Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. If you would give me 1 minute.

Mr. DODD. Very quickly, first let me thank my colleague from New Mexico for his generosity in providing time here, on his time, to respond to his arguments. They still come back to the central point. We can debate all day the question of whether or not you think we are doing enough or not enough for child care. I tell you again that there are waiting lists in California of 200,000, Texas of 25,000, Florida 30,000--and in my State they don't even keep the waiting lists any longer. I say again that there are parents out there, as we sit here today, worried about where their children are. And the costs of child care, when it can be found, are staggering. Putting aside those issues--all I want to be able to do is at some point this year, before we adjourn, is to be able to offer child care legislation. I want to create a reserve account for children just like Senator Domenici has created for tax cuts. And I would like the chance to use some of the tobacco dollars, Mr. President. There may be as much as $600 billion in tobacco funds. But my good friend from New Mexico has said you cannot touch that money. That money is only going to be for Medicare. I do not disagree that Medicare is a priority. But if the tobacco companies for decades have targeted young people in my State of Connecticut and all across this country and 1,000 of the 3,000 children who every day start smoking will die prematurely, I think we ought to be able to take some of those moneys from tobacco and apply them to kids' needs in this country. I think most Medicare recipients would tell you they think their children and their grandchildren are important. You go ahead and ask any grandparent in this country whether or not they think every dollar we get from tobacco ought to go to Medicare. I think many of them will say that we should give something to our children--that they are also a priority. But unless I get this amendment adopted here, I am not going to be able to ask that question. I would like to have a debate about whether or not you think we do too much or too little in child care. But we are never going to get to that debate unless this amendment is adopted. This is not the time to debate child care, although I know I can make a case for the tremendous need that exists. The question my colleagues have to ask themselves is, should this body have the right to debate the issue of child care? Should we be allowed to go after some revenues that are coming in from the tobacco resources? Yes or no? If we adopt my amendment, you give me a chance to try. It does not guarantee me that I am going to get what I want. You may defeat me, but at least I get a chance to try. With that, let me yield a minute or two to my friend from Illinois. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. DODD. I have my colleague from Illinois and the ranking member from New Jersey who would like to be heard. So I will take a couple minutes, if I can, and just respond. Let me, first of all, thank my colleague from New Mexico for his generosity.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the pending business, I inquire of the distinguished manager through the Chair?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to applaud the Senator from Alabama for focusing attention on the important concerns of stay-at- home parents. I have said repeatedly, and continue to believe, that the best child care providers, particularly in the earliest months and years, are parents. Clearly, where both parents must work, we should try to help them provide the best possible care of their children. However, we should also help parents who make the difficult decision to forego a second income so that one parent can stay at home to care for a child. That is the reason why I introduced legislation, S. 1610, the Child Care ACCESS Act, that will, for the first time, extend the Dependent Care Tax Credit to parents who stay at home to care for their young children. In fact, this piece of legislation, co-sponsored by 26 of my Democratic colleagues, does more for stay-at-home parents than any other proposal that has been introduced. Only this legislation would extend this important financial assistance to stay-at-home parents earning less than $30,000. For such families, the financial sacrifice of forgoing a second income is severe. They certainly deserve as much, if not more, support in staying home to care for their children as families earning more than $30,000. Mr. President, if we are serious about helping parents who want to be home with their children, we should also promptly enact an expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. I have introduced legislation which would extend the benefits of the Family and Medical Leave Act to allow an additional 13 million parents to stay at home for up to 12 weeks to care for a newborn or sick child without fear of job loss. I think we would all agree that we must support all parents --mothers and fathers--in the decisions they make, whether it is to work in the paid labor force, to stay home with their children, or do some of each. Indeed, many parents move in and out of the labor force at different points in their children's lives--depending on the ages and needs of their children and their financial situations. All families deserve our help in raising the next generation of Americans. We must invest in our future if that future is to hold promise for our children, for our families, and for our country.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Coats, in introducing the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998. The Higher Education Act is the foundation of opportunity and access to post-secondary education. Pell Grants, College Work Study, federal student loans and federal TRIO programs are what make college possible for the all Americans. The bill we introduce today makes important changes in these programs and updates and streamlines the law to ensure the vitality of federal aid programs in the next millennium. There are few pieces of legislation that we will consider this Congress that are as important to American families as this bill. Parents recognize that their child's success is in no small measure dependent on their educational achievement. Statistics bear this out--a person with a Bachelor's degree earns twice as much as one with just a high school education. But this issue is not only of concern to families; higher education has defined and shaped America's economy in the post World War II era. Our economy has grown on the strength of knowledge-based, highly- skilled industries and workers. This would not have been possible without higher education or without our federal commitment to ensuring access to college. Since the GI Bill, millions of Americans have been able to attend college because of the assistance offered by the Federal Government. Today, 75 percent of all student aid is federal. And yet, with rising college costs and growing student debt, families increasingly worry that college is slipping beyond their grasp. Studies suggest that, even with the nearly $35 billion of federal aid available each year, affordability is already becoming a factor for those at the lowest income levels. And in nearly all families, a letter offering financial aid is as, if not more, important than the actual letter accepting the student into a college of his or her choice. This bill works to make sure that the serious problem of rising college costs does not become more of a reality for America's families and reaches out to those who already believe that college is slipping beyond their reach. In particular, we have adopted many of the recommendations of the Cost of College Commission, formed by the Congress last year. We streamlined many regulatory requirements that may contribute to rising costs. We also adopted strong new disclosure requirements about cost. These provisions will provide families with new, reliable and comparable information on college costs, so they can exercise their power as consumers to choose institutions that are of high quality and reasonable cost. This legislation also strengthens federal financial aid programs which are a lifeline for millions of families as they struggle with cost increases. We authorize an increase in the maximum Pell Grant award and hope that appropriators and our Budget Resolution will follow through with adequate funds. We also adjust the treatment of the neediest students' earnings to ensure that they and their families are not penalized in the award of aid because the student works, as I recommended in earlier legislation. We also expand campus-based aid programs, like College Work Study and low-cost Perkins Loans, to reach more students. We improve the federal student loans programs by providing extended repayment for students with large balances and by giving colleges more tools to help their students avoid expensive loans. Students are also guaranteed a substantially lower student loan interest rate. As many members are aware, the issue of the student loan interest rate has been the most controversial and closely followed issue in this bill. I am very pleased that the solution we put forward today ensures that students will receive the long-term benefit of substantially lower rates. However, I am disappointed that this bill expects taxpayers to foot this bill with a new subsidy to banks. This new entitlement to banks is also costly and raises serious budget concerns on our bill. I am hopeful that we can continue to work on this issue with the majority, the Budget Committee and the Administration to reach a better solution for taxpayers than the one proposed today. This legislation also includes new authority for the Secretary to explore the potential of distance education and learning. In the past, distance education too often meant correspondence courses with little merit and high cost. Today, the Internet, the World Wide Web, and other emerging technologies offer new opportunities for quality, interactive learning right from a student's home. However, current law provides little opportunity for institutions and their students to explore these exciting opportunities. The bill we introduce today directs the Secretary to undertake and carefully monitor a demonstration program in distance education. The bill also includes another important initiative to increase access to post-secondary education--the Child Care Access Means Parents in School Act, which Senator Snowe and I introduced last year. This bill will support campus-based child care centers meeting the needs of low income students. As the non-traditional student population grows, one of the major obstacles facing students who are parents is locating affordable, quality child care. Campuses are a key place to meet this need. In my home state of Connecticut, all of our community-technical colleges have campus-based child care facilities. The centers provide student-parents with convenient, high quality care and also serve as laboratories for training new child care providers. Colleges are also our nation's laboratories for training teachers. This bill offers significant new support in this area. The committee has worked hard with its members and developed a comprehensive teacher training program that supports state-level initiatives and local partnerships. This two-track approach will ensure that colleges and schools who work together to improve teacher training will be rewarded at the state level with recognition for achieving higher standards. In another important initiative, this bill also offers teachers working in high poverty schools with loan forgiveness. This effort will provide highly qualified teachers with a powerful incentive to share their talents, skills and knowledge with the neediest children. Beyond bringing student aid programs in line with today's realities, we also take a key step to modernize and improve the delivery of these crucial student aid programs in the creation of the Performance-Based Organization within the Department of Education. the PBO will administer and deliver all federal student aid. At nearly $35 billion a year, the complexity of this undertaking demands talent, energy, experience, and performance. A PBO will ensure that the Secretary can recruit the best people to this job and retain them based on their performance. Mr. President, this is a strong and comprehensive bill. But perhaps most importantly for its future, it is a bipartisan bill. I was pleased to be a part of the effort of our chairman, Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Coats in pulling this bill together. It may not be everything any one of us wanted; however, it is what America's students and their families need.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. As you can see from the chart printed above, a number of major well known second-tier cartel figures, including Oscar Malherbe of the Gulf/Juarez Cartel, Adan Amerzcua of the Amezcua/Colina Cartel, and Manuel Bitar Tafich of the infamous Juarez cartel have also been arrested by Mexican authorities and their extraditions have been approved. In addition, if you look further down on the same chart, seven major traffickers, including Felix Gallardo of the Tijuana Cartel, are behind bars and serving sentences anywhere from nine to forty years. Moreover, thanks to joint operations between United States and Mexican authorities, there have been extensive indictments of key players in the Tijuana cartel. These events all represent significant advances in disrupting the major drug cartels. issue 7--money laundering In 1996, the Mexican Congress enacted new statutes criminalizing money laundering--heretofore, as in the case of many other countries, it was not a crime. The complicated regulations implementing that law were issued just last year. Currently, Mexican authorities have more than seventy cases under investigation based upon these money laundering statutes--sixteen of them, jointly with U.S. Treasury officials. Clearly that represents progress in the area of money laundering. issue 8--chemical controls Last December, the Mexican Congress passed comprehensive legislation designed to regulate precursor and essential chemicals as well as equipment for making capsules and tablets. This law is very broad in scope, and once fully implemented should be very effective in monitoring and regulating important ingredients in the illegal drug trade. issues 9 and 10--overflight and maritime cooperation and asset forfeiture Overflight and maritime cooperation has steadily improved. Similarly the Mexican Congress is in the process of considering legislation to permit Mexican authorities to utilize asset seizures and forfeitures as tools in their prosecutions of drug criminals. Mr. President, this has been a somewhat lengthy and detailed accounting of what has happened with respect to U.S.-Mexican counter narcotics cooperation during the past year. I believe that it paints a clearer and more accurate picture of what has transpired with respect to Mexican counternarcotics cooperation. I believe that it demonstrates a clear pattern of genuine cooperation between our two governments. I would hope that my colleagues will ultimately come to the same judgement. implications of passing resolution Mr. President, as our colleagues digest the statistics and details of what has transpired over the past year, I would hope they would keep in mind the ``big picture'' as well. What do I mean by that? I mean that first and foremost we should remind ourselves why the Congress enacted the drug certification law in the first place--namely to ensure that the United States would seek meaningful cooperation from other governments in the counter narcotics area. And why did we seek to promote international counter narcotics cooperation? We sought to do so, as Mr. Thomas Constantine, DEA Administrator testified in February of this year because, ``It is difficult-- sometimes nearly impossible--for U.S. law enforcement to locate and arrest these (drug cartel) leaders without the assistance of law enforcement in other countries.'' Clearly Mr. Constantine must have had Mexican law enforcement in mind when he made that statement. There are some very fundamental questions that I believe we should ask ourselves as we decide how to vote on the pending resolution. Will cutting offer economic assistance to that country improve counter narcotics cooperation? Will voting against loans to Mexico in the IMF, the World Bank, or the InterAmerican Development Bank encourage cooperation? Will suspending export trade credits from the U.S. Export Import Bank or the Commodity Credit Corporation encourage cooperation? Most importantly, will voting to overturn the President's decision with respect to Mexico improve cooperation between Mexico and the United States? I think the answer to each one of these questions is fairly obvious-- No! Each one of the sanctions that I have just enumerated will go into effect if the Senate passes the pending resolution and it is enacted into law. Ironically, the sponsors of this resolution have stated that they don't want the Administration to implement any of the sanctions I have just mentioned. If that is the case, then I am at a loss as to why we are debating this resolution today. Moreover, Mr. President, it is all the more reason why our colleagues should vote against this resolution when we vote on it later today. In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe that the President made the right decision with respect to Mexico. I hope my colleagues have come to share that view as well.

Mr. DODD. I will try to abbreviate my remarks in light of the fact this is going to be a truncated debate. Let me begin very briefly by saying we are back at this again year after year after year after year dealing with a fundamentally flawed procedure. It is so flawed in my view that Senator McCain and I tried last year to get rid of the current certification process and to try to encourage the administration to come up with some alternative mechanism by which we, as a body, in Congress could express our deep and legitimate concerns about the growing problem of drugs coming into our country, and their increased use throughout this country, without damaging the ability of the United States to obtain cooperation for other governments in combatting which is a transnational problem. I fundamentally believe that while the certification process might have had some utility when it was first enacted in 1986, it has long ceased to be helpful in encouraging other governments to work with us in combatting the production, transit and consumption of illegal drugs. For those of us who were in the Senate at that time, we remember well why we crafted the existing statute. It was intended to get the attention of the executive branch on this issue, because at that time they were doing very little to work with other governments to put together credible bilateral counternarcotics programs. The administration got the message, as have subsequent ones. Nevertheless, we continue to go through this process still. We find ourselves year in and year out coming back to this process again. Here we are again in a debate about whether or not we will cut off Mexico from getting IMF, World Bank, or Inter-America Development Bank assistance, which if we did would creating untold complications for us and for Mexico. Let's remember that Mexico is a close neighbor, one with which we share a 2000 mile border and a complex web of very important and complicated day to day relationships. Only one of these is the drug issue. It is a very serious issue, but only one of very many. I see my colleague from New Mexico on the floor, and my colleague from Texas, both of whom are more well aware that most of us as to exactly what the nature of our overall relations with Mexico. I hope, Mr. President--maybe in vain once again--to make a plea to our colleagues, as I did earlier today to representatives of the executive branch, to take some time this year, sit down with responsible people who care about this issue, and see if we cannot construct some better framework by which we can express our concerns about this issue. I want to ensure that we get the maximum cooperation with every major producer and transit country in this hemisphere and elsewhere around the world. But the current system of certification isn't doing that. My colleague from Georgia has heard me say many times that I believe he has proposed the framework of a very good idea with his suggestion that we form an alliance with other countries in order to tackle this problem. I think I am becoming a stronger supporter of the Coverdell idea than Senator Coverdell is himself at this point. I think we need to have a little more balanced perspective about what the U.S. part of the problem. United States consumers spend $55 billion annually on illegal drugs. Mr. President, $55 billion in drug revenues comes from American pockets. American monies are helping to bankroll the very Mexican corruption that my good friend and colleague from California is talking about. This isn't being funded by Mexican dollars; it is funded by U.S. dollars. We are 5 percent of the world's population, yet we consume over 50 percent of the illegal drugs in the world in this country. So when we debate this issue in the context of the annual certification process, we need to focus on ourselves as well as on the activities of producing and transit countries and money laundering countries. Yet somehow our culpability seems to get lost in the debate. It is time for us to take a good look in the mirror. If we as a nation didn't consume these illegal substances in such great quantities and at such enormous human and monetary cost, then it would not be as profitable a business as it has become. That is not to excuse our neighbors who also must bear responsibility for failing to maintain credible law enforcement institutions to cope with the supply side of the equation. We need to try to keep this in perspective. As angry as we get about what happens in nations and countries in Asia and Latin America, and especially with respect to our neighbors to the south, it would be healthy if we also would take some time to recognize that children in Chicago, or Hartford, or Atlanta, or Los Angeles are not consuming this illegal drugs solely because somebody in Mexico wants them to. It is also because we are not during enough here at home, to address some of the underlying reasons why these children are driven to use drugs. The idea that if we scream loud enough at these other countries, we are going to somehow solve the problem here at home without doing anything else ourselves, I don't believe is a foolhardy notion. We need to figure out a way in which to get far better cooperation with other nations in addressing the supply side of the equation while at the same time working here at home on demand. There are a lot of statistics, Mr. President, which the administration and others have put together here. General McCaffrey is not a lightweight or a weakling when it comes to being tough with other nations in insisting upon genuine cooperation. His appointment as the drug czar was overwhelmingly supported by those in this body. He has done an incredible job as the director of the office for national drug control policy. He believes that the Mexican government has been cooperating and he works at this everyday. If he thinks that Mexico should have been certified, and he did, than I have to agree with him. The decision that was made on certification was made in consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretaries of State and Defense, and the Director of the Office of National Drug Policy, General McCaffrey. All concurred--knowledgeable people who care deeply about this issue-- and believe that to decertify Mexico would be a major, major mistake and cause us major, major problems. I believe that the President's decision was based on a realistic assessment of what Mexican authorities were capable of accomplishing last year and what, in fact, they did accomplish. Perfection? No. But there was real progress. They need to continue to move in the same direction this year. That assessment, I might point out, appropriately took into account the institutional constraints that faced Mexico--a great deal of poverty, budgetary constraints, a weak judiciary, and corruption, things that my colleague from California has identified. Mexico is a country that is struggling economically. I will outline quickly some of the major issues that were measured. Trustworthiness of law enforcement counterparts. We are all well aware that corruption is a serious problem in Mexico, generally within the law enforcement and the military. The Mexican government has confronted that problem head on. The Mexican authorities discovered in 1997 that the head of their anti-drug agency, General Jose Gutierrez Rebollo, was implicated in major narcotics-related corruption with Amado Carrillo Fuentes, one of Mexico's most significant drug traffickers. They moved quickly to arrest and prosecute him. They did so even though, at the time, this was a major embarrassment to the Zedillo government. Recognizing that the drug mafia had extensively penetrated its National Counternarcotics Institute--its primary drug enforcement agency, which General Rebollo headed, the Zedillo government totally dismantled that agency because they felt he wasn't the only problem, there were others. That was done over the last year and a half. That is an indication of progress. U.S. law enforcement agencies have helped Mexico to rebuild its drug enforcement apparatus. Progress against corruption is the most visible evidence that Mexico is serious about routing out corruption, as was the handling of the Rebollo matter. He was expeditiously tried, convicted and sentenced. Let me comment briefly on the story that ran in today's New York Times concerning certain allegations made by General Rebollo against other members of the Mexican military. First, I tell you, Mr. President, that there is nothing new in the story. General Rebollo made these same allegations during his trial in an effort to get off the hook. To say things self-serving is an understatement. I have to doubt that the timing of the selective leak of portions of a classified report is not coincidental. It was obviously intended to influence today's vote. The administration has stated for the record that available intelligence information does not support the Rebollo accusations. And I believe we should accept that assessment. With respect to the judiciary, Mr. President, the Zedillo government has instituted new procedures for the selection of judges. No longer can the Mexican supreme court arbitrarily appoint judges; judicial appointments are now made based upon examinations. Under new review procedures, three sitting judges have been removed from the bench to date. Leaving aside the Rebollo issue, there is other concrete evidence of the Zedillo government's commitment to addressing government corruption and cronyism. With respect to the judiciary, the Zedillo government has instituted new procedures for the selection of judges. No longer can the Mexican Supreme Court arbitrarily appoint judges, rather judicial appointments are now made based upon examinations. Under new review procedures, three sitting judges have been removed from the bench to date. Finally, some 777 Mexican Federal Police have been dismissed from their jobs because of drug-related or corruption charges. However, Mexico is not China where government officials rule by fiat. Rather, just as in the United States, Mexican law makes available grievance and other appeals procedures to dismissed government personnel. Because of these appeals, the government has been forced to reinstate some 268 of these individuals. And, despite what some of my colleagues would have you believe, not one of these individuals has been assigned to counter narcotics or other sensitive law enforcement duties. They've been given what we call here in the U.S. ``desk jobs,'' pending further action by Mexican authorities to seek to permanently dismiss them. All of this represents progress on the corruption front. extradition With respect to extradition, for the very first time the Mexican government has approved the extradition to the United States of five Mexican nationals--wanted in the U.S. on drug-related charges. As in the United States, these cases are subject to habeas review and are currently on appeal in Mexican courts. I would also remind my colleagues that Mexican authorities have sought to cooperate in other ways with the United States in this very sensitive area. They have availed themselves of various procedures at their disposal and have used other means of turning over fugitives to us, including deportation or expulsion, when that has been legally permissible under Mexican law. In fact, it was through the expulsion process that the United States obtained custody of a major drug figure, Juan Garcia Abrego--a leader in the Gulf Cartel and someone who had the dubious distinction of being on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List. That is cooperation. drug seizures There have been some real successes on the drug seizure front. Cocaine seizures were up by 48 percent over 1996--to 34.4 metric tons. This is the fourth year of improved cocaine seizure statistics. Seizures of opium gums, a principle ingredient in heroin, were up as well, by 76 percent to 342 kilos. Again showing improvements over past years' performance. Seizures of marijuana reached 1,038 metric tons last year, again a four year high and nearly double the quantities seized in 1994. And let me point to another very interesting statistic. Based upon recent statistics of U.S. cocaine seizures on the Southwest border in comparison to Mexican cocaine seizures, for the first time, Mexican officials out performed U.S. border officials in the seizure of cocaine shipments. eradication Opium eradication was also up last year to 17,416 hectares--a four year high. The eradication of marijuana crops was also on the rise. Some 23,385 hectares of marijuana fields were destroyed in 1997. disruption of traffickers We all recognize that the best way to disrupt drug organizations is to apprehend their mid-level and top leaders. There is clearly progress to report on that score as well. Perhaps the most remarkable event last year was the death of drug kingpin Amado Carrillo Fuentes, the infamous head of the Juarez cartel, as he underwent surgery to alter his appearance in order to evade Mexican law enforcement authorities. Had he not felt that these authorities posed a credible threat, he would never have undergone this procedure. His death was a severe blow to the Juarez cartel organization. I ask unanimous consent that a chart be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the best friends that Connecticut's farmers have ever known: Vincent R. Majchier of Franklin, Connecticut. Mr. Majchier held a number of important posts throughout his life. He was the Connecticut Executive Director of the Farm Service Agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Deputy Commissioner of Agriculture in Connecticut for a decade, as well as acting Agriculture Commissioner. Vinny Majchier was uniquely qualified to serve in these positions. He grew up on a farm near Franklin and worked the same land his entire life. He was known throughout the state as the farmer's farmer. Whenever a Connecticut farmer had a problem, they would go to Mr. Majchier and he would do everything in his power to help them. And no problem was too small. I can't remember how many times he came into my Connecticut office to speak on someone else's behalf. It didn't matter if someone's corn fields had flooded, a frost had ruined some crops, or a friend was having problems with the price of pumpkins. Their problem was his problem, and he would do whatever he could to lend a hand. Mr. Majchier also distinguished himself away from his farm and in the town of Franklin, where he lived his entire life. He served as Chairman of the Franklin Police Advisory Commission. He was a member of the Franklin Board of Selectmen, the Franklin Board of Assessors, the Franklin Board of Tax Review and on the Planning and Zoning board. He also served as a charter member of the Franklin Lions Club, a trustee of St. Francis of Assisi Church in Lebanon, and a member of the Auxiliary State Police. While he always had a new activity occupying his time, Vinny Majchier's first priority was always his family and his farm. These two true loves will both serve as his living legacy now that he has passed on. He was survived by his wife Pauline; his four sons; two sisters; and nine grandchildren. I offer my heartfelt condolences to them all.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the leader. Let me thank both leaders here. It is not an easy task to try to fashion these agreements. I sympathize in that we have spent I don't know how many days trying to work out an agreement to discuss amendments. In a sense, what the Democratic leader was trying to do was get the bill up and allow the amendment process to flow. I suspect this bill might have been dealt with after having been given a chance to raise these amendments earlier. It may seem like it is not that large an issue to people. It is one proposal. I suspect this may be one of the few opportunities when we will get a chance to debate education this year, given our calendar. I suggest to my colleagues, Mr. President, that we are talking about $1.6 billion that will go toward education in this case. I think having a healthy debate about where those resources go is something that the country would like to hear. Whether or not we want it to support building up the deteriorating schools that our colleague from Illinois, Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, proposes, or deal with classroom size, which Senator Murray proposes, or whether or not we want to go into special education, these are legitimate issues about how you allocate scarce resources. I applaud the efforts of our leader and, hopefully, we can get some accommodation so we can have a good, healthy debate. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, let me continue what our colleague from Massachusetts has been talking about. This issue is going to come up tomorrow and will be debated. There will be a cloture motion. There are two issues the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from North Dakota, who has joined us here on the floor, and I care about. The first is we would like the opportunity to be able to offer amendments to this bill. I gather there has been some agreement on a limited number of amendments. But we think, on something as important as education, this may be the only time this year that we get to talk about the educational needs of the 53 million children who attend our primary and secondary schools in this country. First of all, the issue is about choice and giving our colleagues the choice to consider an alternative or alternatives to Senator Coverdell's legislation. Secondly, we believe that the issue is how the American people decide how they want their tax dollars spent. Let me first, if I can, describe what the Coverdell amendment does. The Coverdell amendment is a tax expenditure of $1.6 billion over the next 10 years that would provide, according to the Joint Taxation Committee, a $1.6 billion tax break, providing $37 a year to the families of children who attend private schools and $7 a year to the children who attend public schools. Of the 53 million children who attend primary and secondary schools, 90 percent of those 53 million children attend public primary and secondary schools; 10 percent, 5.3 million, attend private schools. What Senator Coverdell's legislation does is take a $37 tax break and a $7 tax break, and gives it to the 5.3 million children who attend private schools and gives the $7 tax break to children attending public schools. Madam President, 52 percent of the tax break goes to the 10 percent of children who are in private schools. Please let me put that in context. I recently researched how much it costs to attend a private school in the Greater Washington area. On average, it is between $10,000 and $14,000 a year. Such a small tax break, Mr. President, would provide very little assistance to parents who choose these schools for their children. The point that I make is, if you are going to spend $1.6 billion, whether you are a conservative Republican or liberal Democrat, would it not be wiser for us to try to improve the deteriorating physical structures of public schools that are falling apart in this country? Would it not be better, perhaps, to take the $1.6 billion and have it go to special education? Mr. President, I don't know how many mayors, how many county boards of supervisors I have heard from who report to me that they are spending an exorbitant amount of money to provide the valuable needed services to children who have special needs? All of us would agree that these children often require and deserve a great deal of assistance, but local school districts and taxpayers are often in desperate need of some financial assistance in providing for the educational needs of children with disabilities. Is this not a priority? Do you perhaps think this priority more deserves our attention than a $37 tax break? How about providing 100,000 new teachers to shrink the size of classrooms across this country? Most everyone will tell you, if a teacher is teaching 25, 30, or 35 students, those students are not learning as well as they could. Again, most everyone agrees, if you can make classes smaller, you can greatly increase the learning potential of children. Is that not a higher priority than a $37 tax break to go to the top 70 percent of income earners in the country? Or a $7 tax break if your child attends a public school? $1.6 billion could, as I said, provide some real assistance in construction, special education, Head Start, or additional teachers. There are many other valuable ideas. I am not limiting it to these four. As I said earlier, we have come through an era where we often spent money on many different ideas. We cannot do that any longer. We must now be very selective when we spend federal tax dollars. It seems to me it would be a wiser investment of taxpayer money to do something about special ed, something about school construction, something about classroom size, and something about early childhood education. I don't know of anyone in this country, regardless of their personal ideology or political affiliation, who would tell you they think those four ideas are less important than a $37 or $7 tax break.

Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague, absolutely nothing.

Mr. DODD. Not one penny of the $1.6 billion will go for after-school programs.

Mr. DODD. I will yield to my colleague from North Dakota.

Mr. DODD. It is true. We had hoped to be able to offer these amendments, and the bill was pulled down last week. We are told now it is going to come up again tomorrow, and the reason why we are here this afternoon to talk about it is because we believe it may be coming back.

Mr. DODD. Except Strom Thurmond.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from North Dakota. I think he said it very well. Of course, he brings some firsthand information to it, talking about his own daughter who is in the third grade and the size of her classroom. It provides a wonderful example of something we might do to help out our local school districts. Education is very expensive, and the bulk of it is paid for by local property taxes, sales taxes; in some States by a State income tax. It is expensive. We made a commitment here years ago that we would help out with special education; we said we would contribute as much as 40 percent of the expenses to educate a child that has special needs. We have never gotten above 8 percent--never above 8 percent. I have communities in my State of Connecticut that spend $100,000 on a child in a small town. Now, these towns surely want to help these children with disabilities, but it seems to me that is a national issue, giving children an opportunity to maximize their potential. We promised 40 percent; we have never provided more than 8. What if we gave $1.6 billion to the States across this country that are trying to provide the education for these special needs children? I assure you, people will say thank you. I don't think anyone would believe that a $37 tax break for children attending private schools and a $7 tax break for children attending public schools is of a higher priority than almost any other issue you can mention when it comes to the educational needs of America's children. On the close of the 20th century, when we are going to have to have the best prepared and the best educated generation we have ever produced to compete in the global resources with limited, scarce resources, we provide $1.6 billion tax cut that could be better applied to our Nation's schools. I don't think it is right, and I am hopeful the American people will be heard over the next 24 hours and say to their Members, ``Don't vote for this. Don't vote for this. Use my money wisely and well.'' Madam President, I thank our distinguished colleague from Alaska for yielding us some time to be heard on this issue. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague from Massachusetts, he brings up an excellent point. Not only do we have $1.6 billion here in tax breaks, but just the other day the Budget Committee cut $1.6 billion out of the budget for educational programs. Our colleague from Illinois Carol Moseley-Braun, our colleague from the State of Washington Patty Murray, Senator Boxer of California, among others, all tried, as members of that committee, to get some resources in order to help out in these areas. Not only did they lose providing some additional help for these areas, the Budget Committee cut $1.6 billion across the board in education.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Shouldn't I be allowed, as an equal here, to offer an idea that says----

Mr. DODD. Well, I respect the prospect of offering that idea. But is that idea any more meritorious than my idea?

Mr. DODD. But this is an education proposal. I would like to be able to offer this amendment. I would like to be able to offer communities money that can go to defray special education costs more than a $7 tax break. That is an alternative, a choice, I say to the leader. I should be allowed to offer that choice. It is an education matter. Shouldn't I be allowed to offer this amendment to our colleagues?

Mr. DODD. That is $37 is for private schools. You do not receive special education in private schools. It is a public school commitment I am referring to. I was in Connecticut recently and I spoke with a group of mayors, and they were very interested in ISTEA. I thank the majority leader for the way he moved on the transportation bill. But every mayor I talked to said, ``Senator, we need help on special education.''

Mr. DODD. Will the distinguished leader yield?

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. I was proposing something that Senator Lott and I talked about years ago, which was the Federal commitment to special education, where we made a promise long ago to our communities across this country that we would have the Federal level of participation for special education around 40 percent. We are nowhere near that presently. We are still quite short of that 40 percent commitment. I raise the question that if we have $1.6 billion would it be better allocated to help out families and communities with escalating special education costs?