Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield on this point for a little discussion?

Mr. DODD. I want to pick up on this radical idea of equal opportunity of education. I know this is terribly radical----

Mr. DODD. Then you can do all three.

Mr. DODD. All right.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 459 for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for consideration of the modification.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. It is technical. I apologize; you have not seen it. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent to send a modification to the desk.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed.

Mr. DODD. This is anything but that. If you had to apply one word to the underlying proposal, if you had to pick out one word in the English language that is supposed to be the hallmark of this Elementary and Secondary Education Act, I would suggest the word would be ``accountability.'' That is the one word we have heard repeated over and over and over again. This bill, if adopted, will require accountability of students because we will mandate a Federal test at the local level. It is Uncle Sam, the Federal Government, mandating a Federal test, a Federal standard. So accountability can be achieved at the student level. We demand accountability of the local school districts. And if those districts do not achieve a level of achievement or performance, then there is the danger of losing Federal dollars. We demand accountability of teachers in this bill. We are insisting upon certain standards of performance, Uncle Sam saying that teachers at the local level must perform at a certain level. In a sense, we are demanding accountability of parents by insisting that their children do better and that parents be involved. My point simply is this: We are demanding accountability of children, of parents, of teachers, of local school boards, of mayors, of schools themselves, and ourselves in a sense, but the one entity that escapes any accountability at all is States. I know States are wrestling with this issue. But requiring comparable efforts to achieve equal opportunity of education is not a radical idea. If we are demanding that an eighth grade or third grade student pass a test, should a Governor of a State or a school board or some entity at the State level escape any less accountability of whether or not our States are doing what is necessary for our schools and our schoolchildren to do better? So that is what this amendment does. It says, look, after 4 or 5 years, we want to know that States are insisting upon a comparable--not identical--comparable educational opportunity in schools. The word ``comparable'' is carefully selected. The word is 36 years old in the context of education. In 1965, we said there must be comparable educational opportunity within school districts. I come from a State of 3\1/2\ million people. There are school districts in this country that have more children than in all of my State: Los Angeles, Houston, New York. I do not know about Detroit, the major city of the Presiding Officer, but there are school districts in this country that have more children in them than exist in many of our States, where we have mandated, for 36 years, comparable educational opportunity. Is it such a quantum leap to say that States ought to provide comparable educational opportunity at the State level? We are demanding it of kids. We are demanding it of districts. Shouldn't our States meet a similar standard? That is all we are doing with this amendment. And if they fail to do so, the penalty is to be determined by the Secretary of Education, which would only involve administrative funds. This is not some sword of Damocles hanging over students. We are not cutting off title I funding. We are saying, if you do not meet these standards, then the Federal Government will not provide administrative funds. We leave that up to the Secretary to determine the extent of that penalty. My colleague from New Hampshire is no longer in the Chamber, but I want to read a statement, if I may, that sort of explains what I am trying to do. This statement reads as follows: There is nothing fair or just about taxing a home or other real estate in one town at four times the rate that similar property is taxed in another town to fulfill the same purpose of meeting the State's educational duty. Compelling taxpayers from property-poor districts to pay higher tax rates and thereby contribute disproportionate sums to fund education is unreasonable. Children who live in poor and rich districts have the same right to a constitutionally adequate public education. That radical statement is from a decision by the Supreme Court of the State of New Hampshire. The Supreme Court of the State of New Hampshire is saying property taxpayers in that State ought not to be disproportionately burdened, rich versus poor, to provide an equal opportunity for education. That is all this amendment is saying. It does not federalize education. It does not say to New Hampshire or to Connecticut or to Michigan how you ought to do this. It just says: Do it any way you wish. You decide what comparable educational opportunity ought to be. But whatever it is in your respective States, then it ought to be available to every child in that State whether they live in a rich town or a poor town. That is all this says. Madam President, I refer my colleagues to the New Hampshire Supreme Court case at 123 Ed. Law Rep. 233. The New Hampshire Supreme Court decision says it better than I could, that you should not ask towns of disparate wealth to have their children get a disparate educational opportunity. That is not any great leap of logic. In a sense, this idea that the Federal Government is all of a sudden reaching into our States or our local districts at a level unprecedented in the history of our country is to deny the reality. Since 1965, we have said: Comparable educational opportunity in school districts. We have said: If a child brings a gun to school and is not automatically expelled, we cut off your Federal money in local communities. We have said that an individual education plan for every child with a disability must be in place. That is the Federal Government mandating that. If you don't, we cut off all your money. Comparable educational services within the district goes back to 1965. There must be State standards for curricula that are the same for every child or you lose Federal funds. This is already the law of the land. I am just suggesting that the States must submit these plans and take steps to implement them. And I do it over the next 6 years, by the way, the life of this bill, the same period of time we are going to be testing every child in America based on this bill. We are going to test apparently every teacher based on this bill. We are going to threaten title 1 funds to local districts under this bill. We are threatening parents with untold problems if we cut off funds to rural and urban schools and there is no other alternative for them. We are asking of everybody in the country to be more responsible. I would like to add States to that list of political entities and individuals from whom we are seeking a higher degree of responsibility. Call that radical if you will. I don't think it is. Why should they get by? Why do the States or the Governors get a pass on this? If you are going to test a kid, why not test a Governor or a State? If you are going to test a teacher, why not test whether or not a State is doing its best to provide comparable educational opportunity? Many States are trying. Regrettably, some are not. The Governors and the State authorities across this country know of whom I speak with this amendment. If we are saying to some school districts that many feel are not doing an adequate job--and there are many who have told anecdotal stories throughout the debate on this bill about school districts that are failing to meet their responsibilities; I accept that as the truth. There are school districts not doing what they ought to be doing when it comes to children's educational opportunities. I accept the fact there are teachers out there who are not teaching very well and superintendents and school boards that are failing in their responsibilities and parents who are as well. If all of that is true, don't stand there and tell me that every State is meeting its obligations because they are not. This amendment merely says they ought to. If this bill is going to be fair to everybody, if 94 cents of the education dollar comes from local property-tax payers or State funds and only 6 cents from the Federal Government, and if we are demanding a standard of ourselves on 6 cents, then we ought to demand at least some accountability from our States with the 94 cents they are responsible for when it comes to educational needs at the elementary and secondary level. As I said a moment ago, many States are doing their best. They are achieving comparable educational opportunity. This is not identical. I am using the words that have been on the books dealing with education issues since 1965. Comparable educational opportunity must exist within school districts. There are school districts that have student populations in their districts which exceed the student populations of most States. If we demand accountability of school districts numbering hundreds of thousands of kids--that comparability, not identical, comparable--why not ask the States to do that? They lecture us all the time. I have listened to Governors tell us about one problem after another concerning what needs to be done. Is this somehow an immune class from consideration? I don't think so. This amendment is reasonable. It is not excessive. If we are asking accountability, if that is the mantra on this bill, accountability for everybody--and I agree with that; it is overdue--then States ought to also get in line when it comes to taking that test that we are going to demand of everybody. Over the next 6 years, let everybody become more responsible. Let everybody become more accountable--every child, parent, teacher, school board, superintendent, principal, and, yes, Governor and State as well. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Just to inform my colleagues, and the managers of the bill, my intention is to take about 6 or 7 minutes to discuss the Dodd amendment, and then there will be time tomorrow, obviously, to go into this a bit further. I do not know if any agreement has been reached on when we can vote on this amendment. I have no intention of delaying action on this legislation. I do not know if my colleague from Massachusetts or my colleague from New Hampshire would like to agree on a time, but we can vote on the Dodd amendment at a time that is convenient for the managers of this bill. I know there are other amendments that need to be considered. My desire is to get to a vote and not to delay consideration of the bill. But let me go back a bit, if I may, and try to make clear that my good friend--he is a wonderful friend, and there are very few Members on either side of the aisle whose intelligence I respect more than the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Judd Gregg. He is extremely bright, knowledgeable, and cares a lot about these issues. He suggested that my amendment is one of the most intrusive suggestions by the Federal Government in the area of elementary and secondary education in maybe the history of mankind, I guess. He is nodding in the affirmative, so I guess he probably agrees with that statement of mine.

Mr. DODD. I want to get to the point of radicalness, which my friend raised as the hallmark behind this amendment. I address this to my colleague. Under existing Federal law, the question is, Do we not require State standards for curricula that are the same for every child, and any child who brings a weapon to school--by the way, you lose Federal funds if you don't--is automatically expelled by Federal law, or you lose funds? In addition, an individual education plan is required for every child with a disability, or you lose Federal funds. There must be comparable educational services within the school districts, or you lose Federal funds. That has been on the books, by the way, since 1965. The word ``comparable'' is not synonymous with identical. We are trying to do comparable opportunities or comparable curricula to achieve equal opportunity. We are not breaking new ground. My question is with this since we do it already in five or six areas. We have identified one that goes back at least 36 years.

Mr. DODD. The modification extends the time under which the provisions of this amendment ask the States to provide an additional 2 years for a waiver period. I ask unanimous consent our colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, for joining in this effort. I thank our colleague in the other body, a Member by the name of Chaka Fattah, of the city of Philadelphia, for being the source and inspiration of this amendment. He is behind this amendment, and he has very eloquently made the case. This amendment has value and importance. I begin my brief comments by thanking the distinguished member from the city of Philadelphia and the State of Pennsylvania for his contribution in what I think is a worthwhile idea. I expect this to provoke debate and even significant opposition. It may not pass, but at some point this issue must be addressed if we are ever going to effectively deal with some of the incredible inequities that exist across this great land of ours in servicing the 50 million children who enter our public schools as elementary or secondary school students. I thank Senator Biden, Senator Reed, and Congressman Chaka Fattah. The amendment encourages States to ensure that all students receive a comparable education as measured by class size, teacher quality, curricula, technology, and school safety. I note, of course, that the Presiding Officer is a former Governor. He will add particular value to this discussion and debate as someone who has had to grapple with these very issues. The amendment allows States 4 years to comply and allows for a waiver of up to 2 years for extraordinary circumstances, such as the precipitous decline in State revenues or other circumstances that the Secretary of Education determines are exceptional that prevent a State from providing comparable education services to all students. Equal opportunity, as we all know, is a very fundamental right in our society. It is why people from around the globe have dreamed of coming to this land, why thousands every day circle U.S. embassies all over the world seeking visas to come to the United States, seeking permanent status as residents. For over 200 years, the notion of equal opportunity has been a hallmark of our society. We don't guarantee success; we guarantee everyone an equal opportunity to achieving success. This amendment goes to the very heart of that discussion and that debate. In 1965, we created the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--that was more than 35 years ago--to make equal opportunity the centerpiece of our educational laws. It is making a difference. A 1999 study found students receiving title I funds increased their reading achievement in 21 of 24 urban districts in America and increased their math achievement in 20 of 24 urban districts. I quickly add, while this is an improvement, it is not yet success. Clearly, we are heading in the right direction. Our common hope is that this bill, once adopted, adds to that success. A study published earlier this year concluded: Whenever an inner city or poor rural school is found to be achieving outstanding results with its students by implementing innovative strategies, those innovations are almost invariably funded primarily by title I. Title I is not making enough of a difference because we are still not providing school districts with sufficient resources, in my mind and in the mind of a majority of our colleagues, to close this achievement gap. During the debate, the Senate overwhelmingly adopted, by a vote of 79-21, an amendment I offered, along with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, to establish the goal of fully funding title I within the next 10 years. This education bill will require States to set a goal of having children be proficient in reading and math in 10 years. The least the Congress can do is to set a goal of providing school districts with the resources that will help children achieve those goals. That is the reason behind the amendment adopted so overwhelmingly just a few weeks ago. Title I means more teachers, more professional development, more computers, textbooks, more individualized instruction, more preschool and afterschool programs and other reforms that will be necessary, if, in fact, these students are going to continue to improve and achieve the accountability standards. As the vote on the Dodd-Collins amendment demonstrated, even a strong majority of both parties support devoting more resources to education, particularly to the neediest students in our country, so those resources can be included in a budget resolution which could be stripped out by those who seek to reduce the support for title I. No one questions the need to hold schools accountable for student achievement. Accountability without resources is an empty shell. This is a problem with virtually every State in the Nation. According to the Department of Education, when comparing all districts in this country, high-minority districts receive less than other districts on a combined cost and need-adjusted basis. This means high-minority districts which may often have greater concentrations of high-need students, have less buying power, thus fewer resources to meet the needs of students in their schools. Since high-minority districts in most States are operating with less total revenue than low-minority districts, these districts have less revenue to provide the educational programs and services their students need to achieve the high standards and prepare to enter higher education or the workforce. In 42 of 49 States recently studied by the Education Trust, school districts with the greatest number of poor children had fewer resources per student than districts with fewer poor children. During the 1980s and 1990s, 43 States faced legal challenges to their school financing systems, calling for equity of resources and services. Many State courts held their systems violated State constitutions. I do not intend to suggest by my remarks here for this amendment that States should unnecessarily become the targets of some opposition. That is a difficult problem that States are facing. My State is a classic example of one that has wrestled with this disparity of educational opportunity. These problems have deep roots, they go back a long way, and they affect States all across the country. But we are going to say in this bill that in school districts, if there are schools there that are not performing and there is a series of steps and criteria they must meet, then we the Federal Government are saying to those districts: You are going to have to shut them down. We have also even suggested at the national level that we might get rid of the Department of Education. We are saying to local communities, do the following things or you pay a price. We even suggest at the national level, if we do not do certain things, something else may happen here. The one political equation that is sort of left out of all of this is at the State level. That is the one political entity that has an awful lot to do with determining what happens in terms of equality of opportunity within our respective 50 States. That is what this amendment is designed to do. It says in this bill: Communities, you have to do a better job. It says the Federal Government has to do a better job. What my amendment says is the third party to all this, the States, they also have to do a better job in seeing to it that there is equality of opportunity. Let me cite, if I can, the example of my home State, Connecticut. In the 1980s, Connecticut, with an increasingly low-income, minority, and limited-English population, has pursued a constant strategy to try to ensure all its students are taught by high-quality teachers. Just to put this in perspective, Connecticut is a relatively small State. It is about the size of Yellowstone National Park, if you want to use that as a comparative model. Yet within that same State, I have some of the most affluent Americans in the country. In fact, my State is often identified as the most affluent State on a per capita basis. I would quickly add that the city of Hartford, our capital, is the eighth poorest city, and Bridgeport and New Haven and Waterbury are not very far behind. In the midst of this very small piece of territory, I have great affluence and I have significant poverty. My State is willing to try to provide some sharing of resources, if you will. As we know, in most of our States, education is funded primarily by local property taxes. So a child growing up in one of my more affluent communities--obviously there are more resources there to provide the full educational opportunity. In my poorer communities, that has not been the case. States wrestle with this. But I think it is not too much for us at the Federal level, since we are demanding so much of school districts, to also ask this of our States. We know it is not easy. We know it is going to be very hard for school districts to live up to this and meet all the obligations we are going to be demanding in this bill. But people like Chaka Fattah and Joe Biden and Jack Reed of Rhode Island and myself believe it is also not too much to say to our States: We want you to do a better job at this as well because so much of the resources and determination are going to come from States. Remember, the Federal Government contributes about 6 cents out of every educational dollar. Mr. President, 94 cents for the education of elementary and secondary school students comes from the States and localities, the bulk of it coming from localities in most jurisdictions. So we are saying to our States, as we are saying to our communities, we want you to do a bit better. Today I point out my State, Connecticut, regularly receives top rankings in assessments of reading, math, science, and writing. Connecticut has also increased its targeting of resources to low-income school districts. The State provides 27 times more resources per student to the lowest income districts compared to the highest income districts. Nevertheless, by and large we enter the 21st century with a 19th century system of providing resources for our educational system. In large part, we still do this, as I mentioned a moment ago, with local property taxes. That may have made sense in the 19th century, even in a good part of the 20th century when children in Hartford competed with children in New Haven, or maybe with children in New York--occasionally some child in Pennsylvania. That was true in the 19th century. In the 20th century, of course, children growing up in my State or anyplace else across the country are not just competing with each other or neighboring States. They will be competing with children in Beijing, in Moscow, in Paris, in Sydney, Australia. It is a global economy and we have to have an educational system in this country that prepares all children to compete effectively in that kind of marketplace. It is no longer enough in the 21st century to say we are going to leave this up to whatever the resource allocation may be in some rural county in the West, or some urban district in the East or Far West. We at the Federal level, I think, have to do more if we are going to be demanding greater accountability of students and school districts in rural and urban settings--then it should not be too much to ask it as well of our States. It made less sense, of course, as the 20th century progressed in this era of competition, but certainly it makes no sense as we enter the 21st century and children from Hartford, Chicago, and Los Angeles compete with children all over the globe. The children today will be the first generation born, raised, and educated in truly a global economy. This amendment recognizes that by asking States, along with the Federal and local government, to share the responsibility--share it, so ensuring children's access to quality education is not dependent on how much money their parents make or their race or whether they live in a city or a suburb or rural area. Unfortunately, because of our current system, that is the case de facto. That is the case. Children growing up just a few short miles from each other have entirely different educational opportunities based on the total coincidence of their birth. In one locality that is poor, and one that is affluent, opportunity is not equal. It is not equal. If we are going to truly talk about an Elementary and Secondary Education Act from a Federal perspective, a national perspective, then it seems to me we have to recognize that fact. There is not equal opportunity of education in America. So, if we do not begin to demand that more steps are taken to achieve that equal opportunity of education, then these resources, as we send them around the country without regard to what the States may be doing, ends up, I think, producing little improvement in the results we have seen over the last few years. Schools with the highest concentrations of minority students have more than twice as many inexperienced teachers as schools with the lowest concentration of minority students. Schools with high concentrations of minority students are four times as likely as schools with low concentrations of minority students to hire teachers not licensed to teach in their main teaching field. Urban and rural schools, poor schools, are twice as likely to hire unlicensed teachers, or teachers who had only emergency or temporary licenses. Of course, subject matter knowledge and experience make for better teachers and higher student achievement. We all know that. Yet according to a recent report, there is pervasive, almost chilling difference in the quality of teachers in schools serving poor, urban, and rural students than those serving children in the more affluent communities in our country. Urban districts and poor rural districts suffer in the quality of curriculum. For example, they are significantly less likely than suburban districts to have gifted and talented programs to provide challenges beyond the regular curriculum. According to the Department of Education, white students are significantly more likely than African-American students or Hispanic students to use a computer in a school. According to Education Week, students in the highest poverty schools are barely half as likely to have Internet access in their classrooms as students in the lowest poverty schools. Internet access is also a problem in rural areas, where it is expensive for companies to lay cables necessary for access. The director of technology for one rural district said: Not only is there a digital divide, but we live in it in rural America. These disparities affect not only these children's educational achievement but their ability to find a job in an increasingly technological workplace when they finish school. Not surprisingly, these inequities also persist in the quality of school buildings that serve different children. Schools with higher concentrations of minority students generally are in worse condition than those with lower concentrations of minority students. Schools with more than 50 percent minority enrollment are twice as likely as schools with 5 percent minorities to be in temporary buildings or to be in inadequate condition. Research has shown a direct relationship between the quality of the school's facilities and student achievement. Again, this goes to the accident of a child's birthplace: Two children, usually in the same State, with very different opportunities for achievement. What we are asking in this amendment is for school districts to do better. We are asking ourselves to do better. Is it really some outrageous leap for the Federal Government to be asking the States to do better as well in seeing to it that there is a better allocation of resources to provide a greater equal opportunity for education? We can't simply impose accountability, as I said earlier, on a system that allows one school to have lower class sizes, better teachers, more technology, and better materials and another school that has none of those things and expect that equal opportunity to exist. President Bush and Secretary Paige have often said that every child has the ability to learn. I could not agree more. Every child has the ability to learn. Without question, the achievement gap is not the result of our children's failings. It is not their fault, not as they start out in school. It is not because poor kids or minority kids or urban kids or rural kids are any less smart or any less ambitious or any less determined to do well than their counterparts in more affluent districts. No. It is largely because we have not supplied the same support to these poor children, and urban and rural children, and minority children in school districts around this country. It is the result of our failure to spend more than one penny of every Federal dollar for K- 12 education. One penny of every Federal dollar--less than that--goes for the education of our children in this country. It is also the result of an outdated system of allocating resources at the State and local level. This bill is about responsibility. We have heard that word used often during the debate on this legislation over the last number of weeks-- about everyone who is involved in our children's education taking greater responsibility for their education. We are asking more from students, parents, teachers, schools, school districts, and the Federal Government. There is one word missing from that list. I have mentioned everyone responsible but one: States. I know that my colleagues, from time to time, are reluctant to go back and talk about what Governors need to do. We are lectured all the time by Governors about what we can do at the Federal level. We are not afraid of talking about local mayors or school superintendents or PTA groups or school boards. Why should we be reluctant to talk to our Governors? They are not shy about asking us to do a better job. Is it too much to ask them to do a better job? If we are going to withhold funds, as this bill does, from local school districts that do not perform better, is it too much to say to States, ``If you do not perform better, then we are going to withhold administrative costs''? We are not going to deny children title I funds, but let the States pick up the tab on the administrative costs. That is what this amendment says. We give them about 6 years to achieve that. I am not pushing it. And there are cases pending all across the country. I know States are trying hard in many cases, but I also know school districts are trying hard. This is not about whether or not you are trying hard. We are saying to people: Try harder, because our kids deserve better than they are getting today. So as we lecture school superintendents and school boards and parents and kids--and everybody else--I do not think it is going too far to say to the States: We want you to do better. That is what this amendment does. In the 1960s, Dr. Martin Luther King asked: How long will it take? How long for an end to segregation? How long for an end to inequality under the law? I ask today: How long will it take for us to refuse to tolerate an educational system in which educational opportunity--which is the foundation of all opportunity--is determined by a child's family income, or race, or accident of birth in a piece of geography that does not have the resources to support the tools a child needs to achieve his or her maximum potential? The States need to do a better job. This Federal Government--this body--ought not to shy away from asking the States to meet that responsibility, just as we have asked children. If we can ask an 8- year-old child to do a better job, we can ask a Governor to do a better job as well. Those who are doing it need not fear this amendment. But those States that are not doing anything about it need to know there is a price they will pay if they neglect this issue. I am not going to penalize a local mayor who is trying hard despite a Governor in a State who refuses to bear their share of the burden. That is what the amendment does. That is what Chaka Fattah has talked about. That is what others have suggested over the years that we ought to say today. If we are going to be tough on kids, and tough on parents, and tough on school districts, and tough on mayors, and tough on the Secretary of Education, then let's also be a little tough on our States. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. DODD. Senator Corzine wants to be heard.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend our colleague from North Dakota for his very thoughtful presentation. He has laid out the arguments against this tax bill rather well. Mr. President, we all are familiar with the famous expression of George Santayana which says that those who fail to remember the mistakes of history are destined to repeat them. I regret that we are about to do that today with the vote on this tax bill. There are a handful of us here today who were on this very floor in this Chamber 20 years ago when a similar, although smaller, tax cut was being proposed. No one doubts today the damage that proposal had on our economy over the ensuing years. Its author, in fact, the head of the Office of Management and Budget, has written extensively about the huge mistakes that Congress made in the early 1980s in crafting a tax proposal that was way out of balance, and had no sense of proportionality in terms of the economic needs of the country. It took us more than a decade to recover from that tax cut. Luckily, we began doing so in the early 1990s and, ultimately, we reached the point we are at today where we are enjoying budget surpluses. I am sure my colleagues are familiar with the mythological figure Sisyphus, the King of Corinth, who was condemned to roll a heavy stone up a hill only to have it roll down again as it neared the top. This legislation is much like Sisyphus's dilemma. Just as we start to produce surpluses, to reduce that $220 billion a year in interest payments on our national debt that don't build a new school, that don't make anyone healthier, and don't contribute to the environment, just as that rock gets up to the top of the hill, we are about to let it fall back upon us by adopting a proposal that sends us right back in the wrong direction. I am for a tax cut, and I believe we have plenty of room for one. But a tax cut of this size that eats up $1.35 trillion of the surplus in the coming years is the height of irresponsibility, especially since we don't have any real clear idea of how this Nation's economy will look 3, 4, 5, let alone 10 years from now. I regret deeply we are limited to this short amount of time to debate a proposal of this importance and significance in light of what our country experienced as a result of a similar tax cut. I hate to say this to my colleagues--I said it in 1981; I will repeat it today, 20 years later--we are about to make the same mistake again. The difference is, we will not have the time to correct it as we did with the mistake made 20 years ago. At the very hour that millions of Americans will look to us for Social Security and Medicare, this proposal is going to create a train wreck with those programs. I urge, in the waning moments of this debate, that those who may be wavering to please think again, not about the Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives. This is an excessive tax cut and one that we cannot afford. I urge our colleagues to reject this proposal. Go back to the drawing board. It is only May. We have plenty of time to do this in a far more thoughtful, prudent, and balanced way. For those reasons, I urge rejection of this conference report and urge our colleagues, whom I know have worked very hard on the Finance Committee, the Ways and Means Committee, to go back and try again to see if they can't come up with a more balanced approach that treats all taxpayers fairly and leaves room for the needy investments that America must make if it is going to be the great power of the 21st century that it has been in the 20th. With that, I yield the floor to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Westport Volunteer Emergency Medical Service. Next week, the Westport Volunteer EMS will receive the EMS Magazine ``Gold Award'' in recognition of the extraordinary vision, professionalism, and dedication of Westport's volunteer emergency medical service providers. By awarding WVEMS the ``Gold Award,'' EMS Magazine is confirming what many of us have long known: community spirit is alive and well in Connecticut and it still changes lives for the better. The men and women of the Westport Volunteer EMS are true heros--not only because they save lives--but because they are willing to do the yeomen's work that must be done to ensure that our communities are prepared to respond when the unthinkable happens. More than 120 Westport volunteers respond to more than 2,000 9-1-1 calls each year. These volunteers make a huge difference in the lives of their fellow citizens. They respond to emergencies night and day. They provide comfort and assistance to people in distress and they save lives. But they also make an enormous difference in less dramatic ways. They teach safety and emergency preparedness classes to hundreds of school-aged children and adults. They host conferences. And nearly every weekend, somewhere in the community a volunteer EMS team provides coverage at a local school athletic event or community gathering. This is the true essence of community spirit--the willingness to spend time working with your neighbors to protect and service the greater good. The Westport EMS was formally incorporated in 1979 and continues to serve the community as a division within the Westport Police Department, with on-site, standby crews 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Last year, Westport's volunteers logged 26,000 hours of community service. The entire Northeast region recently had a chance to see the Westport EMS at work when Westport hosted a regional disaster drill in the form of a simulated Amtrak train wreck at the Westport train station. More than 400 EMS, fire, police, railroad, and National Guard personnel were joined by State officials in a realistic and successful event. Recently, the Westport Volunteer Emergency Medical Service program was presented the ``Connecticut Treasures'' award in recognition of the agency's 20 years of service to the community. This same service and dedication are examples of one of America's greatest treasures--the goodness and charity of the American people. I commend the Westport EMS volunteers for their extraordinary service to their fellow citizens, and I congratulate them on receiving this much-deserved honor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I see a number of Members who may want to speak. I am going to use about 10 minutes. If my colleague has a short statement, or the Senator from Alaska does, I don't want to keep them.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise for a couple of minutes to briefly discuss the change that occurred today in the Senate and to share some thoughts, if I may. First, I think I can safely speak for virtually all of us in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle in expressing our affection for our colleague from Vermont. He has been a friend to us for many years. He is known in this body as a good and decent man. I have no doubt that the high esteem in which he has been held will continue. Secondly, I think it bears mentioning that despite the change in the caucus ratio that will soon occur, the Senate is going about its business today much as it did yesterday and much as I am confident it will in the days to come. That is how this institution functions, and whether ratios change by 1 or 2 in one direction or the other is certainly big political news for some, I guess. My guess is that the substantive work will continue much as it has, with us having to work out differences and compromise to benefit the public at large. This conduct of business according to established and familiar routines is a good sign that the Senate will to a large degree continue to operate on a bipartisan basis to accomplish the work the American public sent us here to do. This change will, without a doubt, have an impact on committee ratios, on the subject of hearings and witnesses, and on the substance of legislation we will consider, to some degree. However, just as important, it should--and I believe will--cement the need for bipartisanship in how we conduct our business and in how we govern together with the administration and the other body. We in the Democratic Caucus now share a new responsibility with our Republican friends for addressing and advancing, as equal partners, the interests of the larger American public. I know of nobody in our caucus who shrinks from or shirks that responsibility. Indeed, I think we all welcome it. Likewise for our Republican friends, bipartisanship will now become as much a necessity for them as it has been for us Democrats. Perhaps most importantly, it will not be enough any longer to embrace bipartisanship in word; we will from now on have to demonstrate it in deeds as well. I look forward to beginning this new chapter in the Senate's history with all of our colleagues. On that score, allow me to say that I hope one of the first orders of business we will take up after reorganizing will be election reform. I realize we have many important matters to consider regarding education, a Patients' Bill of Rights, prescription drugs, energy, the environment, environmental protection, minimum wage, and foreign and defense policies. The list is rather long and tremendously worthwhile. But I submit to our colleagues that election reform is also an issue that deserves our early consideration in the Senate. It is an issue of fundamental importance for the simple reason that it concerns the most fundamental of American rights, the right to vote. I know a number of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have given various opinions on this matter, and even drafted legislation. These include my colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, Senator Schumer, Senator Brownback, Senator Torricelli, and others. There are a lot of ideas kicking around on how we might improve the electoral process in this country. The list reflects a widespread and bipartisan recognition that the events of last November--not just in Florida and not just last November, but ones that have been ongoing for a number of years--illustrate that our electoral system is in need of repair and reform. With only one-half of all the eligible voters in this country participating in a Presidential election and one-quarter of those eligible voters choosing the President of the United States, then I think all of us recognize that, if we do nothing else, there is need for reform that would make this process more inclusive, to reach out to every American who is not participating in this process. I hope we will act in that recognition in the weeks to come, and I hope we will pass legislation which ensures that many of the mistakes and wrongs, if you will, in the electoral process will forever be events of the past, never to be repeated. Congressman John Conyers of Michigan and I have introduced legislation that will establish some minimum national requirements to ensure that voters, on Presidential races and races involving the National Legislature, regardless of race, disability, or language minority, will not be turned away from the polls in the next Presidential election. This legislation has well over 100 cosponsors in the House of Representatives, the other body, and 50 cosponsors in this Chamber. This bill would establish three commonsense requirements: First, that all voting machines and systems used in Federal elections, starting in the year 2004, conform to uniform, nondiscriminatory standards to ensure that no voter will be disenfranchised because of race; that blind and disabled voters can vote with independence and privacy; language minorities can read ballots and instructions in their native language; and all of us can vote with the assurance that our vote will not be canceled because of overvotes, undervotes, or outdated machinery. Second, the bill requires that all States provide for provisional voting so that no voter who goes to the polls is told he or she cannot vote because their name is not on a registration list or their identification is not good enough. Third, and lastly, the bill provides that all voters receive a copy or sample ballot with instructions on how to vote, including their rights as voters. In this Senator's view, with any legislation that doesn't include these three national requirements is simply unacceptable. Bills that only offer, on a voluntary basis, funding for States to take certain actions will not ensure that Americans--African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, the blind and disabled, and many others--working men and women across the country, can exercise their most precious right to vote and to have their vote counted. Forty-seven years ago this month, the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in the case of Brown v. Board of Education. On that May day, the Court did not rule that States could desegregate their classrooms. It ruled that they would do so ``with all deliberate speed,'' in the now famous words of that decision. Thirty-seven years ago, when we wrote the Civil Rights Act, the Congress did not say that restaurants, stores, hotels, and other public accommodations could desegregate their facilities. We decreed that they would do so, and do so without delay. When, in 1965, we passed the Voting Rights Act, the Congress did not say States could, if they so chose, do away with barriers to voting such as poll taxes and literacy tests. We said they had to do away with it because the right to vote was far too precious and too vital to be in any way denied to any American citizen based on race or ethnicity. Lastly, when in 1990 Bob Dole and President George Bush joined with George Mitchell, Ted Kennedy, and others to enact the Americans with Disabilities Act, we did not leave it to chance as to whether public facilities would be accessible to the disabled. We decided as a country that the time had come to remove those barriers to access. At critical moments, whether it was to go to a restroom or a restaurant or to have access to a hotel or any other public accommodation, we said that people had the right to be there, and in the case of a voting booth, it certainly ought to hold no less a status than a restaurant, restroom, hotel, or any other public accommodation. People ought to have the right to be in that voting booth, to cast their vote and have it counted. At critical moments in our history, such as those I just enumerated, our Nation has been resolved in advancing the cause of equality and freedom. We have not settled for voluntary measures when fundamental rights were at stake. I believe the same resolve is called for at this moment in our history when we know that so many Americans, perhaps millions, were denied the right to vote and the right to have their vote counted. With the same resolve demonstrated in times past, we can assure that will never happen again in America as it was so unjustly denied to many in the previous elections. I urge my colleagues to take a look at the proposed legislation. When we return after the break, I invite any comments, thoughts, and ideas on how this bill can be improved, but I hope there will be strong bipartisan support for this effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Wellstone, I rise today to introduce the Leave No Child Behind Act, legislation that will address the needs of our nation's children to deliver them from poverty, violence, abuse, neglect, and poor education. This measure combines the best public and private ideas, policies, and practices into a comprehensive measure to improve the lives of all children. Not just poor children. But all children. Many Members of Congress have contributed to this legislation, adding their ideas and their thoughts, including: Senator Kennedy, Senator Jeffords, Senator Rockefeller, Senator DeWine, Senator Harkin, Senator Stevens, Senator Biden, Senator Snowe, Senator Boxer, Senator Grassley, Senator Daschle, Senator Gordon Smith, Senator Reed, Senator Chafee, Senator Wellstone, Senator Kerry, Senator Durbin, Senator Feinstein, Senator Kohl, Senator Torricelli, Senator Schumer, and Senator Bayh. A number of Members of the House have also contributed to this legislation. It is without hesitation that I say that this bill would not have been possible without the help of so many of my colleagues. For the first time in more than a generation, our budget is in balance. Indeed, we have a surplus. At long last, we can talk about meeting the needs of the future, rather than paying off the debts of the past. For the first time in decades, we have an opportunity to put children first, to move them out of poverty, to end their hunger, to heal their wounds, to enrich and inform their minds. We are on the verge of doing what many of us have long dreamed of doing for America's young people. The legislation we are introducing today represents a vision for children in the 21st century. It's more than a bill. More than pages of legislative language. It's a covenant that we are entering into today. Not only with each other, but with those who will stand in this place long after we have gone. It's a declaration that we need to put children first, and that we intend to put children first. In doing so, we put America first. A question that we must all ask ourselves and ask this country, is, what should our highest priority be? When I ask this question, the response I most often receive is our children. Children are one-quarter of our population. But they are one hundred percent of our future. Despite that fact, they are getting a fraction of our attention and a fraction of our resources. Having languished in budget deficits for years, we now have the largest projected federal budget surpluses in the history of this Nation. We have witnessed unprecedented prosperity. We are so lucky to live in this free and dynamic society, a Nation at peace, of such great wealth. But some are not so lucky. Some families struggle through each day. They live paycheck to paycheck. Their children are hungry. They're cold. They might have difficulty following the teacher's instructions on the blackboard because they can't see it clearly. But their parents haven't taken them to the doctor because they don't have health insurance. Over 12 million children live in poverty. Nearly 11 million children have no health coverage. About 7 million children go home alone each week after school. This is America, too. The legislation we are introducing today is called, ``An Act to Leave No Child Behind''. We are committed to one principle beyond all others. Not just as a slogan, but as a means to define an urgent national priority. Regrettably, however, for some those words are slogans, and nothing more. There are those who utter the words ``Leave No Child Behind'' in front of microphones and television cameras. They have adopted the words as a political mantra, repeating it endlessly during ``photo- ops'' with children and in press conferences with reporters. We need to make sure that we not only talk about leaving no child behind, but that we actually take steps to do so. Introducing this bill is the first step. Every word on every page is focused on the same purpose--lifting our children up, giving each child an opportunity, helping each child to have a safe and rewarding life. Under the Act to Leave No Child Behind, every child in America would have health coverage. No child in America would go to bed at night aching from hunger. We would use our tax code to lift millions of children out of poverty. It's time to ensure that every American child has an opportunity to attend Head Start, Pre-K, or child care to begin a lifetime of learning. That every American child can read by 4th grade, and read at grade level. It's time to take dramatic new steps to address the needs of children who are abused and neglected every year. Those who are truly committed to leaving no child behind will support this bill. It's about priorities. It's about values. As we speak, Congress is considering how to spend our nation's surplus. Sadly, a disproportionate share of that surplus will not go to our nation's children, but to those who least need our help and attention. Most of the surplus will go to the tax cut. And, most of the tax cut will go to those who are doing the best in our society, those who least need a helping hand or a step up. Are those the values that we want to instill in our children? That as a Nation we care not for those who need our help most? It's time to take a stance for children. It's time to invest in the needs of our children. Not in a token way, but in a real way. A meaningful way that will make a difference in a child's life. We have the resources. The time is right. If we join together, we can transform this Nation and give each and every child his God-given right to grow and flourish to all he can be. To grow to his or her fullest potential. We want an America where all children can realize their dreams. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the Act to Leave No Child Behind be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Wellstone, I rise today to introduce the Leave No Child Behind Act, legislation that will address the needs of our nation's children to deliver them from poverty, violence, abuse, neglect, and poor education. This measure combines the best public and private ideas, policies, and practices into a comprehensive measure to improve the lives of all children. Not just poor children. But all children. Many Members of Congress have contributed to this legislation, adding their ideas and their thoughts, including: Senator Kennedy, Senator Jeffords, Senator Rockefeller, Senator DeWine, Senator Harkin, Senator Stevens, Senator Biden, Senator Snowe, Senator Boxer, Senator Grassley, Senator Daschle, Senator Gordon Smith, Senator Reed, Senator Chafee, Senator Wellstone, Senator Kerry, Senator Durbin, Senator Feinstein, Senator Kohl, Senator Torricelli, Senator Schumer, and Senator Bayh. A number of Members of the House have also contributed to this legislation. It is without hesitation that I say that this bill would not have been possible without the help of so many of my colleagues. For the first time in more than a generation, our budget is in balance. Indeed, we have a surplus. At long last, we can talk about meeting the needs of the future, rather than paying off the debts of the past. For the first time in decades, we have an opportunity to put children first, to move them out of poverty, to end their hunger, to heal their wounds, to enrich and inform their minds. We are on the verge of doing what many of us have long dreamed of doing for America's young people. The legislation we are introducing today represents a vision for children in the 21st century. It's more than a bill. More than pages of legislative language. It's a covenant that we are entering into today. Not only with each other, but with those who will stand in this place long after we have gone. It's a declaration that we need to put children first, and that we intend to put children first. In doing so, we put America first. A question that we must all ask ourselves and ask this country, is, what should our highest priority be? When I ask this question, the response I most often receive is our children. Children are one-quarter of our population. But they are one hundred percent of our future. Despite that fact, they are getting a fraction of our attention and a fraction of our resources. Having languished in budget deficits for years, we now have the largest projected federal budget surpluses in the history of this Nation. We have witnessed unprecedented prosperity. We are so lucky to live in this free and dynamic society, a Nation at peace, of such great wealth. But some are not so lucky. Some families struggle through each day. They live paycheck to paycheck. Their children are hungry. They're cold. They might have difficulty following the teacher's instructions on the blackboard because they can't see it clearly. But their parents haven't taken them to the doctor because they don't have health insurance. Over 12 million children live in poverty. Nearly 11 million children have no health coverage. About 7 million children go home alone each week after school. This is America, too. The legislation we are introducing today is called, ``An Act to Leave No Child Behind''. We are committed to one principle beyond all others. Not just as a slogan, but as a means to define an urgent national priority. Regrettably, however, for some those words are slogans, and nothing more. There are those who utter the words ``Leave No Child Behind'' in front of microphones and television cameras. They have adopted the words as a political mantra, repeating it endlessly during ``photo- ops'' with children and in press conferences with reporters. We need to make sure that we not only talk about leaving no child behind, but that we actually take steps to do so. Introducing this bill is the first step. Every word on every page is focused on the same purpose--lifting our children up, giving each child an opportunity, helping each child to have a safe and rewarding life. Under the Act to Leave No Child Behind, every child in America would have health coverage. No child in America would go to bed at night aching from hunger. We would use our tax code to lift millions of children out of poverty. It's time to ensure that every American child has an opportunity to attend Head Start, Pre-K, or child care to begin a lifetime of learning. That every American child can read by 4th grade, and read at grade level. It's time to take dramatic new steps to address the needs of children who are abused and neglected every year. Those who are truly committed to leaving no child behind will support this bill. It's about priorities. It's about values. As we speak, Congress is considering how to spend our nation's surplus. Sadly, a disproportionate share of that surplus will not go to our nation's children, but to those who least need our help and attention. Most of the surplus will go to the tax cut. And, most of the tax cut will go to those who are doing the best in our society, those who least need a helping hand or a step up. Are those the values that we want to instill in our children? That as a Nation we care not for those who need our help most? It's time to take a stance for children. It's time to invest in the needs of our children. Not in a token way, but in a real way. A meaningful way that will make a difference in a child's life. We have the resources. The time is right. If we join together, we can transform this Nation and give each and every child his God-given right to grow and flourish to all he can be. To grow to his or her fullest potential. We want an America where all children can realize their dreams. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the Act to Leave No Child Behind be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to respond to some of the things that were said earlier, just to kind of bring this to closure from this Senator's perspective, if I may, and I ask for an additional 10 minutes.