Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Does the bill address the State's authority to pursue any legal remedies necessary to provide medical care or treatment when such care or treatment is necessary to prevent or remedy serious harm to the child, or to prevent the withholding of medically indicated treatment from children with life-threatening conditions?

Mr. DODD. And it is my further understanding that we have clarified that issue in the Rule of Construction in the bill before us.

Mr. DODD. I also see that a new section has been added that requires the States to include in their State laws, as statutory grounds for the termination of parental rights, convictions of parents for certain specified crimes against children. It also eliminates a Federal mandate that States must seek reunification of the convicted parent with surviving children. Given the crimes that have been specified--murder, voluntary manslaughter, and felony assault--it appears that what we are addressing is a parent who deliberately takes the life or seriously injures his child.

Mr. DODD. Would States be allowed to consider a parent's motive when deciding to terminate parental rights or to seek reunification of that family? And could this include sincerely held religious beliefs of the parent?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is my understanding that concerns have been raised regarding outreach services that grantees must make to various communities. It is my understanding that when grantees engage in outreach activities, they must ensure that they maximize the participation of racial and ethnic minorities and members of underserved or underrepresented groups. I just want to ascertain that this list envisions inclusion of immigrant communities.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I speak today with a very heavy heart about the vote on whether to override the President's veto of H.R. 1833, known as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. First let me say, Mr. President, that the blatantly political nature of this bill during this year, and specifically this override vote at this time, escapes no one. It is very clear that we are having this debate at this time for purely political purposes. Mr. President, I am deeply upset and greatly disturbed by this late- term abortion procedure. But the President has made clear, and I have made clear, that if this bill contained an appropriate, narrowly tailored exception for both the life and health of the mother, it would not be objectionable. I am extremely distressed by the possibility that this procedure is not always performed to protect the health or life of the mother. In my view, when this late-term abortion procedure is performed for reasons other than to save the mother's life or avert serious health effects, it is inappropriate. And it is not just the method employed in this procedure that disturbs me. It is also the fact that it is often a third trimester abortion. I must say that I am bothered by any third trimester abortion that is not performed to save the life of the mother or to avert serious, adverse health consequences. I am not one of those who believes, Mr. President, that abortions should be available at any time for any reason. I also don't think that all abortions should be banned. I have a long record supporting a woman's right, in consultation with her doctor, to choose. But I do believe that it is reasonable to restrict third trimester abortions to those necessary to save the mother's life or to avert serious health effects. This bill would allow third trimester abortions conducted by other methods to continue. For the millions of Americans who neither favor abortion under all circumstances nor want to totally remove a woman's right to choose, we should be working together in a non-political way, along with the administration and the medical profession, to narrowly tailor medical exceptions to third trimester abortions. But we are not doing that in this political year, making the political motives of this bill's proponents crystal clear. Still, Mr. President, sometimes this procedure is necessary to protect a woman's life or to avert serious health consequences, and an exception must be made for those cases. The Senate voted on such an exception--it was an exception for the life of the mother and for serious, adverse health consequences, only. I voted for that exception along with 46 other Senators, and if that exception had passed, I would have voted for the bill, and the President would have signed it. We would not be having this debate at all if that appropriate exception had been included. Mr. President, there are some cases in which this is the safest, and in other cases only, medical procedure that will avert serious health consequences to a woman or even save her life. I sympathize with the women who find themselves in such tragic circumstances, I realize that their decisions are painful ones to have to make, and I believe that Congress must not supersede the medical judgement of the doctors who believe that this is the best way to treat these patients. So I believe Mr. President, that there must be an exception to save a woman's life or avert serious health consequences. It must be a limited exception geared only toward serious medical circumstances, but a true exception nonetheless. And it is my hope that Congress and the administration, working with the medical profession, can work together to find a limited way to allow this procedure only to protect the life and health of the mother. Mr. President, I say again that I am deeply disturbed by this procedure. And so Mr. President, this is not an easy vote for me to cast. But I remain hopeful that a limited exception for this and all third trimester abortions can be developed, and that we can come together and find some unity in this terribly troubling and divisive issue.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank the President. Mr. President, I have served as a Member of this body for nearly 16 years. In that time, few accomplishments have given me as much pride as the day in February 1993 when President Clinton signed into law the Family and Medical Leave Act. Enactment of family leave legislation threw millions of struggling Americans a lifeline. It made it easier for the American people to balance the responsibilities of work with the needs of their families. And most important, it said to the American people: If you or a loved one becomes ill, you won't be forced to choose between your family and your job. I point out that we were the last of the industrialized nations--in fact, last of many nations in this World--to actually adopt a family and medical leave policy. It took 7 years from the introduction of the legislation until it finally became law. Patricia Schroeder--also representing the State which the Presiding Officer represents--was the author of the legislation in the House. I introduced the legislation in the Senate. Seven years we spent trying to get this bill to become the law of the land. It was an experience fraught with highs and lows. Today, September 24, marks the fourth anniversary of one of those moments on the road to passage. It was in 1992, on September 24, that the Senate voted to override President Bush's veto of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Today, to mark this important anniversary, Americans are gathering all across the country in nearly 40 States. Families, community members, and businessmen who found life better under the Family and Medical Leave Act will meet and share their experiences with the American public. And today the First Lady will travel to Connecticut to hear from those in my State who have seen the benefits of the Family and Medical Leave Act in their own families' lives. Now, I would like to go back to 4 years ago today. On that date in 1992, 67 of our colleagues--from both sides of the aisle--joined me in voting to override the President's veto of the Family and Medical Leave Act. It was in fact only the second veto override of President Bush. Unfortunately, 6 days later, the House voted to sustain the President's veto, thereby killing the Family and Medical Leave Act once again. It had been the second veto we had been through in 7 years. Our former colleague, Bob Dole, the then minority leader of the Senate, was one of those 31 Senators to vote against giving America's working families a helping hand. And just this month on the campaign trail Bob Dole attacked the Family and Medical Leave Act as what he called, and I quote him, ``the long arm of the Federal Government.'' I think the 12 million Americans who have taken advantage of the Family and Medical Leave Act over the past 2 years would probably disagree with that view. I think that the 67 million Americans who are now covered and eligible to take family and medical leave would have a different opinion than that of the former minority and majority leader. For those, such as former Senator Dole, who continue to doubt the success of the Family and Medical Leave Act, I urge them to examine a recent bipartisan report which highlights the success of this legislation. You may recall, Mr. President, that as part of the legislation we formed a bipartisan commission on family and medical leave to examine what the ramifications would be. Members of the commission were made up of both Democrat and Republican appointees, as well as opponents and proponents of the legislation. We spent over a year examining the Family and Medical Leave Act with significant surveys of employers and employees, with hearings conducted across the country, as well as here in Washington, to examine what the implications of the bill had been. The overall findings of this commission were clear. In fact, the commission was unanimous that the Family and Medical Leave Act has been an overwhelming success. What is more, according to the commission's final report, the law represents, and I am quoting the report, ``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.'' The bottom line is that family and medical leave legislation is allowing millions of working Americans significant opportunities to keep their health benefits, maintain job security, and take leave for longer and greater reasons. Let us be clear on one point. Contrary to Senator Dole's protestations, family leave has also been good for American business. The conclusions of the bipartisan report, I think, are very important in this regard. And they certainly are a far cry from the concerns that Bob Dole and others voiced when this legislation was being considered in Congress. Mr. President, let me draw your attention, if I may, to this first chart which reflects a survey done of business leaders by the commission. The vast majority of businesses, nearly 94 percent reported little or no additional costs associated with the Family and Medical Leave Act. I was stunned by this conclusion since the commission was analyzing the initial phases of the legislation. The initial phases of a legislation are always the most difficult, with businesses having to accommodate, get used to it, and develop bureaucratic procedures within their own businesses to accommodate the new legislation. In my view, it is almost an astounding result that 94 percent of the businesses surveyed reported no difficulty in this initial time period. I assumed that such positive results would have come later as business became more used to the law and not during the initial stages, which tend to be the most awkward time. So that was a rather compelling result from the list of the employers we surveyed. By the way, let me add that there were hundreds of employers and employees questioned in the commission's survey of reactions to the Family and Medical Leave Act. When it comes to the employee performance, which was another concern that was presented during the debate over family leave--as well as by our former colleague, Bob Dole--about what would be the effect on employee performances, what would happen to productivity, what would happen to growth when you had people moving in and moving out, as the critics claimed, nearly 96 percent of the employers reported no noticeable effect on growth. The concern was that this legislation would bring growth rates down. In fact, according to employers, 95.8 percent said there was no noticeable effect at all. Interestingly, 1 percent said they had a positive growth effect. If fact, we had only 3.1 percent who said it had a negative effect, again, in just the first 2 years of the bill being the law of the land. More than 94 percent reported no effect on employee turnover. This was another accusation, that we are going to get huge turnover rates from family leave legislation, and yet on turnover rates, 94.7 percent of businesses reported no problems with turnover whatsoever. Eighty-three percent of the employers reported no noticeable impact on employee productivity. We were told, once again, that productivity rates would fall--businesses would lose people and have to hire temporary employees to come in for a period of time. Supposedly this would cause productivity rates would fall. In fact, 83 percent said the law had no impact on productivity whatsoever. In fact, 12.6 percent actually said the law had a positive effect on productivity because, I presume, people no longer had to worry about losing their job because of a family crisis. As we all know, Mr. President, family and medical leave is more than just statistics. There are real Americans behind these numbers. In compiling our bipartisan report on family and medical leave, we heard testimony from Americans who have been helped by this legislation. None of the commissioners--none of the commissioners, Mr. President--will ever forget the story of the Weaver family that we heard during our hearing in Chicago. Melissa Weaver of Port Lavaca, TX, was 10 years old when she was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer, and after undergoing a year of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatments, her doctor regretfully informed her parents, Ken and Rosie Weaver, that she had only a few months to live. Because of the Family and Medical Leave Act, over the next 7 weeks, the Weavers were given the bittersweet opportunity to spend every moment together with Melissa during her final days. In January 1994, Nedra Ward, an administrative assistant in Chicago, discovered she was pregnant. After her first trimester, she developed complications, putting her health and pregnancy at risk. Her employer allowed her to take time off on an intermittent basis. Today, she has both her job and a healthy, strong, baby boy. Jonathan Zingman's second daughter was born in 1994. Two weeks after the cesarean section birth, the baby developed an infection and was hospitalized. Jonathan Zingman took 2 weeks off from work to aid his wife in recovering from surgery, to take care of his new daughter, and to give his older daughter an opportunity to adjust to her new sister. What the Weavers, Nedra Ward, and Jonathan Zingman all have in common is that due to the Family and Medical Leave Act, they were not forced to make a choice between their jobs and their families. As the author of this legislation, I would prefer that no one would ever have to use it because of a sickness, but as we all know, life is not so kind. The Family and Medical Leave Act has given these three American families, as it will millions of others, the opportunity to take medical leave when illness strikes and the necessary time to care for ailing family members and loved ones. I hope that Mr. Dole and others, particularly Mr. Dole, would retract any suggestion that he might repeal the Family and Medical Leave Act if elected. I can think of few other pieces of legislation that have had such a positive and beneficial impact on the American public as this legislation, which is now the law of the land because President Clinton signed it in February 1993. But for 7 long years we had to fight day in and day out to enact family and medical leave legislation. We fought through two veto overrides, in which we succeeded in one but eventually lost the fight in the House of Representatives. To repeal this legislation now would be a major setback, in my view, for America's working families and I hope that on this one piece of legislation Bob Dole will admit he was wrong and agree today that family and medical leave will, and must, remain the law of the land. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I may inquire, I believe I have been allocated 15 minutes.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a group of remarkable young people from my home State of Connecticut. For the past 4 years, students from Bethel, a small, rural community in Connecticut, have participated in an international problem-solving competition called Odyssey of the Mind. This competition gives children in grades kindergarten through 12 the opportunity to develop their problem-solving and team-building skills by challenging students to develop unique ways to solve one of five long-term problems. A team spends countless hours together to develop and perfect a unique solution to the problem set before them. Their efforts are judged in a state competition and the winning team is asked to represent their state or country at the Odyssey of the Mind World Finals. Earlier this year, two groups of students from Bethel, CT, won first place in their respective categories at Connecticut's Odyssey of the Mind State Finals and traveled to Iowa to represent the State of Connecticut at the Odyssey of the Mind World Finals. Connecticut is very proud of Rosa Alison, David Berv, Ian Stebinger, Amanda Kaletsky, Amanda Sherman and Grace Menzies, who made up a team that won a gold medal in the Connecticut Odyssey of the Mind Competition 3 years in a row. I would also like to salute the hard work and dedication of Joshua Gewirtz, Elizabeth Cowan, Matt Voloshin, Jane Ballerini, Peter Geloso, Kerrlee Hunter and Paula Rashkow who also represented Connecticut at the Odyssey of the Mind Finals this year. In addition, I congratulate the student's coaches for a job well done. Clearly, these young students are fine examples of what can be accomplished when people put aside their differences and work together toward a common goal. Their creativity, hard work, perseverance and willingness to take risks remind us that Yankee ingenuity is still alive in Connecticut. I salute these young people and am confident that we will all be hearing more about these exceptional students in the future.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator. Let me say in regard to the Defense of Marriage Act, I agree with my colleagues who have risen and raised questions as to the motivations of why this legislation is before us. It is clearly, in my view, premature. I hope, because this so-called Defense of Marriage Act is going to pass, that for those who claim they truly want to protect domestic relationships, partnerships that are not the traditional marriage relationships, we will consider that so that the protections in hospital rooms and other places where domestic partnerships are denied today is something all of us will determine we are going to resolve. I do want to use this time, because I think we are on the brink, Mr. President, of adopting historic legislation in the midst of all of this, to speak in behalf of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. I commend my colleagues, Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Jeffords from Vermont for their leadership on this issue. I am urging my colleagues to support the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. The history of our country thus far has been a history of the gradual extension, refinement and perfection of the guarantees of human freedom. By removing the denials of freedom experienced by some Americans, we are strengthening and giving greater validity to the freedom of all Americans. Mr. President, those words were spoken by another Senator from Connecticut 32 years ago during the consideration of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. Those words were spoken by my father in this Chamber. I believe those words are as germane today as they were when they were uttered 32 years ago. Over our entire history, this Congress and this Nation embarked on a quiet but monumental revolution, and that was to realize the full aspirations of our Founders that all men and women are truly created equal. Throughout our history, Americans have strived to extend those rights to all Americans regardless of their skin color, religion, gender, disability, or political belief. But today, one group of Americans continues to be left unprotected in the workplace. That is gay and lesbian Americans. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act would go a long way toward extending greater equality to these Americans and ensuring them that they will be judged more by the strength of their labors than by their sexual orientation. Much has changed in the 30 years since my father and others fought to enact civil rights legislation. At the time it was a controversial notion. It inflamed great passions. It tied up this body for weeks on end, the very notion that we would not be allowed to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin. Today, I would suggest that if we were considering the 1964 Civil Rights Act, a resolution would be carried on a voice vote unanimously without any debate and any division. That was not the case 32 years ago. But for the reasons that I believe have more to do with intolerance and ignorance and moral courage, this country continues to allow gay and lesbian Americans to be judged not by their abilities or even the content of their character but by the prejudice of others. The amendment we are considering today is a commonsense response to this outrage. I hope we all want to say to gay Americans that when you are on the job in this country, you will be judged in the same manner that any American will be judged. The American people know this is the right thing to do. In fact, 84 percent of Americans believe that employers should not be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Prominent business leaders, from Xerox, Microsoft, and RJR Nabisco, support this legislation. In fact, more than 650 private businesses include sexual orientation in their antidiscrimination policies. Political leaders past and present are also behind this effort. From our former colleague, the Senator from Arizona, Senator Goldwater, to civil rights leader Coretta Scott King, the Governor of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman, and more than 30 Senate Democrats and Republicans--they all urge the adoption of this amendment. In fact, ironically, 66 of us in this body--66 of us, and 238 House Members, already have nondiscrimination policies for their employees. If just 66 in this body would ask the country to do what they do in their own offices, then we can adopt this legislation. In my home State of Connecticut we have such protection for gay and lesbian workers. Has our business community suffered untoward consequences? Has the moral character of our State been dramatically harmed? Has Connecticut been overwhelmed by an onslaught of litigation? Have quotas been established for hiring gay workers? All of these issues have been raised in this body over the last several days, and to every one of them the answer in Connecticut has been ``no.'' And in every other State where this has been adopted, the answer has been ``no.'' In fact, Connecticut's antidiscrimination law is considered a success in providing recourse for those Americans affected by antigay bias, in giving them the guarantee they will be judged by the abilities of their labor and not their lifestyles. In my view, this debate is behind the curve of where the American people are on this issue. The business community and the vast majority of American people recognize that gay Americans deserve and should be treated equally in the workplace. I believe this Congress must follow their lead. It is never a happy event when an American loses his or her job. It is particularly difficult when it is because of events out of one's control, such as downsizing, layoffs, companies moving offshore. We all understand the pain that people go through when they lose their jobs because of those circumstances. But I can imagine few things worse than for one to lose a job because of the intolerance of others, and that is what exists today in the workplace. Rightly, we have acted to combat these wrongs when they are committed against people because of race, gender, age, and disability. I believe we must take this opportunity to extend that protection further to gay and lesbian Americans. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill and providing to gay Americans the protections against job discrimination they so desperately need and deserve. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Loret Miller Ruppe, a woman of uncompromising dedication for peace at home and abroad, who died at the age of 60. In addition to her remarkable career as the Director of the Peace Corps from 1981 to 1989 and Ambassador to Norway from 1989 to 1993, Loret Miller Ruppe was a beloved wife to former Rep. Philip Ruppe (R-Mich), mother of five daughters, sister to six siblings, and grandmother of three. Her accomplishments were vast and far reaching, her constitution strong, and her character was humble yet filled with passion. Her main passion was for peace. She struggled relentlessly to promote peace and justice throughout the developing world and here at home. In a speech celebrating the 35th Anniversary of the Peace Corps Mrs. Ruppe spoke about the future of the organization and its mission, ``Peace, that beautiful five-letter word we all say we crave and pray for, is up for grabs in the '90's.'' For her, peace was not simply the absence of war, but the absence of the conditions that bring on war such as hunger, disease, poverty, illiteracy, and despair. Mrs. Ruppe worked hard to protect the fragile state of peace in regions around the globe. She achieved this goal through supervising programs in more than 93 countries, serving as a role model to field volunteers, and strengthening the Peace Corps organization. Mrs. Ruppe also fought battles at home. When President Reagan appointed her in 1981, the Peace Corps budget was rapidly declining and was less than that of the military marching bands. By the end of Mrs. Ruppe's tenure she had succeeded in increasing the agency's budget almost 50 percent. In addition to budgetary challenges, Mrs. Ruppe gave the agency a political facelift by projecting the agency as non- partisan, despite the fact that she herself was a political appointee, and increasing its viability on both national and local levels. As she noted ``We took Peace Corps out of the pit of politics and made it non- partisan. It must always signify Americans pulling together for peace.'' As a result of her efforts, Mrs. Ruppe was respected and admired by Democrats and Republicans alike. In terms of national visibility, she brought much needed congressional and executive level attention to the Peace Corps. Prior to her leadership the organization was nicknamed ``the corpse'' and many believed its end was near. Under her command however, the organization was revitalized and its future secured. On a local level, she worked hard to increase young Americans' interest in participating in the program. By 1989, she had raised the number of volunteers by 20 percent. Mrs. Ruppe was also an initiator who maintained the simple motto ``we can do it.'' She founded three important programs which continue to thrive today: The African Food Initiative, Women in Development, and the Leadership for Peace Program. Additionally, she brought seven new countries to the Peace Corps program. As the longest tenured director of the Peace Corps, Mrs. Ruppe contributed much indeed to the organization. It was through her vision, dedication, and leadership that the Peace Corps continues to play a vital role in American foreign aid efforts. Under Mrs. Ruppe's leadership the organization responded to new challenges, transformed itself, and now stands prepared to continue promoting peace in the next century. Mrs. Ruppe's absence will be felt throughout the world. I will especially miss her. To me Loret was more than a dedicated and gifted public servant--she was my friend. I know her husband Philip, her daughters Antoinette, Adele, Katherine, Mary, and Loret will miss her very much, and so will I. Mr. President, I know that all of our colleagues join with me in extending our sincere condolences to her family members.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I join my colleagues in urging the Senate to maintain our commitment to supporting the LISO. The loss of funding that Senator Lieberman has described would severely handicap the LISO's ability to continue implementing the management plan, and could force the office to shut down operations, which would effectively stop the cleanup dead in its tracks. Our conclusion is based on past experience. The New England River Basin Commission drafted a cleanup plan in 1975, and it disintegrated soon after its adoption because the program ended with the plan and did not focus on implementation. In other words, there was no central organizing and coordinating force keeping the many players at the table. The LISO is the glue that is holding this project together, and after spending millions of dollars and enormous time and energy getting to this point, we cannot afford to lose it. The environmental and economic health of our region depends on a sound Sound.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Will you allow the Senator from Connecticut, the insurance capital of this country, to be listed as a cosponsor?

Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, let me begin by quickly commending our colleague from New Mexico, who has now left the floor. But I just want to associate myself with his remarks and, as he mentioned at the time, to become a cosponsor of his bill. And I deeply appreciate his efforts and the efforts of Senator Wellstone on behalf of the mentally ill in this country and their families. I am sure I speak for many of our colleagues here when we commit to him and others that worked so hard on this that this will be a priority, and as the Senator from New Mexico stated so eloquently, it will happen, and will pass. We regret that it is not happening today. Second, Mr. President, while we are still a number of weeks away from this Congress adjourning sine die, I want to use the opportunity here today to say to our colleague from Kansas--and I do this with some reluctance because I do not want her career to be placed in jeopardy by having the general chairman of the Democratic National Committee commending her too flowingly and put her in some jeopardy with her constituency--but this is yet one more example of her leadership, this piece of legislation. It is entirely fitting and proper that, in fact, her name is so closely associated with this bill, as it has been with so many pieces of legislation over her career that have benefited so many millions of people in this country and abroad. I am very proud of the fact that this last day before we adjourn for several weeks that we are completing a piece of legislation that bears her name, and that millions of people, millions and millions of people, will be benefited as a result of this effort. Second, Mr. President, it is hard to mention the subject of health care at any point over the last three decades and not mention the name of the cosponsor of this bill. For more than 30 years every single major effort, every single major effort that I can think of that involved improving the quality of health care for Americans has borne the name of Edward M. Kennedy. It is certainly no accident that this piece of legislation bears his name as well. It is not an abstraction, this effort. He knows painfully with his own family and children how difficult these issues can be. I am just proud that this body finally acted after so many months, months that in my view should not have been wasted in dealing with an issue that should have joined every Member of this body, regardless of party and ideology, to support the simple propositions that people with preexisting conditions, that people who lose jobs ought to be able to carry with them the basic kind of health care that would relieve them and their families of the stark fear of being caught in the cracks, of being uncovered, at the time of a medical crisis. It was 31 years ago, Mr. President, that Medicare became the law of the land. Obviously, that piece of legislation was in many ways far more comprehensive than the Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation. But there is a similarity between these two proposals and bills. By the stroke of a pen, Lyndon Baines Johnson, on that day in 1965, by the stroke of a pen, he literally placed millions and millions of people beyond the fear of a health care crisis. The mere stoke of his pen enfranchised millions of people and protected them from health care crises. Today when we pass this bill--and within days or hours, I hope, the President of the United States, President Clinton, who has been such a strong supporter of this effort, will sign this legislation into law, and 25 million Americans immediately will be protected, immediately protected. There is no requirement that we go through a lot of agency activity and bureaucracy and regulations. But merely by passing this law and signing his name, we will relieve the fear and burden for 25 million Americans. And for that I say, a deep sense of thank you to Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy for their efforts and their battle. Thank you.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the legislation before us today--the conference report on the Kassebaum/Kennedy Health Insurance Reform Act--gives this body a unique and historic opportunity--to pass a sensible, incremental and common-sense health reform measure that will help millions of Americans. Our actions today will give an estimated 25 million Americans a much needed and deserving helping hand. This bill would guarantee to American working families--if you change your job you will not lose access to health insurance. This bill will limit pre-existing condition exclusions. It will guarantee renewability of health insurance policies. And it will help self-employed individuals, by increasing the deduction for health insurance expenses. It's been a long difficult process to reach this point. But, finally these most basic health insurance reforms will become law, exactly 1 year after the Labor and Human Resources Committee unanimously reported the bill. This bill will not solve every problem in our health care system, but it's an important first step. It is good public policy and it deserves the support of every member of this body. Frankly, I feared that the majority party would prevent this day from happening. This legislation passed in the Labor Committee 1 year ago, but objections by members of the majority party prevented this bill from receiving consideration by the Senate until the following April. President Clinton came to the Congress in January and in his State of the Union address urged us to quickly pass this legislation. But still it took 4 months for the majority party to respond. Finally, when the Senate was allowed to consider the bill it passed 100-0. These days, not too much in this body is agreed upon in a bipartisan manner. But the unanimous support for the Kassebaum/Kennedy bill is a clear indication that this legislation is an effective, fair, and most important, bipartisan measure. But again, even after this unanimous vote, the majority tried to load the bill with controversial provisions, rather than move to quickly pass a bill we could all agree upon. Mr. President, this legislation should have passed last year and if we had done so, the American people would already be reaping the benefits. However, I am pleased that reason prevailed and today we can finally deliver these important protections to the American people. While this bill is an important step forward, I consider it only a first step in an ongoing process. Many problems remain in our health system. I won't go into all of them today. But I do want to talk briefly about continuing problems in guaranteeing children access to health care. Our system simply does not work for millions of America's children. We all lose when the worker of tomorrow is crippled for life by the untreated illness of today. We all lose when completely preventable diseases like measles ripple through the child population. The General Accounting Office, in a series of reports issued to me this summer have reported on trends in children's health insurance that are cause for genuine alarm. In 1994, the percentage of children with private insurance coverage reached its lowest point since the census began consistently tracking coverage. In 1987, almost 74 percent of our Nation's children had private coverage. By 1994, that number had dropped to 65 percent. While Medicaid has certainly helped millions of children who would otherwise be without coverage, the number of children without any insurance rose to its highest point in 1994. Ten million children under age 18, or 14.2 percent, were uninsured in 1994. In States such as Alabama, Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, almost 20 percent or more of children are without health care coverage. That means 1 out of every 5 children in these States are lacking coverage. Too many of our children do not have access to basic health. So, I hope, Mr. President, that no one thinks that we've made the health care system right, because we still have a long way to go. Let us not forget that approximately 40 million Americans continue to lack health care coverage. Of those, 12 million are children under the age of 21. We still have a commitment to those people to make this measure the first, not the last, step on the road to meaningful health care reform. So today, we have a historic opportunity to help millions of America's working families keep their health care coverage. It is a chance that must not slip away, and so I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this common sense and sensible reform measure.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of one of Connecticut's pioneers. Roger Tory Peterson devoted his life to the study of birds. Peterson's ``A Field Guide to the Birds,'' published in 1934, revolutionized the concept of field guides by intricately depicting distinguishable characteristics of thousands of birds. Often referred to as the ``birder's bible,'' this handbook brought the once eccentric hobby of bird watching to the mainstream. Born 122 years after John James Audubon, Roger Tory Peterson was the definitive expert on birds in this century. Many people believe he began the environmental movement by bringing tens of millions of bird watchers outdoors to study birds. Any avid bird watcher looking for the illusive bird would not dare go out without one of Peterson's guides in their pocket. A master of detail, Roger photographed, painted, and identified thousands of birds throughout his 60-year career. His descriptions, both in words and drawings, were done with such clarity and precision that the birds came to life on paper. Even today, I continue to marvel at his prints, several of which hang in my home in Connecticut. A world renown artist, naturalist, and environmentalist, Peterson believed that any serious study of natural history would lead people to care about and protect the environment. This philosophy is the backbone of the legacy he leaves behind. The Roger Tory Peterson Institute of Natural History in Jamestown, NY, is dedicated to educating the public and teaching young and old alike about natural history. This center and the guidebooks used by millions of hikers everyday will continue to promote environmental awareness for years to come. The people of Connecticut were proud to have Dr. Peterson reside in Old Lyme for over 40 years. My parents were honored to know him as a neighbor and friend. We will all miss his work and remember him fondly.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Connecticut's most colorful and witty politicians, Connecticut State Supreme Court Justice T. Clark Hull. Known for his penetrating intelligence and passion for justice--and perhaps better known for his warmth and good spirit--T. Clark Hull, had the rare distinction of serving at the top levels of all three branches of state government-- executive, legislative and judicial. Born in Danbury, CT in 1921, T. Clark Hull attended many prestigious academic institutions including Philips Exeter Academy, Yale University and Harvard Law School, and yet he always retained the perspective of a common man. His political career spanned some 33 years, beginning with his election to the Connecticut State Senate in 1962. He was known as a liberal Republican who charmed many conservatives, and his Irish humor and zest for public service eventually earned him the nomination for Lieutenant Governor in 1970. He went on to win the election as the running mate of Thomas J. Meskill and served until his appointment to the Connecticut Superior Court. After serving for 10 years, he was nominated by Governor William A. O'Neill to the Appellate Court and served for 4 years before becoming a justice on the highest court in Connecticut on September 25, 1987. Justice Hull's political career earned him the reputation for being a gifted writer and captivating speaker and a colleague once said his decisions would ``forever enrich the literature of the law.'' Justice Hull had great aspirations for the people of Connecticut and was one of the few politicians who managed to be well-liked on both sides of the aisle. Throughout his illustrious career, he maintained an optimistic activism that continually propelled the interests of Connecticut and its people forward. Justice Hull was a dedicated public servant who ``had an enthusiasm for public office that was contagious.'' Justice Hull was a champion of the people and was one of the few to truly believe that government and politics should be ``positive, energizing celebrations of life.'' Although he was small in stature, T. Clark Hull's charming personality and exuberance for serving the public made him a giant in the eyes of others. Upon retiring from the State Supreme Court in 1991, when he reached the mandatory retirement age of 70, Justice Hull continued to serve the public as a State referee and as co-chairman of a commission to study government efficiency. The commission made many recommendations to streamline government, and under the chairmanship of Justice Hull, Connecticut underwent the biggest reorganization in state government in nearly two decades. T. Clark Hull has doubtless had a distinguished career. While he gained prominence as a life-long Connecticut politician, Justice Hull gained the respect of his colleagues and the general public for his good humor, exuberance for life, and his love of public service. The people of Connecticut are truly blessed to be able to call T. Clark Hull one of their own. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife Betty Jane, and his three sons Steven, Josh, and Treat.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, more than 6 months ago, President Clinton came before the Congress and called for a modest increase in America's minimum wage--from $4.25 to $5.15 an hour. And for the past nearly 6 months, 12 million Americans woke up every morning, went to work each day and continued to earn a meager $34 a day--waiting for this Congress to uphold its responsibility to working Americans and raise the minimum wage. Today, their wait is finally over. Today, working Americans are finally getting a break. Americans who were being asked to live on $8,500 a year are receiving a much-needed helping hand from the U.S. Congress. Due to this legislation, minimum wage workers will see an additional $1,800 in their paychecks by the end of the year. Raising the minimum wage will allow millions of America's working families to pay for 7 months of groceries, 1 year of health care costs, or more than a year's tuition at a 2-year college. And today, the nearly one in five minimum wage workers who currently live in poverty will now have a genuine opportunity to make a better life for their children. My only regret is that it took so long to reach this moment. Over the past 6\1/2\ months, my colleagues across the aisle used every possible tool to block this legislation. They claimed that raising the minimum wage would cost jobs--even though study after study shows this to be a fallacious argument. They raised erroneous economic arguments--even though 101 economists endorsed an increase in the minimum wage. They proposed amendments that would have excluded 10 million minimum wage recipients from the bill's benefits. But, in the end, the obstructionist efforts of my Republican colleagues were overwhelmed by the voices of the American people, calling for a minimum wage increase. For the more than two-thirds of minimum wage workers above the age of 21; for the 4 in 10 who are the sole wage earner for their families; and for all the Americans trying to make ends meet and put food on the table, this vote represents a genuine victory and a first step to a better future. Throughout America, millions of working families are struggling to get by and the votes today on the minimum wage and Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance bill make that process just a little bit easier. It is something we can all take great pride in and I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting on behalf of this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nebraska yield me up to 15 minutes?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me begin by saying that I respect those who support this legislation, and I respect the President for making the decision he did. But may I also begin by saying that I respectfully disagree with their decisions. Mr. President, I have served now in this body for almost 18 years. I served in the Congress for 22 years. I have dedicated a good part of my service in the U.S. Senate, as many of my colleagues know, to issues affecting children. In fact, one of the first things I ever did as a part of the Senate was form the first children's caucus, along with Senator Specter from Pennsylvania. Dan Coats of Indiana and I were the authors of the family and medical leave legislation. It took 7 years to adopt that. It went through two vetoes before being signed into law by President Clinton in the early days of his administration in 1993. Senator Orrin Hatch and I were the authors of the child care block grant, which is a subject of much discussion here today. I note, with some irony, that when I offered amendments a year ago to increase the child care funding in the early welfare reform proposals, only two Members of the majority party supported the increase for child care funding. Nonetheless, I am delighted to hear such strong, ringing endorsements for the child care block grant, considering it took us so many years to bring it the support it has now. There are numerous other pieces of legislation over the years that I am proud to have been associated with that affect children. While there are certainly significant deficiencies, in my view, in this legislation, affecting legal immigrants, affecting working adults, I want to focus my remarks, if I can, Mr. President, on children. I say that because the overwhelming majority of the people who will be affected by this legislation are children. We are a Nation of some 275 million people in the United States--a very diverse and rich people. Of the total population of this country, it is worthwhile, I think, to note that we are talking about 13 million Americans out of 270 million Americans who receive some form of aid to families with dependent children from the U.S. Government. There are local welfare programs. And there are State programs. But the Federal Government's commitment to welfare affects 13 million Americans. Of the 13 million Americans, almost 9 million are children under the age of 18, and 4 million are adults. Of the 9 million who are children, 80 percent of the 9 million are under the age of 12, and 50 percent of the 9 million are under the age of 6. So we are talking about 4 million adults and 4 to 5 million infants and young children, in effect, who will be affected by this legislation. We also know that roughly 2 million of the 4 million adults are unemployable under any situation. They are either seriously ill, or disabled, and will not be affected by this legislation because they cannot work. So our goal is to put 1 to 2 million of the 4 million adults on AFDC, who are able-bodied and can work, to work. This is 1 to 2 million people out of a nation of 270 million people. My concern is that, in our efforts to do that, we are placing in jeopardy, and at significant risk, for the first time in a half-century, the 9 million children in this country who are also the recipients of public assistance. So it is with a great deal of sadness, Mr. President, that I rise today, knowing that in less than 2 or 3 hours from now, America's national legislature will vote overwhelmingly to sever completely its more than one-half century of support for the most vulnerable of our people--our children. For over 60 years, Mr. President, through 10 Presidents, hundreds of U.S. Congressmen and Congresswomen, Senators, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, moderates, and conservatives, we have tried to improve the opportunities for all Americans. Certain issues were always in conflict, and I suspect they always will be. But with regard to one constituency, one group of Americans, there was never any serious division. We in America take care of our children. There is a national interest, I argue, and there has been for decades, to protect the most innocent and defenseless in our society. Whether you were a child from Eastport, ME, or San Diego, CA, if all else failed, your National Government, your country, would not let you go hungry, would not let you be denied medical care, and would not deny you basic shelter. No matter how irresponsible your parents may have been, no matter how neglectful your community or State, your country, America, would absolutely guarantee, as a last resort, a safety net of basic care. In less than a few hours, Mr. President, we will end, after half a century, that basic fundamental guarantee to these children. Am I opposed to reforming welfare? Absolutely not. But let us put this issue in perspective. We are talking about 9 million children-- many of whom have no other protection at all because of the circumstances in which they are raised--who count on their Government as a last resort to be of help. Let me be starkly clear about what this legislation does. Under this bill, States can cut off benefits. They cannot provide work opportunities. There is no requirement for them to do so. They can set shorter and shorter time limits, if they so desire. They can cut off families completely without making any accommodation for their children. And no matter how draconian these measures may be, this National Government will stand by and do nothing. It is worth noting that virtually all religious groups in this country and their leaders oppose this piece of legislation. Let me share with you the views of Bishop Anthony Pilla on behalf of the Catholic Bishops: The test of welfare reform is whether it will enhance the lives and dignity of poor children and their families. The moral measure of our society is how we treat the least amongst us. This legislation fails these tests and fails our Nation. What is more, we are considering this legislation with the benefit of data showing that the bill will push at least 1.1 million children into poverty in this country and worsen the situation of children already in poverty by 20 percent. Let us consider, if you will, for just one moment that instead of dealing with welfare reform here, we were dealing with a piece of legislation affecting American businesses. And assume for 1 minute, if you will, that we were provided data by credible sources that said as a result of this bill, if it were to become law, 1 million business people would fail as a result of your actions. I would just inquire: How long would that legislation last on the floor of the U.S. Senate? We would not be told that it is a ``minor inconvenience'' and somehow ``we may fix that later.'' We would not spend 1 minute considering a piece of legislation that would cause 1 million business people to fail. And, yet, when 1 million children may fail and already poor children will be pushed into even more difficult circumstances, we are told over and over again that somehow we will fix that down the road. I cannot support a piece of legislation that would take 1 million innocent children and push them into poverty with a vague hope that some day we may do something to correct that situation. These numbers should make all of us take pause and seriously consider the dire implications of our actions. I know many people argue that the current welfare system does not serve our children well. I do not disagree. But replacing a system in need of reform with a worse system is no solution at all. In fact, it is irresponsible. There is no justification, in my view, to try something different at any cost; namely, abandoning a national commitment to children for the sake of change. Again, I applaud the improvements that were made in this bill, and they have been recited by others. It, certainly, is better than what was considered a year ago in a number of aspects. But despite those improvements, there are still elements in this legislation which make it fundamentally flawed. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that between 2.5 and 3.5 million children would be affected by the 5-year cutoff of benefits in this bill. I have no objection to setting time limits on adults. In my State, it is 2 years. Experiments like that make sense, to see if they work. What I do not understand is that no matter how difficult you want to be on the parent, how do you look into the face of a 6-year-old child who, through no fault of their own, are born into difficult circumstances and say that regardless of the flaws of their parents, the irresponsibility of their parents, they must pay the price? I do not understand that logic or that thinking. It seems to me that if we know this welfare bill will increase the number of poor children, we should, at the very least, make some provisions for children whose parents have reached the time limit and are cut off from assistance. But this bill prohibits--and I emphasize this--this bill prohibits even providing vouchers to children whose parents have hit the 5-year time limit. In fact, it does not even grant the State the option to provide noncash aid to infants and toddlers. This is not only a step backward, but, in my view, it is an unconscionable retreat from a 60-year-old commitment that Republicans and Democrats, 10 American Presidents, and Congresses have made on behalf of America's children. Some will argue that the conference agreement says that States can use the title XX social services block grant to provide vouchers for these families and children. But I ask my colleagues to look at the provisions of the bill that cut this block grant by 15 percent. We are reducing the very block grants we are now telling States they can use to provide for these benefits. I truly believe that if we were serious about ensuring the safety net for children in this bill, we would do it outright and not come up with fancy accounting methods that provide no guarantees for children whatsoever. This legislation does not provide enough funds, quite frankly, to meet the work requirements of the bill. This bill has the goal of putting welfare recipients to work. I applaud that. Yet, it fails to provide adequate funds to reach that very growth. We are setting ourselves up for a failure. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill is $12 billion short of funds needed to meet the work requirements--$2 billion more than the shortfall of the Senate bill which was passed last year. The same Congressional Budget Office says that most States will not succeed in meeting the work requirements. They will just accept the penalty of reduction in funds. Do our friends here who support this legislation think that millions of jobs for welfare recipients will simply appear out of the air? Will millions of welfare recipients, most of whom want to work, I would argue, magically find jobs? Not unless they receive the assistance, the training, and the educational help which leads to job creation. In this bill, they will receive no such help at all. While we see movement on child care--again, I applaud that--this conference agreement retreats on a critically important child care provision. Let me emphasize this point. Both the House and Senate bills contain provisions that prohibit a State from sanctioning a family if the mother could not work because she could not obtain nor afford child care for children age 10 and under. The conference agreement, which we are about to vote on, moves that age threshold from 10 years of age to 5 years of age, at the request, I am told, of some Governors. Currently, approximately 2.4 million children on AFDC are between the ages of 6 and 10. The families of these children could lose all of their benefits as a result of a work sanction because the parent could not find adequate child care for a 7-year-old, an 8-year-old, or a 9- year-old. This bill encourages parents to go to work and leave a child at home, without supervision, at a time when we are talking about family values and parents caring for their children. We put these parents in the catch-22 situation, either they lose benefits or leave their child--a 6- 7- or 8-year old at home alone. I do not understand, again, the logic of that kind of thinking. I know that the Governors have argued that the protection for children 10 and under would make it hard for them to meet the work requirements in the legislation. But that sort of argument points out flawed thinking in this bill. I think all of us understand the need for child care. Latchkey children are a serious problem in our society. I fail to understand how Governors who argue that a provision which protects kids who are 6- 7- and 8-years old would impede their ability to meet work requirements. Governors, at the very least, should be able to guarantee to children age 10 and under that they will not be left at home without care. Additionally, the food stamp cuts in the conference agreement are deeper than last year's vetoed welfare bill and deeper than last year's Senate-passed bill. The conference agreement would cut food stamps by about 20 percent. Families with children--not single adults--families with children will bear the greatest burden. Two-thirds of the cuts in food stamps will hit families with children. Additionally, the bill limits food stamps to unemployed adults not raising children to just 3 months in a 3-year period with no hardship exemption whatsoever. If we were in a period of high unemployment in this country, with people being laid off from jobs through no fault of their own, how do you explain to someone who has worked for many, many years and finds himself without a job, that he will be cut off from some basic necessities to allow him to exist? And there's no exemption whatsoever to account for economic difficulties. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in an average month, under this provision, 1 million poor, unemployed individuals who are willing to work and have worked in many cases and would take a workfare slot, if one were available, would be denied food stamps because they cannot find work. Finally, Mr. President, I want to mention the treatment of legal immigrants in this legislation, which I know is of great concern to our colleagues from California and Florida and New York and others. This bill, in my view, is a repudiation of the legacy of immigration that has defined our country for more than 200 years. We are talking about legal immigrants now. It is this influx of immigrants from diverse cultures and distant lands that has made this country a shining example to the entire world. That is why millions of people across the globe have come to our Nation. To say to legal immigrants who pay taxes, who get drafted and serve in our military that we are going to deny them basic protections after we have invited them to come here in a legal status because they do not vote and they are an easy target I think is a mistake. It was the promise of the American dream that brought my family to this country from Ireland. And it was the desire for a better life that brought millions of other immigrants to America, whether they came over on the Mayflower or if they came to our land in just the past few days. The fact is, nearly every Senator in this body is a descendant of immigrants. The attack, in this legislation, on legal immigrants is mean-spirited and punitive. This bill is more interested in reducing the deficit than maintaining our commitment to legal immigration. This bill bans legal immigrants--children and the disabled--from food stamps and SSI. When people lose SSI, they lose their health coverage under Medicaid. I fear that we'll see people who have paid taxes wheeled out of nursing homes as a result of this bill. The legal immigrant provisions of this bill will shift substantial costs on to local governments. In the words of Mayor Guiliani of New York: By restricting legal immigrants' access to most Federal programs, immigration, in effect, becomes a local responsibility. Welfare reform should not diminish Federal responsibility for immigration policy or shift cost to local governments. But that's exactly what this bill does. conclusion In closing, let me say, Mr. President, that welfare reform is by no means easy. If we are to change the cycle of dependency and encourage work among welfare recipients, we must make tough decisions. But, in the end, those decisions must always be weighed against their effect on poor children. Our success will not be judged by how much we reduce the welfare rolls, but how we help those who are left behind. This bill fails that test--on both accounts. President Franklin Roosevelt once said that: ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have too much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.'' For those in our Nation who have too little, we are providing only crumbs. If welfare recipients are to revel in the hopes and aspirations of the American dream then they must be provided with the tools and opportunities to make those dreams a reality. This bill fails those Americans and it fails our commitment to the most vulnerable and poorest citizens in our Nation. I know this is a futile effort, but I urge my colleagues in the remaining few hours to consider that we are about to sever the lifeline to 9 million children in this country for the sake of putting 1 to 2 million adults to work. This incredibly misguided policy is not in balance and ought to be defeated. Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. I commend my colleague from New Hampshire. I hope everyone listens to his last remarks on this subject matter and that people will heed his advice. This is a serious matter. Our colleague from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, yesterday I think, made similar comments and brought to the floor the documentation that came off computers on this information. I think his advice is extremely worthwhile.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding labor leader and an outstanding American. John J. ``Jack'' Sheehan is retiring after 29 years as legislative director of the Steelworkers of America and a total of 45 years of service to his union and all working people. He has served as an assistant to three presidents of the Steelworkers: Lloyd McBride, Lynn Williams, and George Becker. During his 10 years in the Steelworkers' Washington office, Jack Sheehan has been at the forefront of some of the most important legislative battles in our history, including the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act [OSHA], the Mine Safety and Health Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act [ERISA], the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and much more. Jack Sheehan was born and raised in the Bronx. He was the son of Irish immigrants. His father drove a truck for the New York City Sanitation Department. Jack learned early in his life about the daily struggles of working men and women who worked hard, who toiled through the Great Depression of the 1930s, and who fought and won World War II in the 1940s. He saw the destructive effects of discrimination in our society and became a champion of the cause of civil rights and equal opportunity. He saw how poverty deprived people of their dignity and became an advocate for social and economic development programs that promised millions of Americans a better life. He knew how important a clean and healthy environment is to the lives and well-being of all Americans and became an environmental advocate. He understood that the labor movement is a progressive force for social and economic change that could better the lives of millions of Americans. Upon graduating from St. Joseph's College in 1951, he joined the administrative staff of the United Steelworkers of America. In 1952, he was appointed auditor under the secretary-treasurer's office and traveled extensively throughout the United States on behalf of the union. In 1959, Jack came to the Steelworkers' Washington, DC, legislative office and launched a career as a labor lobbyist that has been nothing short of spectacular. Jack worked to ensure the passage of the Manpower Training and Development Act and the Area Redevelopment Act. He was one of the first labor leaders to stand with the environmental movement for clean air and clean water. He continues to serve as a board member of the Natural Resources Defense Council. He is also one of the founding members of the Consumer Federation of America. Perhaps the single most important fight of Jack's long and distinguished career was the fight to save the lives and health of workers on the job. Jack committed himself totally to securing the passage of OSHA, despite strong business opposition and even some opposition within the ranks of the labor movement. OSHA recently marked its 25th anniversary. It has been estimated that since the passage of OSHA, more than 150,000 workers' lives have been saved because of this law. There probably would not have been an OSHA law passed in 1970 had it not been for the steadfast leadership and determination of Jack Sheehan. ERISA was written in 1974 because thousands of American workers were losing their pensions and their right to retire with financial security when their employers went out of business. Jack worked tirelessly to see that Congress passed ERISA. America's working men and women are better off today because Jack Sheehan was here in the halls of Congress on their behalf. Mr. President, Jack Sheehan's career is a tribute to his intelligence and determination. I know that my colleagues in the Senate join me in extending to Jack our very best wishes upon his retirement from the Steelworkers. Jack Sheehan has truly been a ``Man of Steel'' for the Steelworkers and all American workers.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to rise today to submit a very special resolution in anticipation of OpSail 2000 and in recognition of the Operation Sail organization that has made events such as OpSail 2000 possible. Mr. President, I am sure that many of my colleagues remember the glorious New York Harbor gatherings of the world's tall ships to mark several milestones in America's history: OpSail '76 celebrated the bicentennial of the Nation; OpSail '86 marked the centennial of the Statue of Liberty; and OpSail '92 commemorated the 500th anniversary of Columbus' discovery of the ``new world.'' In 2000, this grand tradition will continue. America, and indeed the entire world, will again be treated to the spectacular display of international friendship that is OpSail. OpSail 2000 will take place July 3-July 8, 2000 in New York Harbor to mark the 224th birthday of the United States of America and to welcome the new millennium. It is expected to be the largest gathering in history of the tall ships and other majestic vessels like those that have sailed the ocean for centuries. As a symbol of good will of the United States of America, the U.S. Navy will conduct an International Naval Review, which will include a naval aircraft carrier. OpSail 2000 is endorsed by President Clinton, just as Presidents Kennedy, Carter, Reagan and Bush endorsed Operation Sail's previous endeavors. Much like the Olympic games our country is currently hosting, OpSail events and Operation Sail are dedicated to building good will among nations, encouraging international camaraderie, and nurturing the leadership and athleticism of young people through training in seamanship. Furthermore, OpSail events and Operation Sail continually commemorate major events in the history of the United States, working in partnership with every American President since John F. Kennedy and representing and promoting the United States of America in the international tall ship community. Mr. President, this resolution honors the tradition of the OpSail events--the advancement of international friendship and the celebration of milestones in U.S. history--and I urge my colleagues to embrace that tradition by supporting this resolution.