Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me begin my remarks by commending my colleague from New Mexico, who is the chairman of this committee, who has the unenviable task of chairing the Budget Committee. While we have our disagreements from time to time, I have a great deal of respect for him as a colleague, as a Member, and I appreciate the fine work that he does on behalf of his State and on behalf of the country. I will take a few minutes and go over some of the budget items. He does not have to stay. I know he has other things to do. But I did not want him to leave the floor without expressing my appreciation for the work he does.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, at some later point I will also have some extended remarks on the announcement by the majority leader, who has decided he is going to retire from the Senate the first part of June. While we, too, have our differences, suffice it to say, as a colleague and a friend, he will be missed. I mean that very deeply and sincerely. Mr. President, I will just begin my remarks here by asking unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from June O'Neill, who is the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, dated May 9, 1996, in response in part to the colloquy between my colleague from New Mexico and our colleague from Texas regarding the condition of the hospital insurance trust fund. She says in that letter, here, and I am quoting it now: Under current law, the HI trust fund is projected to become insolvent in 2001. CBO estimates the administration's proposals would postpone this date to 2005. She goes into greater length here, responding to that, but I thought for the Record my colleagues ought to know what the Congressional Budget Office says with regard to the hospital trust fund.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I may consume off the resolution.

Mr. DODD. Under the 4 years President Bush served as President, we created on average of 608,000 jobs per year, and in the last 40 months, from January of 1993 through December of 1995--it does not include these last 4 or 5 months, but my colleagues will recall there were in excess of 620,000 jobs created in the month of February alone. That is more jobs created on a yearly basis than between 1989 and 1992. Quickly someone is going to say, ``Well, those aren't great jobs.'' That is wrong. The overwhelming number of jobs, more than 90 percent of these jobs, are private sector jobs, and well over 60 percent of these jobs are high-paying jobs. Not every one of them is, but the overwhelming majority are high-paying jobs in the private sector.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to begin by trying to, if we can, get back to some basic information here, because you can get lost in a lot of the data and charts and numbers that get thrown around. Let us just remember we are talking about the President's budget. There is a budget presented by the committee and there will be some alternatives that will be offered in the coming days when we debate what the budget of the country ought to be, but I think it is worthwhile to point out we are talking about the President's budget to begin with. Remember, this is a man who arrived in town in January 1993, 40 months ago--not 40 years ago, not a decade ago or 15 years ago; 40 months ago he arrives in town. He never served in Congress, never served in the Cabinet. He was the Governor of a small State. As he arrives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, he has left on his doorstep a mountain of debt. A mountain of debt is left on his doorstep. As you begin to look back at 1980 and start there and follow this redline, where the Congressional Budget Office projections were before, those are facts, where the deficit was going, where it was headed just prior to the President's arrival in town, and then what has happened to the projection of the deficit since his arriving, right here, in 1993. Here we get clearly where things were going up until his arrival here, and now the same Congressional Budget Office says we are headed this way. So, just for the purpose of clarity, let us keep in mind conditions when this President arrives. We had mountains of debt, most of it accumulated between 1981 and 1993. In fact, we had a debt that went up almost $4 trillion, from $1 trillion in 1981 to $4 trillion the day this President arrives in town. Then, in the 40 months he has been here, he has taken the projection of our deficit, which we are told was headed in this direction, and we are now moving it downward. So you begin with at least looking at the trend lines and where we are going. The President's budget is a commonsense approach. It cuts more than half a trillion dollars in spending over 7 years, yet, at the same time, it maintains our priorities as a nation. The President's budget invests in people. It protects Medicare and Medicaid, education and the environment, and it would maintain our national investments in education, job training and technology, all of which I think we agree are important. The budget maintains access to health care for our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. It keeps our natural environment and our workplaces safe. It understands that our overwhelming focus on balancing the budget should not cause us to ignore our national priorities. The President understands that all of this talk about balancing the budget should not cause us to lose sight of our most important national goals. As I have said in the past, this body, in my view, needs to be focusing more of its attention on increasing economic growth. We need to reform the Tax Code so it promotes savings and investment and higher growth. We need to increase opportunities for education and job training so that all Americans will have the tools to succeed. We need to make pensions and health care portable so that Americans can better cope with the technological and economic changes that are occurring in their lives. We should all remember that an increase of as little as one-half of 1 percent in the growth rate of the United States could create enormous opportunities for new jobs and expand options for millions of working Americans. Increasing growth is a priority, in my view, that should be reflected in everything that we do in Washington, and it should be reflected in the Federal budget. It is reflected in the President's budget. All along, President Clinton has stressed there is a right way and a wrong way to balance the budget. The right way is by maintaining our commitment to Head Start, to police officers on the beat, to clean and healthy drinking water, to summer jobs, and to encouraging community service. Those are the kinds of priorities that help build a strong nation. The wrong way to balance the budget is by having unnecessary, unwise spending cuts and tax cuts for those, frankly, who do not need them. I am going to get to that in a minute here. Our dear friends on the other side, with all due respect, have not learned the lesson. The American public have said over and over again: You are going in the wrong direction. We want our budget balanced. We want it done, if we can, in the next 6 or 7 years, but we want our priorities to be reflected in that decisionmaking process. What good does it do if you balance the budget and simultaneously make it impossible for my children to get a decent education, have access to higher education in this country? Balancing the budget and depriving the next generation of the tools it needs is foolhardy. What good does it do to talk about balancing the budget if you are going to rip the heart out of the environmental laws that have made this a stronger and a healthier nation? What good is it to balance the budget if you then increase the financial burden of older Americans, if you begin to make it more difficult, because Medicare is being reduced, for these people to make ends meet? How many middle-income families depend upon Medicaid so their parents and their grandparents can have a decent, long-term health care program? These are the kinds of things people say we need to invest in intelligently, making choices about where you reduce spending so we can achieve a balanced budget but make our country strong simultaneously. In our view, the President has done that with his budget. No one is suggesting any budget proposal is perfect, but certainly, given the evidence of the last 40 months, the direction we are heading in will make the case that this is a good proposal and one we ought to be working on, if we can, to achieve some common ground over the next 20 or so days left here so we can complete this budget process and do what the American public have asked us to do. Let me, if I can, address some of these issues with greater specificity. I want to begin with the budget being cut. I say this because I think it is important that people understand where we have come from in the last 40 months. This is what is called a primary budget. This is entitled ``Budget Without Interest Payments.'' Obviously, interest payments must, like any financial obligation, be paid. But if you remove the interest payments--remember, you only get interest payments because of the burdens you accumulate. So if you take away the interest payments, here is the deficit that occurred over the 12 years from 1981 to 1993, those 12 years: $660 billion. If you took away the interest obligations in the last 40 months, we have created a surplus of $239 billion in this country in the last 40 months. Those numbers are not being made up. Those are real numbers. So with all of this talk of what has happened here, here is a President who arrives in town in Washington for the first time in a Federal Government position, and in 40 months he is able to move us into the black, if you will--this chart is in the blue--but into the black for the first time in years. President Clinton inherited a $290 billion deficit in the year that he arrived in office. This year, the 1996 deficit will be $144 billion. That is cut in half. Those are the realities. Back in 1993, the Congressional Budget Office projected the deficit would hover around $300 billion. That was their projection. Following the implementation of the Clinton budget plan in 1993, as I pointed out earlier, the budget has declined sharply. In fact, Mr. President, let me point out one additional statistic reflected in this chart. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the 1996 deficit will come in at 1.9 percent of the gross domestic product. That will be the first time since 1979 that the deficit has been below 2 percent of the gross domestic product. That is significant progress, and we ought to stay on that track, if we can. This chart is without interest payments, as I said, and has been cut in half as a result of what has happened just in the last 40 months of this administration. Let me, if I can, turn to the chart on job growth rate, because this is what people care about. Again, you can balance the budget tomorrow if you want to, just by juggling some numbers around here and getting rid of a lot of things. But this cannot be a process of just people with green visors and sharp pencils. What happens to real people in this country as a result of the decisions we make? If our only function were to balance the budget, we could do that simply by cutting out all our spending, if we wanted to, and raising taxes on everybody. We have to ask the question: What happens to real people when you do this? So while we have been able to cut the deficit in half, and, if we eliminate the interest payments, actually we put this country into surplus for the first time in years. What has happened to jobs out there? What has happened to people's jobs? Again, look at jobs created per year. In 1981 to 1992, jobs created per year were 1,540,000. That is the number of jobs created each year in those years. In 1989 through 1992, it averaged 608,000 jobs per year. But from 1993 to the present time, Mr. President, we have created in excess of 2,684,000 jobs a year. Compare that with 1,500,000 from 1981 to 1992; 600,000 from 1989 to 1992. We are now getting close to 3 million new jobs a year, while simultaneously bringing the deficit down.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of this bill to curb illegal immigration. Since its first days as a nation, the United States has always been a refuge for those seeking to escape political and religious persecution. America has consistently provided limitless economic, political, and social opportunities for those who come to our Nation and are intent on working hard and improving their lives and those of their children. It is this influx of immigrants from diverse cultures and distant lands that has made America a shining example to the world. That's why millions of people across the globe look to the United States as a land of opportunity. It's why they come to our borders in the hopes of entering our Nation and achieving a better life. 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. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt reminded us more than 50 years ago, with the exception of native Americans, ``All of our people all over the country. * * * are immigrants or descendants of immigrants, including even those who came over here on the Mayflower.'' Nearly every Senator in this body is a descendant of immigrants. And I believe that we should provide the same opportunities for those who come after us as our forefathers accorded to those who came before us. However, while I strongly support continued immigration to our Nation, there are proper rules and procedures to be adhered to. If you play by the rules and follow the laws of our country than the opportunity to live in America should be available. But, the opportunity to come to America does not give people the right to enter our Nation illegally. It does not give them the right to break the law. Nor does it give companies or businessman the right to hire illegal aliens and take away jobs from hard-working Americans who pay their taxes and play by the rules. Let me just say that I commend this administration for all it has done in curbing illegal immigration. Since 1993, the Clinton administration increased the Immigration and Naturalization Service budget by 72 percent. More than 1,000 new Border Patrol agents have been deployed. Additionally, more than 140,000 illegal and criminal aliens have been deported since 1993. What's more, this administration is helping more eligible immigrants become citizens. In fact, in fiscal year 1995 more than half a million citizenship applications were completed. These are substantial gains, but there is more to be done and this bill takes important steps in the right direction. This legislation increases the size of the Border Patrol. It authorizes voluntary pilot projects to test improved employee verification system. It forces sponsors to take greater responsibility for the immigrants they bring into the country. And it increases the penalties for alien smuggling and fraud. These are all necessary steps and I believe they are necessary to curb illegal immigration in our country. What's more they were strongly influenced by the bipartisan Jordan Commission on Immigration Reform. While, I do remain concerned about the benefit provisions in this legislation, there are enough positive aspects of this bill to make it worthwhile. I am particularly pleased that this body decided to defer taking up the issue of legal immigration. It is essential that we do not confuse the two issues. Legal immigrants play by the rules that this government has established. What's more, legal immigrants have an overwhelmingly positive benefit for this Nation. Legal immigrants pay nearly 95 percent more in taxes then they receive in benefits. More than 93 percent do not receive welfare benefits. In fact, native-born Americans are more likely to receive welfare then poor immigrants. Legal immigrants are not the problem. They play by the rules and they don't deserve to have their benefits or their rights cut. I am also pleased that this bill includes the Leahy amendment, which prevents barriers from being placed in front of those who seek political and humanitarian asylum. We must avoid putting those who come to our country seeking asylum, into a position where their political beliefs could cause them to face the possibility of imprisonment, injury, or even death if they return to their homeland. We must never forget as a nation that America has and will continue to be seen as a beacon of hope and freedom for those who are oppressed or maltreated. We must not shirk our role as a haven for those fleeing persecution. Unfortunately, I think those facts have sometimes been lost in our recent national debate on immigration. They should always be our core concern when discussing immigration reform measures. Our Nation was founded on the concept of taking in the downtrodden and persecuted. And throughout our history, America has prospered because we have kept the doors open for new immigrants. Today, we must continue to maintain our obligation to immigration as a nation and as a people. While not perfect, I believe this bill takes us in the right direction toward upholding our commitment to an inclusive and common-sense immigration policy.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to my colleagues' attention a recent article by Felix Rohatyn titled ``Recipe for Growth,'' which appeared in the April 11, 1996, Wall Street Journal. Although he is a traditional Democrat, Flex Rohatyn has long advocated economic solutions and ideas that transcend political affiliation. And in a time when economic change and rising job insecurity are causing more and more American families to find that the promise of the American dream is increasingly unattainable his views deserve particular recognition. Throughout my State of Connecticut, and the Nation as a whole, thousands of families are sitting around the kitchen table wondering how are they going to pay their monthly bills. How are they going to make their mortgage payments? But the issue runs even deeper--to people's vision of the future. Will they have the money to send their kids to college? What happens if they lose their health care? How can they prepare for retirement when they barely have enough right now? These painful choices are leaving workers anxious and scared for the future. Let me be clear on one point: There are millions of Americans who are succeeding in this economy. Since this administration took Office, the American economy has seen the creation of 8.5 million new jobs, many of which are both full time and at an increased wage. However, while a significant number of Americans are succeeding, this rising tide is not lifting all boats. Many Americans are still suffering, and we must do more to deal with their plight. Surely, there are no easy solutions to America's problems. We need to have a debate on these issues. But, most important, we need to start finding ways to increase economic growth be it through balancing our budget, reforming our tax laws to create new jobs, relieving business of the burdens of wasteful regulation or lowering interest rates. I share the view of many responsible members of the business community who believe that our current growth rate of 2.5 per cent is far below the Nation's true capacity for growth. Our economy is capable of enhanced growth, and we must do more to realize this goal. The benefits of economic growth are clear: An increase of as little as one-half of 1 percent in the growth rate, would wipe out the deficit, provide millions of dollars for tax cuts and create enormous employment opportunities for millions of American workers. Additionally, increasing economic growth would allow us to balance the budget without the draconian cuts in education, the environment, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social programs that my colleagues across the aisle have advocated. Expanding economic growth may be the most important issue that faces our country and it is a challenge we all must undertake. Americans understand that when we all work together, from the public and private sectors to employers and employees we can face any challenge. Felix Rohatyn's ``Recipe For Growth'' serves as an excellent blueprint for bringing genuine and real growth to the American economy. If we are serious about expanding growth and bringing the promise of the American dream to all our people, then I believe every Member of this body should take the time to read this article and heed the advice of Felix Rohatyn. I ask that Mr. Rohatyn's article be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 11, 1996] Recipe for Growth (By Felix G. Rohatyn) The American economy is now constrained by a financial iron triangle, in part created by the Republican majority together with the Clinton administration, from which it is difficult to break out and which is beginning to generate serious social tensions. The first leg of this triangle is the commitment to balance the budget in seven years. Even though there has never been a rational explanation for this time frame, it has now become part of the political theology. It would be as dangerous for either party to depart from it, say by suggesting that eight or nine years would be equally logical, as it was for George Bush to abandon his ``No new taxes'' pledge. The second leg is an extension of the first and is more restrictive in its effect: It is the acceptance, by both parties and blessed by the Congressional Budget Office, that our economic growth rate will be 2.2% for the seven-year period. Even though projections are notoriously inaccurate even over much shorter periods, this particular projection is becoming both a prediction and a self-limitation. It implies that this rate of growth is the limit of what our economy is capable of without inflation. Since this view has the support of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and the financial markets, it has become a de facto limit on economic growth. The markets and the Fed react to any appearance of acceleration with higher interest rates and the economy then falls back to 2.2% or below. The third leg of this triangle is the impact of technology and global competition on incomes and employment. THe lethal political combination of corporation downsizing together with ever-increasing differentials in wealth and income among Americans of differing levels of education and skills, and the huge rewards to capital as the result of the boom in the securities markets, are creating serious social tensions and political pressures. Unless we can somehow break out of this iron triangle, we could face serious difficulties, and the best hope for a breakout is to make a determined effort for a higher rate of economic growth. Only higher growth, as a result of higher investment and greater productivity, can make these processes socially tolerable. In order to deal constructively with the realities of technology and the global economy. Democrats and Republicans may have to abandon cherished traditional positions and turn their thinking upside down: Democrats may have to redefine their concept of fairness, while Republicans may have to rethink the role of Government. economic insecurity The American economy is growing very slowly despite occasional upward blips. Growth and inflation are both around 2%. Our main trading partners, Europe and Japan, are undergoing serious economic strains of their own, with German unemployment nearing 10% and French unemployment near 12%. Fiscal contraction is taking place on both sides of the ocean as the Maastricht criteria are maintained in Europe and deficit reduction continues as a priority here, feeding a general sense of economic insecurity. The winds of deflation could be stronger than the winds of inflation. At the same time, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is near its all-time high of 5700, mergers and restructurings are still taking place at a record pace, and layoffs and downsizing are continuing as the inevitable result of global competition and technological change. And Pat Buchanan has created a political groundswell, on the left as well as on the right, by identifying real problems but proposing solutions based on fear, xenophobia, isolationism and protectionism. It is frightening to think of the political impact of a Buchanan if unemployment were now 7.5 percent instead of 5.5 percent. All that it requires is the next recession. The social and economic problems we face today are varied. They include job insecurity, enormous income differentials significant pressures on average incomes, urban quality-of- life and many others. Even though all of these require different approaches, the single most important requirement to deal with all of them is the wealth and revenues generated by a higher rate of economic growth. John Kennedy was right: A rising tide lifts all boats. Although it may not lift all of them at the same time and at the same rate, without more growth we are simply redistributing the same pie. That is a zero sum game and it is simply not good enough. The fact that our 2 percent-2.5 percent present growth rate is inadequate is proven by the very problems we face. The question of when, and especially how, to balance the federal budget deserves a great deal more intelligent discussion than the political sloganeering we have heard so far. The budget is a document that reflects neither economic reality nor valid accounting practices. If the budget is to be balanced in order to satisfy the financial markets, only real justification of this goal, then it must be done with growth rather than with retrenchment. That higher growth, together with controlling costs of entitlement like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, will generate the capital needed to provide both private and public investment adequate to the country's needs. Bringing the rate of growth from its present 2 percent-2.5 percent to a level of 3 percent-3.5 percent would generate as much as an additional $1 trillion over the next decade. It could provide both for significant tax cuts for the private sector as well as for the higher level of public investment in infrastructure and education required as we move into the 21st Century. It would obviously generate millions of new jobs. The present bipartisan commitment to balance the budget in seven years, based on the present anemic growth, is economically unrealistic and probably socially unsustainable. In all likelihood, higher growth is in fact the only way to achieve budget balance. The question is how to achieve it. The conventional wisdom among most academic economists as well as the Treasury, the Federal Reserve Board and Wall Street is that our economy cannot generate higher growth without running the risk of triggering inflation. Now everyone shares that view. In particular, the leaders of many of this country leading industrial corporations believe that we could sustain significantly higher growth rates based on the very significant productivity improvements they are generating in their own businesses, year-after-year. Economics is not an exact science as we have painfully learned over and over again. It is the product of the psychology of millions of consumers, of business leaders making long term investment decisions, of capital flows instantaneously triggered by events and ideas. We must do away with the false notion that we must choose between growth or inflation. Our experience, even in the more recent past, shows that technology and competition can produce growth without serious inflationary pressures. In the face of today's totally new environment of almost daily revolutions in technology combined with globalization, we should be willing to be bolder, both in fiscal and monetary policy. As a traditional Democrat, I have always believed that freedom, fairness and wealth, basic to a modern democracy, required an essentially redistributionist philosophy of wealth, that a fairly steeply graduated income tax was required as a matter of fairness and that lower deficits would guarantee adequate growth and a fair distribution of wealth. The experience of the last two decades, with the advent of the global economy, has very much shaken that view. Fairness does not require the redistribution of wealth; it requires the creation of wealth, geared to an economy that can provide employment for everyone willing and able to work, and the opportunity for a consistently higher standard-of- living for those employed. Only strong private sector growth, driven by higher levels of investment and superior public services, can hope to providing the job opportunities required to deal with technological change and globalization. Only higher growth will allow that process to take place within the farmework of a market economy and a functioning democracy. We should have no illusions about the likelihood of reducing the level of present income and wealth differentials; they are likely to increase in the near future as the requirements for skills and education increase. The world is not fair; we must, however, make it better for those in the middle as well as at the lower end of the economic scale. The key is enough growth that, even if initially the lower end does not gain as rapidly as the upper, it can improve its absolute standard of living, and being a process of closing the gap. Higher growth requires a tax system that promotes growth as its main objective. It must encourage higher investment and savings. That is not the case today. Today's tax system aims at a concept of fairness dictated by distribution tables. That may not be the best test. A tax system with growth as its main objective may be a variation of the flat tax; or it may be a national sales tax; or it may be another system aimed at taxing consumption instead of investment such as proposed by Sens. Sam Nunn and Pete Domenici. The power and dominance of global capital markets in today's world would seem to aim in the latter direction. Lowering taxes on capital would at first blush seem to help the already wealthy, current holders of capital. But whatever its effect on the distribution tables, it could unleash powerful capital flows, both domestic and foreign, that would lower interest rates significantly and make investment in the U.S. even more competitive than it is today. At the same time, they would maintain the strength of the dollar and maintain low rates of inflation. Achieving the objective of higher growth could also include the gradual privatization of Social Security in order to create a massive investment pool with higher returns for the beneficiaries and greater investment capabilities for the private and the public sector. The key to economic success in the 21st Century will be cheap and ample capital, high levels of private investment to increase productivity, high levels of education and advanced technology. It also includes higher levels of public investment in building a national infrastructure supportive of the 21st century economy. If the Democrats can redefine their concept of fairness, Republicans, on the other hand, may have to abandon their view of passive government. If growth and opportunity are to be the prime objectives of our society, the government must play an active role in some areas. The first is education; the second is higher levels of infrastructure investment; the third is in the maintenance of a corporate safety net. Public school reform, driven by higher standards, is an absolute priority. Even though that is a state responsibility, it is a national problem. These standards, regardless of today's political conventional wisdom, will ultimately be national in scope. Access to higher education should be made available to any graduating high school senior meeting stringent national test levels and demonstrably in need of financial assistance. The equivalent of the GI Bill, providing national college scholarships to needy students, should be created and federally funded. It should be the primary affirmative action program funded by the federal government. As part of a higher economic growth rate, state and local governments should provide higher levels of infrastructure investment. In addition to the creation of private employment, this could also provide public sector jobs to help meet the work requirements of welfare reform, as well as to provide the support to a high capacity modern economy. Financial assistance from the federal government would encourage the states in that endeavor. Higher growth would enable federal as well as state and local budgets to take on this responsibility. A corporate safety net should be provided in order to deal with the inevitable dislocations which corporate downsizings and restructurings will continue to create. Business, labor and government should cooperate to create a system of portable pensions and portable health care to cushion the transition from one job to another. Incentives should be provided for business to make use of stock grants for employees laid off as a result of mergers and restructuring. If losing one's job creates wealth for the shareholders, the person losing his or her job should share in some of that wealth creation. Corporate pension funds, to the extent they are overfunded as a result of the stock market boom, could be part of a process to provide larger severance and retraining payments for laid-off employees. Other than in areas such as pensions and health care, it is counterproductive to try to legislate the social side of ``corporate responsibility''; it is almost impossible to define. To begin with, most large U.S. corporations are majority-owned by financial institutions including the pension funds of the very employees who are in danger of displacements. These institutions, driven by their own competitive requirements, were the source of the pressures on management which resulted in the dramatic restructuring of American industry over the last decade. Those restructurings have made American industry highly competitive in world markets; they must continue and we must continue the opening of world trade. Boards of directors are not blind to the risks of political backlash. The issue of executive compensation, made starkly visible by its tie-in with the rise in stock market values, will be dealt with responsibly or boards will find themselves under great shareholder pressure. The use of profit-sharing, stock options and stock grants to practically all levels of the corporation will be significantly expanded and should create greater common interests between executives, shareholders and employees. However, the main role of the corporation must remain to be competitive, to grow, to invest, to hire and to generate profits for its shareholders; a significant portion of employee compensation should be related to the growing productivity of its employees. The benefits to business in such an approach are obvious, but labor also has a large stake in such a re-examination. Some of the proposals put forth at present would have very negative results for working Americans. It is too late to return to a protected American economy; the only result would be to trigger a financial crisis that would harm America and our trading partners. It is impossible to stop the effect of global information, technology, capital and labor. What is important for working people, union or non-union, is the creation of more well-paying jobs as a result of high levels of investment and high levels of education; to share in the profits of their employers through profit-sharing and stock ownership; to share in the benefit potential of pension funds vastly increased by the boom in the financial markets; to have access to permanent health care security and to high levels of education and training to deal with the 21st century requirements. Business and labor, together, should hammer out such an agenda. If we are serious about balancing the budget in a responsible manner, the president and the congressional leadership could set a national objective that the economy's rate of growth reach a minimum sustainable level of 3% annually by the year 2000. They could ask the best minds in the country, from government, from business, from labor and from academia to provide a set of options which could lead to such a result. Many of these options would be politically difficult, both for Democrats and for Republicans, and some would probably be impossible. But the only way to abandon long-held notions that may no longer apply to today's world is to discuss them within the framework of a very simple and definite objective: higher growth. a different perspective Setting the U.S. on a path to higher growth will require coordination with our partners in the G-7. The Europeans should welcome such an initiative since they are in greater need for growth than we are. Nevertheless, the process will be slow and it must be put into motion. The President's setting an objective of higher growth would have an important psychological impact; the economy is, after all, heavily influenced by psychological factors. If the president were to set an ambitious growth objective, then all elements affecting the economy would be subject to review from a different perspective. They would include fiscal and monetary policy; investments and savings; education and training; and international trade. Most importantly, these activities should take place within a framework in which the Democratic Party redefines its concept of fairness and the Republican Party redefines its concept of the role of government. At present, neither is appropriate for the revolution that technology, globalization and the inclusion of an additional one billion people to the global work force will bring about tomorrow. Ultimately, a rising tide will float all ships, and both political parties can help bring this about. If they fail to do so, at a minimum the present malaise will turn uglier, and it is even conceivable that another tide will sweep away existing parties. If that were to happen, arguments about growth or fairness will be totally irrelevant.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wonder if I might speak in opposition to the Graham amendment for 1 minute while we are waiting.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would say to my colleagues, the people of Florida, too, I might point out, have their economic pressures as well. Frankly, having people just show up and all of a sudden given legal status automatically by arriving, I think is creating incredible pressures there. And if we are going to do it there, then I would suggest we go to another place. I urge that this amendment be rejected, come back with an amendment that covers people who come from all Communist governments, not just this one. If we are truly committed to that, then people all over this globe who live under that kind of system ought to be given the same status.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I just did not realize the language of this amendment was coming up. I say to my colleagues here--and I suspect this may carry fairly overwhelmingly--I hope people understand this applies to illegal aliens, not legal aliens. So you illegally arrive anywhere in the United States from Cuba. You are given a status we do not give anywhere else in the world. You arrive from the People's Republic of China. You do not get this status. You arrive from North Korea. You do not get this status. You arrive from Vietnam, still a Communist country. You do not get this status. So here we are taking one fact situation, no matter how meritorious people may argue, and applying a totally different standard here for one group of people and not to others. If you come to this country from the People's Republic of China, you have lived under an oppressive government, and we are making a case here that if you come out of Cuba, even as an illegal, that you get automatic status here. Why do we not apply that to billions of other people who live under oppressive regimes? I would say as well, in 30 additional seconds, if I may, Mr. President.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I ask for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. DODD. Among other things, they would have learned from President Preval about his commitment to helping keep Haiti on its course toward democracy and about the high priority he accords to implementing significant economic reforms. President Clinton has fashioned our policy toward Haiti as he has because he wants to give the Haitian people a chance, a chance to live without intimidation and fear, a chance to make choices and decisions about their own destiny. Our policy is making that possible, perhaps for the first time in Haitian history. As I said earlier, I could not agree more with our distinguished majority leader that Haiti should not become a political football. Sadly, for most of that country's history, it has been somebody's political football. The people of Haiti deserve a lot better. Mr. President, President Preval seems determined to do whatever he can to ensure the people of Haiti have a brighter future, but he alone cannot make that happen. He needs and deserves the support of the United States in that endeavor, and I hope that he will receive it.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, last Friday, the majority leader, Senator Dole, took to the floor and made a rather critical speech of our present policy in Haiti. He introduced at that time a report which was prepared by a Republican staff delegation that had gone down to Haiti during the Easter recess. I think the report probably could have been written a week or two in advance of the trip and the trip might not have even been necessary since there was not any real effort to examine the issues in Haiti and what has happened there over the past 18 months or so. This morning I wish to take a few minutes to apprise my colleagues of how I see the present situation in Haiti. Where we have come over the past number of months in making real progress there. The good news is, of course, that Haiti is not in the headlines on a daily basis but there has been significant progress. I think it is important that my colleagues and others who have heard Senator Dole's remarks have an opportunity to hear another point of view, and that is what I would like to do this morning. I am no stranger to Haiti. I have visited the country many times over the years. When I was a Peace Corps volunteer 30 years ago, I lived very close to the Haitian border in the Dominican Republic. I visited Haiti often in those days and still have many close friends in the country of Haiti. Most recently, I visited Haiti this past January to make my own firsthand assessment of the political situation. Based upon that visit, and the many others that I have made over the years, one thing is crystal clear. President Clinton's decision in September 1994 to support democracy in Haiti was the right thing to do. Whatever else one might say about United States policy, Haiti is a far, far better place today than it was 19 months ago. Remember what those days were like. The reign of terror was the order of the day. Murder, rape, and kidnaping were daily occurrences in Haiti, all in an effort to intimidate the Haitian people. Those days are gone now. And, despite the fact that Haiti is a long way, a long way from becoming a Jeffersonian democracy, we are not going to rewrite almost 200 years of Haitian history in less than 2 years--I believe that today the Haitian people are one step closer to fulfilling their aspirations of living in freedom and dignity without fear of their Government. An important phase of our Haiti policy came to a close just a month or so ago. U.S. forces are no longer participants in the United Nations mandated mission. In fact, last week the final contingent of United States forces left Port-au-Prince, Haiti. When President Clinton dispatched United States forces to Haiti in the fall of 1994, he set a deadline of February 29, 1996, as the date when United States military participation in the mandated mission of the United Nations would terminate. He has stood by that situation and it has been fulfilled. The goals of the United States policy have been clear from the outset, that is, to restore the democratically elected President of Haiti to office, to provide a secure and stable environment within which Democratic elections could be conducted, to protect international personnel and installations, and to facilitate the creation of a Haitian national police force. Despite what some might have you believe, we have made tremendous strides toward fulfilling those goals. The duly elected president was restored to office. Municipal, congressional and presidential elections were successfully conducted. A civilian national police force has been established. The army no longer exists. The dreaded Haitian military has been dissolved. During my January visit to Port-au-Prince, Mr. President, it became very apparent to me that there was a shared consensus across the broadest segment of Haitian society for a continued United Nations presence after February 29. President Aristide, then President-elect Preval, members of the Haitian Congress, the business community, the United States Embassy, U.N. officials, virtually everyone with whom I met, expressed the strong view that a follow-on presence by the United Nations was vital to solidifying the very real gains that have been made in Haiti over the last many months. Fortunately, the United Nations Security Council concurred with the prevailing wisdom in Haiti and extended the U.N. mission for an additional 4 months until June 1 of this year. The Canadian Government, not the United States Government, has assumed the leadership role in the extended, albeit smaller, United Nations mission. I for one have expressed my appreciation to Canadian authorities for their willingness to do so. No one is saying that the job is complete in Haiti. Far from it. Much remains to be done on the economic front, on the judicial front, on the human rights front, and on the migration front. Public security, for example, continues to be a major challenge to the current Haitian administration, as it was to its predecessor. In that regard, some critics of Haiti have singled out the performance of the newly formed Haitian national police as an example of how United States policy has failed. That was included in the majority leader's remarks last Friday. Mr. President, I could not disagree more. It does a great injustice to the real progress that has been made in this area in less than a year's time. Let us remember that until last June a civilian police force did not exist in Haiti. It had to be built from scratch while dissolving the army, the dreaded military. In less than 8 months, a force of 5,000 freshly recruited and trained Haitians has been deployed throughout the country. Yes, they are green. They have made mistakes. But it is really quite a remarkable feat, when you think of it. Can you imagine establishing something like a 5,000- person force from the ground up, going through all the training, in a major city in this country overnight? Haiti is not the only place we have endeavored to support the creation of a new professional civilian force to replace corrupt and brutal militarily justice. In Panama and in El Salvador, we joined with their government leaders to do something similar. In those cases, we had bipartisan support. Unfortunately, bipartisanship seems to be absent in the case of Haiti. Some of the same problems in Haiti did, in fact, existed in these countries as well, Panama and El Salvador, and continue, I point out, to confront us to today. Continued international assistance and support at this juncture is terribly important for this little country. These are critical to ensuring the strengthening and permanency of still fragile democratic institutions in Haiti. I believe the United States must remain engaged in Haiti. U.S. humanitarian and democracy-building programs will continue to be important to future progress in a wide array of areas: the national police, the judicial and legislative branches, economic reforms, human rights and migration. If we do not remain engaged, I predict the previous problems that confronted both the Bush and Clinton administrations with respect to Haiti will be right back in the laps of some future administration, and much more so. Last Friday, in the course of his remarks, Senator Dole stated it would be wrong to make Haiti a political football. Mr. President, I could not agree more. In that regard, the endless congressional holds that have been placed on purely humanitarian assistance--we have had holds, now, in some cases that have been in place since late last year, on proposed humanitarian assistance to Haiti. These holds in my view threaten to make Haiti the political football that the Majority leader has warned about. These United States assistance programs for vaccinations, for AIDS prevention, for textbooks, for primary schools, are targeted at the weakest and most vulnerable sectors of Haitian society. It is deplorable that we have held up these funds that were voted and appropriated by this Congress. In my view, the administration has more than adequately addressed the questions about specifics of most of these programs--in briefings of congressional staff and written responses to questions submitted from the Congress. If the Republican majority mean what they say about not making Haiti a political football, then the time has come for these congressional holds to be lifted so the continuity of these programs can be maintained. Again, I do not mean to suggest that all of the questions and concerns raised about the implementation of certain U.N. and U.S.-- sponsored programs have not been without merit. There is merit to those questions. But let us remember that when the President and the international community decided to restore democracy to Haiti, they were navigating in unchartered waters. After all, this was the very first time in our history that international action would be utilized in an effort to restore a democratically elected government to power following a military coup. United States officials, United Nations officials, and most especially Haitian officials had to learn on the job. So, not surprisingly, mistakes were made. But I would also say that administration, United Nations and Haitian officials have bent over backwards to answer questions and to make adjustments in programs as necessary. Despite those efforts, criticism continues and the holds persist. As I mentioned earlier, these Republican holds placed on United States aid programs are jeopardizing some terribly important programs. One wonders if these aid programs have been put on hold, not so much because answers are wanted, but in the hope that policy successes that have occurred to date will be undermined. If so, this is very cynical and shortsighted and most certainly contrary to United States interests. While I acknowledge that some criticism about events in Haiti have had merit, others have been far off the mark. For example, some have charged that last year's Haitian elections have produced a one-party state in Port-au-Prince. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can tell you from my meetings with leaders of the Haitian Parliament that they are no rubber stamp for an executive branch. In fact, during my visit in January, the Haitian Senate overwhelmingly rejected President Aristide's controversial nominee to head the national police force. President Preval subsequently nominated, and the Haitian Senate confirmed, a very able individual to head the police force in the country. All that to say the political process is working. Turning to another area of concern, the possibility of politically motivated killings. There has been a great deal of misinformation, I would say, Mr. President, about these so-called politically motivated murders. The number is much smaller than the 20 to 25 that some have alleged. As to the lack of Haitian cooperation, it is my sense that the FBI did not make a lot of friends in the manner in which it first went about conducting its initial investigations in Port-au-Prince. I was amazed to find out the FBI never bothered to meet with the members of the U.N./OAS civilian mission, the mission that had been monitoring cases since 1993. This is particularly troubling, I would say, since representatives from the civilian mission would have been of enormous assistance to the FBI's investigation. You will recall that most often they were the first ones at the crime scene to gather evidence and interview onlookers. Nor, apparently, did the FBI seek advice from the U.S. Embassy or utilize its expertise and local contacts. Do not misunderstand what I am saying. I am not condoning these or other acts of violence in Haiti. One politically motivated killing is one too many. But I did not notice quite the same level of outrage in some quarters when the military dictatorship of Haiti was killing hundreds--hundreds--of Haitians, many them prominent political figures, in plain view of international journalists and cameras. Certainly, Haitian authorities need to confront the problems of impunity head on and to put together a credible investigation of the various suspicious murders and bring the matter to closure, but this should not become an excuse for walking away from Haiti or putting every other initiative in the deep freeze. There has been a great deal of focus on the police and the security situation in Haiti, and rightfully so. These are important areas of concern, but they are not the only ones that will determine Haiti's future. Haiti, like many developing countries, suffers from serious brain drain, with many of its most talented citizens leaving the country. We need to try to redouble our efforts to help them find capable people to fill upper and middle management positions throughout the government, particularly with respect to the police force. Haitians living abroad need to take some responsibility for their country's future as well. The economy is also pivotal to Haiti's future. In fact, what happens with respect to the Haitian economy is perhaps more important than any other single issue we could mention. Economic growth and investment create jobs. Jobs mean hope and opportunity for the Haitian people. That is what gives people a stake in their country and their government. The economic policies that the Preval administration decides to implement will determine whether the Haitian economy will rebound and grow or simply stagnate. Privatization of certain key State-owned enterprises--power, telecommunications, flour and cement--can play an important role in creating a favorable economic climate in Haiti as well, and should serve, I would add, to attract badly needed foreign investment in critical sectors. Last month, the Committee on Foreign Relations had the honor of hosting a working coffee for the recently inaugurated President of Haiti, His Excellency Rene Preval. We had a very useful and, I think, candid discussion about issues of mutual concern to our two countries. It was a very helpful session. Surprisingly, many of those who have been the harshest critics of Haiti did not bother to attend this meeting or to give President Preval an opportunity to address some of the concerns that they have raised. I wonder why? Among other things, they would have heard President Preval----

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise today in strong opposition to this constitutional amendment. I understand that much of what is driving today's debate is the belief among the American people that Congress is out of touch with their needs and their concerns. And to some extent their frustration is genuine and justified. We spend too much of our time engaging in partisan political games and not enough time working together in a bipartisan manner to craft legislation that benefits all Americans. There are many things we could do to reform Congress and make this body work more effectively. Term limits is not one of them. If we truly want to renew the American people's faith in democracy and return their voices to our debates in Washington then we need to remove the corrosive influences of money on our campaign system. I believe that all the goals proponents of term limits hope to achieve through this amendment, would be realized if we simply passed genuine and comprehensive campaign finance reform. For example, public service is more and more restricted to those Americans who have the deep pockets necessary to run for Congress. And term limits would not change that. Even if we passed this amendment, candidates would still be forced to raise millions of dollars in order to win election. And the aspirations of public service would continue to remain unachievable for the vast majority of the American people. In order to change the way Washington operates and level the campaign playing field, we need to remove the pervasive, almost epidemic, role of money in our political system. That is why I have long supported steps to reform our campaign system. And it's the reason I've sponsored the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. We need to change our campaign system and allow access to public service for the American people. But, term limits is simply not the solution. We have term limits in this country. They're called elections. And they are already enshrined in our Constitution. Look it up, article 1, section 2; article 2, section 4; and of course the 17th amendment, which dictated the manner by which we as Senators would be chosen. These provisions of the Constitution describe the specific process of how our elected officials are chosen. And nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of term limits, or the amount of time a Senator or Congressman must serve. Over the past few days, I've listened to my colleagues invoke the name of the Founding Fathers in justifying their support for this amendment. Well, I would remind them to go back to their history books, to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which debated the issue of term limits and see what James Madison, the father of our Constitution said about this issue: Frequent elections; that's the answer, that a voter should be able to decide whether he wants somebody new or whether he wants somebody with experience. Or look to the words of Robert Livingston, who said: The people are the best judges who ought to represent them. To dictate and control them, to tell them whom they shall not elect is to abridge their natural rights. * * * This is an absolute abridgement of the people's rights. A years and a half ago the American people made an overwhelming decision on who would represent them. Although I can't say that I agreed with their choice and while I would have preferred that they had selected different leaders, their ballot was a reflection of our freedoms and rights as a people and a nation to choose our leaders. And in the past few years the American people have loudly made their voices heard. In fact, more than 50 percent of the current Members of the House of Representatives were elected in the past 6 years alone. And, in January 1997, there will be at least 38 new Senators, elected since 1992. That represents an enormous infusion of new people and new ideas to this Congress. And, all this change came about without term limits and without a Constitutional amendment telling voters from whom they could or could not choose to represent them. But even with these historic changes, proponents of this amendment would still have us believe that we need term limits in order provide greater choices for the American people. Instead, term limits would limit the alternatives of the American people, because they would be precluded from voting for an incumbent. Abrogating the right of the American people to freely choose their leaders subverts the democratic principles and full rights of franchise that are every American's birthright. Over the past few days, I've listened to the debate here in the Senate. And over and over I've heard the recurring notion that America needs term limits in order to prevent lawmakers from being contaminated by special interests and institutional corruption. I've served in the Senate for 16 years and my belief in the dignity of public service has not dissipated. And when I look around this body at my fellow Senators I see other dedicated public servants. I see men and women who withstand personal attacks on their character; I see men and women who give up both their privacy and a stable family life; I see men and women who labor tirelessly in these halls for one reason and one reason only--because they want to make America a better country. Now, we may not agree on every issue. In fact, some of us may not agree on any issues. But whatever our personal beliefs, our goals and our reasons for being here are the same--to uphold our duty to our constituents, the Constitution and most important the American people. And what about all those who came before us? The great leaders from both sides of the political aisle who have served in this austere body: Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Everett Dirksen, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Russell, Sam Ervin and today Robert Byrd and Bob Dole, to name a few. Were they corrupted by their tenure in the United States Senate? Or was their experience integral in helping them pass legislation that made this nation a better place to live? I for one think it is the latter. But, if we passed this amendment the hard-earned experience of lawmakers would be supplanted by a dramatic increase in the reliance on permanent staff, lobbyists and special interests. Instead of ending careerism in Congress, we would create a permanent and unelected staff bureaucracy that would run the Federal Government. They would have no responsibility to the American people because unlike the so-called career politicians they wouldn't be held accountable for their actions. They wouldn't have to go to the town meetings, political rallies, Chamber of Commerce banquets and the other events that politicians in this body regularly attend to keep themselves in touch and culpable to their constituents. What's more, small States like my home State of Connecticut would be irreparably weakened. Through the seniority system, elected officials from small States can make sure that their voices are heard when important policy decisions are being made. But, if we enact term limits small States Would be shut out by larger States with greater representation in Congress. Consider that just nine States can command a voting majority in the House of Representatives. Those nine States, through their voting power, could assure that the vast majority of Federal spending be concentrated in their locales at the expenses of forty-one other States, with fewer representation and less clout. I know that this amendment is popular among the American people. But, the popular way isn't always the right way. As Senators, we must always be cognizant and accountable to the will of our constituents. But, at the same time we are sworn to uphold the Constitution. And we owe the American people the wisdom of our best judgment in maintaining that solemn duty. Adlai Stevenson once said that ``My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.'' And I think we all need to be reminded of those words when any one of us holds a view that runs contrary to the popular opinion of the American people. Today, I will cast a vote against the popular will of the American people not because I reject their beliefs, but because I must cast my ballot for what I think is best for the country. I hope my colleagues join me in upholding our Constitutional oath and rejecting this amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few moments today to commemorate the life of Robert Donovan, President of ABB Incorporated, who so tragically perished with Commerce Secretary Ron Brown in Croatia. Over the past few weeks, the Nation has come together in an outpouring of support and remembrance for the life of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. And deservedly so. Ron Brown was a great American who faithfully, and with quiet dignity, served his country and his party. But, we must not forget those in our own community who were taken away from us on that wind-swept mountain in Croatia. Robert Donovan, as well as all the others who were killed, deserve our special praise and commemoration because they died while on a humanitarian mission of mercy. Robert Donovan didn't have to travel to the Balkans. He certainly could have stayed in Connecticut. But, Robert Donovan believed, as did everyone else on that plane, that in the global economy of the 21st century, Americans have a need and a responsibility to reach beyond their borders. And, what's more, he believed the business community had a solemn obligation to do all it could to help those nations that are in the midst of the difficult process of rebuilding and reconciliation. Some may cynically suggest that Robert Donovan and the other business leaders who traveled to Croatia were interested only in a financial bottom line. But one doesn't journey to Bosnia to make money. Robert Donovan went to the Balkans because he believed that the dynamism of American business could help bring lasting peace to regions that for years knew only violence and hatred. And he believed that his efforts could make a real difference in healing the lingering anguish of ethnic violence. This spirit of altruism was evident in everything that Robert Donovan did. At a time when pundits and politicians alike have made corporate CEO's Public Enemy No. 1, Robert Donovan proved the stereotype wrong. He was a man who remained strongly committed and loyal to his workers and his company. He was as comfortable dealing with ABB employees, either in the workplace or running in the neighborhoods around this plant as he was dealing with international wheelers and dealers. And his generosity spread beyond the workplace. He took an active, personal interest in helping out at the 1995 Special Olympics World Games in New Haven. But, Robert Donovan was a man who didn't hesitate from taking on difficult tasks and that was never more obvious than on his last mission to the Balkans. And, while I know this is a difficult time for Robert Donovan's friends, family and colleagues, it is important to remember that last mission and all the tireless work that he did on behalf of ABB, his family, and his country. It's that enduring legacy that we must all remember in this time of tragedy. My thoughts and prayers remain with his wife Margaret, and his children Kevin and Kara. claudio elia Mr. President, I also wanted to take a few moments to remember another Connecticut resident who tragically perished with Commerce Secretary Brown in Croatia--Claudio Elia, of Greenwich, CT, who was chairman and CEO of Air & Water Technologies Corp. Like Ron Brown and all the others who died in Croatia, Claudio Elia was on a solemn mission of mercy and he deserves particular recognition from this body. Claudio Elia came to this country from Italy and took advantage of the vast economic opportunities available to all Americans. He started his business career in 1968 at the Boston Consulting Group and from there he quickly worked his way up the corporate ladder. In fact, Elia's value at Air & Water Technologies was so significant that it took three top executives to replace him. But, as Claudio Elia reveled in the economic opportunities that he received in his country, he traveled to Bosnia so that others would realize the same opportunities. Claudio Elia didn't have to travel to the Balkans. There are excellent business opportunities elsewhere. But, Claudio Elia recognized that in the global economy of the 21st century, Americans must often look beyond its borders for new possibilities. One of Claudio Elia's former classmates said at his funeral that: ``His presence on that flight was vintage Claudio. He was constantly pushing the envelope, looking for new opportunities and business relationships.'' And those words were most true on the final mission of his life to the former Yugoslavia. He believed that American businessmen have an obligation to play a role in helping nations that are on the difficult journey toward peace. There are those who have cynically insinuated that Claudio Elia and the other business leaders who traveled to Croatia were interested more in their financial bottom line then the well-being of the Bosnian people. Well, as I said before, one doesn't journey to Bosnia to make money. I believe that Claudio Elia and everyone else on that flight ventured to the Balkans because they shared the vision of Ron Brown. They believed that through the machinations of the free market they could make a real difference in the lives of the Bosnian, Serb, and Croatian people. They understood that even though peace had been achieved, the chance for a real and lasting peace would depend on all peoples having the same opportunity for a brighter future. Claudio Elia took with him to the Balkers who unquenchable spirit of American optimism and idealism that has infused our Nation for 220 years. That spirit was as evident when he was in the boardroom or on an overseas mission, as it was when he was sailing his yacht in the Long Island Sound or dealing with his employees in the same manner he dealt with everyone else. Claudio Elia was a man who didn't hesitate from taking on difficult tasks and that was never more obvious than on his last mission to the Balkans. And, while I know this is a difficult time for Claudio Elia's friends, family and colleagues, it is important to remember that last mission and all the tireless work that he did on behalf of his family, and his country. My thoughts and prayers remain with his wife Susan and his children Christine and Marc.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, just 2 weeks ago, this Nation was saddened and anguished by the tragic death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and 32 other Government and business leaders in Croatia. As a very close personal friend of Ron Brown's, I regret deeply, Mr. President, that I could not be here to console his widow, Alma, and his children, Michael and Tracy, in their time of grief. My thoughts and prayers today, as they have been over the last several weeks, are with the Brown family and with the families of all of the victims of this terrible tragedy. Although we have many pressing issues before us in this body, Mr. President, I want to take just a few minutes, if I can, to reflect and remember the extraordinary and distinguished legacy of Ron Brown. As I stand before the Senate here today, many thoughts come to mind, Mr. President, about Ron Brown--civil rights activists, Democratic Party chairman, Commerce Secretary, bridge builder, and certainly a very close and dear personal friend. Beyond my great sense of personal loss, Mr. President, when I think of Ron Brown I also think of public service and public servant. From all the time that I knew Ron Brown, from when he was a trusted aide to our colleague, Senator Kennedy, to when he was chairman of the Democratic Party and his last role as Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown epitomized, in my view, what public service is all about. Ron Brown labored tirelessly for what he believed in. It seemed that no obstacle could prevent him from attaining his goals. At a time when respect for public service and public servants has diminished, when pundits too often cynically demean those who serve America, Ron Brown presented the quiet dignity that comes with superb public servants. Ron believed that one person committed to a task with conviction in their heart could make a difference, and he certainly did. His labors were the embodiment of George Bernard Shaw's timeless words, ``You see things, and you say why; but I dream things that never were and say why not.'' On April 3, when Secretary Brown's plane crashed in Croatia, Mr. President, I was in Ireland to fulfill a long-standing commitment. Together with Ambassador Jean Kennedy Smith and Prime Minister Bruton, we attended and participated in a wonderful memorial service dedicate to Ron Brown's memory at St. Patrick's Cathedral. I say as an aside, Mr. President, we anticipated 30 or 40 people would show up, maybe from the Embassy staff, to come by and pay their respects. In fact, over 500 people unannounced showed up at the cathedral that morning to participate in that service. I want to thank Dean Stewart, who was in charge of St. Patrick's Cathedral, along with other members of the clergy from throughout Ireland who participated that morning, as well as some very distinguished people who sang and purchased musical pieces in memory of Ron Brown, not to mention the 500 people that came from across the island of Ireland to express their sense of loss. For all of us there that morning, Mr. President, our remembrances of Ron Brown hearken back to the visit he had made to Ireland 2 years ago, to which I was a member, a trip not unlike the one to Croatia, involving some 15 chief executive officers of businesses in this country, as well as others from the House and the Senate that were part of an economic mission to Northern Ireland. A visit, Ambassador Smith reminded us, which led to President Clinton to dub Ron Brown an ``honorary Irishman,'' and it was mentioned again by her that morning at St. Patrick's Cathedral. Ron Brown, Mr. President, had come to Ireland with an ambitious but challenging goal: To make the dream of peace during the formal cease-fire in Northern Ireland a reality. Certainly, it was no easy task, as we know, even today. For anyone who knew Ron Brown, there were not too many challenges that phased him. While I had known him for many years, it was on that trip to Ireland that I had the opportunity to see firsthand the enthusiasm and optimism that infused him. Remarkably, Mr. President, I watched an African-American man, born and raised in Harlem, with no ethnic or religious connection to Ireland, come to that island and champion the peace process and the opportunities for economic development. While on that trip, Ron Brown became the first U.S. Cabinet secretary to make an official visit to Belfast. The success of Ron's trip to Ireland prompted President Clinton to send Ron on many other missions across the globe, including the one to the former Yugoslavia, a mission which ended so tragically on that rainy and wind-swept mountain in Croatia. This final mission, Mr. President, was one of many that Ron tirelessly made to the world's troubled spots promoting American companies and American workers. As Secretary of Commerce, on one level, Ron's job, of course, was to promote U.S. business interests, which he did very, very well. But for all who knew Ron Brown well, his interests ran much deeper than that. Ron Brown used the legitimate goal of increasing U.S. economic opportunities as a means of advancing other interests as well. Ron traveled to many places that are beginning the difficult journey toward reconciliation and economic revitalization because, as a public man, a public servant, he believed that the dynamism of private enterprise could help bring lasting peace to regions that, for years, had known only violence and hatred. But Ron Brown understood that these trips were about more than just helping business or free enterprise. As Ambassador Smith noted in her eulogy in Dublin a week ago, these trips were truly--to use her words-- ``peace and democracy missions, too, missions of hope and idealism.'' Mr. President, these trips were about promoting the importance of work, and the notion that through economic opportunity, the process of political reconciliation could begin and, more importantly, could last. In the absence of it, of course, no permanent healing will ever occur. From Ron Brown's earliest days, at his first job carrying records and reading public service announcements at WLIB-AM, a radio station in Harlem, he understood the critical importance of work. He understood that there is nothing as rewarding, for individuals or a nation, as waking up in the morning, going to work, and coming home in the evening knowing that you have earned a true wage. That is why Ron Brown went to Ireland and so many other places, and it is why he was in the Balkans on that tragic evening. Ron Brown knew that after the peace treaties were signed and when the guns were finally laid to rest, the possibility of a truly lasting peace anyplace around the globe would depend on every person having the same opportunity to realize today the dream of a far better tomorrow for themselves and their families. When Ron Brown journeyed to the Balkans, he took with him the unquenchable spirit of American optimism. He sought to use American enterprise and the American can-do spirit to promote economic development as a means of bringing a truly lasting peace. And he sought to heal the lingering anguish of ethnic violence with a promise of a brighter future for all the peoples of the region. Ron Brown leaves this world, Mr. President, with an amazing legacy. He was the first African-American to head a major political party in our country. He was the first African-American to be Secretary of Commerce. He rebuilt the Democratic Party, and he certainly helped to elect President Clinton in 1992. He used the Commerce Department to create millions of jobs for American workers and spread the doctrine of economic development and cooperation across the globe. Ron Brown enjoyed a full and all-too-brief life on this Earth and must be a source of inspiration to all of us, in not just Government, but in our Nation as a whole. In Ireland, Prime Minister Bruton described Ron Brown in these words, which I think bear repeating--as a role model ``for those looking for inspiration as to how a life can be led for the good of others.'' Ron Brown understood, Mr. President, that our lives must have purpose and direction. And we can best remember him by emulating the way he lived his life. Mr. President, I think the poet Ralph Waldo Emerson said it well when he said, ``I expect to pass through this world but once. Any good therefore that I can do or any kindness that I can show for any fellow creature, let me do it now. Let me not defer or neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.'' Ron Brown's life symbolized these solemn words. While he passed through our world, Mr. President, he did good. He showed kindness and, regrettably--so regrettably--he will not pass this way again. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the comments of our Ambassador, Jean Kennedy Smith, along with an article that appeared in the Irish Times, which captured, as well, the remarks of Prime Minister Bruton, who spoke at the memorial service in Dublin, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, first of all, I have two sets of remarks I want to make on separate subjects. The first has to do with the subject matter that has been discussed already this morning over a period, I gather, of some 75 minutes. That is, of course, the 1-year anniversary of the tragedy of the bombing in Oklahoma City. Allow me on behalf of my constituents, if I may, of the State of Connecticut, to express condolences to our colleagues here from Oklahoma as well as to the people of Oklahoma, particularly the people of Oklahoma City, and of course the family, friends, and associates of the 168 people who lost their lives a year ago today in one of the worst, if not the worst, incidence of terrorism in the history of the United States. In addition, among that 168 people who lost their lives a year ago, Mr. President, 19 were innocent children, mostly in a day care center in that building in Oklahoma City. Of the rest, the vast majority, as we know, were Federal employees, Government workers. It was not, apparently, just any building in Oklahoma City that was the target of this deranged individual or individuals, as only time will tell through the various proceedings, it was a Government building and it was Government employees. They did not belong to any particular cause, these employees. They were not opposed because they were a particular group of people engaged in some political activity. They were people that worked at HUD and the Social Security Administration, the Veterans' Administration, people that were going to work that morning, doing what they do across this country in a building like it, serving our constituents. Because they were Government employees in a Government building, and because people had decided they needed to send a message about their Government, they were targets, including 19 innocent children. This was a crime committed, obviously, by a violent, aberrant American or persons. We all know that. I think it is important to remember that the vast majority of Americans were repulsed by what happened, that they wholly reject violence as a method of political change in this country, and that all of us share in the grief that the families and friends of the people of Oklahoma and Oklahoma City are remembering today. Mr. President, on behalf of my constituents and certainly myself and our office here, we wish to express our deepest condolences to those people and to rededicate ourselves here to take all necessary steps to try and stop those who would engage in that kind of activity as a way of expressing their political views. I point out that I supported the antiterrorism bill yesterday, as most of us did in this body. I felt it could have been a stronger bill, Mr. President. I must say that. I deeply regret we did not take additional actions such as identified by our colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, and others to strengthen the hand of law enforcement in areas where, for instance, people on the Internet now, instruct people how to make bombs with the intent that they be used--we do not prohibit that. We cannot allow our military forces at the direction of the Attorney General to step in where terrorism may be used. I think that is regrettable. I think we ought to be able to use our forces where appropriate. That is not in the bill. It was struck from the bill. Hopefully, we can come back and make some of these changes and strengthen the legislation. Nonetheless, it is a positive step forward. I am glad Congress has gone on record in pressing its opposition to terrorism, and hope we can do more in the coming weeks and months before this Congress is adjourned. The major point today is that all of us here, not to use this as a forum somehow to express our oppositions to various policies, but at least for a moment or two, to express our deep, deep sense of sorrow to the people of Oklahoma City, and particularly to the families and friends of the 168 individuals who lost their lives.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I commend our two colleagues. It has been a long ordeal, dealing with this very important piece of legislation. They deserve our universal acclaim for their efforts. It was a very good process in our committee. As the chairman of the committee, Senator Kassebaum, pointed out, this particular proposal was unanimously voted out of committee. To the credit of all of our members on the committee, Republicans and Democrats alike, we all have ideas that we would have liked to have incorporated in this legislation. But the agreement was that we would try and limit the bill to those areas where there was consensus, so that we could deal with the problems that 25 million Americans face today. With the passage of this legislation, and a Presidential signature, we would solve the problems immediately for 25 million Americans. It would immediately solve the problems they face with portability and preexisting conditions--not to mention some of the proposals in the leadership amendment, which the Senator from Kansas pointed out we all agree with and go back many years supporting. We have a wonderful opportunity here. It has been almost since last August that this bill came out of committee. We are almost in May now, and the weeks are rolling by. Here is a chance to do something for 25 million Americans, without getting into a real disagreement and argument over a controversial proposal--the medical savings accounts. Madam President, I would like to spend a few minutes on that particular subject matter. I will leave the remarks I have inserted in the Record that go to the general provisions in the bill, which have been discussed today at some length. I compliment my colleague from Kansas and my colleague from Massachusetts for doing a remarkably fine job in putting those provisions together. I have inserted the letter from the United Mine Workers because there has been some discussion here on the floor that this was one organization that has a medical savings account. Without reading the entire letter, let me read paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the letter: The UMWA has been grossly misrepresented by these groups who have wrongly counted us as supporters in their effort to waken the health care system through Medical Savings Accounts. In recent collective bargaining agreements, we have negotiated a comprehensive health care plan for our members. Our members also receive a bonus and are responsible for paying equivalent deductibles under their medical plan. This plan is not an MSA. Representing more than 200,000 working and retired coal miners and their dependents, the Mine Workers know that MSAs are not a panacea for the health care crisis. It would be unthinkable to leave such a group of people, many of whom suffer from injuries or disease brought on from working in the mines, dependent on MSAs for their health care coverage. I think that is important, since their names have been used as an example of an organization with an MSA, and by implicit suggestion that they are supporters of MSA's. I voted twice for medical savings accounts, back when we considered the larger health care package. I am proud of those votes. I have no inherent objection to the idea of a medical savings account. But they need to be, as the Senator from Kansas suggested, in the context of a larger discussion of health care. Whether you agreed or disagreed with the large health care proposal of a year or so ago, in that context, medical savings accounts make sense. In the absence of it, you are running the risk of leaving people aside who cannot afford to get into these programs. It is very controversial, too. As many have pointed out, the major insurance groups and consumer groups, which rarely agree on these matters, all agree on this point--that this could create some real problems. They all agree that this would segment and undermine the insurance market. They would divide the health care system and cater to the healthier and wealthier people at the expense of those with financial constraints, leaving those in traditional plans to pay a higher price tag on health care costs, as their risk pool shrinks and as the percentage of individuals with serious health conditions increases. They point out that according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, it would cost taxpayers about $1.8 billion. Again, I am not talking about one group versus another. The insurance industry, consumer groups, the Blues, are not saying that they are totally opposed to this, but that in this context, it does not make a great deal of sense. I also point out there have been some studies done on the medical savings accounts. According to the Congressional Budget Office, medical savings accounts could threaten the existence of standard health insurance, placing a far greater burden on lower-income patients, individuals with chronic ailments, and patients with disabilities, who have larger out-of-pocket expenses. The Blue Cross Blue Shield of Ohio, as the Senator from Kansas pointed out, says, ``MSA's would bankrupt our current system of financing health care and significantly add to the cost of medical care.'' That is their language, not mine. The American Academy of Actuaries said, ``Less healthy individuals will likely pay more for their coverage, since the most healthy and highest persons in the group are likely to select MSA programs.'' That is not the Senator from Connecticut, or the Senator from Massachusetts, or the Senator from Kansas. That is the American Academy of Actuaries speaking. We have a wonderful opportunity to deal with something we all agree on, in a bipartisan way. The current bill is bipartisan, as we have some 60 cosponsors. Why take on an MSA issue that is highly controversial with major private sector groups and consumer groups that are saying, ``Please do not do this''? This is not the right suggestion at this hour. It jeopardizes what we could do for 25 million Americans, by eliminating the problem of portability and preexisting conditions, issues that we all agree on. I do not know of anybody who stood up and suggested that we ought not to make those changes. We have the chance to do that in a bipartisan way. If you add the MSA's, given all the arguments raised by the private sector, consumer groups, and others, including the American Academy of Actuaries, and the Blues, who have looked at this issue carefully, then you do great damage and jeopardize what we can accomplish this afternoon by passing a good bill and showing the American public we care about their concerns and we are determined to see to it that they are addressed. I strongly urge the adoption of the Kassebaum amendment to strike the MSA provisions, adopt the other provisions, and then adopt this overall piece of legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Seven minutes.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, 2 years ago the 203d Congress spent a great deal of time discussing the merits of comprehensive health care reform. The Committee on Labor and Human Resources held more than 40 hearings debating the issue. And in the end those opponents of comprehensive reform, who said we needed to go slow, won the day. I, for one, thank that was a mistake. But, at the same time, I understand the apprehension of my colleagues about comprehensive reform. Well today, the legislation before us today--the Kassebaum-Kennedy Health Insurance Reform Act--gives us the opportunity to pass sensible, incremental and common-sense health reform measures that will help millions of Americans. This bill may not solve every problem in our health care system. But, it is good public policy. And it will make a real difference in the lives of millions of Americans. And if we, as a body, believe that American workers should not live in fear of losing their health care when they change their job, then we must pass these sensible reforms. In fact, recollecting our debates from 2 years ago, it's hard to imagine that this bill would not pass on a unanimous vote. Not once in our many committee meetings did any member argue for the preservation of exclusions based on preexisting conditions. Not once did anybody argue against insurance portability. Even while we were debating health care reform on the Senate floor, not once did anybody raise objection to the sort of market reforms that are included in this bill. the health care problem And, I think we all recognize the huge scope of the problem. Almost 40 million Americans have no health care insurance. Approximately 12 million of those uninsured are children under the age of 21. In my State of Connecticut, 300,000 people were uninsured in 1993. That is 12.1 percent of the population, up from 9.7 percent in 1992. That's a 25 percent increase. In fact according to a recent poll, 22 percent of Connecticut Residents who needed health care did not go to a doctor or receive health care services because it was either too expensive or simply inaccessible. These are unacceptable statistics, and they make clear the need for reform. job lock And, throughout Connecticut and the Nation as a whole, millions of others live in fear that if they change their job, they will lose their health care as well. Various surveys have found that as many as 30 percent of Americans report that either they or a family member suffer from job lock. Too many Americans are being forced to stay at a job because they simply can not afford to lose their health care coverage. But if this legislation passes, the provisions in this bill would relieve as many as 3 to 4 million Americans from the burden of job lock. kassebaum-kennedy is a good first step While I think that even my colleagues Senator Kennedy and Senator Kassebaum would agree that this bill will not solve every problem with America's health care system, it is a crucial step in the right direction. The Kassebaum-Kennedy would limit exclusions for pre-existing conditions. It would allow small businesses to form purchasing alliances, which would be a difference for the 30 percent of employees at firms with 10 or less workers who do not have health insurance. And most important it would guarantee to every American worker that if you change your job, you will not lose your health insurance. The GAO estimates that 25 million Americans would be helped by this legislation. These are common sense reforms and I believe that is one of the main reasons this bill is receiving huge bipartisan support. The Kassebaum-Kennedy bill not only has more than 60 cosponsors, of which I am one, but it also passed our committee unanimously. clean bill With this clear level of bipartisan support it is hard for me to understand why many of my colleagues are insisting on offering amendments to this bill, that they know will make it impossible for it to pass. Unfortunately, over the past few years it has become increasingly difficult for this body to reach compromise on any issue. I think all my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, bemoan this lack of bipartisan agreement. And today we have a bill with over 60 cosponsors, with wide bipartisan support and with endorsement from much of the health insurance industry and yet several of my colleagues stubbornly insist that we allow amendments to be tacked on to this bill. In particular, the insistence of some of my colleagues to add medical savings accounts, or MSA's, to this bill threatens the enactment of any health reform measure this year. We all have provisions we would like to see included in this legislation. I, for one, would like to see greater health care coverage for our Nation's children. But, this is not the time to be focusing on our individual projects, particularly at the expense of genuine reforms that we can all agree upon. Today, we have the opportunity to help 25 million Americans with the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill and applying MSA's or any other provision to this bill will only undermine that effort. The Kassebaum-Kennedy bill truly represents common sense, effective reform. These are reforms that will spare millions of Americans the pain and suffering of losing their health care or being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Today, we have a historic opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of millions of Americans. As I do not need to remind most of you, cynicism toward Congress runs rampant in this Nation. Too often the American people look to Washington and they shake their head at the partisan political games we play. In the last two elections they have demanded that we start working together, Democrats and Republicans, and pass legislation that makes a real difference in their lives. And I believe that if we polled the American people and asked them: Should Congress remove preexisting conditions in the health insurance industry? Should Congress make health insurance more portable? Should Congress guarantee that if you lose your job you do not lose your health insurance? I think, the vast majority of the American people would respond with a resounding yes. So today, let us uphold our responsibility to the American people and pass these sensible and commonsense reform measures. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated today from Cecil E. Roberts, international President of the United Mine Workers of America.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this Friday will be the first anniversary of the brutal and cowardly bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. One hundred and sixty-nine Americans, including 19 children tragically lost their lives in this terrible act of domestic terrorism. A year later, that terrorist bombing continues to tear at the Nation's soul. As we continue to mourn the loss of so many innocent lives, our hearts go out to the survivors, the families of the victims and the courageous residents of Oklahoma City who have already begun the difficult healing process. However, part of the process of healing begins with the pursuit of justice. And for the past year, law enforcement officials have tirelessly labored to see that the full force of the law is brought to bear on the guilty parties. And soon, the trial against the alleged bombers will begin. But, as we continue the process of providing answers to this terrible tragedy--the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil--we must find new and innovative ways to prevent such acts in the future. That's what this bill is all about. While no one will argue that this legislation, or for that matter any legislation, will finally and completely end terrorism, we must take the necessary steps to deter terrorists from their deadly actions. We must make it more difficult for them to kill and injure. And we must ensure that they are swiftly brought to justice. President Clinton deserves praise for moving forcefully in that direction by submitting a comprehensive counter-terrorism proposal to Congress, after the Oklahoma bombing. Unfortunately, in the year since the President introduced that proposal, Congress has dragged it's feet on this legislation. What's worse, I believe, many of the strongest elements of this bill have been watered down or eliminated by the House of Representatives. Several provisions that would make it easier for law enforcement agencies to utilize multipoint and emergency wiretaps against suspected terrorists were removed. The failure to include these wiretap provisions in the final conference report create a situation where it is easier for the FBI to tap the phone of someone they suspect of bribing a bank officer than someone who may be prepared to engage in a terrorist act. What's more, this conference report prevents the Attorney General from requesting technical and logistical support from the military if our Nation faced an emergency involving biological and chemical weapons. This provision was deleted even though I think everyone in this body would agree that the military has far more expertise in matters of chemical and biological weapons than our law enforcement agencies. It's particularly disheartening that while these provisions were overwhelmingly agreed to by the Senate, they were removed from the final conference report because of the intransigence of the other body. Similarly, while we need to find ways to prevent prisoners from abusing the legal process, by filing meritless appeals, we must ensure that those people who have been unfairly convicted have some legal recourse. Unfortunately, I believe that the habeus corpus reform measures in this bill are ill-advised. They limit the ability of inmates to raise claims of innocence based on newly discovered evidence and also require Federal courts to defer to State courts on issues of Federal constitutional law raised by these claims. However, while I feel this legislation could be further strengthened if it were recommitted to the conference, there are enough positive elements in the bill that allow me to vote for it. This counter-terrorism legislation provides Federal law enforcement officials with the proper means to investigate and prevent terrorism. It establishes new Federal offenses to ensure that terrorists do not elude justice through gaps in the current law. Similarly, it increases penalties for terrorist actions. And it gives new assistance to victims of terrorist attacks, including provisions that will make it easier to bring lawsuits against States that sponsor terrorism. Combined, these steps will give law enforcement important new tools to use in the fight against terrorism. Although it is not perfect, this bill will not only help the Nation prevent terrorist acts but it will also help hold terrorists accountable for their actions. The bombing in Oklahoma made clear just how vulnerable we all are to these terrible acts of violence. And ultimately, I believe this legislation will make Americans safer from the scourge of international and domestic terrorism.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to join my colleague from Maryland in thanking our colleague from New York, the chairman of the committee, and others for putting this together. I want to commend as well my colleague from Maryland, who has done a very fine job in helping to fashion this resolution. I join with him and the chairman of the committee and others in hoping that we will be able now over the next several weeks to conduct a thorough and complete and fair investigation. I will say, Mr. President, there are many people, of course, on this side of the aisle who, frankly, in fact, may have voted, if there were a recorded vote, may have voted even against that resolution, who felt that we should have wrapped this up and it is over with. So there is no recorded vote on this, and apparently there will be none. So there will be no actual recording, but Members can obviously speak for themselves. I would have voted for this resolution if there was a recorded vote. I want my colleagues to know that. It would not be any great surprise to my colleague from New York if I say to him, Mr. President, that I would do so with great reluctance because I, frankly, would have liked to wrap this up earlier. So I read this and see this as a determination now to conclude our work by the 14th of June, with a couple extra days to get our report done. That is our goal and our determination. Certainly our colleague from New York has made it clear to us that that is his intent as well. We respect that and take that. The distinguished majority leader has indicated that as well. So we have a lot of work, I know, to do in the coming weeks. But we are confident we can do it and bring this to a conclusion. It has been a long process, Mr. President. I think, as someone pointed out, it may be the longest set of hearings in the history of the Congress on a particular matter like this. Someone may challenge that, but certainly in modern Senate history, I think, the longest record, the longest set of hearings, at great cost. I am not speaking now exclusively of our work here, but the overall investigation. So the American public, I think, wants us to complete our work on this. Also, I point out that because this is a special committee but made up primarily of members of the Banking Committee--of course, the chairman is the chairman of the Banking Committee as well--there is a great deal of work we have to do on the Banking Committee before this Congress ends. Our colleague from California has a number of issues that she is interested in. Senator Murray, from the State of Washington, has mentioned several issues she is interested in, along with our colleague from Maryland and others. So our sincere hope is that not only will we get this done, I say to our colleagues--I know many are asking the question: Are you really going to get your work done? I am saying here we are going to have this done on June 14, a report several days afterward, and our Banking Committee is also going to get its work done on other issues that have been raised as well that should be addressed. With that, Mr. President, I commend my colleague from New York, my colleague from Maryland, our ranking member, for bringing this to a final conclusion. We will have our work done by June 14.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, about a month ago, the survivors of the Nuremberg Tribunal met here in Washington for their 50th reunion. The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal holds a special significance for me because of the role my father, Senator Thomas Dodd, played as an executive trial counsel at the tribunal. Those who participated in the Nuremberg tribunal deserve a special place in our Nation's history. At the end of World War II, when the heinous atrocities of the Holocaust were revealed to the world, the inevitable impulse to lash out in retaliation against those responsible would have been understandable. But, in Nuremberg the hand of vengeance was steadied by the belief in the rule of law. Thus, our triumphs on the battlefield led to the ultimate triumph of our ideals in the Palais of Justice in Nuremberg. This is the legacy of Nuremberg and all those who participated in the tribunal. I ask to have printed in the Record a list of all those who were attended the recent reunion as well as my remarks at the 50th reunion celebration. The material follows: Remarks of Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Third Nuremberg Reunion, March 22, 1996 Let me first say what a great pleasure it is to be here this afternoon and surrounded by so many people who played such an important role in my father's life. My father often said that his participation in the Nuremberg trials was the seminal event of his public life. The fifteen months he spent in Germany, prosecuting Nazi war criminals, defined the type of lawmaker he would become and dictated the issues that he so passionately fought for throughout his career in the Senate. My father came away from Nuremberg with a greater understanding and fervor for the need to uphold freedom and human rights and to speak out against intolerance, tyranny and violence wherever it may rear its head. It's why he campaigned so vigorously to establish genocide and crimes against humanity as violations of international law. It's why, he was such a fervent advocate for the civil rights movement in this country. And it's why he fought so hard as a United States Senator to eradicate the scourge of gun violence and drug use from our nation's streets. While I take great pride in the role my father played at Nuremberg, my appreciation for your efforts at Nuremberg is just as great. When the gas chambers, death camps and wanton destruction that Nazism had wrought on Europe was revealed, you were burdened with a grave responsibility. To not only punish the guilty but to reassure the world that future generations would never forget the horrors and atrocities of the Nazis. It was no easy task, particularly when the weight of the living was compounded by the ghosts of history that stood behind you. At Nuremberg, your voice spoke for the millions of innocents who drew their final breaths at Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Dachau. At Nuremberg, your vigor and energy guaranteed that the millions, who suffered so egregiously-- from London to Leningrad--would see justice prevail. And at Nuremberg you affirmed that those who committed the worst atrocities the world has ever witnessed would ultimately be held accountable for their crimes. Reading through my father's letters the frustration and challenges that all of you must have felt at one time or another comes through clearly. But, what is even more apparent are the deep character, humanity and integrity of all those who toiled so emphatically in the name of justice and the rule of law. I think my father sums it up best in one of his letters: ``Sometimes a man knows his duty, his responsibility so clearly, so surely he cannot hesitate--he does not refuse it. Even great pain and other sacrifices seem unimportant in such a situation. The pain is no less for this knowledge--but the pain has a purpose at least.'' But as these words remain relevant and enduring today, so too are the legal doctrines and precedents that Nuremberg established. Nuremberg enshrined into international law the principles that war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide would not be tolerated. It declared that respect for human rights was an international responsibility to be maintained and venerated by all nations of the Earth. And, it held that evil would not be faceless. Those responsible for crimes against humanity would be exposed to the world. I think the words of the chief prosecutor in Nuremberg, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, are eloquent reminders of the goals of Nuremberg: The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated. However, while my father left Nuremberg with invaluable lessons that compelled him to fight for freedom and human dignity around the world, the international community largely ignored the lessons of Nuremberg. My father, like many of you in this room, left Nuremberg envisioning a world in which the rule of law would deter future tyrants, and where international tribunals would mete out fair, yet swift punishment to those who would commit crimes against humanity. Sadly, that vision for the future remains unfulfilled. If we had taken the lessons of Nuremberg to heart, the ghastly killing fields of Cambodia might have been averted. If the international community had forcefully enshrined the legal precedents of Nuremberg, the perpetrators of atrocious violence in the past half-century, from Idi Amin and Pol Pot to Saddam Hussein and Chairman Mao would have been forced to explain their behavior under the harsh spotlight of international jurisprudence. Regrettably in 1996, the legacy of intolerance and hatred that was prosecuted at Nuremberg lives on in the smoldering suburbs of Sarajevo and in the mass graves of Kigali. But, commemorating your accomplishments of the past gives us reason to redouble our efforts for the future. Now, just as at the end of World War II, we stand on the cusp of a new international era. We have the opportunity to make good on the lessons of Nuremberg and enshrine into international law the notion that those who violate the norms of basic human rights will not escape from the long arm of the law. Today we can see those efforts take flight, as the international community is working to bring suspected war criminals to trial in Bosnia and Rwanda. These tribunals seek to punish those responsible for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity while at the same time begin the process of reconciliation for countries torn apart by violence. Without justice in Bosnia and Rwanda the cycle of violence may only continue. Effective and fair tribunals will silence the calls for retribution and remove the heavy burden of collective guilt from entire communities. Let us remember that not all Serbs or Hutus are murderers. Most seek only to enjoy the ``quiet miracle of life.'' They strive for simple normalcy. They want only to raise their children in peace, and make an honest living among neighbors in which they have only trust, and not fear. These tribunals will punish those Serbs and those Hutus who are guilty. But, at the same time it will allow the vast majority of people, who have committed no crime, to work with their neighbors in beginning the national healing process. Yet, these tribunals serve another effective role: Demonstrate to future criminals that ultimately they will be held accountable. Some scoff at the notion that international tribunals can prevent future genocides. But, the Hutu murderers in Rwanda took inspiration from the failure of the international community to act after similar ethnic massacres in Burundi. Much in the same way that Hitler took inspiration from the world's failure to react to the Armenian genocide in 1915. In 1993, 50,000 ethnic Hutu and Tutsi were savagely murdered while the international community did nothing to stop the violence. In addition, they failed to establish any system whereby the perpetrators would be brought to justice. The result was an emboldened Hutu majority, who had little fear of punishment from the international community. There is no better way to make this lesson clear to all the world's would-be tyrants and murderers than through the establishment of an permanent international tribunal to prosecute those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. At the dedication ceremony for the Thomas Dodd Research Center at the University of Connecticut, President Clinton called for the creation of a permanent international tribunal. I commend him for his foresight. And I call on all of us, who understand so well the importance of international tribunals, to work with the President and other world leaders to permanently enshrine the legacy of Nuremberg into international law. A permanent international tribunal would send a clear signal to those intent on committing terrible atrocities that they will be held culpable for their behavior. Will an international tribunal stop all future atrocities? Regrettably, no. There will be more Yugoslavias, more Rwandas, and more Burundis. But, a permanent international tribunal will create a lasting framework for the prosecution of war criminals. It will prevent justice from being contingent on ad hoc measures such as those we've seen in Bosnia. And it will quicken and normalize the implementation of humanitarian laws. As I don t have to remind you, establishing an international tribunal and prosecuting war criminals can be a messy, patchwork operation. In Nuremberg, there were few legal precedents by which to model the trial. In particular, new doctrines and concepts in international law had to be created. ``War crimes, may be familiar to us today,'' but in 1945 they were not defined in any international or even national legal sense. The same can be said of crimes against humanity, which was a concept that remained untested in international law. In Nuremberg, you not only had to prosecute Nazi war criminals, but you had to establish the international laws under which they would be tried. As Justice Jackson noted in his opening statement at Nuremberg: ``Never before in legal history has an effort been made to bring within the scope of a single litigation the developments of a decade, covering a whole Continent, and involving a score of nations, countless individuals, and innumerable events.'' But, the creation of a permanent tribunal would revamp the currently ad hoc nature of international tribunals. It would streamline the process of prosecuting those who commit crimes against humanity. But most important, it would serve as an enduring tribute to your tireless labors at Nuremberg on behalf of the international rule of law. In many ways the question of international jurisprudence and the rule of law, while maybe mundane to some is the embodiment of the spirit of Nuremberg. After the surrender of Germany and once the ghastly atrocities of the Holocaust had been revealed to the world the impulse to lash out in vengeance at those responsible for these crimes would have been understandable. Some leaders echoed these thoughts. Winston Churchill, in fact, called for the execution of Nazi leaders, without trial. But, the United States and its Allies ended this war the same way they had fought it, by embodying, as Abraham Lincoln once said, ``the better angels of our nature.'' The struggle of World War II is as close as any civilization will find to a pure struggle between good and evil. And not only did the forces of good triumph on the battlefield, but they triumphed in the courtroom at Nuremberg as well. When millions of innocent Jews stood on the railroad sidings at Auschwitz, Treblinka and Dachau to be chosen for the gas chambers they were unjustly stripped of their rights and their liberties. They weren't granted the right of due process. They weren't given the right to defend themselves or speak on their own behalf. In the concentration camps, the only form of justice was down the barrel of a gun. But at Nuremberg, the Allies recognized that the only antidote to savagery and inhumanity is justice. That s why defendants were given the right to defend themselves, that's why they were given the right to choose their own legal representation and that's why three of them were acquitted of all charges. Whatever the legacy of Nuremberg on international law, my father and every person in this room can look back to Nuremberg and remember that when the deafening calls for vengeance were heard you silenced them with the sounds of justice. Once again, I hark back to the words of Justice Jackson in describing these actions: ``That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.'' Looking through my father's letters, I came across a wonderful anecdote from his time in Nuremberg. After only a few weeks in the country he had the opportunity to go to a baseball game at the same Nuremberg stadium where ``Hitler corrupted and misled the youth of Germany.'' But on that day the voices of evil that had once found shelter in Nuremberg were replaced by 40,000 Americans doing the ``most American of things''; watching a baseball game and calling the umpires names and the players ``bums.'' In many ways, something as wholesome and American as baseball is a wonderful metaphor for the triumph of American optimism, American ideals and American democracy over the forces of intolerance and depravity, represented by Nazism. In Nuremberg, America's commitment to democracy and the ideals enshrined in our Constitution remained intact even in the face of unspeakable horror. In many ways this is the ultimate legacy of Nuremberg; that our triumph in arms led to the triumph of our ideals. When historians look back at the events that unfolded in the Palais of Justice in Nuremberg 50 years ago, it is that proud legacy they will remember. And today it is our responsibility to make sure that heritage lives on for the next generation. For the past 50 years, through wonderful books such as Telford Taylor's ``The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials'' and now the research facilities at the Dodd Center in Connecticut, you've kept the events of a half-century ago burning bright in the world's eyes. Tirelessly, you've worked to illuminate the lessons of those bygone days to a world that so quickly forgets the lessons of history. Our duty today is to build on that proud tradition with the creation of a permanent international tribunal to prosecute war crimes. I can think of now better way to give your labors at Nuremberg a truly lasting, enduring, and tangible imprint on human history and all of mankind. Participants in the Nuremberg Trial and Third Nuremberg Reunion Joan McCarter Adrian, John M. Anspacher, Esq., Beatrice Johnson Arntson, Marvin F. Atlas, Carrie Burge Baker, Ruth Holden Bateman, Henry Birnbaum, Esq., Dr. John Boll, Madelaine Bush, Helen Treidell Carey, Edith Simon Coliver, James S. Conway, Esq., Donald H. Cooper, Esq., Raymond D'Addario, Esq., Mr. & Mrs. Vernon W. Dale, Christiane Deroche, Mary Turley Lemon Devine, Nicholas R. Doman, Esq., Mr. & Mrs. Arthur Donovan, Esq., Allan Dreyfuss, Esq., Mr. & Mrs. Demetrius Dvoichenko-Markov, Mary Crane Elliott, Hedy Wachenheimer Epstein, Margo Salgo Fendrich, Theodore F. Fenstermacher, Esq., Mr. & Mrs. Benjamin Ferencz, Dr. Paul G. Fried. Miroslav Galuska, Anne Royce Garcia, William H. Glenny, Judge Cecilia Goetz, Greta Kanova Goldberg, Elisabeth Stewart Hardy, Professor Whitney R. Harris, Richard Heller, Esq., Mary Madelaine Trumper Husic, William E. Jackson, Esq., Peter & Annette Jacobsen, Arnold Joseph, Esq., Arthur A. Kimball, Henry T. King, Jr., Esq., Florence B. Kramer, Richard H. Lansdale, Esq., Prof. John K. Lattimer, MD, ScD, Jennie Lazowski, Jane Lester, Margot Lipton, Andy Logan Lyon, Herbert Markow, Esq., Maxine Martin. Ralph S. Mavrogordato, Esq., Alice Blum Mavrogordato, Mary May, Alma Soller McLay, Pat Gray Pigott Mowry, Lady Marjorie Culverwell Murray, Gwen Heron Niebergall, Jeanette Stengel Noble, Betty Richardson Nute, Arthur L. Peterson, Esq., Mlle. Marta Pantleon, Joan Wakefield Ragland, Siegfried Ramler, Esq., William Raugust, Esq., Dorothy Owens Reilly, Jack W. Robbins, Esq., Walter J. Rockler, Esq., Robert Rosenthal, Esq., Phillis Heller Rosenthal, Howard H. Russell, Jr., Esq., Gunther Sadel, Esq., Mildred Clark Sargent, Walter T. Schonfeld, Julian R. Schwab, Victor Singer, Esq. Vivien R. Spitz, Drexel A. Sprecher, Esq., Prof. Alfred G. Steer, Ruth M. Stolte, Joseph M. Stone, Esq., Annabel Grover Stover, Prof. Telford Taylor, Claire Bubley Tepper, Fred Treidell, Esq., Jean Tuck Tull, Lt. Col.(ret.) Peter Uiberall, Dr. Herbert Ungar, Patricia Jordan Vander Elst, Inge Weinberger, Lorraine White, Rose Korb Williams, M. Jan Witlox, David J. Smith, John M. Woolsey, Esq., Hon. & Mrs. Wiliam Zeck, Werner Von Rosenstiel, and Lawrence L. Rhee.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I oppose H.R. 1561. I do so for many reasons. I believe that this bill is not only myopic, but it is dangerous. H.R. 1561 calls upon the President to eliminate one of three foreign policy agencies and includes authorization levels that would force the United States to withdraw from some international organizations. It overlooks the successful efforts the administration has already undertaken to reduce its expenditures. Mr. President, the United States is unquestionably the strongest Nation in the world. These foreign affairs agencies are essential to U.S. leadership. H.R. 1561 undermines our strength and leadership in the world. In addition to objection to the general direction the bill takes us, there are also specific provisions that are seriously flawed. Specifically, look at how this bill treats relations with Vietnam. Section 1214 makes funding for a U.S. Embassy in Vietnam dependent upon a Presidential certification that Vietnam is fully cooperating on the POW/MIA issue. Most certainly we all want to resolve any outstanding POW/MIA cases. However, this provision isn't likely to facilitate that end. This provision, if enacted, could threaten the progress that has already been made on the POW/MIA issue. Moreover, it could restrict the President's ability to pursue our national interests in Vietnam and put United States firms at a competitive disadvantage. Second, it terms of U.S. participation in the United Nations, this bill provides inadequate funding levels for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. The United States is already $1.2 billion in arrears to the United Nations. Besides being irresponsible, this outstanding obligation thwarts our influence in the United Nations and impedes our diplomatic efforts to reform the institution. Even Namibia, one of the poorest countries in the world with a GDP 86 times less than the United States, has paid up. That, Mr. President, is shameful. Third, H.R. 1561 fails to resolve the limitations on U.S. population assistance programs placed in the fiscal year 1996 foreign operations appropriations legislation. Such restriction will have a serious, detrimental impact on women and families in the developing world. These restrictions will cause an estimated 7 million couples in developing countries to be without access to safe, voluntary family planning services. And what will the result be? Millions of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Mr. President, I am sure that none of my colleagues want to see this happen. Mr. President, I conclude my statement by reiterating that H.R. 1561 is shortsighted, dangerous, and that I vigorously oppose it. I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting against the conference report.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few moments today to speak about the death of former Senator Edmund Muskie. I first met Ed Muskie during his visits to my family's house in Connecticut more than 30 years ago as he traveled back to Maine from Washington. And like my father before me--I was honored to serve with him in Congress. I came to greatly admire and respect his leadership, his conviction, his knowledge and his great devotion to public service. Edmund Muskie was a truly dedicated member of this body for 22 years. He served both the people of Maine and all the American people as a committed and able legislator. And when his party and his President called on him he answered. He twice ran for national office as a Democrat: Once for Vice-President in 1968 and once for the Democratic nomination for President in 1972. And he finished his career as Secretary of State, under President Carter in 1980. Throughout his more than two decades of public service Ed Muskie was ahead of his time in his efforts to keep our environment clean and America's fiscal house in order. He earned the apt nickname ``Mr. Clean'' for his pioneering work on the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, both of which he shepherded through the Senate. Generations from now, when Americans are enjoying our safe and healthy air and water, they should thank Edmund Muskie for having the foresight and vision to place a clean environment on top of the political agenda. And even before the era of exploding federal deficits in the 1980's, Edmund Muskie strived to bring fiscal discipline to Congress, as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. Yesterday, former President Jimmy Carter said he had ``never known any American leader who was more highly qualified to be President of the United States.'' And it is to the American people's misfortune that a man of such principle never had the opportunity to reach the Oval Office. As a fellow Democrat and Northeasterner I remain committed to the policies that Edmund Muskie so energetically championed as a U.S. Senator. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife Jane, his children, his friends and the people of Maine.