Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Biden, Senator Wellstone, and our new Member, Senator Cantwell. I didn't hear all of the statements, but I listened to several of them. I was impressed with their astuteness and their level of articulation in support of this proposal. This amendment, as my colleague from Kentucky knows, is not going to pass. We don't have the votes for this amendment. The Senator from Massachusetts was fully aware of that the moment he stood up and offered the amendment. Unfortunately, that is the case. It doesn't diminish the rationale or reason for offering the amendment and asking our colleagues to consider it and informing the American public about the value this amendment offers. Let me step back a little and make two points. The details of this amendment have already been discussed. I think my colleagues and others may be aware of specifically how the amendment would work. It is a partial public financing program. As the Senator from Massachusetts has pointed out, some 23 States--almost half of the States--now have adopted some variation of this approach. The trend lines are clearly in this direction. We are not alone in the world. Most sophisticated allies of ours, the most sophisticated democracies, industrialized nations around the globe, have also adopted partial public financing, not asking people to contribute more in taxation but a part of what they have contributed to support the underlying efforts of sustaining democratic institutions. Let me make two points that have some value. One is, the reason this is necessary is that the Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech. Justice Stevens argued in a minority opinion back in 1974 that money was property, not speech. I agree with Justice Stevens. But he was of the minority view when the Court ruled on Buckley v. Valeo. For that simple conclusion that money is speech, we have been running this process out over the years where our ability to have some limitations on the amount of dollars that are spent and raised in seeking Federal office is significantly jeopardized because of the constitutionality of such provisions. In the absence of having some public financing, we have had now for some 25 years public financing of our Presidential elections. Every single candidate for the Presidency, every prevailing candidate for the Presidency--beginning with Gerald Ford through Ronald Reagan, through George Bush 1 and 2, Bill Clinton--has taken public money. No greater conservative than Ronald Reagan took public money to run for the Presidency because, under that scheme, we could limit to some degree the amount that would be spent. I know we have spent a lot of money on races. I hate to think of what the cost would have been in the absence of the public financing arrangement which every candidate has accepted, almost without exception, since 1976. What the Senator from Massachusetts and those of us who are supporting his efforts are suggesting is that if it has worked fairly well in Presidential contests, if it is working fairly well in 23 States, if it is working fairly well in major democracies around the world, is it such a radical idea to slow down the money chase of multimillion-dollar campaigns to try something along the lines the Senator from Massachusetts is suggesting? I think not. This is a modest proposal. In the absence of the constitutional amendment that our friend from South Carolina offered, which would say that money is not speech and amend the Bill of Rights--which many of our colleagues are reluctant to do, and I understand that; I happen to support him out of frustration because I don't know of any other means by which we can begin to try to slow down this exponentially growing foot race to gather the millions of dollars to run for Federal office-- in the absence of that, this is the only other way I know that we are really going to make some difference in what is a growing and serious problem in this country, where the cost of running for public office is going way beyond the means and reach of average citizens. As Senator Kerry has pointed out--I don't recall exactly the numbers, but roughly several hundred thousands of dollars, $300,000 to $400,000 on an average Senate race 25 years ago to around $7 million today--the cost has gone from some $400,000 to $7 million in the last 25 years, with no end in sight. How many Americans can even think about running for the Senate or the House of Representatives, where the factor of increase is almost the same? This amendment is necessary. It is a reasonable one and one that is worthy of support. The second thing I will mention about this: I heard my good friend from Kentucky talk about the diminishing response of the public to the checkoff system on the 1040 forms that has gone from a high of 29 percent down to some 12 percent. That is troubling. I believe it has less to do with the fact that there is a checkoff on public financing for Presidential races than the fact that those of us in public life are so devaluing public service, are so devaluing those who dedicate part of their lives or years of their lives to public service, that we demean it. We ridicule it. We attack each other every year. I am surprised there is any support left. If you were to transfer what we do to each other in the public debate in this country to the private sector, you would destroy most competing businesses. Someone once drew the analogy of comparing what would happen to McDonald's or Burger King if they engaged in campaigns against each other, competing for market share, with what we do as Democrats and Republicans in competing with each other for the right to represent them in public office. Someone suggested not only would they destroy each other, they would destroy franchised food. If you look at campaign advertising, the attacks we wage against each other, the personal degradation we attach to and associate with our political competitors, what has happened is, we have so devalued public service and the public life of elected office that the public has become understandably disgusted with the condition of politics in America. We have no one to blame for that but ourselves. In no small measure that has occurred because of the rising amount of dollars that are spent being convinced by political consultants that the best way to win office is not to convince anyone of the merits of your argument but if you can convince people that your opponent is somehow unworthy of even consideration for the office, let alone that his ideas or her ideas may lack substance, then you can win a seat in the Congress of the United States. Thus we see, as we did last year, where, of the 200 million eligible voters in America, only 50 percent voted; 100 million Americans cast their ballots for the Presidency of the United States, a decision that was made by a handful of votes in one State, and 100 million of our fellow citizens did not even show up on election day, where a tiny fraction, had they shown up in one State, would have resulted in a different outcome than what occurred as a result of the recounts and so forth that occurred in the State of Florida. I suspect that a good portion of that 100 million didn't show up because they forgot or because they had something better to do that day. I suspect a substantial portion didn't show up because they are disgusted with the process; they are sick and tired of coming into September and October after an election year and you can't turn on a single bit of programming without some mudslinging going on, attacking of one another, blistering one another. Whether it is through our own ads, or the ads of outside groups just trying to destroy the reputations of people seeking public life, I suspect that has more to do with the declining numbers of people checking off on the 1040 forms, the resource to support Presidential public financing. One of the reasons why McCain-Feingold deserves support, in my view, is because there is some hope that this will put the brakes on, slow this down enough so we don't have an unending exponential growth of dollars pouring into the coffers of candidates and groups out there year in and year out, destroying not only the candidates, but the public's confidence in a political system that has contributed greatly to this great Nation over 200 years. For those reasons, I applaud what the Senator from Massachusetts has offered. It is a worthwhile effort. I regret that he has to even go this route, but in the absence of it there is not much hope that we can do anything else in terms of getting the real numbers down. For those reasons, I support this amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be charged against both sides.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. DODD. I object to that. Let me explain if the leader will yield. We are going to debate the Thompson amendment, and there will be a vote on the Thompson amendment. There has been no decision whether it will be a vote up or down or to table.

Mr. DODD. I do not even want to agree with that. I understand where the Senator is coming from. At this point, I think we ought to go to the Thompson amendment, debate the Thompson amendment, and tomorrow get a better sense rather than push beyond that.

Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, the only request before the Chair is that posed by the majority leader?

Mr. DODD. We have 21 amendments.

Mr. DODD. Could I be heard at some point?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I believe I said earlier I was the only one here. I have been told a couple of colleagues may be on their way to the floor to be heard on this amendment before wrapping up debate tonight. I am very fond of my friend from Tennessee. We have gotten to know each other a little better over the last number of months. He is a wonderful addition to the Senate. He was not unfamiliar with this institution prior to being elected to it, having worked back in the 1970s as a very successful and influential member of the Watergate Committee staff, and, having worked with Howard Baker and others, he is no stranger to this institution. His participation in any number of issues has enriched the Senate. So it is with some sense of--again on a personal level, I would like to be supporting his amendment because I am very fond of him. People might understand those inclinations. But, unfortunately, I disagree with my colleague on this amendment. I will explain why. I always love this story. When they asked Willy Sutton why he robbed banks, I always loved his answer. He said, ``That's where the money is.'' That is why he robbed banks. We are not robbing banks, but my concern about this amendment is we are going to end up gravitating to where the money is. That is what we do. Our staffs and consultants and advisers and people who help raise money will tell you: Look, we have so much time in a day, so much time before the reelection or election campaigns. So if you have an hour to spend, we are going to spend the time going after those large contributors. It doesn't take a whole lot of knowledge to know that you do not go after the ones who cannot give as much. Instead, you go after the ones who can give more. My concern is not so much that this number goes up and that people who can afford it are going to have greater access and greater influence. What is not being said here is very troubling to me. We are moving further and further in the direction of seeking the support and backing of those who can afford to write a check for $2,500. But, make no mistake about it, we should be clear with the American public, these numbers are somewhat misleading. It doesn't make any difference whose numbers you are talking about. Under current law, an individual may contribute a $1,000 per election or $2,000 with $1,000 going to the primary and another $1,000 going to the general election. If we are talking about amendments being offered, Senator Hagel's proposal contained a $3,000 per election, Senator Feinstein is proposing $2,000 per election, while there are still others talking about $1,500 per election. Those numbers are really not a final number. A more accurate number is a doubling of the per election number to reflect one limit for the primary and another for the general, with the potential of yet another limit for a special or runoff election. So every number you read, has the automatic potential to double with respect to the individual contribution to candidates per election. I know very few cases where Members have gone after the $1,000 contribution and not ended up with the $2,000. That, after all, is how it works. Because, as a practical matter, you can give $1,000 before the primary and $1,000 for the general election. So when we talk about limits here of $1,000 or $1,500 or $2,000 or $2,500, do a quick calculation and double the amount. That is the general formula that an individual can contribute to a candidate per election. My friend from Tennessee proposes a $2,500 per election limit that individuals can give to candidates. This number may also double to $5,000, because that individual can write $2,500 for the primary and $2,500 for the general election. You do not have to have a primary, just as long as there was some potential contest within your own party for the nomination. Such a potential contest allows you to get that additional $2,500 limit. But it goes even beyond that. Frankly, people who can write a check for $2,500 probably can write a check for $5,000. If you can afford to give someone $2,500, there is a good likelihood your pockets are deep enough to write the check for $5,000. Under current law, each spouse has his or her own individual contribution limit. So that $2,500 becomes $5,000. If your spouse is so inclined--and they usually are-- the $2,500 under the Senator proposal then becomes $5,000 per election. As a couple, the total they can give is now up to $10,000 per election. Every single Member of this Chamber knows exactly what I am speaking about with respect to fundraising practices because as a candidate for this body many have done exactly what I have described. The general public may not follow all of this. That is how it is done. When you get that person who is going to give you $2,500 contribution for the primary, you always say: Can't you give me $2,500 for the general as well? In addition you say--Wouldn't Mrs. Jones or Mr. Jones also be willing, as well, to write those checks reflecting the maximum individual contribution limit per election? Under this proposal, we are talking about potentially a total of $10,000 per couple as opposed to the current levels of $2,000 or $4,000 per election, if you will, if both husband and wife contribute. That is a pretty significant total increase. My colleague quickly answers that his stamps have gone up, the price of television spots have gone up. I know that these costs have increased. But so has the population of the country and the number of people who can write $1,000 checks. In 1974 there were not a tremendous number of people who could write a check for $1,000 to a candidate. Today the pool of contributors who can give $1,000 has expanded considerably. Last year there were almost a quarter of a million people who wrote checks for $1,000. That is not a small amount of people: 235,000 people wrote checks for $1,000 to support Federal candidates for office. But what we are doing here by raising these amounts? We are moving further and further and further away from the overwhelming majority of Americans. I would like to see the average American participate in the electoral process of the country. I would like to see them contribute that $25 or $50 or $100, $200 to a candidate or party of their choice. However, given the average cost of a Senate race today or a House race--the numbers of my colleague from Tennessee suggests of around $7 million, and a House race around $800,000 a congressional district, I do not see many campaigns that are going to bother any longer with that smaller donor. It is the de facto exclusion of more than 99 percent of the American adult population who could support, financially, the political process in this country, that worries me the most. I am worried about us getting overly concentrated on only those who can afford to write the large, maximum checks to campaigns. But I am more worried that we are getting ourselves further and further and further removed from the average citizen. The Americans who could not dream, in their wildest dreams, about writing a check for $2,500, let alone $10,000 to support a candidate for the Senate or the House of Representatives. They couldn't dream about doing that. They may be making decent salaries and incomes so they are not impoverished. But the idea of writing out a $10,000 check or any such checks that we would allow if this amendment is adopted is beyond the average Americans' imagination. To some extent, it ought to be beyond ours as well. However, where we appear to be going is where the money is. That is what Willy Sutton said, and that is what we are saying. We are going to spend our time on that crowd because that is the most efficient use of our time with respect to fundraising. A phone call to Mr. and Mrs. Jones who can afford to make this kind of a contribution are going to get our attention. We are not interested in that individual who may be making $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, $60,000, $70,000, or $100,000 a year, with two or three kids, paying a home mortgage, trying to send kids to college. We are not interested, really, because they cannot even begin to think about contributions like this. That is the danger. That is the danger. I am really not overly concerned--although it bothers me--over this concentration of wealth and the access that comes with it by adopting this amendment. That bothers me. What deeply troubles me--what deeply troubles me--is that this institution gets further removed from the overwhelming majority of Americans. Their voices become less and less heard. They become more faint. They are harder to hear. They are harder to hear because we are getting further and further away from them since their ability to participate is being diminished. One of my colleagues----

Mr. DODD. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. That is part of it. I said, we are concentrating on who can give and how much they can give. Every time we raise the bar on the limits, then we are also expanding the number of people who do not, and maybe cannot, contribute their financial support. We are not even seeking their financial support, only their votes. I think there is inherently a danger in that. I think it is a positive thing, by the way, that people write that check out for $5 and $10 and $20 contributions. In some ways, it can be more significant because sometimes that $10 or $25 check from someone who is trying to make ends meet. It is a greater sacrifice in some ways than it is for some of the people I know who write checks for $1,000 or $2,000 or $10,000. That $10,000 in the context of their overall wealth is a smaller percentage than the person making that $50 or $100 contribution who really cannot afford to do it but believes it is in their interest. It is part of their responsibility of citizenship to support the political process of this country and to support our democratic institutions. What I am deeply troubled about--I am bothered by the raising of the contribution limits because of where I think it takes us, where it is ultimately going.

Mr. DODD. If you take the numbers of my friend from Tennessee, I think it is $400,000 in 1976--Is that right?

Mr. DODD. So $600,000 in 1976, and $7 million in the year 2000. I tried to do some quick math--and I could be corrected of course--but if you extrapolate from that and go to the next 10 years, to the year 2010, we are buying into the notion that there is nothing we can do about this. It is just going to keep getting more expensive, guys. So we are just going to make it a little easier for you to reach the levels of $13 million. I think that is about where we go in 10 years if the trend lines are accurate and continue. I realize there can be changes here because it is not a perfect trend line. But if you take where it was 10 years ago, I think in about 1990 it was $1.16 million----

Mr. DODD. Sorry. So that was 1993. It has doubled. It is roughly about the same. So we may be talking about roughly $12 or $13 million in 10 years. So as we raise the bar to make it easier for us to get up there, we are shrinking the pie of people who can contribute. Getting smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller are the number of people who can write these kinds of contributions. Make no mistake about it, that is where the money is. That is where we are going to go. You are not going to hold $100 fundraising events. You might do it because it is good politics. Maybe it will pay for the hotdogs and chips, and so forth, but you are not going to have a fundraiser doing that. It is a political event. Fundraisers have, as their minimum contribution, $500, $1,000, $1,500, or whatever it is as the bars go up. In response to the question of my friend from Minnesota, that bothers me. What troubles me--what deeply troubles me--is that as that pool shrinks of those Americans who can make those large contributions, the pool expands of those Americans who are excluded from the process. And that is a great danger. That is a peril. For us to enter the 21st century having inherited 200 years of uninterrupted democracy in this country, the only responsibility we have as life tenants, charged with however long we serve in this body, is to see to it that future generations will inherit an institution as sound and as credible and as filled with integrity as it was when we inherited it. To go in the direction we are headed here puts that, in my view, in peril and danger because of the very reason we are excluding too many Americans from having a voice to participate in our political process.

Mr. DODD. Yes. I did not get to that, but that is further down the line.

Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague, I will regain my time a little bit here, and then I will yield to him.

Mr. DODD. I suggest more of the latter. I didn't get to that part of the amendment yet, but the Senator from Minnesota is correct. I have a hard time saying this and keeping a straight face. Today, and for the last number of years, you could give up to the limit of $25,000 per calendar year to Federal candidates. There were 1,200 people in America last year in part of the national campaign, including the Presidency, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate, who wrote checks contributing the $25,000 limit. I think it was 1,238 Americans to be exact. But now we are saying--This is too tough. This is a real burden. These poor people out there, they are upset about this. We have to do something for these folks. This is outrageous that they have an aggregate limit for each individual of $25,000. We are going to double that cap. We are going to say to them--The aggregate limit is now $50,000 per individual per calendar year. As I have suggested, as a practical matter, a husband and wife have their individual limits. If you can write a check for $50,000, I will guarantee that the couple can write checks totaling $100,000 in aggregate limits. My colleague from Minnesota is correct. This is the softening of hard money. I don't know of anybody who keeps personal accounts--I am not talking about candidates no. I am talking about the average citizens. If they have a bank account at the Old Union Savings and Trust, or whatever it is, then they have their soft account and their hard account. I don't know of anybody, particularly average citizens, who segregates their own wealth that way. They write checks for politicians. They are told they have to send this to the soft money non-Federal account or instead, to the hard-money Federal account. But the average citizens do not keep money nor accounts that way. When they are writing checks for $100,000 and we say, ``That could be all hard money,'' we make the contributor dizzy. They get nervous when you start telling them about soft and hard money. Money is money. The fact is, it is too much money in the political process. The average citizen who hears about this throws up their hands. They shake their heads in utter disgust. They must think, what are these people thinking about. How disconnected can they be from the people of their States and their constituencies. It is not understandable to the average American if we sit here with a straight face and suggest that raising the maximum aggregate annual limits from $25,000 to $50,000 per year, which could total $100,000 per year per couple.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. I suggest they may have. I am not sure I heard my friend from Tennessee talk about statements made in 1971 or 1972. Prior to the adoption of the legislation after Watergate in 1974, people such as former distinguished colleague George McGovern and others who had suggested limits that were higher than even what we are talking about. I would be curious to know, had we said to them at that time, by the way, as a result of what you are doing, what the cost of an average Senate race would be 25 years from now, that even with $1,000 limits, we would be looking at a $7 million cost, when in 1976, the average cost was $400,000, and if you buy into this, it is going to rise to $7 million. My concern is, by doubling the limits, we are inviting those numbers to go up. We are doing nothing about trying to at least slow this down from the direction it is clearly headed in: $13 million in 10 years, an average cost of a Senate seat. We are going to make this the Chamber of the rare few who can afford to be here or have access to these kinds of resources. I accept the notion that costs have gone up. I also accept the notion that there are many more people today who could make that $1,000 contribution than could in 1976. It was a relatively small number of people then. Of course, that law also had other limitations which the Court threw out after the adoption of the campaign finance reform measures of 1974. I realize the contribution limit is going to go up. I am even willing to accept some increase in the numbers. I am not suggesting we ought not to have any increase, although I could make a case for that. I hope my friend from Tennessee and others who care about this--I know a lot of Members do--that we can find some numbers here that would be more realistic. The stated purpose must demonstrate that we are trying to slow down the money chase. It should not get any more out of hand than it has. If you don't think it is out of hand--I know there are Members who don't--if you don't think the direction we are heading in is dangerous, if you don't think we are excluding more and more people every year, when you should look at the tiny percentage of people who actually can write these checks. During the 1999-2000 election cycle, the were only 1,200 people who could write checks totaling $25,000 per year. Out of a Nation of 280 million people, there were 230,000 people who wrote $1,000 checks. Basically we disregard most of the other contributors. If you think we are heading in the right direction, then you ought to support this amendment. If you think this is getting us dangerously close to the point where fewer and fewer people are going to participate in the process, then you should oppose this amendment. I remind my colleagues that in the national Presidential race last year, one out of every two eligible adult voters did not show up at the polls. Despite the fact we spent over $1 billion in congressional races, not to mention what was spent on the Presidential race, one out of every two eligible adult voters of this country did not vote. There is a reason for this statistic. I suggest in part it is because people are feeling further and further and further removed from the body politic. If you will, the body politic of our own Nation is being pulled further and further by excluding the average American. They do not believe they have the ability to have some say in politics. Their voices are being drowned out. Average Americans are further and further removed from being involved in the decision making process of who will represent them. That worries me deeply. That is what troubles me about this amendment. For those reasons, I will oppose the amendment when the vote occurs. I urge that others see if we can't find some configuration. I am still hopeful, I say to the Senator from Tennessee, that maybe some configuration here that can be founded. There are a couple of numbers I didn't address, such as PAC limits, the State and local parties limit, the national parties limit. I don't really disagree with my colleague regarding where he has come out on those numbers. In fact, he could even move them around a little more. I accept that. The number I have objected to is the aggregate annual limit of $50,000 per calendar year. There has been another number suggested by our colleague from California. There is a possibility of a compromise in there somewhere that we might be able to reach. I am not interested in seeing us go through an acrimonious debate and having a series of amendments where I think people recognizing the realities, could come to some reasonable compromise. Our colleague from Tennessee has already reduced his original proposal by $500--as I think his original proposal was $3,000. He is now proposing $2,500 with this amendment. It is presently $1,000 per election under current law. It seems to me that if we are serious about this, we will attempt to come to a compromise. For those of us who support McCain-Feingold, who want to see us send a bill to the President that he could sign, then I would urge, between this evening and tomorrow, that we might try to find that ground. I know that there are many people here interested in doing that. I add my voice to that. I am more than prepared to sit down with others who may be so inclined to see if we can't find some numbers that we can live with and defend. Numbers, I hope, that will both restrain the exponential growth of the cost of campaigns and not get us even further removed from the average citizens' ability to participate in the process financially and otherwise. I put that on the table for whatever value it may have. I hope there is something we can do. I commend my colleague. I mentioned how fond I am of him personally and what a contribution he has made to the Senate. He has made very good suggestions in this amendment. While I disagree with some basic points, there are elements with which I do not disagree. I commend him for that and want to be on record in support of those efforts he has made. My colleague from New York has arrived. I don't know what my colleague from Tennessee wants to do.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thought maybe my colleague might want to inform our Members as to what the program is tonight and tomorrow.

Mr. DODD. Fifteen minutes is what I need.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an issue that came to light at the close of business last week in an article that appeared in the New York Times by Robert Pear, ``Bush's Budget Would Cut Three Programs to Aid Children.'' It goes on to describe child care, child abuse programs, early learning programs, and children's hospitals that would receive significant cuts in the President's budget proposal when that proposal arrives. We haven't seen the budget yet. My hope is that maybe the administration might reconsider these numbers that we are told are accurate. I tried to corroborate this story with several sources, and while no one wants to step up and be heard publicly on it, no one has also said that the numbers are wrong. I suspect they are correct. The President campaigned on the promise to leave no child behind. If we heard it once, we heard that campaign slogan dozens and dozens of times all across the country. I don't recall seeing the President campaigning when he didn't have that banner behind him saying: Leave no child behind. Those of us who took the President at his word were shocked, to say the very least, by the news on Friday that the President intends to cut funding for critical children's programs, programs that address basic survival needs of these young people and their families. Certainly his actions beg the question, when he pledged to leave no child behind, which children did he mean? Apparently not abused and neglected children, since he would cut funding for child abuse prevention and treatment by almost 20 percent. Almost 900,000 children are victims of child abuse each year in America. Is the President going to ask those children to choose amongst themselves which 20 percent of them shouldn't have their abuse investigated? Is he going to ask them to decide which 20 percent are going to have their abusers brought to justice? When the President promised to leave no child behind, he must not have meant sick children. The President would cut funding for children's hospitals by some unspecified ``large'' amount. I am quoting from the story. This funding, which supports the training of doctors who care for the most seriously ill children in our country, had tremendous bipartisan support when it was first appropriated last year. A cut in this program of any size would be a huge step back for chronically ill children and their families. When the President promised to leave no child behind, he must not have meant the thousands of children who are warehoused every year in unsafe child care settings. He is proposing to cut child care funding by $200 million and to cut all $20 million for the funding of the new early learning program sponsored by Senator Stevens of Alaska and Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts. If the President's proposed cuts prevail, 60,000 families with babies and toddlers will be denied child care assistance. At a time when our goal is to give low-income working families the support they need to stay off welfare, such a proposal is unfathomable in my mind. The President justifies these cuts by saying that instead families will get tax breaks. Allow me to point out a few reasons why I find this justification wrongheaded. First, this answer conveniently ignores the fact that 43 percent of the tax cut, as we all know, goes to the top 1 percent of the wealthiest families in America, not usually the families who have the biggest problem finding affordable child care or getting good health care when their children are sick. Secondly, while tax cuts when done in a fair and responsible way can be helpful, they are not the panacea for children's needs. The last time I checked, tax cuts didn't prevent child abuse or make child care safer or make sick children well. The last time I checked, there were proven programs in place, enacted with bipartisan support in this body and the other Chamber, that were addressing those very problems. Yet these are the very programs the President has decided apparently to cut. The President described himself as a compassionate conservative. Yet every day, with every action over the past 2 months, the evidence seems to be mounting that while he is long on conservatism, he seems a little short on compassion at this point. Next week the Senate will take up the budget resolution, our blueprint for spending for next year. It is my fervent hope and my intention that these are the kinds of issues we will air and that, with the choices I will be asking us to make, we will have a chance to restore some of this funding when those proposals come up. If they are presently included at the levels that have been suggested, I will be offering appropriate language to address them. I can't help but notice the presence of my friend from Pennsylvania on the floor, who I know is here to address the matter before the Senate, the Hollings proposal. I thanked him in his absence, and I thank him publicly. It was the Senator from Pennsylvania who last year, when the child care funding levels were going to be raised to full funding of $2 billion, made that happen. He and I have worked on these issues for 20 years together, from the days when we first identified the issue and then crafted the legislation. In fact, Senator Hatch, who will be coming to the floor shortly, was the original cosponsor with me of the child care development block grant program. When I express my disappointment, I don't do so in a partisan way because I have worked closely over the years with Members who understand the value of decent child care and the value of children's hospitals, the value of early learning, as Senator Stevens of Alaska has, as champion of that particular issue. My hope is that the administration, in the days remaining before they submit the budget to Congress, will listen to some of us who urge them to take a second look at these issues before sending us a budget proposal that sets the clock back at a time when we need to be doing more for families who are struggling to hold their families together to make ends meet. I didn't mean to raise the name of the Senator from Pennsylvania particularly, but I saw him and I wanted to thank him for the tremendous work he has done on these issues over the years. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an editorial entitled ``The Mask Comes Off,'' by Bob Herbert.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.