Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is unfortunate, in a sense, to begin this dialog with such a piece of legislation that my friend from Georgia has offered, which I think is not well conceived in terms of the impact it could have, if we chose to dedicate it to special education. While education may be the issue foremost in the minds of the American public, I highly doubt that the public has this legislation before us this morning in mind when they think of ways the Federal Government could be helping to improve our schools in this country. Education savings accounts, as proposed in this legislation, represent, in my view, bad education policy, bad tax policy, and a waste of valuable Federal resources that could be so helpful if directed to public schools and special education needs. In fact, the legislation offered by our friend and colleague from Georgia offers very little to public schools. Remember, there were 55 million kids in this country getting up and going to school a couple of hours ago. They went off to elementary and secondary schools this morning across the country; 5 million went to a private or parochial school; 50 million went to a public school. Even if we try to take every kid out of a public school and put them in a private school, they would not fit. The overwhelming majority of kids who went to school this morning went to a public school. Certainly, while we bear a responsibility to try to improve the quality of education for all children, we certainly have a unique and special responsibility to see to it that public education gets our undivided attention--at least the majority of our attention on this issue, not at the exclusion of the others. Certainly, we have a very high degree of responsibility to see that these children are going to get the quality education they deserve. According to the Joint Tax Committee, not a partisan committee, the average benefit per child in public school would be approximately $20.50 over 5 years. I ask the question: How is the family of a public school student going to improve their child's education environment with an average benefit of $5 a year? I believe, however, that we can salvage the bill before us and make a real contribution to the work of teachers, parents, and our communities. My amendment simply does the following: It takes the $1.2 billion in this proposal and sends it down instead to local schools to help meet the costs of special education. This straightforward proposal offers an alternative to the underlying legislation, which will make a real difference, in my view, in education and in our schools. Upon the enactment of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act in 1975, the Federal Government committed to our State and local governments around this country--to all 50 States--that it would contribute--we would, the Federal Government would, the Congress would--40 percent of the funds needed to provide special education services. That was 25 years ago we made that commitment. Presently, the Federal contribution for special education is 12.7 percent of their special education costs. And that varies from State to State. The Federal contribution to special education has never risen above 13 percent. The Federal Government, today, would need to boost its IDEA funding an estimated $15.8 billion to live up to its original commitment to our Nation's special needs children in our districts and States across the country. The amendment I offer this morning would redirect the $1.2 billion over 5 years spent by the Coverdell initiative to IDEA. These funds would directly aid State and local school districts in providing the critically important special education services children with disabilities deserve. I often hear from school and town officials in my State of Connecticut--as I am sure the Presiding Officer does in Idaho, and my colleague from Georgia does as well--about the high costs associated with providing special education services. Our local school districts are struggling to meet the needs of their students with disabilities which at times can be overwhelming to smaller rural communities. In Connecticut, the State spends more than $700 million annually, or 18 percent of the State's overall education budget, to fund special education programs. In Torrington, CT, special education costs recently increased from $635,000 to $1.3 million over a two year period. Torrington is a relatively small, midsized, urban community in my State. It is not Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven, or Stamford. Torrington is a small town. $1.3 million in that small town's budget goes to provide special education services. However, for my part, I believe the issue is not that special education services may cost too much. They are clearly a good investment, in my view, over the long term. Rather, the issue is that the Federal Government contributes too little. Congress passed the IDEA legislation. I believe Congress should fulfill its commitment to our Nation's special needs children and our communities by increasing its share, as we committed to do, of special education costs before we enact legislation proposals such as the one before us that do nothing, in my view, to improve the quality of our public schools. Over the last few years, this body has greatly strengthened the federal commitment to children with disabilities. Since fiscal year 1998, Congress has increased special education funding by 25 percent. However, that money is spread thinly across 50 States. Despite the Federal Government's recent increases in its support for special education services, the cost of providing these services has risen dramatically in recent years. Our recent increases in funding are not keeping pace with increased costs. Today, providing special education services to a child with a disability costs about 2.3 times that of regular education. Special education spending grew 19 percent of all school spending in 1996 across the country. Thus, changes in enrollment in special education programs in recent years is also a key factor behind increases in costs for special education programs. In the last 5 years alone, schools' special education enrollment has increased by 12.6 percent. Today, 1 out of every 10 students in public schools receives special education services under the IDEA legislation. In my own State of Connecticut, approximately 14 percent of all students are enrolled in special education programs. Our State and local school districts need our help. The amendment I am offering today moves us in the right direction. According to a 1996 Gallup poll, 47 percent of those surveyed said America is spending too little of its education budget on students with special needs. Only 5 percent of those surveyed reported that too much is being spent on special needs children. The amendment I offer Senator Coverdell's legislation would address this public concern. By increasing the Federal contribution to States for special education services, I believe we will greatly aid State and local school districts by allowing them to reduce the disproportionate share of special education services they have had to carry for far too long. When school districts are forced to increase the amount of funds for special education, they are often forced to raise taxes or reduce funding for nonspecial education programs. These school districts need our help. More importantly, though, children with disabilities need our help more. Demonstrating the importance of special education funding to our States, the National Governors' Association--again, I refer to the letter behind me to the Senate Budget Committee chairman--asks Congress to fulfill its commitment to special education funding before ``funding new tax initiatives or tax cuts'' such as being proposed by the Coverdell proposal. Additionally, the National School Boards Association letter dated February 23 to all Senators says, ``Rather than create a tax benefit for a select few, applying these funds to special education would benefit more taxpayers and public schools'' across the country. We often like to talk in this body about what the public wants and what they need. Yet here we have the National School Boards Association, those who every day have to make the tough choices deciding how to operate our schools across the Nation, asking us not to enact tax relief that would only benefit a select few and telling us what our children really need--better qualified teachers, smaller class sizes, and more funds for special education. Today, I hope as we come back later in the afternoon to this amendment that our colleagues will rally behind us. We could accomplish a great deal. It would be a major first step in coming together in a bipartisan way to do something about which all of us have talked to our States about for many years, and that is to be a better partner when it comes to educating children with special needs. We have not been the full partner we promised to be. The costs are going up, and the local taxpayer is being saddled with that burden. We have an obligation and I think a responsibility. We can live up this obligation this afternoon by voting for this amendment and saying that the $1.2 billion in this proposal we will given back to our States to give to these children, to these mayors, to the county executives, and to our Governors to see to it that these children and our communities will have an opportunity to meet those responsibilities. I see that the hour for us to recess is about at hand. I will not delay the proceedings of the Senate any longer except to note that I will come back this afternoon to talk about this further and invite my colleagues to come forward on both sides of the aisle to engage in this discussion. We haven't had many votes this year. We haven't had much of an opportunity in this Congress to express what we think the priorities of the American public are and how we can fulfill them. But we all know education is right at the top of American's priorities, indicating that the American public wants this Congress, their Government, to pay attention to the needs of the educational responsibilities in our country. I think we have a chance to do that today with this amendment. Presently, we only contribute 7 cents out of every dollar to education. Ninety-three cents comes from local and State taxes. Seven cents comes from Washington DC. But here we have a chance, with our 7 cents, if you will, to do something meaningful for our States and meaningful for these families and children with special education needs. My sincere hope is that when the opportunity arises for us to answer the rollcall on how we stand on this issue, this body will vote overwhelmingly in support of this amendment and do something very meaningful today with a message we can give our Governors as they go back to their States, and say, Congress is a partner when it comes to special education needs. I yield the floor. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Would my colleague yield on that?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me respond to a couple of points my friend and colleague from Georgia has raised. First of all, going back over the history of IDEA and where the support has been and not been over the years, I will ask unanimous consent that this chart, dating from 1980 through the year 2000--over 20 years--be made a part of the Record. It indicates the years and what the various Presidents have requested, what was actually appropriated-- the distinction between what Presidents offered and what Congress agreed to. From 1981 through 1992, without exception, the Presidential request was lower than what Congress actually appropriated. Then in 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996 Congress actually appropriated a little less than what the Clinton administration requested. In 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000--my colleague is correct--the last 4 years, is where you actually have the Congress doing better than the Presidential request. But over the 20 years, through the Reagan and Bush administrations, it was Congress that raised the amount. Most of those years in the Senate--not all, but certainly all those years in the House--the Congress was in the hands, if you will, of the Democrats. So there is a strong background of this. As I mentioned today, in the Budget Committee I offered--and I am certainly not arguing on behalf of my party; in fact, I lost votes of my party in the Budget Committee. I think I pointed out earlier I had the support of Trent Lott, who was a member of the Budget Committee at the time. But when I was on the Budget Committee a number of years ago I tried to put into the budget function category a number, over a period of years--I did not care what amount of years the Congress wanted to accept; 5 years, 10 years, 15 years--with the goal in mind we would reach the 40-percent commitment we committed to in 1975. That is, that the Federal Government would be a much better partner in supporting our local communities with special education costs. I ask unanimous consent this chart that goes from 1980, actually, through the year 2000, indicating Presidential requests and what Congress appropriated, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. For those who may be interested, there is a strong record of the Congress through all of the 1980s, up until 1992 actually, doing a better job in terms of what we put into special ed than the administration, which did a bit better from 1992 up through 1996; and then the Congress has done better than the President in the last 4 years in these areas. Secondly, with regard to the point raised, again, I said earlier, there are parts of the bill offered by my friend from Georgia with which I agree. I am not offering this amendment as a substitute to his bill. It is only dealing with one part of it. There are parts of this bill of which I am very much supportive. It is like anything else, you have to make choices. Would we like to do everything? Maybe some people would like to do everything. But we can't do everything. We have all painfully learned that. We finally have ourselves in a situation where we now have surpluses. We are moving in the right direction. The interest rates and the economy reflect the fact that we are showing much more fiscal discipline than has been the case in the past. I am suggesting that given the choice between a $1.2 billion tax proposal, a new program that may or may not produce, even if we take the best estimates, the results that its proponents suggest--that is, $1.2 billion taken off the table--based on the evidence that has been submitted by the Joint Committee on Taxation, the benefit for people whose children go to public schools is very limited. They say $20.50 over 5 years. Those are not my numbers. Those aren't out of the Democratic National Committee or some Democratic think tank. It is the Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan committee that analyzes what the tax implications are. We use it all the time. They are saying to us: If you are the parents of public school education children, which is where 50 million kids went to school this morning--of the 55 million kids who went to school, 50 million of them went to public schools, elementary and secondary, 5 million went to private and parochial schools--for the parents of those 50 million kids, the average benefits of all of this over 5 years is $20.50. I pose the question, Which is the better choice? If you think you could do everything, then you ought to vote, I guess, against my amendment and hope at some later date you get a chance to vote for it. We will do everything. I don't think we can do everything. So I am merely posing an alternative that I think would be more meaningful to our mayors, county executives, Governors. In fact, this morning, at the combination meeting of the Governors and the Senators, it was Governor Angus King, independent Governor of Maine, who stood up and said: If you want to do something about education--and, by the way, I never met him before; I still haven't met him. I don't know the man. But he stood up and said: If you guys in the Senate really want to do something about education, why don't you do something about special education and our costs? He got a standing ovation, applause from everybody in the room. The Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Ridge, and Governor Tom Carper of Delaware said: This is the priority. Whom can I call? Whom can I get ahold of for you to vote for your amendment, to support your amendment this afternoon? Not because they disagree with what their friend and colleague, as he is mine, is proposing here, but because they think this is a better choice, with limited resources, to go to Oklahoma, Connecticut, Florida, to Georgia, to get back to our communities. It doesn't solve the special education problem. We would have to appropriate $15 billion to get to the 40 percent obligation. I don't want to create the illusion that I am solving that problem. We are just getting closer to it. We are at 12.7. We were at 7 percent. Then we started to inch up a little bit in terms of getting better. Now we are close to 13 percent, a far cry from 40, the $1.2 billion, and I don't have the number what it gets you to. I think probably another couple points, 2 or 3 percentage points, maybe 4 in terms of what that $1.2 billion spread out over 50 States would do. But at least it is tax relief. My friend says we do it for higher education. There is no property tax that supports higher education. There are State revenues that do it, but on a local basis that is not where it comes from. In the case of public elementary and secondary education, for the most part it is free. There are costs associated with educating a child. I know that. But I know very few public higher educational institutions that are free. Most of them are pretty expensive today. Some have a limited amount of cost, but for most of them, it is pretty expensive. Of course, you don't have to go to college. We would like everybody to. The law requires you go to elementary school and requires that you go to high school or at least stay in school until you are 16. For most States, I think that is true. But there is no requirement you go beyond that. So there is a distinction between what our obligations are to elementary and secondary education and what we try to achieve in higher education--obviously, a huge distinction in cost. Although I have disagreements with the underlying proposal offered by my friend from Georgia, I believe we are trying to be all places at the same time and, as a result of that, not doing much in any. My fundamental point is not so much to say this is not a good idea he has proposed but to say this is a better one. I don't know of a mayor in my State who hasn't asked me to do something about this issue for the last 10 years. When I go back, as I know all of our colleagues do, when I go back to them and say: What do you want me to work on this year?--I think all of us do that probably in our December-February periods; we go back and talk to the local officials who are close to our constituents in our States. I don't know of a year when this special education issue hasn't been in the top five of the items about which they say: Look, this is a tremendous cost to us. You mandated it, basically, at the Federal level in 1975. We don't disagree with you. We think we ought to provide educational opportunity for children with special needs in this country so they will maximize their potential. But you promised us, Mr. Senator, you were going to come up with 40 percent of the cost of this. You told us we have to do it. We agree with you. Now you are only up to 12 or 13 percent. Frankly, in a lot of States, it is around 5 percent, 9 percent. I don't have every State here because not every State gives us all the numbers. Looking down this list, as I mentioned earlier, California has a $3 billion higher education cost. The Federal Government comes up with 5 percent of that. So 12.7 is a national number, but individual States are very different. In Florida, it is 6 percent; that is the Federal participation. We are way short of the 40 percent. I don't see Oklahoma on this, for the benefit of the Presiding Officer, and I don't see Georgia. This is not a complete list of all 50 States. As I mentioned earlier, some States are 13 percent; South Dakota is. Indiana is 17 percent; that is how much the Federal Government contributes to that price tag for special education. But an awful lot of States are at 5, 8, 7, and 4 percent--Nevada. Montana is at 14 percent; Missouri, 10 percent. It varies from State to State as to how much the Federal dollars are getting back. My point is this: If you can't do everything, you have to make choices. What is the better choice: A new program that may or may not have the benefits its authors suggest, or to do something that every jurisdiction in this country, every taxpayer at the local level would appreciate and would dramatically, in some cases, reduce the cost of their financial obligations? I suggest the better choice is the amendment that is pending. It would take that $1.2 billion and send it back to Oklahoma, Connecticut, Georgia, Florida, California and say: This is a downpayment on that long-term commitment. We haven't reached it yet. We are doing better, but we are not there yet. I mentioned earlier, California has a $3.72 billion price tag on special ed. Florida has a $1.47 billion price tag on special ed. My State of Connecticut is $627 million. I have one small community, Torrington, CT, that has over $1 million in special education costs because we required it. In 1975, we said: We will educate all kids, including those with disabilities in this country. We want everybody to have at least the potential or the opportunity to maximize their potential. I don't know of a single person who wants us to retreat on that commitment. The point of my amendment is, don't retreat on it, but also don't renege. Don't renege on the contract. The contract was to our States and our communities and our counties. Your Federal Government will be a far better partner, and we will help you reduce that financial burden we imposed upon you in 1975 and have never gotten close to paying. The $1.2 billion gets us closer. What my friend from Georgia has offered is maybe a great idea-- maybe--although I have some disagreements, but I know what this does. I know $1.2 billion going back to the 50 States of this country will categorically and unequivocally provide relief for people.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DODD. What I have offered is an amendment to the Coverdell proposal, not a substitute. So I only address this particular issue. There are a number of other provisions in the bill that I think are admirable.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I say to my friend from California that I did mention the Governors. The Governor of Maine stood up and made the point that this was the top priority, and I think it was one of the few moments when there was widespread applause in the room by colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats; there were a lot of nodding heads. Obviously, Governors have a long shopping list for us. If they could do one thing in the area of education, this was the issue. Tom Daschle raised it: ``Ironically, the next vote we are likely to have is on the issue you think is your top priority.'' I talked with Governor Ridge of Pennsylvania afterwards, a Republican, and Democratic Governor Tom Carper of Delaware. Both said they are going to try to call members of the respective caucuses to urge them to vote for this amendment. They felt this would make a difference immediately for them. So I thank them. I thank the National Governors' Association. I don't have it with me, but I will get it. I have a year-old letter signed by Michael Leavitt, Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Tom Carper and Jim Hunt. It is a March 9, 1999, letter to Pete Domenici. I have blown it up. In part, it says: 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. In the first paragraph, it 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 be meet current funding commitments to States before funding new initiatives or tax cuts in the Federal budget. So 50 State Governors say if you want to pick a priority, this is it. So, again, this isn't, as my friend from Georgia said--again, some may think you can do everything and probably will vote that way. If you can't--and hopefully you can do everything--then you have to make choices about where you should do some things. I am glad the Senator from California raised the issue about the buildup. I think that is important. The buildup is important. Under higher education--and I drew a distinction; I think there are significant distinctions between the choice of going on to higher education and the requirement that you go to grade school and high school, at least until the age of 16--the fact that public education, where 50 million kids go to school every day is free, whereas higher education is not free, whether it is public or private, and that you don't have a property tax supporting higher education as you do elementary and public education. When people are planning for college--not that they do it as early as they would like--they start putting that money away early, in some cases when the child is born, with full knowledge that a 4-year college education could end up costing $100,000 at many institutions in this country. So you end up with a buildup of $500 to $1,000 a year, and that is where it has value. You are not talking about a buildup in that regard, about kids who are young and starting out, I presume. What you are talking about is investing in, as I understand it, some tax-free withdrawals from this account for things like tuition fees, academic tutoring, books, room, board, supplies, equipment, and so forth. So it is going to public and private education. If you make $150,000 a year on joint returns, this is a pretty good benefit. If you are making $30,000 or $40,000, or less, it is not much at all. The Joint Committee on Taxation said this only had a marginal benefit to people. Also, the accounting practices; can you imagine the nightmare? You are going to be taxed if you buy some things and not taxed if you buy others. What about if it is sporting equipment to go to school; is that part of the education? What about the band outfit you may wear; is that education or not? I don't know. Maybe others feel certain they know what it is. I can see a nightmare of accounting procedures to try to determine what is truly an educational benefit and what is not quite an educational benefit. I will finish, and then I will yield to my colleague to respond. Of course, when you start getting into this whole point, as I said, benefits to public school children and their parents, at least based on the assessments we have, are marginal at best; $5 of tax relief a year, each year, for 5 years--or 4\1/2\ or 5 years--as opposed to doing something that lowers your property tax by sending the dollars back to reduce the cost of special education and local community--I promise you that is more than $5 a year; it is significantly more for people. Again, it is the choice I think we make. We all say we love to listen to our Governors. The Governors are in town. They met with the Senators about 3 hours ago. The Governors have said, virtually unanimously: If you want to do something to help us right away, here is the issue. They specifically said: Do this before you start off on new initiatives that may not benefit even the people you think you are going to benefit. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. As I said earlier, it doesn't substitute the entire bill. It merely offers a substitute to the particular provisions on payment. The other parts of the bill remain. I think this is a much wiser choice to make. I say that with all due respect to my colleague from Georgia, with whom I work jointly on so many issues. I know he is anxious to respond. I think the Senator from Florida wants to be heard as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if my colleague will withhold on that request, I know leadership has worked out a scheduling sequence. I don't want to object, but I would have to object right now without them getting involved. Why not make the comments and then come back?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if the Senator will proceed and let me inquire, we will come back. I promise the Senator that I will take care of that right now.

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield time off my time to my friend from Florida. I will inquire, if the Senator wants to go ahead.

Mr. DODD. Is this for elementary and secondary education?

Mr. DODD. If I can respond to my friend?

Mr. DODD. This much I promise: If you run out of time, I will give you time. We know we have to finish at 4. I don't know if we will have a tremendous number of Senators coming over here. We will accommodate everybody wishing to be heard. What I have offered as a substitute, with all respect, has more value. Again, I think Governors, mayors, and local taxpayers will tell you right now the cost of special education is a dominant, significant issue we ought to try to take care of. I have not suggested, except peripherally, that there are underlying problems with the Coverdell approach. But I made the case, if you cannot do everything, of the two choices, which is a better one? I think the special ed is a better one. I say that. I realize there is a difference of opinion. But let me respond, if I can, to the issue, just freestanding, of the Coverdell proposal and why I have difficulty with that as it stands. There are 55 million children who got up this morning, from Maine to California, who went off to an elementary or secondary school in this country--55 million. Fifty million of them walked into a public school--50 million; 5 million walked into a private school or a parochial school. The question is, this bill as it stands is designed to predominantly provide a tax break for those who want to send their kids to private and parochial schools, and it is being cloaked that somehow this is great for education. You do not build a new classroom, you don't pay a teacher more, you don't reduce the size of the class, you don't wire the school with it, none of that stuff. This is all on an individual basis, where the bulk of it, 90 percent of it, goes to those who are in the income category who can afford to send their kids to private schools. We have 50 million kids and their parents who are looking to see whether or not we are going to take some of their tax money and improve the quality of education. They do not have the choice. They do not have the choice to say I think I will send my kid to some private boarding school in Connecticut or Georgia or some other place. They do not have that kind of money to do that. Their kids have to go to public school. That is the choice they have. They want to know whether or not their Senators are going to do anything about improving the quality of the educational institution to which they have to send their kids. That is a big difference. You have limited money. You are going to take $1.2 billion of this, the bulk of which is going to go to those in the upper income category, and for those parents who do not have that choice, they get zilch out of this thing. My point is that is a bad idea, in my view, with limited resources. But aside from that, I think getting the money back to our communities, providing some real relief on special education is what is necessary. I have great respect--I am a product of parochial and private education. My parents could afford to do it. They sent me to those schools. That was a choice they made. I respect them for it. But they never thought they ought to get a tax break for doing so. They understood that. They also understood there is a fundamental commitment and relationship between this institution and setting the agenda to accomplish the national purpose in education, a fundamental responsibility to public education. The public has no other choices. I know people are upset with the quality of some of our public education institutions. I wish the newspapers and media covered good schools as well because there are an awful lot of good schools out there doing a terrific job providing a wonderful educational opportunity in the inner-city and rural America. But our obligation is to see to it that fundamentally we work on the quality of those institutions that are not doing quite as well. My view is this distracts, it is a distraction from the real business of supporting quality public schooling in this country. Aside from tax policy, which I think is questionable as well, and different choices we could make with it, there is an underlying problem. I ask unanimous consent the editorial in the Washington Post in its morning edition, its lead editorial today, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. It is entitled, ``School Choice for the Rich.'' The Senate is to take up today a proposal to use the tax code to provide public funds to private schools through the back door. Fifty million kids and their parents are asking the question: What are you doing about my kids' school? I understand 5 million kids whose parents would like us to do something about tax relief for them if they go to private schools, but I think we have a higher obligation to the parents of those 50 million who have no choice. Those who made the choice of going to private school made that choice. I respect it, but the parents who send their kids to public schools are not, unfortunately, in the same category.

Mr. DODD. I attended the Governors' meeting earlier today, and Governor Ridge said he would be glad to help out and try to convince people to vote for the amendment. I say to the Senator, with all due respect, I am also quite confident Vice President Gore does not support the Coverdell legislation, if there is any doubt about that at all.

Mr. DODD. How much time remains on the amendment?

Mr. DODD. There are only two of us here, so I suspect we can manage this in some way if one or the other of us ends up a little short of time. First of all, my friend from New Jersey has raised, as he always does, some compelling arguments. He is a very persuasive debater. I agree with him on a couple points. I think, first of all, maybe I should have said this at the outset of the debate, that I adhere to the admonition that Thomas Jefferson gave almost 200 years ago: Any nation that expects to be ignorant and free expects what never was and never possibly can be. As important as education was to the development of the 19th century, it certainly is just as important now a few days into the 21st century. No issue will be more important for the development and continued success of our own country than to have a very successful educational system in our Nation. So I agree Senator Torricelli on that point. My point is, I do not think we can do everything. That is my point. I would like to do a lot of things, but my concern is we have $1.2 billion in this program. If I have $1.2 billion for special ed, it does not even remotely get close to the 40 percent we promised our States we would give them for special education. We need $15.8 billion to get to 40 percent level. I have to think, if we are going to do something about the quality of public education--my friend from New Jersey has raised class size, salaries for teachers, luring teachers into rural or urban areas where they are needed, afterschool programs that are critical, early childhood education, Head Start--there are a variety of things that all of us would say are absolutely essential if you are going to improve the quality of our public educational system. Why does this idea, why does the idea of providing some tax incentives for people have any real appeal? It is because people are concerned about the quality of public education in too many places. If they felt there were good public schools, then they wouldn't be asking for the kind of suggestion that is being proposed in this bill. Their desire for that is rooted in the notion, somehow, that our public education is not doing very well in many places. So what is our choice here? We take limited resources. We take a dollar, and we decide we will divide it up. And so instead of focusing on what needs to be done with the 7 cents we provide in education out of every dollar from the Federal level, instead of saying let's see what we can do to improve the structures themselves, the buildings, how we can wire schools so they are able to connect with the technologies of the 21st century, my concern is that we are taking $1.2 billion in effect off the table for a proposal that has marginal benefit. I say again to my friends, the authors of this legislation, people making $25,000, $30,000, $35,000, $40,000 a year, if they have two or three kids, they can't put aside $4,000, $5,000, $6,000, $7,000 in these accounts. It doesn't work out that way. It is hard enough to make ends meet. The idea that they are going to put $2,000 per child in an IRA account is not realistic for them. They could put something in there, but the idea that they are going to get this tax benefit because people will maximize, that doesn't add up in my view. I do think there is a clear distinction between higher education and elementary and secondary education. Again, schools at the elementary and secondary level that are private or parochial select who they want. You may think you have the choice, but ultimately it is theirs whether you go or not. A public school doesn't have that luxury. If you are a child who lives in a community and you show up at the door, they have to take you in whether they like you or not. You show up at a private school, and the private school can say: You are not a nice family, nice people. I am sorry. We are not going to select you. So there is a distinction in a sense. Our public schools must take everybody. The 50 million kids this morning who showed up at their doors have to be educated. We know too many children are not getting the quality of education they deserve. They are going to school in buildings that are falling down. They have textbooks and equipment that is antiquated. They have teachers who are not necessarily the best. Further, the salaries are significantly different from community to community in too many States. Maybe we can go around and set up private schools all over the place and say to the 50 million children presently attending public schools: We have a structure you can move into. You can't do that. Fifty million are not going to fit in the places where 5 million students presently are. It seems to me we are not left with many choices. We have to improve public education. We have no other choice but to do that. We have no alternative. We must do that. With limited resources, is it not wiser to take these scarce resources and put them into special education accounts that would lower the property taxes; or at least allow our school boards at the local level to decide they will take the money that goes to pay for that special needs child for fixing up that school, for afterschool programs; or lower the taxes and allow parents then to have more money in their pocket to do some of the things my friends from Georgia and New Jersey would like to give them the option of doing. Then they could do whatever they want with it. That seems to provide a greater benefit to all people, not just the ones who are selected to go to a private or parochial school, but all students. That is a better choice, if there are indeed limited resources. I say to my good friend from New Jersey, I know he made an appeal to our Republican friends to support the Robb amendment and the Murray amendment. But just as he asserts that this amendment is going to be rejected and this underlying bill passed, I am fairly confident the Robb and the Murray and other offered amendments are going to be defeated when it comes time to do something on school construction and afterschool programs and the like. Part of the argument will be, we can't afford to do everything. They are right. You can't do everything. So my choice is--I presume I may be in the minority on this--my choice is to take the $1.2 billion, give it back to the States, give it back to the localities. Give it back to them so they can reduce their costs on special education. One out of every 10 children in this country is a special needs child in our public school system--1 out of every 10. In my State, 14 percent of all students receive special education services. These problems are growing. The cost is growing. In some of my communities in Connecticut, the cost of providing special education is more than $50,000 per year. Eighty-two percent of that cost is being borne by the local property taxpayer. We promised that community and that family we would pick up 40 percent of that $50,000. I say to my good friends, the authors of this proposal before us, you cannot tell me with certainty what is going to happen if this legislation is passed. This is a new proposal. With higher education, you have a choice. Higher education doesn't have a property tax base to support it. Higher education costs, at a minimum $5, $6, $7 thousand per year in my State. However, the public schools at the elementary and secondary level are free in Connecticut, as they are across the country. So here it seems to me, with limited resources, are the choices we have to make, painful as they are, where all the ideas have some merit. I shared earlier today the letter I received 2 days ago from the National School Boards Association begging for us to offer this amendment. These are not Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals. These are people at every school board across the country who are saying: Please do something about this. Please do something about this. I am offering my colleagues this afternoon a chance to do that when we vote on this amendment. I have already noted the letter from the National School Boards Association, dated February 23: Rather than create a tax benefit for a select few, applying these funds to special education would benefit more taxpayers and public schools. That is not from a think tank. That is from the National School Boards Association letter of 3 days ago. That is the choice they would like us to make. These are the people who wrestle with education issues, not once in a while on the floor of the Senate, but every single day in every community across this country. They have said, this is our choice. The question is, are we on their side, or are we on the side of an alternative form of education which, frankly, has some value in some people's minds, but 50 million kids don't have the choice. This is where they have to go to school, and we have to address those problems. We can run, but we can't hide. Either we do it, or it gets worse each year. The costs continue to go up. If you can't do everything, I think this amendment offers a better idea. The National School Boards thinks it is a better idea. The National Governors' Association, Republicans and Democrats, unanimously think it is a good idea. I hope this afternoon my colleagues will agree with them. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if my colleague from Georgia needs another minute or two to make concluding remarks, I will be happy to yield my time, or if the Senator from New Jersey would care to be heard. My colleagues conveniently use numbers which, obviously, sound beneficial to their argument. The fact is, according to the Joint Tax Committee, which analyzed this proposal, if you are the family of a child in a public school, the tax benefit to you over 5 years is $20.50. That is the tax benefit to a family whose child is in a public school. Is it worth taking that much off the table in the name of education and providing tax relief which is so nominal it is hardly worth mentioning? You can make a case. You have heard it over the years. Businesses say: If you will give me this tax break, it will leverage this much more in private capital. The fact is, you still have to have a tax break. It is revenue lost. We have come a long way in the last 7 or 8 years. We have a surplus for the first time in the last few years. We are actually on track to eliminating the national debt. The idea that we can just take $1.2 billion off the table is a flawed idea. Even if you accept the point of my colleagues and leverage private dollars, it may generate some of this activity they are talking about, but the fact is, it is $1.2 billion. It is rolling the dice, in effect. I have suggested that there is $1.2 billion that could be used to defray the cost of special education. I know that amount would ease the burden on our school districts. As my colleagues well know, you take $1.2 billion and put it in this program, then you will come and say: Let's do something on special education. What about school construction? What about teacher salaries and smaller class sizes? Those are things we know we need to improve the quality of public education in this country. Those dollars become harder and harder to come by as we take more and more dollars off the table. Unless you accept the notion we are going to accept everybody's idea on how to improve the quality of public education--which we are not and we have limited resources--the people who pay the taxes in this country that come into the general revenue of the Treasury know full well we can't spend their money on everything. Parents of 50 million kids have said to us: Improve the quality of public education and reduce the cost of special education. One certain way of doing that is by freeing up dollars at the local level, or reducing taxes for that local property taxpayer. I guarantee you that benefit is more than $20.50. If you are a parent of a public school child, and you get the kind of special education relief I offered, there is more tax relief for that taxpayer and that community than the $20.50 you are going to get if the Coverdell legislation is adopted. I respect my colleagues from Georgia and New Jersey, but I come back to the point I made a moment ago. People who have children in public schools recognize that we have no choice but to try to make this system better. We have to do it or we are going to pay an awful price later this century. We are not going to have the kind of well-educated, productive citizens that we need. I am hopeful my colleagues will recognize that the idea of reducing the cost of special education is something we can do something about today. In a few minutes we will have a chance to vote on this. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Reed, Harkin, Dorgan, Reid of Nevada, and Kennedy be added as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute 40 seconds to my colleague from Georgia.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to waive the relevant portions of the Budget Act. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on January 11, 2000, with the passing of George A. Athanson, the state of Connecticut lost a faithful and companionate public servant and one of its most colorful political figures in recent memory. Often called the ``people's mayor,'' George was one of the longest serving and most beloved mayors in the history of Hartford, Connecticut. I would like to take a few moments to reflect on his many contributions to the city of Hartford. George Athanson was a product of the city he came to love and serve so well. A Hartford-born son of Greek heritage, he attended Hartford Public High School, where his intelligence and personal charm won him the admiration of his peers and teachers alike. He went on to Amherst College where he graduated cum laude with a degree in political science. Following a short stint in the Marines, George returned to academia, this time to the University of Chicago law school where he received a law degree in 1955. George would also earn a masters in international relations from the University of Connecticut in 1958. George's love for his home town and affinity for learning lead him to teaching at the University of Hartford. As a professor of history and political science, George was known for a dramatic flair that enlivened his classes--a flair that George would bring to the mayor's office with his election in 1971. His magnetic personality, energy, creativity and verve for the dramatic contributed to his tremendous popularity and resulted in one of the longest mayoral tenures in Hartford's history, from 1971 to 1981. He considered himself a liberal Democrat and was confident that government could play a role in solving social and economic problems. George was a colorful politician with a flamboyant style. While he was hard working, his efforts were often overshadowed by the creative and novel actions he undertook to promote the city. On one occasion, George rowed across the Connecticut River holding a state flag and dressed as George Washington to protest a General Assembly vote. On another occasion, he stepped into a boxing ring with a Republican opponent to raise money for charity. And in perhaps his best known act of political theater, George showed up to promote development at Brainard Airport in Hartford dressed as the Red Baron and climbed into the cockpit of a bi- plane for photographers. It wasn't these dramatics that made George Athanson so popular, however, but his underlying dedication to the city of Hartford. He humanized the mayor's office. George was a man of great personal strength and he used his talent and energy to bring the city together. He built and maintained lines of communication among the city's diverse racial and ethnic communities and in the process became the people's mayor. It was fitting that in his final days in office, George continued what had become a tradition during his tenure, the delivery of the annual New Year's poem. The poems were symbolic of the man who composed them--witty, humorous and full of political insight. With tears in his eyes, George delivered his last New Year's poem in 1981 entitled Ode to the People of Hartford, which read in part: Those stunts for charity, I did my part ``Buffoon,'' critics said, but where's THEIR heart? Resolutions by the thousands, I've made my mark Now it's time for a stroll through the park. Indeed, George did leave his mark. He will long be remembered as a political leader of great insight, compassion, wit, and enduring affection for the people he felt so privileged to serve. My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife of 37 years, Zoe, and their son Arthur.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I know I will be joined by every Member of the Senate as I express my deepest condolences to the families of Fernando Buesa and Jorge Diez Elorza, who were tragically killed in Tuesday's bombing attack by the Spanish terrorist group ETA in Vitoria, Spain. I point out Fernando Buesa was the head of the Socialist Party in the Basque Assembly, so he was a political leader of some note and a highly respected leader in his own country. In the aftermath of this attack on human rights and peaceful coexistence, I also offer my thoughts and prayers to the people of Spain and the Spanish community around the world. Reports of terrorist violence in Spain are becoming far too common. It was only one month ago that an ETA car bomb in central Madrid killed one man and injured innocent children on their way to school. This cowardly type of terrorist expression must be stopped. Over a year ago, I was pleased when I heard reports of the historic ETA cease-fire. Under this cease-fire, Spain remained free of terrorist violence for 14 months and enjoyed the increase in tourism that peace affords. Unfortunately, in December of 1999, ETA renounced its cease- fire, once again plunging Spain into the horrific terrorist violence that marked its past. I believe that a majority of the people in Spain, both Basque and Spanish, are tired of this endless violence. It is time for ETA to renew its cease-fire and negotiate a peace agreement with the Spanish government. Only then can the senseless violence that threatens to destroy Spain's booming economy be stopped. Last night, at a White House dinner I attended in honor of King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia of Spain, after-dinner dancing was suspended in memory of the killed. In this vein, I ask that we as a body reaffirm our commitment to human rights by condemning this most recent attack in Spain. Today, I submit a resolution that denounces the terrorist activities that killed Fernando Buesa and Jorge Diez Elorza, calls again on ETA to renounce the use of violence and terrorism which have taken so many lives, and pledges continued alliance between Spain and the United States, and ask it to be referred to the appropriate committee. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have the pleasure to be the chairman of the U.S.-Spain Council, which is a council formed in 1996 between the American and Spanish governments and made up of members of the private and public sectors. This council meets once a year to discuss issues of common interest, and also to work on what we call a triangulation, utilizing the tremendous knowledge, awareness, and influence of Spain in the Americas to enter into cooperative efforts with the United States to improve economic conditions and strengthen democratic institutions in the Western Hemisphere. This past couple of days we have had the pleasure of hosting King Juan Carlos of Spain and his wife, Queen Sofia. This morning, I had the privilege of being in attendance at the Library of Congress to hear an address in the Great Hall by King Juan Carlos. This was a remarkable address that I thought my colleagues might enjoy reading. I was tremendously pleased that we were joined at a reception prior to the King's address by our majority leader, Senator Lott, who made excellent remarks welcoming the King to the Library of Congress, and by Senator Daschle, who commented on the unique cooperative relationships that the two countries have enjoyed. Senator Ted Stevens, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who, of course, is also the head of the commission that deals with the Library of Congress, also shared some of his thoughts. In addition, a number of our colleagues were present to speak with King Juan Carlos, including the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, Senator Bayh, and Senator Bob Graham, who, in fact, was my predecessor as the U.S. Chairman of the U.S.-Spain Council. It was a very worthwhile gathering. I feel fortunate to have attended this morning's address. In his address, King Juan Carlos spoke about the defining moments and opportunities in a nation's history. His Majesty, himself, has been involved in several of the defining moments in Spain's history. In the wake of Tuesday's terrorist assault against Democracy in Spain, it is comforting to see firsthand the dedication to peace and nonviolence that His Majesty King Juan Carlos personifies. Throughout his reign, King Juan Carlos has been a uniting force in his country-- forever championing human rights and consensus building. That is not to say, however, that he has given in to the demands of terrorist rebels. In fact, 25 years ago, shortly after taking office, rebels stormed the Parliament of Spain, held lawmakers hostage, and attempted a coup d'etat. As a young ruler, King Juan Carlos stood up to the rebels and replied that the coup would succeed only over his dead body. The rebels stood down only days later. Once again, Spain finds itself under terrorist attack. I am confident that under the spirit of leadership engendered by King Juan Carlos, Spanish authorities will restore trust and order to Spanish daily life and silence terrorist bombs once and for all. This is not to say that Spain finds itself in a precarious world position today. In the new millennium, Spain is a cultural, economic, and world leader in the European arena. As the European Union becomes more interconnected, and the Euro becomes the currency of trade in Europe, Spain will assuredly step up to its leadership position. As His Majesty states, Spain is not only focused on European relations. Spain historically has been an Atlantic nation and thus enjoys rich historic and economic ties with the United States and Latin America. Without doubt, the United States will continue to support warm relations with Spain in the future. I hope that my colleagues will take the time to read in full the eloquent remarks of King Juan Carlos and I ask unanimous consent that his remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Dodd pertaining to the submission of S. Con. Res. 82 are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')