Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs; along with the chairman of the full committee, Senator Helms; the distinguished majority leader; the minority leader; and other colleagues who are here--Senator Biden--in extending a very warm welcome to the distinguished President. We have great admiration for him and the people of Colombia. The struggle in which we are all engaged affects all of us in this hemisphere, particularly those in the United States. And we know we are going to do everything we possibly can to see to it the support of the United States is forthcoming to President Pastrana and the people of Colombia. Mr. President, you are warmly welcome here today. We are delighted you are with us.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss briefly the Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Resolution that was passed by the Senate this afternoon. Regrettably, I was unable to support this budget resolution. I believe the focus of this resolution was skewed at best. Instead of investing critical dollars in modernizing our nation's aging schools, in providing a comprehensive prescription drug benefit for seniors, in protecting our natural environment, or in reducing our national debt, this resolution chose as its priority a set of risky and irresponsible tax cuts that our country cannot afford. There are several reasons I feel compelled to oppose the resolution. First, this budget resolution calls for at least $150 billion in tax cuts over the next five years to be paid for out of the non-Social Security surplus. This substantial tax cut will result in increased interest payments of nearly $18 billion dollars. So at a minimum, the tax provisions within the resolution have a real cost of $168 billion. The CBO has estimated that the on-budget surplus for the next five years will be $171 billion. The math here is simple, Mr. President. The tax cuts consume nearly 98 percent, at a minimum, of the projected on- budget surplus and leave nothing for other crucial investments. If these tax cuts reach $200 billion over five years--as they well may--then they will exceed the on-budget surplus and eat into current programs. There are only so many places to turn to for funding once the on-budget surplus has been drained. One is the Social Security surplus--a surplus we have committed to keeping off-limits to new spending or tax relief measures. Are our colleagues going to break that commitment to pay for their tax cuts? I would hope not. Another is to sharply cut spending for priorities such as education and law enforcement. That option is also highly troubling. Mr. President, I represent a state that has the highest per capita income in the country. And on a per capita basis, my constituents would stand to benefit a great deal from the tax cuts proposed in this resolution. However, in my travels across Connecticut, not one of my constituents has ask me to support the tax breaks in this resolution. On the contrary, they have urged that the surplus be dedicated to lowering the debt, to strengthening Social Security and Medicare, and to improving the quality of education for America's schoolchildren. Second, this resolution chips away at our fiscal discipline. By only covering the next five years as opposed to the ten in last year's resolution, the exploding costs of the tax cuts in later years remain hidden. Furthermore, this tactic prevents any meaningful enforcement mechanisms that would serve to control these run-away costs. After all the progress we have made over the past seven years in eliminating the budget deficits, this resolution would take us back to those grim days of runaway deficits. Third, I am also troubled by the deep cuts in discretionary spending proposed in this resolution. The use of the on-budget surplus for tax cuts would require that non-defense discretionary priorities be cut by nearly $105 billion, or 6.5 percent, over the next five years. These cuts would therefore cause 62,000 fewer students would be served by Head Start. Twenty-thousand new teachers could not be hired which would severely impede efforts to reduce class size. Significant cuts in new housing vouchers would threaten millions of low-income families in tenuous living situations. Funding for the COPS Program would be cut by 73 percent, making it impossible to meet the President's goal of hiring up to 150,000 new police officers. And funding for the National Science Foundation would be cut by $500 million, preventing the training of 19,100 researchers and educators needed to address our high-skilled worker shortage. Mr. President, these are just some of the consequences of the risky tax scheme that is the centerpiece of the resolution. The resolution offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ignored these critical priorities, and when offered the chance to address these important issues, they repeatedly failed to make a bad resolution better. Moreover, I was discouraged that Democratic amendments were defeated to improve the resolution and redirect its priorities away from risky tax breaks and toward important commitments like debt reduction, Medicare and education. One such amendment, offered by Senators Kennedy and Bingaman, would have bolstered our investment in education by $31.7 billion over the next five years. It increased funding for the GEAR UP program, expanded after-school opportunities for children, and provided $2 billion to recruit and mentor qualified teachers. Senator Robb offered an amendment, also defeated, that would have required that the surplus be spent on a prescription drug benefit before those funds could be used for a tax cut. The Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, Senator Lautenberg, offered a Democratic alternative resolution that would have reduced the debt by $330 billion while providing almost $300 billion in targeted tax cuts. The amendment fully funded education and defense and reserved funding for important initiatives such as health coverage for the uninsured. Regrettably, it was defeated on a party-line vote. Our Republican colleagues also failed to support a bipartisan amendment that I was proud to offer with Senator Jeffords. It would have reduced the size of the resolution's tax cut and directed resources to help families, schools, and local taxpayers bear the rising cost of special education. The National Governor's Association calls special education their highest priority. Unfortunately, the Senate ignored their request for federal assistance. Senator Voinovich offered an amendment that directed the $150 billion slated for tax cuts toward debt reduction. His proposal would have helped ensure that future generations have the ability and resources to make their own investments without also having to pay our bills. This amendment drew support from both sides of the aisle, but this, too, was defeated. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has stated on numerous occasions, and even recently before Senate committees, that debt reduction should be our number one priority. I regret that my colleagues chose to ignore his recommendation to instead support tax breaks over placing our country on sound financial footing. In short, Mr. President, this resolution jeopardizes the prosperity that so many have worked so hard to achieve. It mortgages our children's future, rather than helps them prepare for it. I regret that the Senate could not fashion a resolution that protects our values and advances our priorities--debt reduction, Social Security, Medicare, and a better education for America's schoolchildren.

Mr. DODD. I thank our colleague from New Mexico. Title I funds go to the poorest students, the poorest school districts in the United States. All of us know that in the 21st century these children have to be the best prepared generation we have ever produced. My hope is to get the resources back to these communities. It was unanimously adopted by the Democrats and Republicans in the committee. We urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we have a clear choice before us today. We have the opportunity to fulfill our commitment to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We can accomplish this long overdue goal by simply reducing this measure's tax relief. We can strengthen our commitment to special needs children, their parents, and our local school boards, or instead, we can once again shirk our commitment to special education in favor of even larger tax relief, the great majority of which benefits the most wealthy. The Jeffords-Dodd amendment is simple. When Congress passed IDEA in 1975, we made a commitment to provide 40 percent of special education costs. Presently we provide 12.7 percent, the highest level ever reached by the federal government. Our amendment would fully fund IDEA over a five-year period, at the 40 percent level Congress originally pledged, by increasing the allocation to Function 500 of the budget resolution for special education, and for the first time will allow us to meet our obligation to special needs children and local schools. In my own state of Connecticut, Mr. President, the state spends more than $700 million annually, or 18 percent of the state's overall education budget, to fund special education programs. In Connecticut's towns, the picture is even worse. Too often our local school districts are struggling to meet the needs of their students with disabilities. In Torrington, Connecticut, special education costs recently increased from $635,000 to $1.3 million over a two year period. Our schools need our help. The National Governors' Association (NGA) recently wrote me--in a letter dated March 7, the NGA writes: ``Governors believe the single most effective step Congress could take to help address education needs and priorities, in the context of new budget constraints, would be to meet its commitment to fully fund the federal portion of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).'' Additional organizations in support of this amendment include the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, the National School Boards Association, the National League of Cities, the National Education Association, the National Federation of Teachers, and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Mr. President, isn't it time Congress made good on its pledge to special needs of children? We have an opportunity before us today to strengthen our commitment to children with special needs. We have the opportunity to simply reduce the tax cuts contained within the budget resolution, and by doing so, offer our state and local school district help in providing educational services to children with disabilities. By supporting this amendment, we not only fulfill our commitment to special education, we also alleviate the burden we place on our local school districts by not providing our fair share of special education costs. I ask that my colleagues seize this opportunity and support this amendment and choose to help our schools better serve children with disabilities.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate second-degree amendment. It does not do anything at all. I listened to my colleague from New Mexico talk about the pointlessness of sense-of- the-Senate amendments. The Senator from Vermont is offering the Senate an opportunity to do something that every Governor and mayor in this country wants, and that is to increase funding for special education. The Governors were here only a month ago, and their top priority was special education. The Senator from Vermont is offering a real amendment, and that is, over the next 4 to 5 years, reduce this tax cut a little bit and apply those resources to special education; send the money back to our communities and States. With all due respect, the second-degree amendment says it is the sense of the Senate that we ought to do something about it sometime. We are not going to do anything about it if we do not adopt the Jeffords amendment. I urge rejection of the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before my colleague from Washington leaves the floor, let me commend her for a very fine and eloquent statement. She brings to this debate not only an intellectual commitment to the issue but hands-on experience from her previous life directly involved in the education of young children. I think it is valuable for us to pay attention to our colleagues who bring their life experiences to this Chamber and can help us be better enlightened about what is needed. We certainly listen to our fellow colleague from Tennessee, a good doctor, when he talks about health care issues. We listen to other Members who were part of the private sector and add a significant contribution to the debate. It is a fortunate moment, indeed, that we have an educator, an elementary and secondary schoolteacher who was involved in early education, in our midst. I thank her for her efforts not only today but over the years on education issues. I also commend the author of this amendment, our colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, and the other cosponsors of this proposal. It has already been pointed out but it is worth repeating: There are roughly 55 million children, from Maine to California, every day getting up to go to school. Of that 55 million who went off to school today, 50 million of them walked through the doors of a public school. Our primary obligation is, obviously, to these students in public schools. That is not to say we are uninterested or not involved with the 5 million who go to private or parochial schools or a home school. But our fundamental, basic obligation goes to the public institutions that serve all children no matter their means, needs or backgrounds. That is primarily where our tax dollars flow. Now, the federal investment in schools overall is small, shockingly small. Seven cents on every dollar that is contributed to the educational needs of children comes from the Federal Government; 93 cents of every dollar comes from State and local taxes. The lion's share of the cost of education is borne at the local and State level. Historically, we have contributed as much as 12 percent. Today, we are down to 7. Although that is better than some recent years when it was even lower. This debate about what we do with our 7 cents may not seem like much, but to local communities, to parent-teacher associations, to school boards, to teachers, to superintendents, to principals at the local level, this 7 cents is important. It helps direct scarce and valuable resources towards those elements of national educational need that are most pronounced, most in demand, or should be. For those who argue a block grant approach to the States, we do a great disservice to our local communities, where the bulk of the education costs are borne. We do a great disservice to them to deprive them of the direct funding in the areas they are crying out for help. To merely send a check back to the States, knowing full well that so many of these local communities lack the kinds of clout and influence at the State level, particularly those communities, rural and urban, that are most in need, is to do a great disservice to the parents and educators, to the citizens of those communities. Outside of the dollar amounts, block grants also are a step backward in time as well as policy. We tried a block grant approach in the past. Basically, it was revenuesharing. I think the American public wants more than that. They want us to offer a sense of national purpose, what ought to be our goals, how best to achieve them, and support the efforts of local schools, local communities in meeting these. Our goal is to get the dollars back to the community and the schools as fast and in the most direct, targeted way we can and not allow it to be interrupted. I hope as we go through the process this year of talking about the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will keep in mind that it is our relationship with our parents, students and local communities, not with the States, on which we ought to focus. Beyond these policy differences, this budget highlights our differences with the funding approach of the majority. When it comes to resource allocation, the majority claims that they have, in fact, increased spending on our schools, but the numbers just don't add up. I will explain why. The No. 1 priority in this budget is a major tax cut. Again, I think the American public has spoken rather clearly on this issue. This budget provides for $150 billion of tax cuts, at a minimum, over 5 years. Paying down the debt, dealing with Medicare, Social Security, and improving the quality of education in this country are a distant second, if even that, to that primary goal--A tax cut. Even though these other needs hold a far greater sense of priority for most Americans than a large tax cut which most people think is not warranted in this kind of an economy, the best economy we have had in the history of our country. To fund this tax cut, the budget cuts overall nondefense discretionary programs by 6.2 percent. On education, this budget claims a $4.5 billion increase in spending. Keep these numbers in mind. They say $4.5 billion; $2.3 billion of that is for a new mandatory program, a new program--it is hard enough to get funding for existing ones--a new mandatory program that won't be spent until the year 2005, 5 years from now. That leaves an increase of $2.2 billion of the $4.5 billion. The Republican budget resolution also assumes a $700 million increase in Pell grants to increase the maximum grant by $200 to $3,500, and a $2.6 billion increase for elementary and secondary education programs alone, of which $1 billion of that $2.6 billion is for special education. If you have had your pencils out and added this up, all of these good sounding programs add up to $3.3 billion. That means to simply provide funding for these stated commitments, and level fund other programs, this budget should provide $3.3 billion more than what our colleagues said, but this budget only provides for the additional $2.2 billion in spending. This gap can only be filled by cutting other education programs--core national efforts, such as college work-study, campus-based child care, TRIO, and GEAR UP would have to be cut by 22 percent to meet these goals. There is no great new deal for education in America in this proposal. This is just another in the string of Republican budgets that undercut, undermine, and underfund education. The math is not complicated here. They say $4.5 billion, but this isn't adequate to meet their commitments. So to make up the difference within the Department of Education, you would have to cut at least amount--22 percent--in the areas I have described. We have and will continue to take a different approach on education funding. This is a key national priority. In the amendment, we are offering we make a simple proposition--a little bit less in tax cuts, 10 percent, in the first year, and 16 percent over 5 years, for an additional $4.5 billion in education. That means cutting the $150 billion tax cut by about $15 billion--a tax cut nobody wants--and applying it to education to make all the difference in the world for children, families, and educators across this country. Let it be clear, the choice is simple here. This amendment would support our efforts to accelerate change and improvement in our schools. The status quo is unacceptable. Our schools are improving. Children are doing better in many areas. Reading and math scores are up--not as high as they should be, but they are up--in nearly every age group and all the different groups of students across the country, particularly in our poorest schools. Mr. President, but that is not good enough. We need to accelerate the pace of this change, and change doesn't come inexpensively. Someone once said, ``If you think education is expensive, try ignorance as a cost.'' That is what we are going to get if we don't make intelligent investments in these programs. What we propose is more resources, with more accountability and higher expectation for success. The budget by the majority, which is in front of us, of less funding for education goes right along with their proposals for education--block granting programs currently focused on areas of national need and concern, and transforming targeted, successful programs into vouchers for private schools. Remember, 50 million of the 55 million students are going in the door of public schools. This is a recipe for failure in our public educational system--dollars frittered away on the status quo, less targeting, less funding, less accountability. If you want no accountability, put dollars into in a block grant. How do you follow that or find out where the dollars have gone if it ends up in one big, large block of money that goes back to the States? How do you track that and keep account of it? For those of us who care about accountability, one sure way to get less of it is to have a block grant approach. So we want to see less of the status quo approach. Their policies and funding for them are tired, timid, and dangerous for our schools. Block grants and vouchers are proven failures; why would we waste more dollars on them in the beginning of the 21st century? Instead, our amendment proposes to reinvigorate our investments in our public schools--as I said a moment ago--which serve 90 percent of the America's 55 million students. It would provide the needed resources to train teachers across the country in reading and literacy. It would support local afterschool programs for an additional 1.6 million students. It would assist local communities as they work to transform school facilities into safe, modern, learning environments for all students. It would ensure smaller class sizes in the early grades, when students are most in need of attention as they learn to read. Mr. President, it would support tough accountability and results in targeting resources to the schools that are most in need. It would also shore up our national commitment to support students as they move on to postsecondary education. This is no litany of Federal programs. These are real initiatives we can afford to do with the 7 cents--our 7 cents on the dollar spent for elementary and secondary education--to assist local communities, to see that our towns and counties across this country get the backing and support they need in the Federal Government. Ask any parent about class size; ask them about afterschool programs and about school safety; they are crying out for this help. That is what they want, and that is what this amendment offered by our colleagues as an alternative to what is in this budget would do. The choice is very clear. Can we afford to take about $10 billion or $15 billion over 5 years out of this tax cut proposal and put it into the one area, Education, that Americans all across the economic, racial, ethnic, gender spectrum, say they want to see this Congress spend time and effort on? They have never spoken more loudly or clearly on an issue. In light of that, we think this amendment is a responsible, prudent, and efficient way to continue to get the accountability and resources necessary to improve the quality of the education of our children as we sit on the cusp of the 21st century. With all of the challenges we will have, we should offer nothing less than the very best we can to see that local communities will have the tools to succeed in what will be the most competitive environment any generation of Americans has ever had to face in our 210-year history. For those reasons, I strongly urge adoption of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Connecticut. I appreciate the indulgence of the chairman while I digress for a couple of minutes. My colleagues will understand that there is a sense of collective pride in the Nutmeg State among the Connecticut delegation over the success on Sunday night that brought the NCAA basketball championship home to Connecticut for the second time in 6 years. The women did a magnificent job. With all due respect to our colleagues from Tennessee, the Lady Vols and Pat Summit, the wonderful coach there, there has been a wonderful tradition and competition between these two schools. They have met twice this year--a split decision. The University of Connecticut won its game against Tennessee in Tennessee, and only a few weeks later Tennessee brought its team to Connecticut, and they won on our home court. So the final game was sort of a rubber match between these two very fine programs, wonderfully coached and well-staffed teams, with magnificent players. Senator Lieberman and I feel a sense of pride, obviously, as our colleagues would appreciate, that the women's basketball team at UConn capped a dominating 36-1 season in which they began the season ranked No. 1, and they ran through the entire season ranked No. 1, and now finished ranked No. 1 and national champs, with a decisive victory of 71-52. All of the years have been memorable for a team which has now recorded 14 consecutive winning seasons and 12 consecutive NCAA tournament appearances, including the landmark 1994-95 championship season in which the UConn women never lost a game, and this season in which they only lost one--a loss avenged on Sunday when they beat Tennessee in the final tournament game, having lost to them in our home court. This second national title only seals the legacy of the UConn women's basketball program as one of the best programs of the 1990s. So it is appropriate that they mark the turn of the millennium with this victory. For Shea Ralph, the tireless team leader, and the Final Four's Most Outstanding Player, the triumph was even sweeter. She returned to play this year after spending last season on the sidelines with her second knee injury in 2 years. Her dedication reflects the spirit of this entire team. All who watched the tenacity and determination with which she played will certainly agree with those statements. What stands out about these women is their ability to accomplish just as much off the court. Ten players since the 91-92 season have made the school's dean's list, and UConn boasts a 100-percent graduation rate for recruited student athletes. Every recruited freshman who has played for Head Coach Geno Auriemma at Connecticut and completed her eligibility has obtained her undergraduate degree. Since Coach Auriemma arrived on campus in Storrs in 1985, when the team had seen only one winning season, he has compiled 393 wins and the third highest winning percentage among active Division I coaches: nine Big East regular season titles, eight Big East tournament championships, and two NCAA national championships. Coach Auriemma has again been named National Coach of the Year--for the third time in his career--and has been honored three times, as well, as the Big East Conference Coach of the Year. Mr. President, as a fan myself, along with my friend and colleague, Senator Lieberman, we want to take a moment to voice the importance of this team to the State of Connecticut. The Connecticut Huskies have ranked No. 1 in the Nation in home attendance for the past 6 years, attracting close to 1 million fans at UConn's Gampel Pavilion. This kind of support is exciting, especially in a State surrounded with talented pro sports teams, but with very few of its own. This team has reinforced the importance of women's athletics at the collegiate level--including issues such as title IX--and whether it is Connecticut or Tennessee or another worthy team, I am pleased to see such a high level of attention and excitement nationwide for women's college athletics, and particularly for basketball. It was in 1995 when we last congratulated a national champion UConn women's team. The future of graduating players that year in the sport they grew up playing was limited to involvement in training or coaching at collegiate and high school levels. Today, we should all be proud of the fact that these champions may go on to follow their ``hoop dreams,'' if you will, and continue to inspire the dreams of others by playing basketball professionally. I congratulate everybody involved in this great victory on a memorable tournament and season, including All-Americans Svetlana Abrosimova and Shea Ralph, as well as Sue Bird, Asjha Jones, Tamika Williams, Kelly Schumacher, Swin Cash, Marci Czel, Stacy Hansmeyer, and many other talented players; Coach Ariemma, Associate Head Coach Chris Dailey, and Assistant Coaches Tonya Cardoza and Jamelle Elliott. Again, we look forward to a wonderful season next year. We welcome them to Washington, and invite our colleagues to meet them when they come here. At the appropriate time, Senator Lieberman and I will submit a resolution regarding this great success the other night. I yield to my colleague from Connecticut.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this will take about 5 minutes.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Gabriel Lam of my staff be accorded the privilege of the floor for today only.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is not often that so many of my colleagues come to the Senate floor in opposition to lowering a tax. They do so and I join them today for good reason. The legislation to repeal the 4.3 cent per gallon excise tax on gasoline is a wolf in sheep's clothing. In fact, several members on the other side of the aisle from House Majority Leader Dick Armey and Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer, to House Transportation Chairman Shuster are opposed to this measure. The National Governors Association has voiced its adamant opposition, as well. The proposal, S. 2285, is fiscally irresponsible and will not lead to lower gasoline prices for consumers. This measure could cause the state of Connecticut to lose more than $280 million to highway funds for FY 2002 and 2003, in addition to hundreds of lost jobs as highway projects are put on hold or shelved indefinitely. Congress made a commitment to help states like Connecticut repair and maintain our highways and it should not break that commitment. Supporters of this legislation say they would tap the non-Social Security surplus to replace the lost tax revenues created by their proposal. That is a mistake. We should be directing the surplus to debt reduction, ensuring the solvency of Social Security, prescription drugs, targeted tax cuts and investments in education and the environment. The likelihood that any reduction in the Federal gasoline tax will reach consumers is unlikely. The tax is not imposed at the pump, but rather shortly after the gasoline leaves the refinery. The gasoline could pass through several other entities before it reaches the pump and none of the middlemen would have to pass on the savings. The legislation contains only a Sense of Congress that any benefits of the tax be passed on to consumers. Past experience in Connecticut has shown that decreases in a fuel tax have not been passed on to motorists. In 1997, gas prices shot up 11 cents in August despite a 3-cent cut in the state gasoline tax that took effect on July 1. Finally, it is worth noting that several states, including Arkansas, Nevada, Oklahoma, California, and Tennessee, have laws that mandate an increase in state gasoline taxes if the Federal rate decreases. Obviously, a state's legislature can act to change its laws. But these laws only underscore the complexity of gas pricing which the bill before us does not. The cut could be another 18.3 cents per gallon for gasoline and more for other oil-based fuels. The gasoline tax is dedicated revenue that we use to maintain our highways. The loss of funds for highway improvements and mass transit, the loss of jobs and the uncertainty--if not unlikelihood--that a gas tax reduction would result in lower gas prices--make this bill unsound and unwise. We all want to bring down the price of gasoline. Let's take responsible steps to move in that direction. I commend the administration for getting a commitment from the OPEC nations to increase production. In addition, the administration has also proposed tax credits for energy-efficient homes and energy-efficient cars, funding for the development of clean and renewable energy and the enactment of tax proposals to promote the use of alternative energy sources.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for another 15 minutes.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Kennedy, Jeffords, Frist, Hatch, Bingaman, Harkin, Wellstone, Reed, Enzi, and Mikulski in sponsoring the Ryan White CARE Reauthorization Act, legislation which will provide for the continuation of critical support services for those living with HIV and AIDS. I thank Senators Jeffords and Kennedy for their leadership and commitment to this important bill, and commend their efforts to ensure that the reauthorization legislation addresses the new challenges of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Over the last two decades, our Nation has made tremendous advances in responding to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. We've all been encouraged by the recent reports that the number of AIDS cases dropped last year for the first time in the 16 year history of the epidemic. The new combination therapies largely responsible for this change in course have brought new hope to families devastated by this disease. Although it was unimaginable just a few years ago, it now appears possible that we may soon view AIDS, if not as curable, than at least as a manageable, chronic illness. But, despite these advances in treatment options, the HIV/AIDS epidemic remains an enormous health emergency in the United States, with the number of AIDS cases in the U.S. nearly doubling during the last five years. According to a study sponsored by the U.S. Public Health Service, approximately 250,000 to 300,000 people living with HIV or AIDS currently receive no medical treatment. Therefore, while we must sustain our efforts in the areas of research and education, it is also critical that we continue to provide resources to help states and disproportionately affected communities develop the necessary infrastructure to provide HIV/AIDS care. One of the most important changes made to the Ryan White programs by this Reauthorization Act is the emphasis on the need for early diagnosis of the disease. This new emphasis is reflected in the bill's provisions relating to early intervention activities, which will support early diagnosis and encourage linkages into care for populations at high risk for HIV. In the decade since the enactment of the Ryan White CARE Act we've seen a transformation in the face of AIDS. Since women and children are disproportionately represented among the newly infected, I am especially pleased that this bill provides for the coordination of Ryan White and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) funds, and includes a set-aside for infants, children, and women proportionate to the percentage each group represents in the eligible funding area's AIDS affected population. During the decade of the Ryan White CARE Act, we've also seen a shift in the challenges facing providers. Ten years ago, Ryan White providers focused primarily on helping people while they died. Now, more and more, providers are moving into the business of helping individuals infected with HIV live long and full lives. But, while the discovery of powerful drug therapies has improved the quality and length of life for many who are HIV positive, access to these drugs and to other critical health services is still difficult for many, since AIDS is fast becoming a disease of poverty. The CARE Act's AIDS Drug Assistance Programs remain a lifeline for low-income individuals who cannot afford the costs of regular care and expensive AIDS drug regimens (now estimated at $15,000 annually per person). The CARE Act has made a difference to the lives of countless individuals and families affected by a devastating disease. While there is hope for the future, the changing demographics of the disease present new challenges. The Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000 address these challenges while maintaining those aspects of the Act that demonstrate proven results. I look forward to working with Congress as we move forward with the reauthorization, so that the thousands of people who rely on the services of Ryan White programs can continue to maintain their dignity and quality of life.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join with my colleague Senator McConnell in introducing the Worker Economic Opportunity Act. This common sense bill will allow companies to continue to offer stock option programs to their hourly employees without violating the Fair Labor Standards Act with respect to overtime. We are joined today by Senators Jeffords, Enzi, Robb, Murray, Lieberman, Bingaman, Reed, Kerry, Abraham, Bennett, Gorton, Hutchinson, and Warner. Sotck options, stock appreciation rights, and employee stock purchase programs are tools used by some companies to give employees a stake in a company's success and to retain employees in a tight labor market. These programs are used by well-known companies such as Xerox, GTE, and PepsiCo. as well as hi-tech startups. In more and more situations, non- exempt and exempt employees are able to participate. For example, it has been GTE's practice to give stock options to all 110,000 employees, of which 53,000 are non-exempt. Xerox corporation employs approximately 52,000 employees in the United States, and offers stock options to all employees who have completed one year of service. It employs 93,000 people worldwide and 57 percent of them are non-exempt. Clearly, the trend in our economy is that more and more companies are providing this type of compensation package. Not surprisingly, then, my office was beset with letters and phone calls recently concerning a 1999 Department of Labor advisory letter regarding one company's proposed stock option plan for non-exempt employees. The opinion letter, which does not carry the weight of law, states that the value of the options would have to be included in the non-exempt workers base wages when calculating their overtime rates. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) exempts some employee benefits from overtime calculations including health insurance, thrift savings plans, and discretionary bonuses. When providing its opinion letter, the Department of Labor determined that stock option plans did not fall within any of the current exemptions. While the Department did point out that their opinion was based on only one company's proposed plan, it became clear that legislation was needed to exempt these programs, lest businesses begin to exclude non-exempt employees from receiving stock options. I commend the Department for calling for a legislative fix and working closely with us to craft this bipartisan bill. Our legislation would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to exclude from the regular rate stock options, stock appreciation rights or bonafide stock purchase programs that meet certain vesting, disclosure, and determination requirements. A safe harbor would be in effect to protect companies that have already established stock option programs for non-exempt workers, including those programs provided under a collective bargaining agreement or requiring shareholder approval. Just several years ago, stock option plans were only offered corporate CEO's and other very senior executives. Today's flexible benefit packages give that same opportunity throughout the corporate structure. I don't believe that non-exempt employees who form the backbone of most businesses should be excluded from this opportunity. They deserve the right to share in the prosperity of the new economy. Clearly, stock option programs have risk attached, so we wanted to be very clear that our legislation requires that the terms and conditions of any program are communicated to employees and that the exercise of any grants is voluntary. Employees need to make informed choices. I am pleased that this has been a bipartisan effort, and also one where we have worked very constructively with the Administration. I hope we can move it quickly for the benefit of all working families.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Kennedy, Jeffords, Frist, Hatch, Bingaman, Harkin, Wellstone, Reed, Enzi, and Mikulski in sponsoring the Ryan White CARE Reauthorization Act, legislation which will provide for the continuation of critical support services for those living with HIV and AIDS. I thank Senators Jeffords and Kennedy for their leadership and commitment to this important bill, and commend their efforts to ensure that the reauthorization legislation addresses the new challenges of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Over the last two decades, our Nation has made tremendous advances in responding to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. We've all been encouraged by the recent reports that the number of AIDS cases dropped last year for the first time in the 16 year history of the epidemic. The new combination therapies largely responsible for this change in course have brought new hope to families devastated by this disease. Although it was unimaginable just a few years ago, it now appears possible that we may soon view AIDS, if not as curable, than at least as a manageable, chronic illness. But, despite these advances in treatment options, the HIV/AIDS epidemic remains an enormous health emergency in the United States, with the number of AIDS cases in the U.S. nearly doubling during the last five years. According to a study sponsored by the U.S. Public Health Service, approximately 250,000 to 300,000 people living with HIV or AIDS currently receive no medical treatment. Therefore, while we must sustain our efforts in the areas of research and education, it is also critical that we continue to provide resources to help states and disproportionately affected communities develop the necessary infrastructure to provide HIV/AIDS care. One of the most important changes made to the Ryan White programs by this Reauthorization Act is the emphasis on the need for early diagnosis of the disease. This new emphasis is reflected in the bill's provisions relating to early intervention activities, which will support early diagnosis and encourage linkages into care for populations at high risk for HIV. In the decade since the enactment of the Ryan White CARE Act we've seen a transformation in the face of AIDS. Since women and children are disproportionately represented among the newly infected, I am especially pleased that this bill provides for the coordination of Ryan White and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) funds, and includes a set-aside for infants, children, and women proportionate to the percentage each group represents in the eligible funding area's AIDS affected population. During the decade of the Ryan White CARE Act, we've also seen a shift in the challenges facing providers. Ten years ago, Ryan White providers focused primarily on helping people while they died. Now, more and more, providers are moving into the business of helping individuals infected with HIV live long and full lives. But, while the discovery of powerful drug therapies has improved the quality and length of life for many who are HIV positive, access to these drugs and to other critical health services is still difficult for many, since AIDS is fast becoming a disease of poverty. The CARE Act's AIDS Drug Assistance Programs remain a lifeline for low-income individuals who cannot afford the costs of regular care and expensive AIDS drug regimens (now estimated at $15,000 annually per person). The CARE Act has made a difference to the lives of countless individuals and families affected by a devastating disease. While there is hope for the future, the changing demographics of the disease present new challenges. The Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000 address these challenges while maintaining those aspects of the Act that demonstrate proven results. I look forward to working with Congress as we move forward with the reauthorization, so that the thousands of people who rely on the services of Ryan White programs can continue to maintain their dignity and quality of life.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I join with my colleague Senator McConnell in introducing the Worker Economic Opportunity Act. This common sense bill will allow companies to continue to offer stock option programs to their hourly employees without violating the Fair Labor Standards Act with respect to overtime. We are joined today by Senators Jeffords, Enzi, Robb, Murray, Lieberman, Bingaman, Reed, Kerry, Abraham, Bennett, Gorton, Hutchinson, and Warner. Sotck options, stock appreciation rights, and employee stock purchase programs are tools used by some companies to give employees a stake in a company's success and to retain employees in a tight labor market. These programs are used by well-known companies such as Xerox, GTE, and PepsiCo. as well as hi-tech startups. In more and more situations, non- exempt and exempt employees are able to participate. For example, it has been GTE's practice to give stock options to all 110,000 employees, of which 53,000 are non-exempt. Xerox corporation employs approximately 52,000 employees in the United States, and offers stock options to all employees who have completed one year of service. It employs 93,000 people worldwide and 57 percent of them are non-exempt. Clearly, the trend in our economy is that more and more companies are providing this type of compensation package. Not surprisingly, then, my office was beset with letters and phone calls recently concerning a 1999 Department of Labor advisory letter regarding one company's proposed stock option plan for non-exempt employees. The opinion letter, which does not carry the weight of law, states that the value of the options would have to be included in the non-exempt workers base wages when calculating their overtime rates. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) exempts some employee benefits from overtime calculations including health insurance, thrift savings plans, and discretionary bonuses. When providing its opinion letter, the Department of Labor determined that stock option plans did not fall within any of the current exemptions. While the Department did point out that their opinion was based on only one company's proposed plan, it became clear that legislation was needed to exempt these programs, lest businesses begin to exclude non-exempt employees from receiving stock options. I commend the Department for calling for a legislative fix and working closely with us to craft this bipartisan bill. Our legislation would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to exclude from the regular rate stock options, stock appreciation rights or bonafide stock purchase programs that meet certain vesting, disclosure, and determination requirements. A safe harbor would be in effect to protect companies that have already established stock option programs for non-exempt workers, including those programs provided under a collective bargaining agreement or requiring shareholder approval. Just several years ago, stock option plans were only offered corporate CEO's and other very senior executives. Today's flexible benefit packages give that same opportunity throughout the corporate structure. I don't believe that non-exempt employees who form the backbone of most businesses should be excluded from this opportunity. They deserve the right to share in the prosperity of the new economy. Clearly, stock option programs have risk attached, so we wanted to be very clear that our legislation requires that the terms and conditions of any program are communicated to employees and that the exercise of any grants is voluntary. Employees need to make informed choices. I am pleased that this has been a bipartisan effort, and also one where we have worked very constructively with the Administration. I hope we can move it quickly for the benefit of all working families.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the resolution which will be before us later this afternoon dealing with the issue of flag burning. I will spend a few minutes to express to my colleagues and to others who may be interested at least my point of view on this. We have debated it in this Chamber a number of times over the past decade or more. We have it before us again today. I wish to take a few minutes to explain my views on this issue and how I intend to vote when the matter comes before us. This is no ordinary resolution. It is no ordinary debate. When we speak of amending the Bill of Rights of our Constitution, we ought to do so with great care. Our Bill of Rights has existed now for more than 200 years, and, despite literally thousands of proposals to amend it, our forebearers, and those who occupied this Chamber over the years, saw fit to not on a single occasion amend the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. It is a remarkable record when you consider the trials and tribulations this Nation has been through--a great depression, great world wars, a great civil war which ravaged this Nation. Despite more than 11,000 attempts to amend the Constitution--many of them to amend the Bill of Rights--none of our predecessors, and none of the Congresses that have preceded us, saw fit during all of those great trials and tribulations to amend the Bill of Rights of the United States. Today, we are being asked to change that 209-year history and to amend the Bill of Rights to deal with the outrageous, indefensible behavior of those who would burn the symbol of our freedom, the symbol of our Constitution, the symbol of our democracy, the great flag of the United States. It goes without saying that every Member of this Chamber and the other body, and the overwhelming majority of Americans would find flag burning offensive and abhorrent. As many of our colleagues, I believe it ought to be a crime--whether it is criminal intent to incite violence or commit a theft. But to truly honor our Nation's history and the veterans, we must not only protect our flag but, in my view, we must also protect the Constitution and the freedoms promised by that flag. Our former colleague, Senator John Glenn of Ohio, who served this Nation as a combat pilot in Korea, as an astronaut, and as Senator, well known to most Americans, well known by all of our colleagues, put it very well. I would like to quote it: ``There is one way to weaken the fabric of your country, and it is not through a few misguided souls burning our flag. It is by retreating from the principles that the flag stands for. And that will do more damage to the fabric of our Nation than 1,000 torched flags could ever do. . . . History and future generations will judge us harshly, as they should, if we permit those who would defile our flag to hoodwink us into also defiling our Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution, in their boundless wisdom and notable humility, understood that succeeding generations may see fit to amend this cornerstone document. But those amendments should be limited, in James Madison's words, to ``great and extraordinary occasions.'' Regrettably, Madison's edict has not been heeded by many who have come after him. In this Congress alone, more than 50 proposed amendments to the Constitution have been introduced--including one to make it easier to amend the Constitution in the future. But collectively our Nation has paid heed to the caution urged by Madison and others of his day. It is reassuring to know that, of the 11,000 amendments introduced since ratification of the Bill of Rights 209 years ago, only 17 have been adopted. Clearly, there is no great and extraordinary occasion warranting ratification of the amendment proposed in the Senate today. Flag burning is rare, thank God. It is despicable. It is reprehensible. But it does not present a constitutional crisis for our Nation. Indeed, in the entire history of our Nation, there have been only about 200 reported incidents of flag burning, an average of less than one a year for each of our Nation's history--one a year, 200 cases in a nation of 260 million people today. And we have less than roughly one case a year for the 200-year history of our Nation. I would submit that the despicable acts of a few misguided miscreants do not cry out for this Congress to be the first in history to restrict the liberties of all Americans by narrowing the Bill of Rights. Some argue that even one flag burned would be enough to warrant ratification of this proposed amendment. They say that, without such an amendment, we effectively sanction flag-burning. But toleration is not approval. We do not as a nation sanction everything which we do not punish. Indeed, I would submit that the heart of the greatness of our democracy is that we tolerate that which we disapprove of. We permit and protect that which we find most offensive and obnoxious. They will continue, and probably grow, unfortunately, in number in a disgraceful effort to attract attention to themselves. What will such a possibility portend for the respect we all have for our beloved Constitution? I do not for a moment question the intentions of those who support the resolution before us. I respect most, if not all, of the people who are advocating this change. But, in my view, let us be clear. No amendment and no amount of amendments to the Constitution will in and of themselves result in greater respect for the flag and for the free and democratic nation that it symbolizes. You cannot mandate nor legislate patriotism. You carry it in your heart and soul. But I cannot write it for you. I cannot force it down the throats of the citizens I represent. We can change laws but we cannot change hearts by changing laws. We can only attempt to change conduct and to enshrine in our laws the eternal principles that have guided our Nation from its earliest days--principles such as liberty and equality. Let us leave to statutory law--those already on the books, and those along the lines proposed by several of our colleagues--to sanction those who would with criminal intent burn our beloved flag. But let us leave the Constitution unsullied by a proposal such as this that would needlessly, in my view, restrict our liberties as a people. The great genius of our Constitution is that it enshrines in word the eternal aspirations of humanity. We may try to amend it, but if we do so in a manner at odds with those aspirations, then we act at our peril and in folly. As Alexander Hamilton said: The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power. Let us not trifle with the Bill of Rights, a document that has never been changed, not one comma, not one semicolon, not one word, in 210 years of history. Let us not change that today over this issue. I urge the defeat of this resolution. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Frist in introducing The Children's Day Care Health and Safety Act, legislation that I believe will have a significant impact on the well-being of the 13 million children who spend some part of every day in child care. Each morning, millions of parents drop their children off at a child care center, a neighbor's home, or their church's day care center, assuming--or at least hoping--that their children will be safe and well cared for. And, in the vast majority of circumstances that's the case. But, unfortunately, there is alarming evidence to suggest that, far too often, unsafe child care settings are compromising the health of our children. In 1997 alone, 31,000 children ages 4 and younger were treated in hospital emergency rooms for injuries sustained in child care or school settings. Since 1990, more than 55 children have died while in child care settings. Perhaps most tragically, many of these deaths and injuries were most likely preventable--if providers were knowledgeable about basic health and safety practices and if states did a better job of developing and enforcing strong health and safety regulations. Almost all child care providers want to give good care to the children in their charge. Despite the fact that we pay child care providers abysmally--typically below poverty wages with no paid sick leave--individuals join this profession because they love children and want to help them grow and thrive. But, we do far too little to support providers in making sure that the environment they provide to our children is a safe and healthy one. Many child care providers are unaware of the importance of removing soft bedding from cribs--which presents a suffocation hazard for infants and increases the likelihood of child dying from SIDS. Many child care providers are also unaware of the need to place window-blind cords out of reach. Consequently, one child every month strangles in the loop of a cord. An investigation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission revealed that two-thirds of licensed child care settings surveyed exhibited these type of safety hazards, as well as other, such as insufficient child safety gates and unsafe playgrounds. Some states have taken action to improve health and safety practices. For example, Connecticut requires child care centers to receive at least monthly visits from a nurse or pediatrician, who can advise providers on concerns ranging from the basics, like the importance of handwashing after diaper-changing, to more complex issues, such as how to accommodate the special needs of a child with a disability. But, many states are hard-pressed simply to meet the enormous demand for child care from working families and families transitioning off welfare. With all the pressure to create child care slots and to help families find any kind of care, unfortunately, child care health and safety often becomes an afterthought. A survey of state child care standards found that only one-third of states had minimally acceptable child care quality regulations. Two- thirds of states had regulations that didn't even address the basics-- provider training, safe environments and appropriate ratios. And in many cases, even when there are good standards on the books, enforcement is lax. Too often we view finding safe, high quality child care as a problem parents should struggle with on their own. It's time we recognize that unsafe child care is a public health crisis, not a personal problem. That's why I'm so pleased to join Senator Frist today in introducing legislation that would provide grants to the states to reduce child care health and safety hazards. Grants could be used for a broad range of activities that we know have the greatest impact on health and safety, such as training and educating providers on injury and illness prevention; improving health and safety standards; improving enforcement of standards, including increased surprise inspections; renovating child care centers and family day care homes; helping providers serve children with disabilities; and conducting criminal background checks on child care providers. I am also pleased that this legislation has been endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Children's Defense Fund, and the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Sadly just as our children grow--the number of child care abuses and hazards has grown over the years, as well. This measure can help ensure that critically important safeguards are provided so that day care is a safe haven, not a hazard.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend those involved in this bill. Those of us who oppose this bill think the first order of business is education, and yet we have done nothing about the quality of public education with this legislation. Fifty percent of the benefits of this bill go to private schools, yet 90 percent of the children in America go to a public school. This bill does nothing about class size, nothing about the quantities of teachers in our schools, nothing about trying to improve the safety of our schools in this country. We believe we need to do a far better job on improving the quality of public education. Unfortunately, this education bill does nothing to address those issues. For those reasons, we will oppose this legislation. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I yield.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am delighted to rise today to pay tribute to a well-respected and remarkable officer, Chief Angelo Toscano, whose retirement from the Wilton Police Force marks the end of 43 years as a Connecticut law enforcement officer. Day in and day out, Chief Toscano ensured that safety and peace prevailed in the Wilton community. I am honored to extend thanks and appreciation to him. On behalf of the people of Wilton and the entire state of Connecticut, whom I am privileged to represent in the United States Senate. Chief Toscano was born and raised in Darien, Connecticut. After graduating from Darien High School he attended Norwalk Community College and the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy. In 1957, after serving in the United States Marine Corps for three years, he began his career in law enforcement as a patrolman. His dedication earned him the respect of his colleagues, and his leadership propelled him up the ranks--from patrolman, to sergeant, to detective, and finally, to Chief of Police. Throughout his career in public service, Chief Toscano remained on the cutting edge of law enforcement techniques, always believing that there was more for him to learn. Chief Toscano continued his training up until the very end of his career, including participation in the Connecticut Police Academy, the Darien Power Squadron, and a wide range of F.B.I. training programs. Chief Toscano embodied everything a community could hope for in a Chief of Police. He was a veteran of the streets whose years of experience became the source of his good judgment and dependability. He was a well-trained cop whose background and skill ensured that, as Chief, he led with a steadfast and reliable hand. Moreover, Chief Toscano was an innovative leader, with the uncanny ability to incorporate his specialized skills with his personal insight and creativity. Under his leadership, the Wilton Police Force introduced such initiatives as D.A.R.E. and C.O.P.S., as well as the installation of defibrillators into every patrol car. The job of a chief of police is a demanding task that requires strength of character and good judgment. One need not look far for proof of Chief Toscano's success and ability, for it is visible in the safety that Wilton residents relish everyday. Today, it is my pleasure to join the Town of Wilton and the State of Connecticut in thanking Chief Toscano for his many years of dedicated service and wishing him well in the future.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize the 33 years of dedicated government service of Mr. Robert Donovan of Connecticut. His retirement from the Department of Housing and Urban Development on February 3, 2000 marks the end of a distinguished and highly esteemed career in public service. In September of 1968, Mr. Donovan began his career with the Department of Housing and Urban Development as a Housing Intern in the Philadelphia Office. Two years later he moved to Hartford, Connecticut to become an Urban Renewal Representative. Over the next thirty years Mr. Donovan's dedication and commitment guided him through various roles within the Department, such as the Director of the Housing Management Division and the Director of the Multifamily Housing Division. He retired as a member of the leadership team of the Connecticut Multifamily Program Center. For the better part of his adult life, Bob worked on behalf of countless Connecticut families. He believed that a safe, affordable home should be attainable for those who are committed to working for it. A home is more than just bricks and boards, it represents an opportunity for betterment and is the foundation for success. Bob's efforts day in and day out made that opportunity a possibility for Connecticut's citizens. In each role that he assumed, be it representative or director, Bob remained responsive to the people he served. As a result, Bob has received a number of performance awards and accolades throughout his HUD career. He has displayed a talent for leadership and a strong dedication to service--qualities that will be missed now that he embarks upon the next chapter of his life. It is my pleasure to add my voice to the many others who have recognized Bob's contribution to the Connecticut community. On behalf of the people of Connecticut, I am proud to thank Bob for thirty-three years of devoted service and I wish him will in his future endeavors.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. Let me also thank our good friend, the Senator from Nevada, Harry Reid, for introducing the amendment on my behalf. Unfortunately, I was delayed this morning due to a problem with my flight. I apologize for not getting here earlier and I am grateful to my colleague for stepping in to help. I see my good friend from Georgia is here. We have gone around on this issue in the past. I have great respect and admiration for him. We disagree on this issue, so I am sure we will have a good healthy debate about it. In fact, we may not disagree about it at all. What I am trying to do with this amendment, I presume my friend from Georgia and others would also support. Let me briefly outline the amendment for my colleagues. While we only have a few minutes this morning, we will resume debate this afternoon. It is somewhat ironic, in a way, that we will be meeting in about 22 minutes with the national Governors. We will gather together and have a joint meeting. I commend the leadership for arranging that. Due to this meeting, I think it is worthy of note that the Governors are headed up by Mike Leavitt, Governor from Utah; Governor Mike Huckabee, vice chair on Human Resources from Arkansas; Governor Jim Hunt from North Carolina, who is the chair of the Committee on Human Resources; and Governor Tom Carper of Delaware, who is co-chair with Mike Leavitt of the National Governors' Association. This letter is dated a year ago, but it was about a year ago that we engaged in a similar debate. At that time, a letter was sent to our colleague, Pete Domenici, chairman of the Committee on the Budget. The letter specifically addresses the issue my amendment proposes to correct or to at least offer to provide some support for special education funding. The letter says: As you prepare the budget resolution for the coming fiscal year, the nation's Governors urge Congress to live up to agreements already made to meet current funding commitments to states before funding new initiatives or tax cuts in the federal budget. The federal government committed to fully fund--defined as 40 percent of the costs--the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when the law, formerly known as the Education of the Handicapped Act, was passed in 1975. Currently, the federal government's contribution amounts to only 11 percent, and states are funding the balance to assist school districts in providing special education and related services. Although we strongly support providing the necessary services and support to help all students succeed, the costs associated with implementing IDEA are placing an increased burden on states. We are currently reallocating existing state funds from other programs or committing new funds to ensure that students with disabilities are provided a ``free and appropriate public education.'' In some cases, we are taking funds from existing education programs to pay for the costs of educating our students with disabilities because we believe that all students deserve an equal opportunity to learn. Therefore, Governors urge Congress to honor its original commitment and fully fund 40 percent of Part B services as authorized by IDEA so the goals of the act can be achieved. Mr. President, I also have a letter, dated February 23, 2000, from the National School Boards Association opposing the underlying bill, the Affordable Education Act, and supporting my amendment. Specifically, I quote from the letter: NSBA believes that a greater benefit for children and taxpayers alike will occur if this money is spent meeting the unmet federal commitment in special education. Throughout the country, taxpayers are indirectly paying higher school and property taxes in their districts to compensate for the federal funding shortfall in the education of children with disabilities. Rather than create a tax benefit for a select few, applying these funds to special education would benefit more taxpayers and public schools. I ask unanimous consent that the letters from the Governors, as well as the National School Boards Association, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Let me again make the point I made last week and will make again this afternoon. There are parts of this bill the Senator from Georgia is offering with which I have no disagreement. However, it seems to me that we are talking about relatively scarce resources. While we are in a surplus--and we all applaud this fact--we all know we don't have all the money we would like to spend in educational areas. But to have a tax break of a $1.2 billion over 5 years, the cumulative benefit, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, would amount to $20.50--$20.50 on average. My amendment would provide a benefit that would go back to our communities where we know from our mayors and county executives how difficult it is for local taxpayers to support the costs of special needs education. In some cases, the cost of a special needs child can be $50,000 or more per year. Now, on average, it is a lot lower, but there are cases that are not that rare, in fact where the costs are very high, that is borne by the local property taxpayers, or the State taxpayers. We made a commitment--the Federal Government--and said: we think you ought to provide an education for all children in this country. We think it is important to educate children with disabilities. I will tell you what we will do, communities and States. If you will support this effort and put up 60 percent of the money, we will put up 40 percent of the money. Despite the fact we made that commitment more than a quarter century ago, we have only gotten up to 12.7 percent. Now, $1.2 billion doesn't get you to 40 percent, but it gets you a lot closer. That is real tax relief, what the Governors are asking us to do, what the national school boards are asking us to do, and what our mayors and county executives have asked us to do. I can't think of a better way to allocate $1.2 billion if we are going to do it at this juncture, do what the Governors asked us to do and what the mayors asked us to do--that is, be the partner we promised to be on special education. My mayors in Connecticut tell me it is the most important issue to them. I asked them what we can do to help them out. They say: Help us in this area. You made the promise, so why don't you do it? Instead, what we do too often is pit people against each other in local communities, where a family, unfortunately, has been hit with a child born with a significant disability and, all of a sudden, the cost of educating that child is high, and there are people who resent that fact locally. It creates tensions in our towns and cities. I don't think that ought to be the case. So with scarce resources, why not pitch in, why not meet the commitments we have made. This may take a supermajority vote. I suspect there is going to be a point of order raised against this amendment that will require 60 votes. I have listened to my colleagues over and over, going back some 7, 8, 10 years ago when I first offered this amendment in the Budget Committee. I lost the amendment on a tie vote. To the credit of the majority leader, Trent Lott, he supported me, as did several other Republicans. However, I lost some Democratic votes on the Budget Committee. Almost every year since then, I have offered some variation of this amendment. We have come close some years, not so close in others. But all of us know when we go back to our States, this is an issue our constituents and their representatives at the local level care about, and they want the Federal Government to live up to the commitments we made so many years ago. It is important to children with special needs. Again, I am preaching to the choir, I suspect, because all of my colleagues care about education. But if we are going to have the best educated population this country has ever produced--and I think we need to do that if we are going to succeed in the 21st century--then we have to make intelligent investments of taxpayer money when it comes to achieving that goal. We have children with special education needs. This is an opportunity now for us to not provide a $20.50 average tax break, but to get money back to these communities that will allow them to provide the kind of educational opportunity for children with special needs who can be productive, contributing members of our society. But if children with disabilities don't get the educational tools they need, they too often face insurmountable obstacles. Again, it is not that what the Senator from Georgia has proposed is necessarily a terrible idea; I am not suggesting that. I suggest if you have limited resources, and we have clear choices--I think most Americans when confronted with the choice of getting a $20.50 tax break over 5 years, or seeing this money go to defray local property taxes or State taxes, to live up to the commitment on special education, I believe most Americans would choose the latter; they would see this as a better investment of their tax money by reducing those costs. So I also want to add, if I could at this point, a list of what it costs each State, the charts that will spell out in each State the special education costs. They are very high. These are very high costs in terms of what we are contributing. To give you an idea, in the State of California, in special education costs, we come up with 5 percent of the money, the State comes up with 71 percent, and the local government comes up with 24 percent. Going on down this list of various States, to give you some sense of it. In the top State I can find, Indiana, we do 17 percent, the State does 63, and the local does 20. Most of them are in the single-digit area where it is 4, 5, 6, 9 percent coming from the Federal Government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list of education expenditures reported by selective States on special education be printed in the Record.