him by donning imitations of his trademark bow-tie. That salute to our distinguished colleague was an appropriate tribute to a man as unique and distinctive as Paul Simon. To Paul and his wife Jeanne, I wish him the best of luck in all their future endeavors. For a man who has written 15 books I can't imagine that we've heard the last of Paul Simon and I look forward to enjoying his wise counsel in the years to come.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to those of my colleagues in paying tribute to our distinguished and venerable colleague, the Judge, Senator Howell Heflin. I've had the great honor to serve--and here on the floor of the Senate, to sit alongside the Judge from Alabama--throughout my entire tenure as a U.S. Senator. Mr. President, Howell Heflin brought integrity, character, virtue and his folksy Southern humor to a body that is often devoid of such characteristics. What's more, his life has been consistently marked by a constant, single-minded devotion to public service and the love of his country. During WWII, like many of his contemporaries, he answered the call of his Nation and enlisted in the Marine Corps. In the process, he became a bonafide war hero. Lt. Howell Heflin joined in the initial assault to liberate the island of Guam from its Japanese occupiers. He was wounded twice and spent considerable time recovering in stateside hospitals. For his bravery, he was awarded two Purple Hearts and the Silver Star. After the War, Senator Heflin became a trial lawyer in his native Alabama, which began his career-long fascination and devotion to the law. In 1970, he was elected Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, where he received the moniker that many know him by in this body--Judge Heflin. That nickname describes well his tenure here in the U.S. Senate and provides context to the issues he championed as a Senator. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he brought an unparalleled understanding of the judicial process and judicial interpretation to the Senate. Judge Heflin was instrumental in improving our Federal courts, and he worked tirelessly to improve and reform our Nation's judicial system. Howell Heflin also brought his wealth of legal knowledge to his role as chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee. While largely a thankless and sometimes tedious position, he never shirked his responsibilities to his colleagues and to the reputation and integrity of the Senate. Most of all though, Howell Heflin was always looking out for the people of Alabama. Not surprisingly he's been dubbed the ``Spokesman for Southern Agriculture'' for his unwavering and vigilant support for Alabama's rich agricultural heritage. While often tagged as a conservative Democrat, he displayed the fervor of many a New Deal Democrat when he came to the Senate floor to speak passionately about issues that directly affected his constituents--from rural electrification, Federal crop insurance, the peanut subsidy program to the space station and civil rights legislation. But, most of all Howell Heflin brought a sense of quiet dignity and tolerance to this body. When he announced his retirement from the Senate, he spoke with great fervor about the need for a new level of political discourse and conduct in our Nation. He said: ``We must set a new course in this Congress and across the land--a course of moderation, tolerance, responsibility and compassion.'' These words epitomized Howell Heflin's service in this body, and in my view they are the essence of what service in the U.S. Senate is all about. This place will not quite be the same without Howell Heflin's indomitable presence, his deep Southern drawl and and his wonderful sense of humor. They will not easily be replaced. But for every Member of this body there comes a time to move on and embrace new challenges and new goals. That time has come for the Judge. I wish Howell and his wife ``Mike'' best wishes in their retirement and all their future endeavors.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1996. I am very pleased that this has been a bipartisan effort. This bill comes at a very critical time. Just last week the results of the National Incidence Study conducted by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect showed an alarming increase in the incidence of child abuse and neglect. Since 1986 the number of abused and neglected children has almost doubled. Physical abuse has nearly doubled and sexual abuse has more than doubled. Additionally the study indicates that children from families with incomes below $15,000 are 22 times more likely to be victims of child abuse and neglect than are those children from families with incomes above $30,000. Mr. President, I am concerned that the welfare reform bill signed into law last month may lead to an increase in cases of child abuse and neglect. That legislation left no safety net for children whose parents had reached their 5-year limit on public assistance. I intend to watch this issue very closely. The good news is that today we are asking the Senate to consider, by unanimous consent, the reauthorization of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, S. 919. First enacted in 1974, this legislation provides, among other things, Federal financial assistance for identifying, preventing, and treating child abuse and neglect. This bill affirms a clear Federal role in addressing prevention and treatment of child abuse. Further, it recognizes the importance of Federal leadership in funding research, training, technical assistance, and data collection to help aid the States to do their jobs better. It also continues support to States to improve child protective service systems. Finally, I am pleased that the bill reauthorizes and enhances the Family Resource and Support Center Program that I authored in 1990 and expanded in the Human Services Act in 1994. The Family Resource Services are essential to prevention and allow families to meet their needs to avoid problems that propel them into crisis down the road. I thank Senator Coats for all his hard work and cooperation on the reauthorization of this bill. I am very pleased that this has been a bipartisan effort. Mr. President, it is my understanding that under CAPTA, States have been allowed to exempt parents from prosecution on grounds of medical neglect if the parent was employing alternative means of healing as part of the parent's religious practice. CAPTA also has required States to have procedures in place to report, investigate and intervene in situations where children are being denied medical care needed to prevent harm.