Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. No argument there.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to help avoid the growing problem of credit card indebtedness. This legislation is fairly straightforward. It would not prohibit people younger than 21 from obtaining a credit card. It simply requires that when issuing credit cards to persons under the age of 21, the issuers obtain an application that contains: 1. the signature of a parent, guardian, or other qualified individual willing to take financial responsibility for the debt; or 2. information indicating that the young person has a job or some means of repaying any credit extended; or 3. proof that applicant has completed a certified credit counseling course. One of the most troubling developments in the hotly contested battle between credit card issuers to sign up new customers has been the aggressive way in which they have targeted people under the age of 21, particularly college students. Solicitations to this age group have become more intense for a variety of reasons. First, it is one of the few market segments in which there are always new customers to go after; every year, 25 to 30 percent of undergraduates are fresh faces entering their first year of college. Second, it is also an age group in which brand loyalty can be readily established. In the words of one major credit card issuer: ``We are in the relationship business, and we want to build relationships early on.'' In fact, most people hold on to their first credit card for up to 15 years. Many, if not most, credit card issuers exercise prudence in issuing cards to young people. But some credit card issuers do not. They target vulnerable young people in our society and extend them large amounts of credit with little if any consideration to whether or not there is a reasonable expectation of repayment. As a result, more and more young people are falling into a financial hole from which they were unable to escape. Experts estimate that the current economic downturn could force a record 1.5 million Americans into bankruptcy this year. About a third of them will be in their 20s and early 30s. According to the American Bankruptcy Institute, just five years ago, only 1 percent of personal bankruptcies filed were by those age 25 or younger. By 1998, that number had risen to nearly 5 percent. Financial regulators, including the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, have stated that loans made without consideration of the borrower's ability to repay constitutes an ``unsafe and unsound'' business practice. They have criticized such lending practices as ``imprudent.'' Thus, an economic downturn coupled with ``imprudent'' lending practices could have a devastating effect not only on credit card consumers, but on financial institutions, as well. The business practices of many credit card companies on college campuses are extremely troubling. Some credit card issuers actively entice colleges and universities to help promote their products. According to University of Houston Professor Robert Manning, during the next five years, banks will pay the largest 250 universities nearly $1 billion annually for exclusive marketing rights on campus. A recent ``60 Minutes II'' piece vividly illustrated the impact that credit card debt can have on college students. A crew form the show, on a major public university campus, and with the use of hidden cameras, filmed vendors pushing free T-shirts, hats, and other enticements with credit card applications. ``60 Minutes II'' revealed that this university is being paid $13 million over ten years by a credit card company for the right to have a presence on campus and use the university logo on its cards. This public university is making money off students who use these credit cards, the report said. As part of the agreement, the university receives 0.4 percent of each purchase made with the cards. In a sense, this university has a vested interest in getting their students in as much debt as possible. The ``60 Minutes II'' piece also told the story of one student, Sean Moyer, and his desperate attempts to handle massive credit card debt. This student's life began to spin out of control as the huge debts he racked up in just three years of college began to become, in his mind, insurmountable. As a result of mounting credit card debts, he was unable to get loans to go to law school like he dreamed, and his parents could not afford to pay his way. So in February 1998, Sean took his own life. ``It is obscene that the university is making money off the suffering of their students,'' said Sean Moyer's mother. Sean Moyer had 12 credit cards and more than $10,000 in debts when he committed suicide nearly three years ago, she related. He had two jobs: one at the library and another as a security guard at a local hotel, but he still could not pay his collectors, she said. Even three years after her son's death, she still gets pre-approved credit card offers in Sean's name from some of the same companies that he owed thousands of dollars. One company pre-approved Sean for a $100,000 credit line, she said. Last Congress, I went to the main campus of the University of Connecticut to meet with student leaders about this issue; quite honestly, I was surprised at the amount of solicitations going on in the student union. I was even more surprised at the degree to which the students themselves were concerned about the constant barrage of offers they were receiving. These offers seem very attractive. One student intern in my office received four solicitations in just two weeks, one promised ``eight cheap flights while you still have 18 weeks of vacation.'' Another promised a platinum card with what appeared to be a low interest rate, until one reads in the fine print that it applied only to balance transfers, not to the account overall. Only one of the four offered a brochure about credit terms but, in doing so, also offered a ``spring break sweepstakes.'' Last year, the Chicago Tribune reported that the average college freshman will receive 50 solicitations during their ``first few months'' at college. It further reported that ``college students get green-lighted for a line of credit that can reach more than $10,000, just on the strength of a signature and a student ID.'' There is a serious public policy question about whether people in this age bracket can be presumed to be able to make the sensible financial choices that are being forced upon them from this barrage of marketing. While it is very difficult to get reliable information from credit card issuers about their marketing practices to people under the age of 21, the statistics that are available are disconcerting. Nellie Mae, a major student loan provider in New England, conducted a recent survey of the students who had applied for student loans. It termed the results ``alarming.'' The study found: 78 percent of all undergraduate students have a least one credit card--up from 67 percent in 1998; of those students, the average credit card balance is $2,748, up from $1,879 in 1998; and 32 percent of undergraduates had four or more credit cards. Some college administrators, bucking the trend to use credit card issuers as a source of income, have become so concerned that they have banned credit card companies from their campuses, and have even gone so far as to ban credit card advertisements from the campus bookstore. Recently, colleges around the nation, ranging from New York's SUNY Buffalo to Georgia Tech in Atlanta, have begun to ban the marketing of credit cards on their campuses. Let me touch on an important component of this amendment--credit counseling. Much as we encourage children who reach driving age to take drivers' education courses to prevent automobile accidents, we should teach younger consumers the basics of credit to avoid financial wrecks. Educating our nation's youth about the responsibilities of financial management is critical, and we do not currently do a good enough job in this area. While there is overwhelming evidence that student debt is skyrocketing, most surveys also show that this same group of consumers is woefully uninformed about basic credit card terms and issues. According to the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy, a nonprofit group which conducts an annual national survey on high school seniors' knowledge of personal finance, basic financial skills are even poorer today than they were three years ago. I agree with those who argue that there are many millions of people under the age of 21 who hold full time jobs and are as deserving of credit as anyone over the age of 21. I also agree that students should continue to have access to credit and that we should not try to prohibit the market from making that credit available. However, the period of time from 18 to 21 is an age of transition from adolescence to adulthood. As we do in many other places in the federal law, some extra care is needed to make sure that mistakes made from youthful inexperience do not haunt these young people for the rest of their lives. Federal law already says that people under the age of 21 shouldn't drink alcohol. Our tax code makes the presumption that if someone is a full-time student under the age of 23, they are financially dependent on their parents or guardians. Is it so much to ask that credit card issuers find out if someone under the age of 21 is financially capable of paying back the debt? Or that their parents are willing to assume financial responsibility? Or that they understand the nature and conditions of the debt they are incurring? Many responsible credit card issuers already require this information in one form or another. Is it too much to ask that the entire credit card industry strive to meet their own best practices when it comes to our kids? Providing fair access to credit is something I have fought for throughout my tenure in the United States Senate. And credit cards play a valuable role in assisting in their pursuit of the American dream. I do not believe that this legislation is either unduly burdensome on the credit card industry or unfair to people under the age of 21. The fact of the matter is that excessive solicitations assume that if the young adult is unable to pay, they will be bailed out by their parents. Many times this means that parents must sacrifice other things in order to make sure that their child does not start out their adult life in a financial hole or with an ugly black mark on their credit history. This measure is critical to ensuring that credit cards are both issued and used responsibly. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a letter of endorsement from Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, as well as referenced newspaper articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to help avoid the growing problem of credit card indebtedness. This legislation is fairly straightforward. It would not prohibit people younger than 21 from obtaining a credit card. It simply requires that when issuing credit cards to persons under the age of 21, the issuers obtain an application that contains: 1. the signature of a parent, guardian, or other qualified individual willing to take financial responsibility for the debt; or 2. information indicating that the young person has a job or some means of repaying any credit extended; or 3. proof that applicant has completed a certified credit counseling course. One of the most troubling developments in the hotly contested battle between credit card issuers to sign up new customers has been the aggressive way in which they have targeted people under the age of 21, particularly college students. Solicitations to this age group have become more intense for a variety of reasons. First, it is one of the few market segments in which there are always new customers to go after; every year, 25 to 30 percent of undergraduates are fresh faces entering their first year of college. Second, it is also an age group in which brand loyalty can be readily established. In the words of one major credit card issuer: ``We are in the relationship business, and we want to build relationships early on.'' In fact, most people hold on to their first credit card for up to 15 years. Many, if not most, credit card issuers exercise prudence in issuing cards to young people. But some credit card issuers do not. They target vulnerable young people in our society and extend them large amounts of credit with little if any consideration to whether or not there is a reasonable expectation of repayment. As a result, more and more young people are falling into a financial hole from which they were unable to escape. Experts estimate that the current economic downturn could force a record 1.5 million Americans into bankruptcy this year. About a third of them will be in their 20s and early 30s. According to the American Bankruptcy Institute, just five years ago, only 1 percent of personal bankruptcies filed were by those age 25 or younger. By 1998, that number had risen to nearly 5 percent. Financial regulators, including the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, have stated that loans made without consideration of the borrower's ability to repay constitutes an ``unsafe and unsound'' business practice. They have criticized such lending practices as ``imprudent.'' Thus, an economic downturn coupled with ``imprudent'' lending practices could have a devastating effect not only on credit card consumers, but on financial institutions, as well. The business practices of many credit card companies on college campuses are extremely troubling. Some credit card issuers actively entice colleges and universities to help promote their products. According to University of Houston Professor Robert Manning, during the next five years, banks will pay the largest 250 universities nearly $1 billion annually for exclusive marketing rights on campus. A recent ``60 Minutes II'' piece vividly illustrated the impact that credit card debt can have on college students. A crew form the show, on a major public university campus, and with the use of hidden cameras, filmed vendors pushing free T-shirts, hats, and other enticements with credit card applications. ``60 Minutes II'' revealed that this university is being paid $13 million over ten years by a credit card company for the right to have a presence on campus and use the university logo on its cards. This public university is making money off students who use these credit cards, the report said. As part of the agreement, the university receives 0.4 percent of each purchase made with the cards. In a sense, this university has a vested interest in getting their students in as much debt as possible. The ``60 Minutes II'' piece also told the story of one student, Sean Moyer, and his desperate attempts to handle massive credit card debt. This student's life began to spin out of control as the huge debts he racked up in just three years of college began to become, in his mind, insurmountable. As a result of mounting credit card debts, he was unable to get loans to go to law school like he dreamed, and his parents could not afford to pay his way. So in February 1998, Sean took his own life. ``It is obscene that the university is making money off the suffering of their students,'' said Sean Moyer's mother. Sean Moyer had 12 credit cards and more than $10,000 in debts when he committed suicide nearly three years ago, she related. He had two jobs: one at the library and another as a security guard at a local hotel, but he still could not pay his collectors, she said. Even three years after her son's death, she still gets pre-approved credit card offers in Sean's name from some of the same companies that he owed thousands of dollars. One company pre-approved Sean for a $100,000 credit line, she said. Last Congress, I went to the main campus of the University of Connecticut to meet with student leaders about this issue; quite honestly, I was surprised at the amount of solicitations going on in the student union. I was even more surprised at the degree to which the students themselves were concerned about the constant barrage of offers they were receiving. These offers seem very attractive. One student intern in my office received four solicitations in just two weeks, one promised ``eight cheap flights while you still have 18 weeks of vacation.'' Another promised a platinum card with what appeared to be a low interest rate, until one reads in the fine print that it applied only to balance transfers, not to the account overall. Only one of the four offered a brochure about credit terms but, in doing so, also offered a ``spring break sweepstakes.'' Last year, the Chicago Tribune reported that the average college freshman will receive 50 solicitations during their ``first few months'' at college. It further reported that ``college students get green-lighted for a line of credit that can reach more than $10,000, just on the strength of a signature and a student ID.'' There is a serious public policy question about whether people in this age bracket can be presumed to be able to make the sensible financial choices that are being forced upon them from this barrage of marketing. While it is very difficult to get reliable information from credit card issuers about their marketing practices to people under the age of 21, the statistics that are available are disconcerting. Nellie Mae, a major student loan provider in New England, conducted a recent survey of the students who had applied for student loans. It termed the results ``alarming.'' The study found: 78 percent of all undergraduate students have a least one credit card--up from 67 percent in 1998; of those students, the average credit card balance is $2,748, up from $1,879 in 1998; and 32 percent of undergraduates had four or more credit cards. Some college administrators, bucking the trend to use credit card issuers as a source of income, have become so concerned that they have banned credit card companies from their campuses, and have even gone so far as to ban credit card advertisements from the campus bookstore. Recently, colleges around the nation, ranging from New York's SUNY Buffalo to Georgia Tech in Atlanta, have begun to ban the marketing of credit cards on their campuses. Let me touch on an important component of this amendment--credit counseling. Much as we encourage children who reach driving age to take drivers' education courses to prevent automobile accidents, we should teach younger consumers the basics of credit to avoid financial wrecks. Educating our nation's youth about the responsibilities of financial management is critical, and we do not currently do a good enough job in this area. While there is overwhelming evidence that student debt is skyrocketing, most surveys also show that this same group of consumers is woefully uninformed about basic credit card terms and issues. According to the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy, a nonprofit group which conducts an annual national survey on high school seniors' knowledge of personal finance, basic financial skills are even poorer today than they were three years ago. I agree with those who argue that there are many millions of people under the age of 21 who hold full time jobs and are as deserving of credit as anyone over the age of 21. I also agree that students should continue to have access to credit and that we should not try to prohibit the market from making that credit available. However, the period of time from 18 to 21 is an age of transition from adolescence to adulthood. As we do in many other places in the federal law, some extra care is needed to make sure that mistakes made from youthful inexperience do not haunt these young people for the rest of their lives. Federal law already says that people under the age of 21 shouldn't drink alcohol. Our tax code makes the presumption that if someone is a full-time student under the age of 23, they are financially dependent on their parents or guardians. Is it so much to ask that credit card issuers find out if someone under the age of 21 is financially capable of paying back the debt? Or that their parents are willing to assume financial responsibility? Or that they understand the nature and conditions of the debt they are incurring? Many responsible credit card issuers already require this information in one form or another. Is it too much to ask that the entire credit card industry strive to meet their own best practices when it comes to our kids? Providing fair access to credit is something I have fought for throughout my tenure in the United States Senate. And credit cards play a valuable role in assisting in their pursuit of the American dream. I do not believe that this legislation is either unduly burdensome on the credit card industry or unfair to people under the age of 21. The fact of the matter is that excessive solicitations assume that if the young adult is unable to pay, they will be bailed out by their parents. Many times this means that parents must sacrifice other things in order to make sure that their child does not start out their adult life in a financial hole or with an ugly black mark on their credit history. This measure is critical to ensuring that credit cards are both issued and used responsibly. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a letter of endorsement from Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, as well as referenced newspaper articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Edmund T. Delaney, an accomplished lawyer, lecturer, historian and author, and a man that I felt privileged to consider a friend. Ed Delaney graduated from Princeton University in 1933 and Harvard Law School in 1936. He was a gifted attorney who practiced law for over 40 years in New York and Connecticut. He was a partner in the New London and Essex firm of Copp, Koletsky and Berall. Ed was a member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York where he served as Chairman of the Committees on Corporate Law, Law and Medicine, and Art. During his career, he specialized in investment company law, serving for 39 years as a director of the Oppenheimer Funds. Ed Delaney was also extremely active in civic and community affairs throughout his professional life, making numerous contributions to his community and to the State of Connecticut. He dedicated himself to protecting the region's rich cultural history and natural beauty. The preservation of the Connecticut River and the Connecticut River Valley was just one of the causes that he championed through his extensive writings. Ed was a former president of both the Chester Historical Society and the Chester Rotary Club, a trustee of the Connecticut Watershed Council, and a member of the Connecticut Historical Commission in Hartford. He was also a trustee of the Connecticut River Museum in Essex and he was active in the Rockfall Foundation in Middletown. Long interested in historic preservation and conservation, he was a member of the historical societies of Deep River, Essex, and Lyme, of the Antiques and Landmarks Society, and of the National and Connecticut Preservation Trusts and Nature Conservancies. He was also involved in Chester town affairs as a chairman of the Conservation Commission as a member of the town retirement board, and as a Justice of the Peace. In addition, he also served on the Middlesex County Revitalization Commission. His contributions to future generations and to the state of Connecticut were truly remarkable. Long before he demonstrated his prodigious appetite for community and civic engagement, Ed Delaney amassed a distinguished record of military service. After serving in the Squadron A Cavalry of the New York National Guard, he went on active duty in the field artillery in 1940, graduating from the Field Artillery School at Fort Sill, OK, and serving as battery commander in the 105th Field Artillery. In 1941, he was transferred to the Military Intelligence Service as part of the general staff in Washington, where he became a lieutenant colonel and chief on the Western European Branch and French Specialist in the War Department. He accompanied the Assistant Secretary of War, John J. MacEloy, on a special mission to North Africa in 1943. In 1945, he became Acting Counsel to the Army-Navy Liquidation Commission in Paris. He received three War department citations, the Army Commendation Ribbon, and the French Medaille de la Reconnaissance Francaise. Edmund Delaney was a remarkable man in a great many respects. He was a distinguished member of the armed services, a successful attorney, and an energetic leader in a variety of organizations devoted to advancing the public good. He brought to all of his endeavors an unusual depth of insight, compassion and understanding. He was dedicated to his family, his friends, his community, and not least, his country. He was a fine and patriotic man. And he was someone whom I respected and whose ideas I admired. My heartfelt sympathies go out to his wife Barbara, to his children and grandchildren, and to his other surviving family members. He will be missed greatly by them, and many others. But there is some comfort in knowing that his good deeds have made a lasting impact on the lives of those he left behind.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today the Senate will complete action on the conference report to the 2002 budget resolution. While we all know that a budget resolution is a non-binding document that does not require the President's signature, it is, nonetheless, still an important document because it should serve as the blueprint that reflects the priorities for America. Sadly, the document before us does not fulfill that purpose. At the outset, let me first express my disappointment with the process that was undertaken to produce this misguided conference report. In the Senate, Budget Committee members were denied the opportunity to mark up a budget resolution and the decision was made to bring one directly to the floor for consideration without any committee input. The conference report itself was negotiated by the White House and Republican congressional leaders without allowing Democratic members a meaningful seat at the table. As a result, the Senate will be voting on a partisan conference report that is flawed, unbalanced, and out of touch with the needs of the American people. We need to take a lesson from this year's experience to improve upon how we deal with one of the most important pieces of legislation that we consider as a body each year. This conference report isn't worthy of the Senate and it's certainly not worthy of the Americans it is intended to serve. The budget outlined in this conference report fails on a number of important counts and I take this opportunity to briefly discuss why I believe this budget is wrong for this country and why I will be voting against it. First, this conference report is unrealistic as it fails to take into account numerous costs that will most likely be incurred in the months and years ahead. Specifically, it ignores the cost of Alternative Minimum Tax reform, something that we all know will be absolutely necessary as more and more taxpayers find themselves subject to this tax. It does not address the additional interest costs associated with the tax cut required in the conference report or the funds that will be needed for the extension of popular expiring tax provisions. It also does not consider the costs that are likely to arise as a result of the President's National Defense Review. Preliminary estimates indicate that this new defense spending could carry a price tag of at least $250 billion over the next 10 years. Yet, none of these costs are reflected in the document up for consideration today. Second, the conference report provides no safeguards for Social Security and Medicare. Once one adds up all the real costs which, again, are noticeably absent from this budget, raiding both the Social Security and Medicare trust funds will become an unfortunate reality. What is more troubling is the fact that this budget does not provide any real protections for these trust funds that would guarantee that their surpluses would be used only for the purposes of Social Security and Medicare. We seem to be moving in the wrong direction on Social Security and Medicare at a time when the demands being placed on them will be at their greatest. These trust funds should not become a piggy bank, but I fear that this conference report does nothing to ensure that they won't. Third, one of this conference report's most obvious failures, is the fact that it limits our ability to invest in the priorities that are so important to the American public like preserving the environment, law enforcement, new highways, and quality health care. One of the areas in which I, personally, take the greatest exception is the conference report's utter disregard for education. Many of us in the Senate agree that education is one of the most critical priorities facing our nation. Proof of this was evident during the Senate's consideration of the budget resolution when, on a bipartisan basis, the Senate voted for a smaller tax cut and increased investments for children and education. In a bipartisan vote, the Senate approved an amendment offered by Senator Harkin which added $250 billion to support student achievement and to help failing schools. Again, on a bipartisan basis, the Senate supported an amendment from Senators Breaux and Jeffords which increased funding for the education of children with disabilities by $70 billion. In addition, last week, by an overwhelming vote of 79-21, the Senate supported an amendment to the ESEA reauthorization bill that I offered with Senator Collins to add $135 billion over the next 10 years to the title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which helps to meet the educational needs of the poorest, most vulnerable children in our country. And does this conference report reflect any of these bipartisan votes? No. It rejects them and provides no new dollars for us to commit to education in this country. It prevents us from making any of those investments on behalf of the neediest school children in America that the Senate has gone on record as supporting. I have heard my Republican colleagues claim that this conference report increases funding for education. While we may be reading the same document, we do not share the same interpretation of its meaning. As a result, there are no increases to be found. None. In fact, when I read this conference report, all I see are cuts. There are no increases for education because total non-defense discretionary funding in this conference report is actually $5.5 billion below what is needed to maintain even current programs and services. This decrease becomes $62 billion less over the next 10 years. Consequently, to pay for any proposed increases in education will require severe cuts in other programs which are already operating on less than adequate funding. So, in effect, this conference report will squeeze resources from critical priorities such as education, health care, and the environment in order to help finance a massive tax cut that heavily favors the most affluent. I am aware that the conference report provides a $6.2 billion earmark for education. Unfortunately, this money is a mirage. It is in the form of non-binding, unenforceable ``sense of the Congress'' language expressing that Congress should spend this money on education. This is in no way a guarantee and it is a far cry from the resources that the Senate believed were necessary to truly improve education in this country. The one thing that is abundantly clear in this conference report is the amount of money that will be spent on a tax cut. I find it interesting that the language in the report with respect to the tax cut is straightforward and directs Congress to cut taxes by $1.25 trillion over the next 10 years. Yet, we can't seem to make the same kind of unequivocal commitment to education. I support tax relief and I believe that Americans need tax relief. But tax relief must be affordable fair. The tax cut in this conference report is neither. I believe it is unwise to commit $1.25 trillion to tax cuts that will benefit the wealthiest Americans, that we may not be able to pay for in years to come, and that may risk a return to runaway deficits. The conference report also can't seem to commit to the idea of an immediate economic stimulus which many economists feel would boost our slowing economy. With the way the language is structured in the conference report, the $100 billion that should be used as a stimulus in 2002 could potentially be spread over the next decade, thereby losing its stimulatory impact. One way to make this tax cut more fair would be to double the child tax credit and make $500 of it refundable. Senator Snowe and I have introduced legislation to do precisely that. This bill would, with just a few words, lift one million children out of poverty. It seems fair to me that at the same time that we consider cutting taxes by $1.25 trillion over the next 11 years, we could work to find the resources to provide these working families with some kind of modest relief. Senator Snowe and I introduced what I believe is a bill that acts as a first step in truly helping these families. This legislation won't eliminate child poverty entirely, but it's a start. I hope that the Finance Committee will keep the millions of children who live in poverty in this country in mind as it begins work on a tax bill. I represent a State with the highest per capita income in the nation. Yet, surprisingly, I do not many people asking for a $1.25 trillion tax cut. What I do hear is that people want Social Security and Medicare to be strengthened, they want cleaner drinking water, they want better roads, and they want quality teachers and safer schools for their kids. Unfortunately, this conference report virtually ignores all of their concerns and offers only vague, empty promises. This conference report has got it all wrong. It's wrong on the environment, it's wrong on defense, it's wrong on Social Security and Medicare, it's wrong on education, and it's most especially wrong on tax cuts. As such, I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this conference report so that we can begin work again, in a bipartisan fashion, to prove to the American people that we are truly listening. And should it pass--as it probably will on a largely partisan basis--I hope that we will, before the year is out, honor and support the important priorities of the American people.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday, during rollcall vote No. 96, the Mikulski amendment, and No. 97, the McConnell amendment, as modified, I was necessarily absent to attend the funeral of a dear friend, Larry Cacciola, of Middletown, Connecticut. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' for each amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as you know, I generally believe that any President, Democratic or Republican, has the right to appoint the members of his administration. That is why, over the years, I have generally voted in support of the vast majority of presidential nominees that have come before the Senate. However, I am also mindful of the fact that the Founding Fathers gave the U.S. Senate a role in the nomination process, namely that of advice and consent. This responsibility was given to the Senate in order to ensure that the President did not misuse his authority in selecting individuals to serve in positions of public trust or ones with significant implications for the national security of this country. I have always ought to balance these two principles, that the President has been elected by the American people to do a job and he should be able to decide how best to do it, and that the Constitution of the United States charges the United States Senate with reviewing the Presidential appointments to ensure that our national interests are being served. And, in juggling these two sometimes conflicting concepts, I have generally given the benefit of the doubt to the individual selected by the President. Very rarely over the years have I voted against nominees. On those occasions in which I have chosen to do so, it has been because I have had serious doubts about the ability of the individual to carry out the responsibilities of the office to which he or she has been nominated. Regrettably, I hold such doubts about the nomination before us today-- John Bolton to the position of Under Secretary of State for Arms Control. Based upon Mr. Bolton's own statements and writings over the years, as well as his testimony during his confirmation hearing, I have serious reservations about his ability to discharge his duties in the area of arms control. My reservations are of such a magnitude that they rise to a level so as to outweigh my general practice of deferring to the President on nominations. There is no question that Mr. Bolton is an individual of integrity and intelligence. He has demonstrated those qualities throughout his career--most recently at the American Enterprise Institute, and the Commission on International Religious Freedom. However, there is glaringly absent from his otherwise distinguished record, any substantial background in the area of arms control--the principle area of responsibility for the position to which he has been nominated. It is not only that Mr. Bolton has limited experience in the arms control arena, but also that in his few dealings with this subject matter he has expressed doubts as to the relevancy of arms control itself. I find it troubling that the individual that the President and the Secretary of State will look to in the areas of non- proliferation, arms control and security assistance holds that view. Arms control issues loom large on the President's agenda as he demonstrated last week when he spoke at the National Defense University on the topic of National Missile Defense, NMD --an extremely controversial subject with huge implications for United States arms control policy. NMD, The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, CTBT, and the future of the 1972 ABM treaty are all subjects in which the President and the Congress will have to come to some meeting of the minds on during the coming months. The Under Secretary of State for Arms Control will have to play a pivotal role in facilitating that process. Mr. Bolton's having a dismissive attitude toward arms reduction and arms control right from the start gives him very little credibility with those of us who care deeply about arms controls issues and are concerned about the direction the Administration appears to be heading in this area. With respect to CTBT and other international treaties, Mr. Bolton has stated that he does not believe that these agreements are legally binding on the United States, but rather are ``political obligations.'' This stance is contrary to United States interests of promoting respect for international law and upholding the good faith agreements entered into among our allies to honor these treaties. In addition, such statements in the area of arms control, by the person who will occupy the very post charged with upholding our treaty obligations, not only diminishes our credibility in the eyes of our allies, but also compromises the best interests of our national security. Arms control is a global issue, not an American one, and while we must forge policies consistent with America's interests, we cannot create policy in a vacuum, and to act unilaterally on an issue of such import would be foolish. In terms of the ABM treaty, I believe that President Bush is correct when he says that the world is quite different today than it was in 1972 when the treaty was first entered into with the then Soviet Union. Clearly every word of that treaty should not be cast in stone. There may be changes to the treaty that would benefit United States interests without undermining the principle purpose of the treaty--to prevent a costly and dangerous international arms race. It is certainly appropriate that the President undertake a review of this treaty. But this can be accomplished while still honoring our current treaty obligations and without a rush to judgement. The ABM treaty may need updating, but unilaterally abrogating this treaty or any other treaty that the United States has entered into is a major step not to be taken lightly or without consultations. While Mr. Bolton has stopped short of calling for the unilateral abrogation of the treaty, his cavalier attitude toward our participation in the ABM treaty and to the responsibilities that we bind ourselves to when we enter into these international agreements is disturbing. I am further troubled by Mr. Bolton's views on such sensitive foreign policy issues as the so called ``One China Policy,'' and on the nature and extent of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. I am particularly concerned at a time when Chinese-American relations have taken a turn toward the adversarial. When the characterization of the U.S.-China relationship as ``strategic competition'' provokes indignation in Beijing, one can only imagine the ramifications of Mr. Bolton's public support for the official recognition of Taiwan as an independent state, a position which contradicts over three decades of U.S. diplomacy that has successfully balanced our interests in Asia. Although Mr. Bolton has stressed that the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control does not have responsibility for directly shaping diplomatic relations between the U.S. and China, separating arms control issues from U.S./China policy is neither feasible nor advisable at a time when China sees itself, rightly or wrongly, as a target of the Bush administration's decisions to move forward with National Missile Defense and to sell arms to Taiwan. Mr. Bolton has also expressed worrisome views on U.S. involvement in the Balkan wars, stating that he saw `` no tangible national interest'' in those conflicts. And while it is true that American territory or interests were not directly threatened by the bloodshed in the Balkans, certainly instability in Europe must always be a matter of concern to the United States as should human rights abuses that rise to the level of near genocide. I am concerned at Mr. Bolton's seemingly insular view of American interests and responsibilities. Finally, Mr. Bolton has at times been outspoken and provocative in his public remarks about international affairs. He has been known to stray from a simple statement of opinion to more controversial pronouncements about subjects which are approached with tremendous sensitivity by most foreign policy experts. As Undersecretary of State for Arms Control Mr. Bolton will be responsible for high level negotiations with allies and other governments concerning the gravest matters of national and international security. Regrettably, I am uncomfortable with the idea of Mr. Bolton in such delicate situations. The world we live in today is dangerous. For better or worse, the United States must play a major role in ensuring that there are safeguards to protect our national security and foreign policy interests. Without doubt these dangers include the possibility of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It may be true that no longer is our main concern a purposeful attack by another superpower, but rather the accidental or capricious bombing by a rogue nation. It may also be true, as Mr. Bolton asserts, that it is time to re-examine our international arms framework, but it is not a time for isolation or bravado. Given the the critical negotiations and challenges that await the new administration, there is no room for inexperience. We need a skilled and steady hand shaping a disarmament policy that is right for the 21st Century. In my view Mr. Bolton does not possess such qualities, and that is why I have reluctantly decided to vote against his nomination for this critical position.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator DeWine in introducing the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. I hope that this will be the continuation of our long-term efforts to improve the health of America's children. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, only 20 percent of the drugs on the market have been tested and labeled specifically for their safety and effectiveness in children. Children are simply not smaller version of adults, their bodies actually react to drugs differently. The absence of pediatric labeling poses significant risks for children, without adequate information about how a drug works in children of different ages and sizes, children are more likely to be under- or over-dosed or to experience dangerous side effects. We have labels on the food children eat, on the shows they watch and the music they listen to. Why should we have less information when it comes to the medicine they take? And while ``off-labeling prescribing'' is neither illegal nor improper, forcing our children to use medications without adequate safety information, is a lot like playing Russian roulette with their health. That's why four years ago, Senator DeWine and I introduced legislation to take the guess work out of children's medicine. This legislation, the Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, provided a market incentive for drug companies to test their products for use in children or to create kid-friendly drug formulations. And, just a few years later, we've made extraordinary strides in closing the dangerous gap in knowledge. In the 3 years since the initiative was launched, over 300 pediatric drug studies have gotten underway, compared to the 11 studies conducted in the 6 years prior to the legislation. New pediatric information has been or will soon be added to the labels of 28 products, including drugs for AIDS, diabetes, mental health, and asthma. Not only has the initiative led to significant advances in pediatric medicines, in the long run it will also save the nation money by reducing hospital stays, doctors' visits and parents' taking time off of work. But while tremendous progress has been made, we still have a long way to go to make sure that children aren't an afterthought when it comes to pharmaceutical research. Hundreds of drugs are on the market today that are used in children, but still have not been tested for pediatric needs. Yet, unless reauthorized, the pediatric testing incentive, and the explosion of research it has prompted, will expire on January 1, 2002. In addition to ensuring that critical pediatric drug studies continue, the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act will also ensure that the new safety information from pediatric studies is promptly added to drug labels, require drug manufacturers to pay user fees to participate in the program, and require the Food and Drug Administration to quickly disseminate information gathered from pediatric studies to pediatricians and parents. It will also fund studies of older, ``off-patent'' drugs which are not eligible for the existing pediatric testing incentive, and create a new Office of Pediatric Therapeutics at the Food and Drug Administration to coordinate activities related to children. The bill is endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, and the Allergy and Asthma Network Mother of Asthmatics. I call on my colleagues to move quickly to enact the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, commonsense legislation that will ensure that our children received only the very best of what medicine has to offer. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, Senator DeWine in introducing the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act. I hope that this will be the continuation of our long-term efforts to improve the health of America's children. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, only 20 percent of the drugs on the market have been tested and labeled specifically for their safety and effectiveness in children. Children are simply not smaller version of adults, their bodies actually react to drugs differently. The absence of pediatric labeling poses significant risks for children, without adequate information about how a drug works in children of different ages and sizes, children are more likely to be under- or over-dosed or to experience dangerous side effects. We have labels on the food children eat, on the shows they watch and the music they listen to. Why should we have less information when it comes to the medicine they take? And while ``off-labeling prescribing'' is neither illegal nor improper, forcing our children to use medications without adequate safety information, is a lot like playing Russian roulette with their health. That's why four years ago, Senator DeWine and I introduced legislation to take the guess work out of children's medicine. This legislation, the Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, provided a market incentive for drug companies to test their products for use in children or to create kid-friendly drug formulations. And, just a few years later, we've made extraordinary strides in closing the dangerous gap in knowledge. In the 3 years since the initiative was launched, over 300 pediatric drug studies have gotten underway, compared to the 11 studies conducted in the 6 years prior to the legislation. New pediatric information has been or will soon be added to the labels of 28 products, including drugs for AIDS, diabetes, mental health, and asthma. Not only has the initiative led to significant advances in pediatric medicines, in the long run it will also save the nation money by reducing hospital stays, doctors' visits and parents' taking time off of work. But while tremendous progress has been made, we still have a long way to go to make sure that children aren't an afterthought when it comes to pharmaceutical research. Hundreds of drugs are on the market today that are used in children, but still have not been tested for pediatric needs. Yet, unless reauthorized, the pediatric testing incentive, and the explosion of research it has prompted, will expire on January 1, 2002. In addition to ensuring that critical pediatric drug studies continue, the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act will also ensure that the new safety information from pediatric studies is promptly added to drug labels, require drug manufacturers to pay user fees to participate in the program, and require the Food and Drug Administration to quickly disseminate information gathered from pediatric studies to pediatricians and parents. It will also fund studies of older, ``off-patent'' drugs which are not eligible for the existing pediatric testing incentive, and create a new Office of Pediatric Therapeutics at the Food and Drug Administration to coordinate activities related to children. The bill is endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, and the Allergy and Asthma Network Mother of Asthmatics. I call on my colleagues to move quickly to enact the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, commonsense legislation that will ensure that our children received only the very best of what medicine has to offer. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

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

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, is morning business the pending business?

Mr. DODD. I gather our colleague and friend from West Virginia may be here shortly, as he is inclined to do on Fridays for periods of enlightenment. I encourage Members to listen carefully to the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. He always has the most interesting discussions on history and poetry and important national holidays and days of recognition. It is worthy of the Senate's attention for those who may be following the debate through the channels of public communication.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to take a minute or so as we complete the first few days of debate on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. There are, I am sure, countless amendments still pending that we will consider in the following week or two, before we complete full consideration of a bill we only deal with--and this may come as a surprise to many Americans--once every 5 or 6 years. Unlike agriculture, defense, or a variety of other subject matters dealt with annually, we only debate elementary and secondary education and higher education every 5 or 6 years. It seems to me we ought to have an annual discussion of the condition of America's public schools, how well they are doing, and what more we could be doing to assist local communities and States in providing the best possible education for every child. Over the last few days, we have begun to consider amendments. Senator Collins of Maine offered an amendment dealing with reading which was adopted unanimously. Senator Jeffords had a trigger on testing which was adopted almost unanimously. Senator Harkin and Senator Hagel offered an amendment that dealt with full funding of special education, which is something that every mayor, every superintendent of schools, every board of education in my State of Connecticut--and, I am confident, in other States--have been asking us to do for years. Children with disabilities ought to have the same opportunity to reach their maximum potential, as every child. I think all Americans today accept that notion. Over the years, many have advocated for us to reach the goal of a quarter of a century ago of funding 40 percent of States' special education costs. Today, we're at about 15 percent. In the measures similar to the amendment offered by Senator Harkin and Senator Hagel or have been offered over the years by Senator Jeffords, myself, and many others--on occasion, they actually passed the Senate but did not pass the other body or were dropped in conference--something always happened to frustrate the overwhelming desire of people in this country for the U.S. Government to meet its goal. The amendment adopted here will now require that. I am confident the bill, for reasons I will state in a minute, will become law in this country, and for the first time we will have language which takes us to that goal. And, along with my friend and colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, I was the author of an amendment that will fully fund title I, the heart of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That is what this bill is all about since, again, about 35 years ago we decided our role in public education would be to help the most disadvantaged communities and kids of the country. From the beginning in the early 1960s, that is what the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was designed to do. There are other pieces of it, but about 50 percent of the dollars go to title I. Yet, we only fund title I at one-third of the goal we established. Yesterday, this body went on record with the overwhelming vote of 79- 21 in support of full funding of title I over the next 10 years, with the bulk of that obligation being met over the next 4 or 5 years, 75 to 80 percent of the full funding requirement. This now is going to make it possible, in my view, to have a chance to meet the concerns that have been raised by many over the quality of public education. The bill will also include some long-sought-after reforms on accountability and standards so the children are not just warehoused and pushed from grade to grade without ever having met the educational requirements. That has gone on. We all know about it. Everyone knows about it at local and State levels. This bill says that we really want some accountability, we want some standards, we want some means by which we measure whether or not children are, in fact, learning. Many of us accept that is something we ought to do in the Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act. But we also say if you are going to do that, you have to put the resources in place so these reforms have a chance of producing the desired results. Reform without resources is just a lot of hot air. And resources without reforms is a waste of money. Now we are, I hope, in this bill--having adopted the full funding of title I and the anticipated adoption of reforms--going to build on the work we did in 1994 to marry reforms and resources. So many of us conclude this first week of debate with a sense of optimism that, frankly, I did not have 24 hours ago. I had a deep concern we were going to adopt mandates for our local communities and tell our communities what they had to do and then not participate in providing the resources to achieve those goals. I still have some outstanding concerns that will not be addressed in this bill, but I raise them briefly today. I may try to find some way to give expression to these ideas in the coming week in this debate. I think it is outrageous that the Federal Government is such a minor player, financially, in the cost of educating America's kids. I always say this. I think Americans would be stunned to discover that, of their Federal taxes that come to Washington, less than 1 percent go back to the education of elementary and secondary school students around the country. In elementary and secondary education, the earliest building block, in many ways, of a child's learning, your National Government is really only a minor participant. We are very good at instructing our towns and cities how to educate children, and telling the States, but when it comes to putting our money where our mouth is, as the old expression goes, we are pretty cheap. That goes back a long time. ``Education was only the responsibility of local communities. The National Government just ought to stay as far away from elementary and secondary education as possible.'' That was the idea in the 19th century. That was the idea through much of the 20th century. We ought to be rethinking the structure of funding education in this country as we enter the 21st century. No longer will the children in my State merely be competing with the children of New Jersey or California or Texas or New York. The child growing up in Connecticut will be competing with children in Beijing, Moscow, South Africa, Australia, Paris, London. That is the world they will be entering. The idea that we would accept a 19th and 20th century structure to educate children to compete in a 21st century global economy is outrageous, in my view, and foolish. You cannot expect sufficient resources to help these children to come exclusively or almost exclusively, as they do in at least in 40 States, to come from a local property tax. You are going to bankrupt these homeowners. And, in the poorest communities where the need is greatest for creating opportunity, the resources are the most scarce. I would like to see us say at some point to our communities and States: You bear one-third apiece and we will pick up a third of the cost. First of all, just think of the property tax relief for millions of Americans. They are sending their money to Washington. We are taking their Federal taxes. As I said, less than one-half of 1 percent is going to secondary and elementary education. Why not see if we can become a better partner? As we lecture States and localities about what they are not doing, it might be helpful if we also increased what we are doing to contribute to their attracting qualified teachers, seeing that schools are modern and wired with the technology kids will need to be economically independent, contributing members of what we want to be the greatest country on Earth in the 21st century as it was in the 20th century. I very much would like to see us do that. We will not do that in this bill, but I invite some discussion of how, in the coming years, we can be a better partner in education. The great irony is that we spend the bulk of our tax dollars in the area of 18 to 22 through Pell grants and Stafford loans, assistance for higher education. And, without question, those programs are invaluable. But we know that the most important years of a human being's development in terms of their ability to learn and to have the tools necessary to succeed in life, occur in the earlier years of life. We ought to do more in the earliest stage. If we do, more children will succeed as they go on toward adulthood. The second point I wanted to make is this: I want to see some accountability out of the States, too. We are telling towns and localities they have to do a better job. If not, we are going to shut down their schools. I don't agree with the idea that the solution that we are going to solve the problem of schools in poor-inner city or poor rural areas by paying for the students to attend private schools. In desperately poor areas there are not those kinds of alternatives except in the most rare of circumstances. We are talking about being pretty tough with local schools in this bill. I'm all for accountability, but I would like to raise the possibility of getting a little tough with the States, as well. This may be an anathema for some. There is great disparity based on the affluence and poverty of our respective communities within these States. This has provoked a great debate about the States. I am not suggesting a one-size-fits-all solution, but it seems to me, we might want to include the States in this discussion so that you will at least begin to minimize the disparity in opportunity. My State is a good example. I don't blame present administrations or recent administrations. Administrations have wrestled with this idea for a long time. I am sure this is the case in your State, Mr. President, in New Jersey. It is pretty much the case in all of our States. I represent the most affluent State in America. Here we are, a State with incredibly affluent communities. They do a magnificent job in allocating their resources to improving the quality of public education in their communities. Yet I can take you from one of those communities--I am not exaggerating--for a car ride in less than 15 minutes to a neighboring community that ranks in the top 10 of the poorest communities in America. One community will have a public high school that can compete with a community college in terms of its facilities, athletics, radio, television stations, language laboratories, and wonderful teachers who receive more than decent compensation to teach children in that community. And 15 minutes away, I can take you to a place where the buildings are falling apart, technology is rarely available, and police officers are on every floor. You begin to wonder if you are in a school or a detention facility. There are wonderful teachers and wonderful students in these schools who struggle every day to provide and receive the best educational opportunity they can. But in the most affluent State in the country, in the most affluent Nation on the face of this Earth, we have communities within minutes of each other where the educational opportunity--that is all I am talking about--is light-years apart. We can't accept this anymore. Especially as we enter the 21st century with the economic gap growing wider every day, when we will end up having those who are well prepared to fit in this information technology age and the global economy, and those who will have a hard time finding the most menial jobs in America because we didn't provide a decent education. I say to our partners in all of this, our States, just as we say to our communities, that we want you to do a better job as well. I am going to explore some legislative language on how we might demand greater accountability for seeing that equal opportunity for education is going to be met at the State as well as the local and national levels. I don't expect anything dramatic to be adopted in this Chamber on this particular bill. But it is a debate we ought to start. Chaka Fattah, a very effective Member of Congress from the city of Philadelphia, is a good friend of mine. Chaka Fattah wrote language which specifically addresses this issue. In fact, he offered it in the U.S. House of Representatives in the previous Congress and received close to 200 votes in the other Chamber. It is a rather complicated proposal but one which goes to the heart of this issue, again without insisting on any particular formulation but saying the States have to do a better job in working to see to it that equal opportunity in education is going to be available to all students and be held to some degree of accountability on this issue. I commend Congressman Fattah for offering that amendment and for provoking that debate. He sent me the language on that. I am going to submit it for the consideration of my colleagues, perhaps with some variation, over the next couple of weeks. Again, I thank the membership for their hard work, and especially of Senator Kennedy and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member and chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on which I have the pleasure of sitting. I know my colleague from New Jersey has a strong desire to join at some point. We hope he will be there with us. It is an exciting committee. They have done a good job. I commend Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader, and Senator Lott as well, for moving this debate along. This has been a pretty good first week--better than I ever thought it would when we started the week. We see a lot more has to be considered. I will have amendments to offer with Senator Shelby of Alabama and Senator Domenici of New Mexico. We will be proposing those amendments at the appropriate time, which we hope our colleagues will support. I look forward to those debates and discussions, and other amendments our colleagues will be offering. I think we have started out on a pretty good foot. We have not answered all of the questions. But I think we are going to marry resources and reforms in a package that most of us are going to be able to support. Amendment No. 375 To Amendment No. 358, As Modified

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, I send a modification to the desk of an amendment he has offered.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Maine for her eloquent statement. I know my colleague from Tennessee wants to make some remarks, and I yield whatever time he may consume.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield as much time as she may consume to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, who is a principal cosponsor for full funding for title I, an amendment by myself and the Senator from Maine.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to my colleague from Florida.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will yield myself, if I may, about 6 minutes. If the Chair will notify me when that time has expired? I know that one colleague, the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, is on her way to the floor to be heard. I want to reserve some time for her, and then will yield back some time if necessary and get to a vote. I thank my colleagues from Delaware and Florida and others who have spoken on this amendment that I am offering on behalf of myself, Senator Collins, Senator Jeffords, Senator Landrieu, and others, to increase title I funding. I want to share something with my colleagues. I have submitted for the record data about all 50 States and the number of students eligible to be served. About 10 million students would be fully served under full funding of title I. We are fully serving about 3 million of the 10 million today. I mentioned the numbers in Alabama earlier. I know in the State of Tennessee, there are 192,000 eligible children. In Connecticut, there are about 80,000 eligible children. In Maine, 34,000. In Georgia, the number of eligible students is 300,000. In Virginia, roughly 179,000 are eligible. In each case, we are only providing about one-third of the support that we ought to be. I think most of my colleagues who have visited schools and talked to superintendents and principals have discovered as they have gone around, title I funds really do work. There is a great deal of flexibility in how title I funds can be used, particularly in school environments. Here are some of the things I have heard from Connecticut educators about how title I funds are working. Title I has provided the Norwalk Public Schools with 35 highly trained professionals in the district for elementary schools, almost 100 computers and printers, $17,000 for teacher workshops on best practices, parent training, and parent center computers. That is title I funds at work. It has done a great job in that community. In Canterbury, we see improvements in reading. Without this help, I am told by the teachers there, some students would be placed in special education. We just adopted the special education full funding amendment by voice vote, and there are some concerns that too many kids will be placed into special education when in fact it may be just that they need remedial training. The Connecticut Mastery Test Scores for title I students have continued to increase. In short, the support provided to title I students results in increased achievement, according to the Region One school district. Norwich, CT, has hired preschool teachers under title I so the children can have the language development needed to be ready to learn, and an instructional technology coordinator to implement computer- assisted instruction. Title I funding is responsible for the increased number of computers available for students as part of their learning in New Haven, CT. Title I funding has also made it possible for New Haven to hire additional teachers. Title I in Ashford, CT, is an integral part of the K-8 program. Teachers tell me that title I students go on to high school--many on the honor roll, college--many on the dean's list, or the military. And, they also tell me that students come back to thank them for ``making me do my work'' and ``teaching me to respect teachers.'' My colleague from Maine and I are not suggesting this is going to create a utopia. But, we think if we can get more resources to disadvantaged kids through a program that is working, they can reach their full potential. Obviously, a lot of other things need to happen. More parental involvement and more qualified teachers, for example. But we also know that poor districts--it could be Virginia, Connecticut, Tennessee, Maine--because of local property taxes funding most of the system, do not get the resources they need. Because of that, as shown by the examples I have cited from my own State--and I'm sure other Members could find similar examples in their State--we believe this amendment has great merit. With that, I will withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend our colleague from Florida. He has made an eloquent statement. He raises a very valuable point. I appreciate his support for this amendment. This is one way to put us on record, in a bipartisan way, to say how critical increased Title I funding is to educational reform. Not only must we insist upon accountability but we must make it possible for people to demonstrate their academic achievement, which is necessary if we are going to be successful. So I, for one, am very grateful for his support on this amendment and also for his comments in relation to the position we may find ourselves in with having supported a reauthorization but then finding it difficult under the budget agreement to have the resources actually committed. I thank the Senator for his comments.

Mr. DODD. May I yield to my colleague from Delaware who has another engagement before we actually vote? If he could have 2 minutes or 3 minutes and then go to my colleague from Alabama.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank our colleague from Delaware. As a former Governor, I know many Governors believe as he does as well. I appreciate his comments and thoughts. I ask unanimous consent that our colleague from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. DODD. Let me first say that last evening I had the privilege of presenting an award at the Greater Boys and Girls Clubs of Washington, DC, to a very good friend of mine, Bud Selig, the Commissioner of Baseball. But another recipient of last evening's Boys and Girls Club Award was the distinguished Presiding Officer of this body, the Senator from Virginia. I will take a moment to commend my colleague--as I did last evening--for the recognition he received. I commend his work. May I inquire of the Chair how much time remains on these amendments?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the cosponsor of this amendment, Senator Collins of Maine, and I, think we made such a convincing argument during the hour and a half debate that we will yield our 2 minutes, and we ask for the immediate vote on this amendment.