Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I commend my colleague from Massachusetts for his eloquence and his passion about a subject matter to which he has dedicated a substantial part of his public service--the plight and condition of America's children under a variety of adverse circumstances. His passion and concern about the condition of our public education system at the elementary and secondary level has, once again, been expressed in the most heartfelt of terms and views, which I am hopeful and confident express the views of a majority of Members of this body regardless of party or ideology. I am very confident I express the views of the majority of American citizens who, without knowing the details, understand intuitively that if this Nation is going to live up to its potential, to its own aspirations as expressed more than two centuries ago by the founding members of this Nation's Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, that we need to have the best quality of education this country can provide, particularly to a generation that will face challenges unimaginable by even this generation, not to mention generations past. This is a critical debate. It doesn't get any more important than this. I have often said if you get the educational needs of this country right, you may not have an absolute formula to address every other concern, but an educated population, an educated America, is in a far stronger position to resolve the great issues of their day than an ignorant population. An ignorant nation, an ignorant democracy is a dangerous country, in the sense that people don't understand or grasp the subtle nuances of our Constitution, of our Declaration of Independence, of our Bill of Rights, not to mention their ability to provide for themselves and to add to the greater prosperity of our Nation. This is the No. 1 priority. The President has this right. This is and ought to be the No. 1 issue we grapple with as a country. There is no more important issue than the quality of our public elementary and public secondary schools in America. This morning, roughly 55 million children went to an elementary school or a secondary school in America. Of that 55 million, 50 million went off to a public school; 5 million went off to a private or parochial school. Certainly, while we do things we can to support and assist those private and parochial schools, our fundamental obligation is to public education. It has been since the founding days of this country, in one manner or another. On the first great debate on education in the 21st century, a debate that will determine over the next 7 years what our priorities are when it comes to public elementary and secondary education, it is important we try and find as much support and common ground for investing in the neediest schools in this country. That has been our Federal obligation. I make the case we need to change the formulation of how we fund public education in the country. I think this idea of depending upon a property tax in State after State, community after community, may have served the country well in the 19th century, and even for a good part of the 20th century, but the idea today that the primary source of educating the 50 million young people who went off to school today ought to be based on the property taxes of local communities, as is the case in most States in this country, is an archaic, backward idea. We need to be a far better partner. We only provide a small percentage; 6 cents of every dollar spent on elementary and secondary education comes from the Federal Government; 94 cents, 95 cents comes from our local communities and some from the States. It is mostly from local communities. I would love to see at some point becoming a one-third partner: One- third of the resources provided by the Federal Government, one-third by States, and one-third by local communities. What a great relief it would be to lower property taxes across this country, to be able to have the Federal Government contribute a far greater percentage of the educational needs of America's children and their families. That debate will not occur this week. We are going to argue about the 6 or 7 cents and how those 6 and 7 cents are going to be spent. Let's be clear at the outset; we are a very minor participant. The Federal Government is a minor participant in the financial costs of public education in this country. How we spend those 6 cents will be the subject of this debate which may consume as many as 2 or 3 weeks of the Senate's time. What do you do with 6 cents? Historically, over the past 25 or 30 years, we have said our obligation will be to serve the most endangered, the most needy students in schools in the country. We have done that in title I, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, in a variety of other proposals, but principally it has been to serve the neediest kids and the neediest schools in America in both rural, urban areas, and suburban areas. Over the next 2 or 3 weeks, we will talk about how to better target those resources and how to get some improved accountability so when dollars are being spent there is some assurance coming back that kids are learning and teachers are teaching. So we will have a good discussion about how to improve accountability, how to improve some sort of grading system without overburdening school districts. We speak in a rather lofty tone when it comes to demanding testing. I don't think anyone wants to be part of a formulation that demands testing without providing the resources to the schools to see it gets done, and also adding to the burdens of teachers and school districts and parents by having nothing more than testing going on. Someone said in my State the other day, taking someone's temperature three or four times a day does not make a child better. It does not improve their health. It tells you how they are doing. Testing three or four times a year, whether a local test, a State test, or a Federal test, doesn't make that student a better student with more knowledge. It merely tells you how they are doing. There are many who are concerned that demanding more testing will turn the schools into nothing more than test prep centers where kids are geared every day and every week to pass a test, to get good scores on the tests, and where actual learning takes a secondary position. While I understand the value of testing, let's not get carried away and set up a system that we come back with 4 or 5 years from now and all we have done is fulfill a self-fulfilling prophecy; that kids in poor districts don't do very well. We know that already. You can spend all the time and effort possible to test people. But for the life of me, I don't understand all the value of that, at the expense of trying to do things that would actually improve the conditions so kids do better on the tests we do provide. Many feel there are things we can do with the 6 cents. Remember, I am talking 6 cents--not 100 cents on the dollar but 6 cents. That is all we give now. That is what Uncle Sam sends, 6 cents on every dollar. It seems to me we ought to improve the structures where kids attend school. We know a child who walks into a building that is 50, 60, or 70 years old and falling apart isn't going to learn very well. I don't need a study by a bunch of Ph.D.'s at the Department of Education over the next 6 years to tell me that. Talk to any parent who takes their kid to a school that leaks, that is not wired, that is falling apart, and I will guarantee that child in those circumstances is not going to learn very well. Put some of these resources in to see to it that the buildings, these structures, these physical plants, might be improved so that child who arrives at that school building has a better chance to learn. About 50 percent of all the kids who went to school this morning entered a building built more than 50 years ago--50 percent. I think the need for improving the physical structure is quite obvious in the urban and rural areas that are the most impoverished and the poorest. Reducing class size, again, I don't think it has great value in having studies done over the next 5 or 6 years. Any parent will tell you, a child will tell you, if they are in a classroom with 20 or 25 students and one teacher, the teacher cannot teach and the kids can't learn. This is not brain surgery. This is about as basic as it can get. I spoke to a group of charter school students from Connecticut the other day on the east front of the Capitol. I said: Tell me why you like the charter school. They said: We get more attention. I said: Why do you get more attention? Because the classes are smaller. These were not the teachers talking or the parents. These were the kids. We are doing more in charter schools, and that is good news, but not every child gets to go to a charter school. I asked: How did you get to go to a charter school? It was a lottery. We put our names in a hat and they drew out so many names. There were hundreds who wanted to go, but it was a lottery. They picked them out of the hat, so these kids from this town of mine in my State of Connecticut got to go. I applaud what they are doing with the charter schools. I think they are great ideas. But we cannot just talk about improving charter schools at the expense of these other public schools. If it is good for a charter school, why can't it be good for the other schools as well? Why can't every school be a charter school in America? Are we so inept that we cannot come up with the means by which every kid who goes to school, as they did this morning, could walk into a classroom where they were not one of two dozen students vying for the attention of a teacher in order to learn? We know without any question that in a class that is smaller, where a teacher has the opportunity to really spend some time with these children, you can make a difference in the quality of their education and how they will do on those tests that we all seem so interested in funding or requiring as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Regarding afterschool programs, how many days do parents worry about where their children are? Single parents working, two-income parents, parents who stay at home, wondering where that child is, what goes on after 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Talk to any police chief. I wonder if you think I am making these things up. Call your local police department if you question my veracity on this and ask the local police chief what is the most dangerous time of day for young kids, in terms of them being victims or creating problems themselves. They will tell you it is not after 7 or 8 or 10 o'clock at night. The most dangerous time is between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. Again, that is the conclusion of every police chief I ever talked to across the country. So afterschool programs become critically important, not just to keep kids safe but as part of the learning experience. We think with that 6 cents I talked about here, we ought to allocate some of those resources to expand afterschool programs because we know they work. In this day and age, we should be utilizing our school buildings after school, weekends, evenings, summers, so these learning centers become more a part of our community, assisting the towns and counties and States. That is where kids can channel their energies into constructive alternatives. Left alone, we know all too often what happens. Good kids can make bad decisions, decisions that affect them the rest of their lives. There are many of us, as we begin this debate, who would like to see some effort made to improve the physical structures where kids go to school every day, reducing those class sizes so the kids have an opportunity to really learn, seeing to it there are afterschool programs, making sure we have full funding for title I so these needy students and their families across the country will get the support they richly deserve. My hope is that at long last we will be able to pass some mandatory funding for special ed. How many towns across the country have told us the costs of special education are depriving them of the resources other children need in their communities? I know that will be offered. My colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, and I will offer an amendment on title I for full funding. I know my colleague, the Presiding Officer, sat through the debate and discussion in our committee, the HELP Committee, and I know he is sympathetic to the full funding of title I. If we come up with that as part of the formula for funding this authorization bill, we would like to have his support on this as well, knowing he was part of the debate during committee consideration. But I hope we can come up with a mechanism for full funding of title I and for special education, to see to it we live up to our obligations and fulfill the commitments we must make. Again, going back to what I said at the outset of these remarks, there is no more important issue to address as a legislative body, as a national legislative body. It is not enough any longer that I only have to worry about how a child is doing in Connecticut, how a young student is doing in Bridgeport or Hartford or Sterling or Union or my hometown of East Haddam, CT, but how kids are doing in California, how they are doing in Illinois, how they are doing in Florida and Michigan and Maine. These are national issues now. If a kid fails in Wyoming, then that is a problem for those of us who live in Connecticut, just as it is a problem for those who live in Wyoming if a kid in Connecticut is not doing well. Children in the 21st century will compete with children in Beijing, in Moscow, in Sidney, Australia, in Tokyo. All across the world is from where the global competition comes. So we have to do what we can with that 6 cents we contribute to elementary and secondary education to see to it that those dollars are going to reach those families and those communities that have the greatest need. I wish it were otherwise. I wish we were talking about picking up a third of that responsibility, as I think any national government ought to do in the 21st century, and contributing to the quality of our overall educational system. Unfortunately, that is not part of this bill. But I think that in getting these dollars up on title I and special ed, contributing to school construction and class size and afterschool programs, our dollar is well invested. Let me mention last of all the issue of funding, because you are going to hear a lot of debate about what we can afford and not afford to do. Later today, if he has not done it already, the President of the United States is going to call for $60 billion on a national missile defense system. I happen to believe in the 21st century we are going to have to develop some form of a missile defense system. I will not take a back seat to anybody in my commitment to seeing to it that the national security needs of my country are met. But we are going to be asked today, without knowing much more about it, to spend $60 billion. Senator Kennedy mentioned $25 or $30 billion increases each year in the coming few years. I think there may be a good case to be made for increasing spending for the national security needs of this country and for developing a national missile defense system. I understand the need for that. But I want it to be done in a way that is going to reflect what we can achieve, the kind of science that needs to be developed, done in coordination, my hope would be, with our allies so this is a shared technology that will protect us from potential hazards we face with this ever-modernizing technology that puts us all at risk. We have been asked to support a $1.6 trillion tax cut. What we are talking about here is modest increases for the educational needs of America. If it is important to invest dollars to protect the national security needs, if it is important to invest dollars for the economic security of a country, how can you really talk about being secure militarily or economically if you do not have an educated population? If you do not have an educated population, how secure are you? If you have kids growing up where the gap grows wider and wider and wider every single year between those who fit into an economy where they understand and have the tools necessary to perform and those who do not and are left further and further and further behind. They then beget children of their own who get further and further behind. You end up having a growing segment of your population that really cannot fit into a modern economy or understand or contribute to the national security of a nation. This is a seamless garment. National security or economic security are never going to be secured if you do not have an educated nation. That means every child being given the opportunity to reach his or her potential. None of us has an obligation to guarantee success. I feel no burden whatsoever to say to any child in America: I have an obligation to see to it you succeed. I do not have that burden. But I feel the burden that every child ought to be given the opportunity to succeed regardless of economic circumstances, of race, of ethnicity, or geographical location. A child should not be left behind because of the action in Washington, because of the town they are born in, or the economic circumstances of their parents. That is not my America. My America says every child should have the chance to reach his or her potential to contribute to their own well-being and to contribute to the well-being of this Nation. That is what successive previous generations have done. That is why this country has achieved the success it has. If we are going to continue that legacy in the 21st century, it becomes the collective responsibility of the 100 of us in this Chamber, the national legislature, with the 6 cents we get to manipulate in terms of the educational needs of a nation, to see to it that the neediest of our citizens are going to have an opportunity to achieve America's dream. You cannot do that without an education. You may get lucky at a casino or you may hit the lottery one day. But that is not how most Americans need to depend upon their economic future and to fulfill their dreams. You cannot succeed in America without a good education. To do otherwise is totally a fiction. This debate over the next few weeks is about as important as it gets. This debate over the next few weeks is on whether or not we will have the intestinal fortitude to commit the modest resources to seeing to it that America's schools and America's children are going to get the best they can from their Federal Government under these circumstances. Again, I wish to reiterate that we were a far better partner. I think it ought to be a source of collective embarrassment that the Federal Government contributes only 6 cents out of every dollar in America in the 21st century. Why we cannot be a one-third partner, to me, is beyond imagination. Yet that is where we are. The 6 cents that we will be talking about contributing will make a difference. My hope is that we will fully fund those 6 cents to see to it that these schools, children, and families will have the chance to maximize their potential. There will be extensive debate. I will be talking about the various issues that come along. I look forward to the amendment that I will offer with my colleague and friend from Maine, Senator Collins, on title I. I look forward to the debate on special education and these other issues that come along. I will have an amendment with my colleague from Alabama on privacy issues that we will be offering along with some other suggestions with my friend from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, on charter education. We will have a good debate and a good discussion on some of these issues. My hope is at the end of this debate we will be able to meet as a body and say to each other that we have done the right thing for our country. Many of us may not be here when the next education bill comes to the floor. I would like to think that on this occasion and during this discussion we are mindful that this may be our last opportunity individually to leave our signature on how we would like to see America meet its educational challenges for the 21st century. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I came to speak on an education matter, but I have enjoyed the last 45 minutes. I thank my colleagues from Tennessee, Virginia, and Arizona. I serve on the Banking Committee and have great respect for my colleague from Wyoming who chairs the subcommittee that deals with these issues. The committee had extensive hearings going back into last year. The Senator from Wyoming deserves a great deal of credit--I know my colleagues share these views--for his tireless efforts to bring forth a bill that reflects not only the desires of exporters, but also takes into consideration the very important national security issues that our colleagues from Virginia, Tennessee, and Arizona have raised this afternoon. The committee sent out this bill in March after seven different hearings with extensive testimony. I have been supportive of this effort. I say to my colleague from Virginia, that he raises some very good points. This is not a debate that is going to attract nightly news attention. It can get rather detailed, as the Senator from Tennessee pointed out when he started talking about various provisions and what is intended by them. As I listened, I clearly heard the spirit with which my colleagues raised these concerns, and they are concerns to which we should all pay attention. I know my colleague from Wyoming does. I, for one, thank them. I do not know what is going to happen with the debate. I hope my colleagues can address some of these concerns. Some amendments may be necessary. I suspect they will get broad-based support. So, I came over to give a speech about education and I got educated, myself. I thank my colleagues, and I appreciate the points they raise. They are very valuable. The point raised about China is worthy of valuable note.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and colleague from Virginia. Mr. President, I am not going to take much time. I see my good friend from West Virginia who always has worthwhile information to share with this body. I see my colleague from Louisiana is here as well. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I don't want to interrupt the flow of debate. I have a matter I would like to discuss that doesn't pertain to the matter before us. I see my good friend from Virginia. He may want to comment on this debate. If that is the case, then I will yield for this discussion to go forward, since I don't want to necessarily interrupt the flow.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield to my colleague from Virginia.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am here to continue to raise my voice and express concerns about the forthcoming debate regarding elementary and secondary education. During almost my entire service in the Senate, I have been fortunate to serve on what now is called the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I have had the privilege of serving with many wonderful Members, Democrats and Republicans, over the years, who have dedicated themselves to improving the quality of public education in America: Senator Pell, Senator Stafford, Senator Kennedy, the present ranking member, Senator Jeffords, the present chairperson of the committee. Each of them deeply committed to seeing to it that this Nation provides our children the best educational opportunities possible. I believe that the Members of the Committee, today, are anxious to continue that tradition. I do not know exactly when this matter will come before the Senate for consideration, but I am troubled that during the process of negotiation, while we are trying to work out our differences, not all the issues are on the table for discussion. It has been most worthwhile for us to deal with the issues of accountability. Our colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, has for years championed the cause of the accountability of our schools across America, both as a Member of this body, and earlier as a Member of the other body. He brings to this debate years of experience and knowledge and I am particularly grateful to him for his help. Over the years, we typically have passed education bills that enjoyed broad support, 90 or 95 votes, to support our elementary and secondary schools. I enjoyed being part of those truly bipartisan efforts. Every day, about 50 million children attend public schools in the United States. Many of them, through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, depend on Congress to provide them with resources that they need to help them get the education they need and deserve. Yet, we spend only about 2 cents of every Federal dollar on public education. In my view, we have not been a very good partner with our local communities in helping to improve the quality of education. Another--probably surprising--fact is that the Federal government contributes only about 7 cents to every dollar spent on education. Our small towns, cities, counties, and States provide the other 93 cents education. So, for all we talk about what needs to be done about public education, we really haven't put our money--your money --where our mouth is. A couple weeks ago, we debated the budget of our country. The great debate was over the size of the tax cut that the President has proposed. Virtually every Member, in fact, virtually everyone I know, believes that a tax cut makes sense given the budget surpluses projected. But how much of a tax cut? The President wants $1.6 trillion, based on ten-year economic projections. I don't know of a single economist worth his or her salt who believes that we can project with any degree of certainty what America's and the world's economic situation will be a decade from now. Yet the President of the United States and those who support him on this matter want to spend $1.6 trillion of this budget over the next 10 years on a tax cut. And, Mr. President, $680 billion of that $1.6 trillion, will go to individuals who presently earn more than $300,000 a year. Over that same period, the President would increase spending on education by $42 billion, or about one-sixteenth of what he would spend on tax cuts for the wealthy. I think in that context that we really ought to do better than spending only 2 percent of our budget to support America's educational. The administration and others say that full funding for title I of ESEA, which provides Federal dollars to the most needy school districts in America, is just too costly; that full funding for special education is just too costly; that we just can't afford it. But, we can afford $680 billion for a tax cut for people who make more than $300,000 a year which by the way is about twice as much as the Federal, State, and local governments combined spend on education in this country. I represent the most affluent State in America on a per capita income basis. Some of my constituents want a tax cut. I have represented my State for more than two decades in the U.S. Congress. I am home almost every weekend. I have a fairly good idea of how people in Connecticut feel on issues. On this issue, the overwhelming majority of my constituents, including those from the most affluent communities, tell me that we don't need this size tax cut, in light of the economic forecast and the many needs that America has. And, these are the people who would be the direct beneficiaries of the proposal the President is advocating. This tax cut threatens to throw us back into the situation I encountered when I arrived in this body 20 years ago. I had been here a year, I say to my colleague from West Virginia, when I was asked to vote on a tax cut proposal that I thought was dangerous then. I wasn't sure. I was a new Member. I was one of 11 people who voted against the tax cut proposal, and as I look back over 20 years of public service in this body, I don't think I ever cast a better vote. And I don't know many Members who were here that day who wouldn't like to have that vote back because of the great harm it did to our country, throwing us into a deficit that took our national debt from $900 billion to almost $5 trillion in a little less than a decade. Today, we have come out of that situation for a lot of reasons which I will not go into this afternoon. We have been given a second chance not to make the same mistake we did two decades ago. In the midst of this, we are going to have a debate about educational needs. The President has said many times that this is his No. 1 priority. How many times during the past year did we see the President campaigning in from of a banner that said ``Leave No Child Behind.'' I supported Al Gore for the Presidency, but I liked that the President said he was committed to leaving no child behind. And, part of me said that maybe he would take the right track. But, I am sad to report after 100 days that the ``Leave No Child Behind" administration will do just that, if we adopt their education program that imposes strict new mandates on local communities--that they can't afford on their own--but won't commit the resources to match. Unlike the defense authorization or the agriculture bill, which we consider every year, we won't consider the elementary and secondary education bill again for seven years. This is our one chance to establish our educational priorities as we start the new global millennium. A child entering an elementary school in Connecticut today is not competing with a child from Louisiana or West Virginia or Oregon. They are competing with children from Beijing, Moscow, Australia, South Africa, and Europe. We are in a global economy. We have to produce the best educated, best prepared generation America has ever produced. And in no small measure what we do in the next few weeks will determine whether or not we are successful in that endeavor. We talk about testing teachers and testing students. Well, we are about to take a test, ourselves. The test is whether we can get beyond politics in discussing an education bill, as we used to do around here. It is an embarrassment that we spend only two cents of each dollar of the national budget on education, when the President says that education ought to be our top priority. I agree with the President on that, but not on the resources he is willing to devote to education. I am very worried that, during the ongoing negotiations, as we talk about testing and accountability, which I agree have and merit, we have not reached a consensus about how we will support real improvements in the schools. Tests are measurements, not reforms. We also need to support the real reforms that the tests will measure. An educator in my home State of Connecticut said the other day: Taking someone's temperature three times an hour does not improve their health, medicine does. Or, as my good friend and colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, said the other day: Resources without reform are a waste of money. But reform without resources is a waste of time. That is about as good a statement I have heard in this debate over the last number of weeks. She is exactly right. I would like to place on the table, in addition to accountability and testing and the other things we are discussing, the principle that we ought to have resources committed to school construction, and other issues. It is a disgrace that the average American child goes to school in a building built in the 1950s. And, we need to help schools get class sizes down to a level where teachers can teach and kids can learn. That ought to be a part of this negotiation. Teachers do a magnificent job every day. I am somewhat biased in this. My oldest sister has been a teacher for about 30 years in the public schools of my State. She taught in the private schools; in the Montessori system of teaching before that. I have a brother who taught 25 years at the university level and my father's three sisters taught for 40 years apiece in the public school system in my State. All three are now gone, but they prided themselves on that and dedicated themselves as teachers. One of them was a Fulbright scholar. She taught in the Hartford Public High Schools. So I come to this debate and discussion, I suppose, with somewhat of a bias in that I have grown up with two generations of my family dedicated to teaching young people. Nothing makes me more angry than when I hear people suggest that teachers do not care. Maybe there are some, but I have never met one. The ones I have met, the ones I know, could have chosen other career paths in their lives and been financially rewarded to a far greater extent than they were as teachers. But they were dedicated to improving the educational quality of their pupils. This Nation is built on a number of great things. One of the best is a commitment to education by a group of people who educate succeeding generations of Americans. Those teachers embrace the values incorporated in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. We ought to applaud them every single day and thank them. I listen to teachers talk about what needs to be done. We all ought to pay attention to that. We ought to listen to our PTAs and school boards, people who work every day with these issues. When I talk about class size, school construction, afterschool programs, teacher quality--these are not my ideas; these are not issues the Senator from Louisiana or the Senator from West Virginia or the Senator from Oregon thought up on our own. We were back listening to the folks at home who told us this is what is needed to make the system work better. In the remaining hours and days here, before we begin a debate on this subject matter, let us not be co-architects of a plan we will come to regret. There are those who are anxious to see the public educational system of this country disappear. I know that sounds like a radical thought, but there are those who believe it. I believe we may be setting up a system that will have a self-fulfilling prophecy ingrained in it, to produce the result that schools do not work and that we have to come up with alternatives to those to educate people in this country. That is not an answer. Mr. President, 55 million children went to school today: 50 million went to a public school, 5 million went to a private or parochial school, 5 million. There is no way in the world we are going to create a private or parochial school system to accommodate the educational needs of generations of Americans for the 21st century and beyond. We have an obligation, every one of us here and at home, to weigh in and to make our schools better. We need national leadership that is going to put their shoulders behind that effort. And you cannot do it on the cheap. You cannot go around the country and talk about it every day and show up in classrooms for photo opportunities and come back here and say: We just cannot afford to do this, but we can afford to spend $1.6 trillion on a tax cut, nearly half of which goes to the most affluent. I hope my colleagues in the coming days will find that common ground and put these items on the table. Let's negotiate these items as well before we come to the floor with an education bill that runs the risk of testing kids and holding schools accountable but not providing the resources that our most needy schools require to implement reforms. I apologize to my colleagues for taking a bit more time than I thought I would, but I thank you for your attention, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on Monday, April 2, the Senate took long awaited action to approve legislation to address what the American people believe is the single most egregious abuse of our campaign finance system--that is the unlimited flow of soft money permeating our elections system. If the McCain-Feingold legislation did nothing else but close the soft money loophole, it would still be reform. But my colleagues have accomplished much more in this legislation. I congratulate Senators McCain and Feingold for their vision in recognizing the powerfully negative influence of the money chase on our political system and their dogged persistence and patience in striving to craft a consensus on reform legislation that seeks to address the worst aspects of the current system. But the Senate would not have passed this bill were it not for the equally determined leadership of Tom Daschle and the Democratic caucus. No member has been more consistent in support of reform than our leader, and no member has worked harder behind the scenes to hold the Democratic caucus together in support of this measure. At the same time, I must also acknowledge the powerful influence of my colleague, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for his unstinting devotion to the principles of free speech and his unyielding belief that most, if not all, proposed campaign finance reforms are not only unwise, but unconstitutional. While a majority of this body clearly do not share Senator McConnell's views, I appreciate his willingness to allow the debate to continue unhindered, unlike debates in the past, by repeated cloture votes. This debate has exemplified the Senate at its best. The free flow of debate, the unrestricted offering of well reasoned amendments, and the opportunity for all members to be heard are the hallmarks of this, the world's greatest deliberative body. Finally, I must express my great respect to my colleagues in the Democratic caucus, under the very able leadership of Senator Daschle, who, along with a small group of courageous Senators across the aisle, have put aside their own short-term political interests and voted time and again in favor of comprehensive, commonsense, and badly-needed campaign finance reform. I predict that this debate will find its place in history as one of the greatest Senate debates in the last decade, both in terms of its content and its impact on our system of democracy. I have been privileged and honored to serve as floor manager of this measure, along with the Senator from Kentucky. As my colleague from Kentucky has alluded, the stakes in this debate were considerable for many interested parties. And although members disagreed over the need for this measure, and amendments to it, Senators were not disagreeable in their debate. I thank my colleagues for their patience and cooperation throughout this debate. I also compliment my good friend, the Majority Leader, for his willingness to allow the Senate to have a free-flowing debate. This issue is of paramount importance to the continued health of this democracy, and his willingness to provide for free and open debate on the McCain-Feingold measure has produced, in this Senator's mind, an even better bill than was originally brought to the Senate floor. I am hopeful there will be an opportunity to make further improvements in this measure in the House. Although I am supporting the McCain-Feingold legislation, there are two provisions, in particular, that cause me concern. First is the so-called millionaire's provision which purports to level the playing field for candidates who face wealthy challengers. While that may be a laudable goal, the amendment ignores the fact that many incumbents who face wealthy challengers are sitting on healthy campaign treasuries, sometimes amounting to several million dollars. In those instances, this amendment serves as an incumbent protection provision. As I stated before passage of the Durbin-Domenici-DeWine amendment to fix this inequity, I am not satisfied that the Durbin amendment went far enough to recognize the considerable war chests that some incumbents have. I urge my colleagues in the House to carefully consider this provision with an eye to improving it. Secondly, although I reluctantly supported the Thompson-Feingold amendment to increase the individual hard money contribution limits, I did so only in the context of achieving broader reform. Quite simply, the increase in the hard money limits was the price to be paid to gain sufficient support from our Republican colleagues for banning soft money and reining in so-called sham issue ads. Of particular concern to me is the indexing of these increases which only ensures the continuing upward spiral of money into our political system. While I understand the desire of some to avoid a future debate on reform, the fact that the hard money limits had not been increased since 1974 is what created both the pressure and the opportunity for this reform. Again, I urge my colleagues in the House to consider these limits and avoid the temptation to increase them ever higher; otherwise, there may come a time when the price for reform becomes too great for this Senator. I am hopeful that the House will act expeditiously on this measure. While I do not suggest that House members forego their responsibility and right to thoroughly debate and amend this legislation, I encourage them to do so in a manner that will allow this bill to reach the President's desk before the end of this year. I also thank the numerous staff who have assisted in facilitating consideration of this measure, not the least of which are our Democratic floor staff, including Marty Paone, Lula Davis, and Gary Myrick, along with the outstanding Democratic cloakroom staff. I also extend my special appreciation to Andrea LaRue of Senator Daschle's staff. She, along with Mark Childress and Mark Patterson, were invaluable in offering much needed expertise and guidance on this legislation. Of equal assistance were the staffs of Senators Feingold and McCain, including Bob Schiff, Ann Choiniere and Mark Buse, as well as Laurie Rubenstein of Senator Lieberman's staff and Linda Gustitus of Senator Levin's staff. I also wish to acknowledge the contributions of Senator McConnell's staff, including Hunter Davis of his personal staff, and Tam Somerville and Andrew Siff of the Rules Committee staff. Finally, I thank Shawn Maher of my personal office staff, and Veronica Gillespie, my Elections counsel on the Rules Committee staff, as well as Kennie Gill, the Democratic staff director and chief counsel of the Rules Committee. One final point, Mr. President. The great justice, Learned Hand, once spoke of liberty as the great equalizer among men. In his words, ``the spirit of liberty is the . . . lesson . . . (mankind) has never learned, but has never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest.'' That, my colleagues, should be the ultimate test of whether any matter considered by this body is worthy of support. The McCain- Feingold legislation passes that test.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Is there a limitation on the amount of time?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to address the Chamber. May I ask, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to spend a couple of minutes, if I can, talking about the possibility of us debating and passing a comprehensive bill on elementary and secondary education. My hope is, of course, that in the coming days this body will do what it should have done 2 years ago; that is, to pass legislation, as we are required to do only once every 5 or 6 years, on elementary and secondary education. This morning across America 55 million children went to school. Fifty million went to school in a public school; 5 million went to school in a private or parochial school. We, as President Bush has said, bear a principal responsibility to the education of all our children, but a particular responsibility to children in our public schools, and even further, from a Federal standpoint, a particular obligation to the most disadvantaged children across America. That has been our historic participation, to try to assist our communities, our States, and most particularly families in this country who suffer from various depravations, to see to it that their children have an equal opportunity to success. We have no obligation, in my view, to guarantee anybody success in America. But we do bear responsibility to try to provide an equal opportunity to achieving success. That is all really any of us can try to accomplish in our public responsibilities. So the Elementary and Secondary Education Act historically over the years has been an effort by the Federal Government to assist and participate in the improvement of the quality of public education in the United States. For every dollar of education that is spent by our public sectors--State, local governments, and the Federal Government-- out of every dollar that is spent, the Federal Government spends about 6 to 8 cents. And 93, 94 cents of the dollar spent on elementary and secondary education comes from local property taxes in most States. I do not know what Oklahoma does, but I know in Connecticut it is mostly a local property tax. The State also contributes, but primarily it is local property taxes. So the Federal Government's participation financially is rather small when you think of it. Out of a dollar spent, we contribute about 6 or 7 cents. I am not going to debate this point right now, or discuss this point, but I happen to believe in the 21st century the Federal Government ought to be a better partner financially. I would like to see us become someday a one-third partner--the States one-third, the local government one-third, and the National Government one-third. What a wonderful relief it would be--and I saw the Presiding Officer nod affirmatively when I spoke of property taxes in Oklahoma, as is the case in Connecticut--what a great relief it would be, putting aside education issues, if we could say to people in Oklahoma and Connecticut: We are going to reduce your local property taxes by a third--that is where most of it goes, to education--because your Federal Government is going to step up and be a far greater participant in recognizing the national benefits we all accumulate if the quality of public education in this country improves. So that is what brings us to this particular point. There has been a lot of discussion about whether or not we have some agreements between the White House and the Senate on an Elementary and Secondary Education Act. There has been some progress. But we are light-years away from an agreement--light-years away from an agreement. I do not say that with any glee. I had hoped after 2 or 3 weeks of discussions we would be a lot closer. But reports I have read in the newspaper and heard in the press and heard from the White House, heard from some quarters here, that we are on the brink of some agreement, is very far from the truth. I think it is a sad commentary, but it happens to be a fact. Let me tell you why. First of all, we are asking schools to do some very dramatic things-- testing, for one. I am not terribly enthusiastic about testing as the only means of judging performance. Testing is really not a reform; it is a measurement of how well one does. That is all. As an educator in my State recently said: When children have a fever, taking their temperature three times an hour is not going to make them feel better; medicine will. Testing every year in and year out is inclined, in my view, to turn our schools into nothing more than test prep centers across America. Who is going to pay for that unfunded mandate if we jam that down the throats of communities across the country? I am very concerned with this mandatory testing idea as the only way to judge how students are performing. Many look to our schools as the source of the kids' problems when, in fact, in my view, the problems begin before the kids ever get to school. The problems too often are occurring at home. We do not want to look in the mirror and see what is happening in our own homes long before this child enters kindergarten or the first grade. We now blame child care centers. We blame the kindergarten teacher, the first, second, third, fourth, or fifth grade teacher because Johnny cannot read or Johnny is not performing well. As I said, too often the problems occur long before a child reaches school age or enters a child care center. We need to be a bit more realistic about what we can expect by testing kids all the time, at some significant cost, as a mandate. Accountability standards have been improved. I am willing to support some of those. These are the same accountability standards that have been developed, frankly, over the last few years. Jeff Bingaman, my colleague from New Mexico, has been the principal author of legislation to improve accountability standards that will get us closer to a better way of getting schools to live up to the obligations they bear for their students and families who send their children to these schools. Today's children are part of the first generation that is being raised in a truly global world. Nothing we do this year or in the coming years is more important than how we go about providing for our children's education. If we succeed in this endeavor, our country's future will be very bright. If we do not succeed, it is going to be bleak. With that in mind, I believe we have much work to do as we prepare to take up the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. If this debate turns out to be a feeding frenzy with literally dozens and dozens of amendments being proposed every 5 minutes, with Members having little knowledge of what they may do, we do not know what we are going to produce. Since we only deal with this once every 5 or 6 years, we ought to take some time and pull this together and come forward with a bill that truly recognizes and reflects bipartisanship, that includes the ideas of people who spend a lot of time thinking about how to improve the quality of education in our country, rather than one that is a jump ball that could end up doing a lot more damage despite the press releases and pats on the back we give ourselves on how we judge whether or not we have lived up to our obligations. The first issue we have to talk about candidly is the funding of these programs. If, as the President says, education is his top national priority--and I applaud him for that; this is what I call the hub of the wheel: education. If we get education right, then we increase dramatically the likelihood that every other issue will be dealt with intelligently, and we can build public support and come up with good answers. If, in a democratic society, our education system begins to crumble and fall apart, then our democratic institutions, in my view, begin to fall apart as well. Thomas Jefferson, 200 years ago, said that any nation that ever expects to be ignorant and free expects what never was and never possibly can be. If that was true at the outset of the 19th century, then it is even more profoundly true as we begin the 21st century. Our children will not just be competing with each other--a child in Oklahoma competing with a child in Connecticut or a child in Louisiana competing with a child in New Hampshire--it will be a child in Oklahoma and a child in Connecticut competing with a child in Beijing, Moscow, South Africa, Paris, Berlin, and Australia. That is the world in which they will have to be able to compete. What we do this year with elementary and secondary education will be how we begin the 21st century, giving this generation the tools it must have to succeed as a generation and to also perpetuate the vision and dream that each generation has embraced over our more-than-200-year history. Funding is important. I happen to believe if elementary and secondary education is the top priority, then it ought to be reflected in the funding. We know we need approximately $14 billion to meet the 6 or 7 cents out of every dollar the U.S. Government contributes to elementary and secondary education. What resources will we devote to title I, the most important title of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the primary mechanism through which the Federal Government provides resources to help low- income schools improve student achievement, resources to pay for more teachers, new computers, curricula, and other reforms? According to a study published this year: Whenever an inner city or poor rural school is found to be achieving outstanding results with its students by improving innovative strategies, these innovations are almost invariably funded by title I. The President's budget provides for an additional $42 billion for all education programs over 10 years. That is approximately $4.2 billion a year out of a huge economy, and I will speak to that in a minute. At the same time, the President's budget includes a $1.6 trillion tax cut over that same 10-year period. Think about this. The President said: This is my top priority. He has only been in office about 100 days: This is my top priority. All during the campaign: This is my top priority; $4.2 billion a year versus $1.6 trillion. The numbers speak louder than the rhetoric--much louder. By the way, under the President's tax proposal, approximately $680 billion will go to people who earn more than $300,000 a year. Those are not my numbers; those are the President's numbers: $681 billion will be going to people who earn $300,000 or more a year. That is where the tax cuts go. It appears the President considers tax cuts for people making over $300,000 a year to be seven times more important than increased funding for education in America. I do not agree with those priorities. I do not think the President does, or at least he says he does not. And I know the American public does not either. In fact, 3 weeks ago, this party on a bipartisan basis showed it does not agree with those priorities either. That is why we supported the amendment of Senator Harkin from Iowa to decrease the tax cut by $450 million and devote that amount equally to education and debt reduction. That is why we supported the amendment of Senator Breaux and Senator Jeffords to reduce the tax cut to provide funding for special education. I suspect Connecticut is not different from Oklahoma, Minnesota, or Louisiana. When I go home every week and meet with the mayors or first- select people--forget about meeting with the superintendents of schools and the PTAs--I say: Tell me what you think are the top priorities. I am going back to Washington on Monday; what can I do to help? The answer is: Special education. You guys promised 40 percent of the cost of this. You mandated it basically. You said: We will come up with 40 percent of the money for it. That was 25 years ago, and we have done about, at best, 11 percent. That money is not even included in the President's budget, although we force it down the throat of the administration. Special education is critically important. Contrary to what some in the administration say: we as a nation cannot afford the increased funding for education, the Democrats are saying we can afford it if we really believe it is a top priority. We are not talking about eliminating the tax cut. We are saying make a more modest tax cut and use some of those resources for making education the top priority that most people think it ought to be. I believe it is a priority to help children and communities by fully funding special education. I believe it should be a priority to provide children with afterschool programs to enrich their lives. I have been willing to go along with the accountability standards. Some testing may be fine. We will work that out. But I have asked the administration: How about school construction funds? That is something I really care about and I think a lot of parents do, too. Mr. President, 50 percent of our students this morning went to school in a building built prior to 1950. Think of that: 50 percent of our elementary and secondary kids walked into a building that was built prior to 1950. How about some resources for new school construction, wired to compete in a global economy, to have access to the great libraries and institutions all over the world? A kid who walks into a falling-apart building is going to get a falling-apart education. That is not any great leap of logic; that is a fact. How about some resources for new school construction? How about the White House saying: We will go along with you on that? I say: You want me to support some of your ideas that I think are questionable at best. How about supporting my ideas and those of us who advocate funds for school construction. Smaller class sizes: This should not take more than 5 minutes of debate. If a teacher is in a classroom and has more than 20 kids they are not teaching; all they are doing is managing chaos in most instances. The teacher cannot teach; the kids cannot learn. That is not a leap of logic; that is a fact. Every parent knows it; every teacher knows it. We do not need to do any studies; what we need is some resources to help poor communities across the country and others to come up with some resources so they can reduce class size and attract good people to the teaching profession. We talk about the administration that says we want to test teachers every year or every 2 years. I wonder, if I said we are going to test all lawyers every 2 years or test all doctors every 2 years--how about testing every Senator for 2 years? What other profession do we mandate at the Federal level we are going to require testing every year? If the administration tries to write that into the bill, I will not vote for it under any circumstance. That is punitive. It doesn't accomplish anything. It only creates great divisions within this country. It isolated the teaching profession. There are ways of determining whether or not teachers are doing a good job. A lot of the States are doing a good job in making those evaluations. Test the new ones coming in and decide whether or not they can teach at all and use some of the creative methods developed to determine whether or not teachers are up to the job. This rush to test everybody, every year, is not a model of form. We have asked for $14 billion, an increase of the elementary and secondary education authorization. I don't think that is too much. I don't think it is too much to demand in the context of a $1.6 trillion tax cut. I know many colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree with me. That is why I will offer an amendment with Senator Collins of Maine to authorize full funding for title I grants to schools over the next 10 years. Congress must go on record in making that, not a tax cut for the wealthy, a top national priority. That is why this education bill must include class size reduction funds. No one questions that smaller class sizes and better teachers result in better student achievement. That is why this education bill must include school construction funds. According to the GAO, the problem of inadequate, unsafe school facilities is a $112 million problem. The average school student goes to a school built around the 1950s. There are issues far from being resolved. They are not being discussed in these negotiations. Come out to the floor, offer your amendment, and see what happens. You accept all of our provisions and we will have a jump ball over yours. What happened to bipartisanship? How many times did I hear we would work things out? It is 50/50 here, almost 50/50 in the House. I heard the President say over and over again: I want to work in a bipartisan fashion. Bipartisanship means you take my ideas and we will see what happens to yours? That may be enough for some people; it is not enough for me. This bill will not be voted on again for 5 or 6 years. For many, this may be the last time we get to express how public education at the elementary and secondary schools across the country ought to be dealt with. We took 2 weeks on campaign finance reform. We took 2 weeks last year to name the Ronald Reagan National Airport. We can take a few weeks to try to get this right. The American people expect nothing less. I remember the days, not that many years ago, when an elementary and secondary education bill passed this Chamber by votes of 92-6, 96-4. Today we ought to try to achieve the same results and to truly work to include these provisions which are necessary. Democrats support real increases in proven programs. Yet the President, who says education is his top priority, would provide inadequate increases, $4.2 billion each year over the next 10 years, in a budget where he advocates a $1.6 trillion tax cut. We can do better than that. I know our colleagues agree with that conclusion. That is why this education bill must include construction funds, include class size reforms. We have to speak with a clear voice and build consensus. We are not there yet. In my view, we ought to be. But we are a long way from achieving the kind of consensus that those who have been out there suggest we are on the brink of; we are not. We may have to take some time before this is resolved. I intend to be heard on these matters. I don't want to see a bill come up which will turn into a mess out here that allows these ideas to go down the drain and the President claiming a bipartisan achievement because a few Democrats go along with something that isn't adequately funded, doesn't provide for the true reforms that are needed, and we end up doing some real damage to kids, and then build a consensus that our public schools have failed for this country and you have to walk away from it. That is my fear of what will happen down the road and we will look back to these days and rue the fact we didn't try to come together with a truly compromised bill that reflected the attitudes of all people in this Chamber and particularly the values and aspirations of the people we represent. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague, and I admire her work. She has been at these issues for a long number of years both in her home in Louisiana before she arrived in the Senate and as a Member of this body.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. We are talking about a very modest amount of money. We Members have been talking about billions of dollars yesterday and today. This amendment does not even get near the $1 billion figure. While we regularly talk of billions and trillion of dollars around here as if they don't count much, they surely count if you have a child in a children's hospital needing help, if you are a parent trying to afford child care and you are working, if you have seen what happens to children that are abused. The millions of dollars that this amendment will restore, while not the billions we usually talk about, can make a huge difference to a family with a sick child or in need of child care. Sixty thousand children could be positively affected by keeping the funding level for child care, not to mention the thousands of kids who need the help in our children's hospitals for pediatric care, and not to mention the abused and neglected children that would benefit from this amendment. I hope that the request that I am making to my colleagues on the Budget Committee with this amendment will find some room in their hearts to at least keep the playing field level for children and families that need our help. If we reduce the tax cut by this tiny amount, it will not cause any great damage to other people. These programs are deserving. The American public believes that children who are sick and need care, abused kids, deserve to get help. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, my amendment is currently being crafted, and I have been in discussion with the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. I will explain what the amendment is and then I will offer it shortly. I will be offering this amendment on behalf of myself and several of my colleagues: Senators Wellstone, Clinton, Bingaman, Corzine, Murray, Landrieu, Lincoln, Rockefeller, Dayton, and Durbin. This amendment ensures that critical children's programs will be protected from harmful cuts. President Bush, as we all know, campaigned on the promise to leave no child behind. If we heard it once, we heard it a thousand times during the campaign. Those of us who took this President at his word were dismayed, to put it mildly, by the news 2 weeks ago that he intends to pay for the tax cut by cutting programs affecting children's health, children's hospitals, child care, and child abuse prevention treatment programs. His actions certainly beg the question: When he pledged to leave no child behind, which children did he mean? Not abused and neglected children apparently because he would cut funding for child abuse by 18 percent. Yesterday I attended a wonderful program sponsored by Child Help USA, a national group supporting programs to eliminate child abuse in this country. I was pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the program. The luncheon was co-hosted by the distinguished wife of our majority leader and my wife. We had speakers from the House and the Senate, as well as many experts from across the country who are involved in child abuse prevention. Groups like Child Help USA, serving the needs of abused and neglected children throughout the nation, deserve our utmost support. The amendment that I offer today is a step in the direction of providing that support. What we are doing with this amendment is seeing to it that the level of funding for child abuse at the very least remains the same and we do not have an 18-percent cut in that program, as called for in President Bush's budget. More than 800,000 children are the victims of child abuse each year. Certainly an 18-percent cut in that program can be devastating for these very worthwhile efforts. Children's hospitals is a second issue addressed by this amendment. These hospitals train more than 25 percent of our Nation's pediatricians and more than 50 percent of the country's pediatric specialists. A $35 million cut in that program which trains pediatricians and pediatric specialists is surely a move in the wrong direction. The most critically ill children in our country are at these children's hospitals, and seeing to it they get the proper assistance and support is critically important. The third issue addressed by my amendment is the restoration of the $20 million cut in the early learning programs contained in President Bush's budget. These early learning programs were sponsored by our colleague from Alaska, Senator Stevens, and our colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. I believe the early learning program is certainly worthwhile, and it has to be restored. My amendment will restore this cut. Lastly, as many of my colleagues know, child care is a very important program to our nation's children and families. Last year, this body, along with the other body, increased funding for child care. Under the President's proposal, child care would be cut by $200 million which is a major step in the wrong direction. Given the needs of children who are on waiting lists for child care and of working families who need help in paying for the cost of child care, child care funding is vitally important. Mr. President, in Texas, 41,000 children are on the waiting list for child care assistance, in Florida, 44,000; Mississippi, 15,000; 16,000 in Massachusetts; 14,000 in North Carolina. Yet if the proposed cuts went into place, 60,000 more families with young children and toddlers would be denied child care assistance under the child care development block grant that was authored by my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, and myself. We think the restoration to present levels of funding is the very least we can do as we enter the 21st century with the established need for well-trained pediatricians, good early learning programs, adequately dealing with child abuse, and providing at least the same level of funding for child care assistance in this country. We are told all the reasons we need to have a tax cut of this size, but to do that, it seems to me, the cost of cutting into programs for the most needy people in our society--children in children's hospitals, children who are abused, children who need early learning programs--is too high a price to pay for tax relief. To say we cannot provide some reduction in that tax cut, where the bulk of it is still going to those who can afford these programs the most, to provide some assistance to these children and these families is something for which this body I believe does not want to be on record. This is not an increase. I stress to my colleagues, I am not asking for that. I will, however, at some point. Today all I am asking for is the restoration of last year's funding levels. That is all--child abuse, child care, and pediatric care, along with early learning programs that Senator Stevens and Senator Kennedy have championed, do not deserve these cuts. All I am asking for with this amendment is that we--at the very minimum--provide the same level of funding we provided just last year. While I surely support adding to these levels, and will work toward boosting funding as we move into the appropriation's process, the amendment I offer today simply restores cuts to these vital programs contained in President Bush's budget. Don't make cuts in these programs at the same time we are offering a substantial tax break for those I know who like it, but many of them would agree that their money could be better invested in programs that serve vulnerable children and families. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Minnesota.

Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 288

Mr. DODD. I do, Mr. President.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send a modification of my earlier amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. DODD. I call up amendment No. 322.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the Senator from Maine, we offer this amendment which restores some funding that is being cut for children's hospitals, as well as for the child care development block grant and the child abuse prevention programs. These moneys total around $270 million, which gets us back to the level of funding for this year. It is not beyond that at all. It just brings these numbers up to the present year level. I thank my colleague from Maine, who has worked tirelessly over the years on this issue. I urge my colleagues' support. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for his support, as well as my own ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield the remaining minutes on the proponents' side to the principal author of this bill, the person who deserves enormous credit, John McCain of Arizona.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield for the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield for the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will the Chair notify me when I have consumed 2 minutes. The Senate today is taking long awaited action to approve legislation to address what the American people have come to believe is the single most egregious abuse of our campaign finance system. That is the unlimited flow of soft money. If the McCain-Feingold legislation did nothing else but close the soft money loophole, this is true reform and needed reform. My colleagues have accomplished much more. I congratulate Senators McCain and Feingold for their vision in recognizing the powerfully negative influence that the money chase has had on our political system. I also congratulate their dogged persistence over these past number of years, and patience, in striving to craft a consensus on reform legislation that seeks to address the worst aspects of the current system. I thank the Democratic leader Tom Daschle. No Member has done more or been more consistent in their support of this legislation or worked harder behind the scenes to hold the Democratic caucus together in support of this measure. Without those votes on the Democratic side, this matter would not become law. I have been privileged and honored to serve as floor manager of this bill, along with the Senator from Kentucky. I thank my staff, Kennie Gill, Andrea LaRue, and others, along with the staff of my friend from Kentucky, for the very fine job they have done. This has been a good debate. It has been one of the finer moments in the Senate. One final point, the great Justice Learned Hand once spoke of liberty as the great equalizer among men. In his words: The spirit of liberty is the . . . lesson . . . (mankind) has never learned, but has never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest. That should be the ultimate test of whether any matter considered by this body is worthy of our support. The McCain-Feingold bill passes that very noble test. I urge my colleagues to support the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill.