Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would say to my colleague from Oregon, that if we have the same interpretation--and we will see; I get a somewhat different reaction from my colleague from Tennessee--I will have an amendment with clear language that lists those core requirements and makes it crystal clear that they are fenced in and that no State or school district can receive any waiver on those requirements, in which case that will be some good accountability, in which case I would expect full support for it. My interpretation is a different one. If you are right that we already have the ironclad guarantees, then this amendment should pass with 100 votes. Mr. President, let me simply thank my colleagues. We don't agree, but I think it was important to have the opportunity to speak about this bill and give it, I think, a wide context and to speak to what I think are the flaws. We are going to have a spirited debate with any number of amendments, and I hope ultimately this ends up being a very positive piece of legislation that will make a positive difference in the lives of children. In its present shape and form, it does not do that. And we will have a major debate. I will yield back the remainder of my time, and I say to my colleagues, I will not be asking for the yeas and nays. We can just have a voice vote. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I want to make sure that doesn't happen. I will be pleased to yield. In fact, I literally have to leave in a minute

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, this amendment will say that States cannot waive the following core requirements. These have been the core requirements of title 1. Would my colleague agree that States will not be able to waive these core requirements?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my colleague, first of all, well knows that we are going to be allowed to proceed, because I asked for several hours and I have about used up my time. So we are going to proceed. My colleague already knows that, so there is no reason to press, to make the case. With all due respect, we could have a discussion about these issues right now. We can have the discussion about them later on. I have spent a considerable amount of time pointing out right now that in the bill, as it reads, States can receive a waiver from these basic core requirements of title I. I want to make sure we have the strictest accountability measures to make sure that will not happen. I have pointed out that right now, as the bill currently stands, States can receive a waiver from the 75-percent requirement.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I don't know whether we are going to reach agreement on this amendment or not. If we do, that is great. If we don't, then I will come back to these points again and debate it. I would like colleagues to know what is at issue here because I think this amendment goes to the very essence of accountability. Mr. President, I have a couple of letters and talking points from the leadership conference on civil rights that I want to briefly mention to colleagues. Let me just start out and read a little bit here. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights has made the continuation of the standards-based reform adopted in title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act a top priority in the 106th Congress. In order to protect these reforms, we urge you to support amendments offered by Senators Kennedy, Reed, Dodd and Wellstone to the Ed-Flexibility Partnership Act that are urgently needed to protect the opportunities of economically disadvantaged children, children of color, children with disabilities, and other children who need the law's protection. Next paragraph: While the stated purposes of S. 280 are to advance the efforts to achieve comprehensive school reform, the bill as reported by committee does not assure that States will qualify for waivers only if they can demonstrate that they have complied with a strong record of reform in the 5 years since Congress with strong bipartisan majorities adopted standards-based reform as national policy in title I of the ESEA, nor does S. 280 assure that States once having achieved Ex-Flex status will not excuse local school authorities from fundamental requirements of title I, such as maintaining high quality teaching staffs and offering afterschool and summer programs for children who need them. That is it. That is what this amendment says. This amendment is really simple, and my colleagues have stated in spirit that they support it. This amendment simply says that we take the core requirements, and we make sure that the core requirements, the fundamental requirements of title I, such as maintaining high quality teaching staffs, or offering afterschool and summer programs for children who need them, that no local school authority can be excused from meeting these standards. Let me again just mention what we are talking about. The requirement that title I students be taught by highly qualified professional staff--who can be opposed to that? The requirement that LEAs hold schools accountable for making substantial annual progress toward getting all students, particularly low-income and limited-English- proficient students, to meet the high standards. Who can be opposed to that? The requirement that schools provide timely and effective individual assistance for students who are farthest behind; and, finally--this is it--the requirement that funded vocational programs provide broad educational and work experience rather than narrow job training. That also applies. All this amendment says is that we will make it crystal clear by making sure that we will have flexibility with accountability, that no State will provide a waiver to a school district from the core requirements of title I. My colleague, Senator Wyden, has said to me that he agrees with that. I am hoping that my colleague, Senator Jeffords, will agree. That is the reason for this letter by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. The reason that I have been out here on the floor for hours is twofold. One, I think we ought to be focusing on what we can really do for children that will make a real difference. This piece of legislation won't. But the second is I don't want to turn the clock backwards. I don't want to go back to pre-title I, 35 years of good history. I don't want us to essentially say that we as a Federal Government, we as a national community are going to abandon poor children, that we are going to now say for the first time that we are going to allow a State to allow a school district to exempt itself from the core requirements of good teachers, high standards, and measurement of results. My colleagues want to argue that there is already language in the bill that says this. I don't think so. The people who I think have been involved with this, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights for years, have put a lot of sweat and tears into making sure that there are educational opportunities for disadvantaged children, low-income children, children of color. They are very worried about the lack of accountability. This amendment is specific. It says let's make sure that we keep this accountability. Mr. President, I am hopeful that the amendment will be accepted. I guess that we will wait and see. I will have other supporting evidence, if we go into a debate. I guess we are now negotiating on this amendment. But it is really, I mean, simple. There are a couple of things. The States have to be in compliance with title I. Who could argue that we would be interested in giving States flexibility, exemptions and all the rest, if they are not in compliance with title I? The second thing the amendment says is no State should be able to provide a waiver to a local school authority from these basic core values, the core mission of title I. And what are these requirements? That these students be taught by highly qualified professional staff, that schools be held accountable to making annual progress toward helping students, including students with limited English proficiency, that the schools provide timely assistance to those kids who need it the most. How can anybody oppose this? If you do not want to have accountability, and you basically want to gut part of what title I has been all about for all of these years, a program that, as Senator Kennedy has said, worked very well, go ahead and do it. Otherwise, this amendment should be accepted. I will wait, for we will continue to talk, and I hope that there will be support for this. Mr. President, I have had a chance to speak a long time today. So I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, might I ask my colleague, I assume he would want me to take my time and then finish up; is that correct? Is that the way he would like to do it?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes, the Senator is correct.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is fine.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That remains the pending amendment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all let me say I very much hope that there will be strong support for this amendment I have introduced along with Senator Kennedy. If I could just make this request of my colleagues--and I will return to the letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights in a moment--I don't know why in the world we don't just get away from the paper and the words, and why we do not accept an amendment that basically says we will do what we say we will do. What in the world can be the basis of the opposition to this amendment? This is an amendment that is strongly supported by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. This is an amendment that speaks to, really, their central fear about this legislation in its present form. This is an amendment that makes it crystal clear, once again, that the mission of title I, an important mission, which is the improvement of educational opportunities for poor children, will not be weakened. This is an amendment which says that when it comes to the core requirements of title I, when it comes to the essence of what this program is about, when it comes to the essence of accountability, no State will be allowed to exempt any school district from these core requirements. We want to make sure that, in every school district in this country, title I students will be taught by highly qualified professional staff. We want to make sure that schools are accountable for making substantial annual progress. We want to make sure that students, low- income students and students with limited English proficiency, meet these standards. We want to make sure that schools provide timely and effective individual instruction for students who are farthest behind. We want to make sure there is specific language. This is the request of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. This is the request of people who have given their lives to title I in this legislation, that we have specific language that makes it clear that no State will allow any school district to be exempt from these core requirements, the core components of title I. You say you want to do this but you don't want to support an amendment that makes it clear that we will do this. My question is, Why not? In all due respect, I may be the only vote against this legislation. I know I won't be the only vote for this amendment. I think there will be a strong vote for this amendment. But in all due respect, if you are not willing to support this amendment which goes to the core of accountability, then you are doing some serious damage to title I, to the title I mission. This piece of legislation will go too long a way towards abandoning a national commitment to poor children. Now, for the first time ever, we are saying it will be possible for a State to give a school district an exemption from the basic core requirements of title I--from the basic core requirements. And this amendment just asks you to support what it is you say you are for. If you want to go toward block grants, and if you want to go toward moving us away from this mission, and you want to go toward weakening accountability, then go ahead and vote to table this amendment. But I certainly hope a majority of Senators will not do so.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask that I might speak about the amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield for a question or yield time to my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry for a moment. Certainly that is fine with me. The pending business is the amendment that I have on the floor; is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Six minutes. Well, let me just kind of read from--I will give plenty of examples tomorrow of great success, but I have just a few comments from constituents of mine. Vicki Turner says: The title I program of the Minneapolis public schools provided not only help for my two children, but the parental involvement program was crucial in helping me develop as an individual parent and now as a teacher for the program. Gretchen Carlson Collins, title I director, Hopkins School District, said: There is no better program in education than title I of the ESEA. We know it works. John and Helen Matson say: How can anyone question the need for a strong ESEA. Ed-Flex waivers are an invitation to undermine the quality of public school systems. High school senior Tammie Jeanelle Joby was in title I in third grade. Title I has helped make me the hard-working student that I am. My future plan after high school is to attend St. Scholastica. I may specialize in special education or kindergarten. And the list goes on. Mr. President, tomorrow I will develop each of these arguments. Tonight, let me just kind of signal to my colleagues that I am debating this motion to proceed, and I will have amendments and I will fight very hard on this piece of legislation because this is a rush to recklessness. Unfortunately, the recklessness has to do with the lives of children in America, specifically poor children in America. And I find it hard to believe that we have a piece of legislation which will have such a critical and crucial impact on the lack of quality of lives of children in our country that we brought this piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate without even a hearing, and we brought this piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate without even seeing how different Ed-Flex States, which are part of the demonstration projects, are doing right now. Mr. President, I am not going to let my colleagues, Republicans or Democrats, pretend that this piece of legislation represents some major step forward for education for children in America. It does not. I think at least some of my colleagues--Senator Kennedy spoke about this--are going to have some amendments that I think really will make a difference. Second, I am going to make it as clear as I can tomorrow, and as crystal clear as I can with amendments and with debate--and I am ready for the debate--that in no way, shape or form is it acceptable for the U.S. Senate to support a piece of legislation which essentially turns its back on or abandons our national commitment to poor children in America to make sure that the standards are met, that there are good teachers, that the money goes to the neediest schools and the neediest children, that there are high standards, that the schools are required to meet those standards, that we have some evidence of progress being made. The core requirements of title I must remain intact. This piece of legislation on the floor right now does not require this to be the case. This piece of legislation essentially removes those core requirements and leaves up to the States what they want to do. This piece of legislation essentially wipes away the requirement that the money should go to the neediest schools first and allows States to do what they want to do. That is not acceptable. That is an abandonment of our commitment to low-income children in America. I look forward to this debate. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank Senator Kennedy for his very gracious remarks. There is nobody in the Senate that I have more respect for, and I much appreciate what he had to say. I hope that we will, in fact, be in partnership on some critical amendments. In fact, I know we will be in partnership on some critical amendments that the Senate will be voting on. Mr. President, I am debating this motion to proceed, and I am going to use a half hour tonight to kind of spell out or give an outline of where I am going to be heading, and then I will use 3\1/2\ hours tomorrow. Mr. President, this is what I want to say on the floor of the Senate, and I hope that it is important. We have a piece of legislation that is on the floor of the Senate and I wonder why. This bill is called the Ed-Flex legislation, the Ed-Flex bill. But we never had a hearing in the U.S. Senate--not one hearing in one committee, the Labor and Human Resources Committee, on this bill. We never had an opportunity to listen to different people who are down in the trenches working with children. We never had an opportunity to carefully evaluate the pluses and minuses. Yet, my Republican colleagues bring this bill to the floor. Secondly, it is absolutely true--and Senator Kennedy did an excellent job of summarizing this--that there are a number of States that have moved forward. I voted for the legislation--and Senator Kennedy was a coauthor of it--to give the States flexibility. I thought the agreement was that we would then be able to see what States have done and then reach a final judgment as to whether or not we wanted to pass such a sweeping piece of legislation. I will talk about why I think it is sweeping, not in the positive but in the negative. As the General Accounting Office pointed out, we don't have any evaluation of what these different States have done with this flexibility. Have they used this Ed-Flex bill to dramatically improve the opportunities for poor children in their States or not? We don't know. Yet, this bill is now on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, I am opposed to this piece of legislation. It passed 18-1 in committee, but I am opposed to this piece of legislation. I hope other colleagues will join me as this debate goes forward, for several reasons. First and foremost, I believe this legislation--just taking this bill for what it is--is a retreat from a commitment that we made as a nation in 1965 to poor children in America. We made this commitment and had title I as a provision in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act because we knew, unfortunately, that for all too many poor children and their families--you know, they are not the ones with the clout--they were not receiving the educational assistance and support that they deserved; thus, the title I program. It is now about $8 billion a year. I want to talk about the funding level of this program a little later on. What this legislation does is it essentially turns the clock back 30 or 35 years. This legislation now says that we no longer, as a nation, as a Federal Government, will continue with this commitment. We will give money to States and they will decide what they want to do. I am all for flexibility. I just wonder, where is the accountability? At the very minimum, in such a piece of legislation shouldn't there be clear language that points out that the basic core provisions of title I, which provide the protection for poor children in America, are fenced off and no State will be exempt from those provisions? That is to say that these children, low-income children, will have highly qualified teachers who will be working with them, that these low-income children will be held to high standards, that these low-income children will have an opportunity to meet those standards, and that the poorest communities with the highest percentage of low-income children will have first priority on the title I funding that is spent. All of that, with the legislation that is before us, can be waived. No longer will we have any of these standards. So you have two issues. No. 1, you have the lack of accountability on the very core provisions of title I that are so important in making sure that this is a program that works for poor children. No. 2, you have a problem just in terms of dilution of funding. One of the amendments I will have on the floor will say that this title I funding that goes to different States--that those schools with 75 percent low-income students, or more, will have first priority in that funding. The funding has to first go to those schools. Right now, with this legislation, we have moved away from that. In 1994, when we went through this, we had an amendment that said that schools with over 75 percent low-income students had first priority for this funding. Now we abandon that in this legislation. So, first of all, let me be crystal clear about why I object to this. I object to this piece of legislation because it represents an abandonment of a national commitment to poor children in America, and, frankly, I am disappointed in my colleagues. I am disappointed in my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but I am especially disappointed in my Democratic colleagues. Where is our sense of justice? Whatever happened to our fight for poor children? How could we have let this legislation just move forward and come right to the floor in its present form? Where is our voice? I don't understand it. I am sorry if I sound--well, I am worried about sounding self- righteous; I don't want to, but I certainly feel strongly about this. I think the silence of the Democrats is deafening on this question. Now, second of all, Mr. President, I am going to take time tonight--I won't take much time tonight, but I will have a lot of time tomorrow-- to raise another question about this legislation. No wonder people in our country become cynical about politics because this Ed-Flex bill-- see, I understand the politics of it. It is hard to vote against it. It is called Ed-Flex, which is a great title. Then we say get the money to the States, get the Federal Government out, it is politically--yes. I see how it works. But do you want to know something? I don't want to let anybody --any Republican or any Democrat--pass this legislation off as some great step forward in expanding opportunities for children. It is not a great step forward for children. It is a great leap backwards. It is a great leap backwards because it is an abandonment of our commitment to poor children. It is an abandonment of our standard which should be met by title I programs for poor children. I will tell you something else; it is a great leap backwards, or a great leap sideways, because it doesn't represent what we should be doing for children in this country. Tomorrow I will have an opportunity to outline some of the directions that I am going to go in. But let me just raise a few questions. When I am home, what most people in communities tell me that are down in the trenches working with children, and what most of the State legislators tell me who are education legislators, is, ``Paul, the Federal Government is a real player in a number of different areas.'' Title I is one, and another is early childhood development. Here is how you can help us out pre-K. We have a White House conference on the development of the brain. We have all this literature that has come out. I have read a lot of it about the development of the brain. The fact is irrefutable and irreducible--that if we don't get it right for children by age 3, many of them will never be prepared for school. They will come to kindergarten way behind and then they will fall further behind and further behind and then they will wind up in prison. But we don't have a piece of legislation out here on early childhood development. And, frankly, the President's budget is pathetic, much less the Republicans' proposing even less. I mean, in the President's budget, I think maybe at best 20 percent of those low-income families that would be eligible for assistance are going to be able to receive any. And what about middle-income? I cannot believe that we are continuing to play symbolic politics with children's lives. If we were serious about a piece of legislation on the floor of the U.S. Senate that would really do something positive for children, then we would be about the business of making sure that working families can afford the very best child care for their children. And we don't do that. Instead, we get Ed-Flex, which won't do one additional positive thing that will help expand educational opportunities for children in this country, especially among poor children of this country. Mr. President, let me talk about another area that I think is really important. Children's Defense Fund study this past year: Every day in America three young people under age 25 die from HIV infection, 6 children commit suicide; 13 children are homicide victims; 14 children are killed by firearms; 81 babies die; 280 children arrested for violent crime; 434 babies are born to mothers who have late or have no prenatal care; 781 babies are born at low-birth weights; 1,403 babies are born to teen mothers; 1,087 babies are born without health insurance; 2,430 babies are born into poverty; 2,756 children drop out of high school every schoolday; 3,346 babies are born to unmarried mothers; 5,753 children are arrested; 8,470 children are reported abused or neglected; 11.3 million children are without health insurance; and, 14.5 million children live in poverty. Do we have a piece of legislation out here on the floor that deals with the fact that one out of every four children under the age of 3 in America are growing up poor? Do we have a piece of legislation that deals with the reality that one out of every two children of color under the age of 3 in America are growing up poor? I was talking to about 350 principals in Minneapolis-St. Paul about 2 weeks ago. And they said to me, ``There is another issue, Paul.'' It is not just that so many kids come to school way behind. Ed-Flex does nothing for those children. It is also that a lot of children come to school emotionally scarred. These children have seen violence in their homes. They have seen violence in their neighborhood. And they need a whole lot of additional support. Is there a piece of legislation out on the floor that calls for the Federal Government to get resources to local communities, then let them be flexible, let them design the programs that can provide the support for these children? No. Not at all. Instead we get Ed-Flex. Mr. President, we have a program in this country called Head Start. It does just what the title says it does. It is an attempt to give a head start to children who come from impoverished backgrounds. I am amazed at the men and women that are Head Start teachers. I am amazed at the men and women that are child care workers. Their work is so undervalued. They barely make above minimum wage. Do we have a piece of legislation out here on the floor that provides more funding for Head Start? No. Mr. President, instead, we have a budget from the President that essentially says that we will get the funding to one-half of the eligible Head Start families and children at best. It is an embarrassment. It is an embarrassment. We have a program, a Head Start program, to provide a head start for children from impoverished backgrounds. We know it makes a real difference, and we don't even provide the funding for half of the children that could benefit. I don't think that is pre-teen. I think that is just 4 and 5-year-olds, much less early Head Start. Does Ed-Flex do anything about providing the support for children for the Head Start program? No. Does it speak to early childhood development? No. Does it speak to afterschool care? No. My colleagues will have amendments on the floor. And good for them. We will be supporting them and speaking for them about smaller class sizes, about rebuilding crumbling schools, about involving parents, about giving children hope. All of that is important. Does this piece of legislation deal with any of that? No. Mr. President, I am going to present some jarring statistics that translate into personal terms tomorrow about the whole lack of equity financing in education. I will draw from my friend, Jonathan Kovol, who wrote ``Savage Inequality.'' It is incredible that some children in our country--probably not the children of Senators and Representatives--go to schools without adequate lab facilities, without enough textbooks, without proper heat, delapidated buildings. And they don't have the financing. They don't have the financing for computers. They don't have the financing so students can be technologically literate. They don't have the financing for the best teachers. There are huge disparities. Does this piece of legislation called Ed-Flex do anything to deal with the fact that we have such dramatic inequalities in access to good education for children in America? Does this piece of legislation, Ed- Flex, say that since our economy is doing so well, surely today we can provide a good educational opportunity for every child? No. It doesn't do any of that. What it does is it turns the clock back. I can't believe so many of my colleagues have caved into this. How could we have let a bill come to the floor pretending to be a great initiative to improve the education of our children when it doesn't, and, in addition, turns the clock back and takes the accountability and takes some of the core requirements of title I, and no longer makes that the law of the land, no longer says that we have a national commitment, and essentially says to the States do what you want without any accountability? What do you think is going to happen to these children? Some States may be better. I hope it will be in Minnesota. I will tell you what. I will make some of my colleagues angry in other States. It will be worse. It will be worse. That is why we have title I. That is why we have the IDEA program. We know that unless you have a real commitment to children--IDEA is not covered in this bill. But unless you have a real commitment to children with disabilities, or low-income children, they are not going to get the assistance or the support. Let me now turn to the third argument I want to make tonight, and I will develop this in much more detail tomorrow. Here is the other thing that is so disingenuous about this Ed-Flex legislation. We ought to have some direction--and I will try to have an amendment that talks about this--for funding. We are spending $8 billion a year, and that is about a third, according to the Congressional Research Service, of what we need to be spending if we are, in fact, going to reach all the children who are eligible for this help and all the schools that are eligible. And you know what. When I met with the teachers, when I met with the principals, when I met with the educators in my State of Minnesota, they could not identify one provision in title I right now that needs to be changed in order for them to have the flexibility to do their best for children. And when we get into the debate, I am going to ask my colleagues to list what exactly the provisions are that create the problem, that create the impediment for the reform to do our best by these children. So far I haven't heard of any. I haven't heard of one statute. I haven't seen any of my colleagues identify one statute. I will tell you what the men and women who are involved in education and who care about children tell me about title I. ``Senator, we don't have enough funding.'' That is what this is all about. We don't provide enough funding, and then it becomes a vicious zero sum game. So, for example, if you are a school with over 50 percent low-income children, you get some help for those children, but if you are under 50 percent, even though you have a lot of children, you don't get any funding at all. That is because we have such a limited amount of funding, and when we divide it up in our school districts, we allocate it to the schools with the highest percentage of poor children, but then many other schools with many poor children don't get any funding at all. Let me give some examples. St. Paul. There are about 60 K-12 public schools in the St. Paul School District in Minnesota. There are 20 schools in St. Paul with at least 50 percent free and reduced lunch that receive no title I funds at all. One-third of St. Paul schools have significant poverty and receive no title I funds to help eliminate the achievement or learning gap. There it is right there. Where is the discussion of the funding? We are making Ed-Flex out to be some great thing for our school districts and our local communities and we are not providing the resources that are needed. Example. Five senior high schools receive no title I funding. Humboldt Senior High has 68 percent of its students on free and reduced lunch, no title I. A school with a 68 percent low-income population doesn't receive any title I funding because after we allocate it, there is so little that it goes to schools with an even higher percentage of low-income students. There is nothing left. Let's get honest and let's get real and let's talk about funding if we want to make a difference. Several middle schools receive no title I funding. Battle Creek Middle School has 77 percent free and reduced lunch but receives no title I funds. Frost Lake Elementary School, 68 percent free and reduced but no title I. Eastern Heights Elementary School, 64 percent free and reduced but no title I. Mississippi Magnet Elementary School, 67 percent of the students are low income, no title I. The St. Paul School District in Minnesota, if it had another $8 million, could reduce class size, it could increase parental involvement, it could have good community outreach, and it could hire additional staff to work with the students who have the greatest need. But we don't have the funding. And we have a bill out here called Ed- Flex that pretends to be some great, some significant commitment to children and to education in our country. Can't we do better than that? Let me talk about Minneapolis, and this is just a draft of what Minneapolis is expecting on present course. Here is what Minneapolis is going to get with Ed-Flex but no additional funding. This is basically what is going to happen. Of the 87 K-12 schools in Minneapolis, 31 schools will receive no title I funds, 14 schools which have at least a 50 percent low-income student population will receive no title I. That is unbelievable. Schools that have over 50 percent low-income student population do not receive any funding because there is not enough funding. I don't hear any discussion in this Ed-Flex bill about funding or pointing us in the direction of additional funding. Let me give some examples. Burroughs Elementary School, 43 percent free and reduced, will receive no title I funding. Anthony Elementary School, 42 percent low-income, no title I funding. They would use the money for afterschool tutoring to improve math and science, to improve technology, to increase staffing and to improve parental involvement. Marcy Open Elementary School, 44 percent low-income, no title I funding. The school is in danger of losing 10 educational assistants because the funding level doesn't keep up with the kids and what needs to be done. Kenny Elementary School, 39 percent low-income, no title I funding. This school would use the additional resources, if they had them, for additional tutors in small group instruction, to buy certain computer-assisted instruction, make the ``Read Naturally'' Program available to more students, and focus on the students who are English language learners. No funding. Dowling Urban Environmental Learning Center, 45 percent free and reduced lunch, no title I, and they would use this to help prevent students from becoming special ed students, do early intervention to help students succeed. Well, Mr. President, I don't know how much time I have remaining tonight. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I know Senator Hutchinson thanked the majority leader. I also want to thank the majority leader for his support in doing this. He is right. It is timely. We do want to ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder if I could ask unanimous consent to gain my time back. I would like Senator Hutchinson to finish. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield back the rest of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. May I give 5 minutes to the Senator from California?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to say to my colleague from Wisconsin that we are really going to put the pressure on. We are going to have this vote today. It is going to be an overwhelmingly strong vote. Tomorrow, the State Department will be releasing its report on human rights conditions in other countries. It surely has to be critical about China, because of the action we are going to take. The Chinese Embassy is going to have a press conference here in Washington as well. We are going to have a press conference tomorrow bringing together any number of different people--those Senators and Representatives who are still here. We are going to be joined by Mr. Wu, a very courageous man, Harry Wu, Wei Jingsheng, and human rights organizations. We are going to keep the pressure up. We are going to keep the pressure on. The end of our resolution says: Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that at the 55th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva, Switzerland, the United States should introduce and make all efforts necessary to pass a resolution calling upon the People's Republic of China to end its human rights abuses in China and Tibet. As I said to my colleague, Senator Hutchinson, we haven't talked much about Tibet. Let me just say in deference to some of the work of Senator Helms, who really wanted us to have an ambassador to Tibet, the compromise agreement was to have Julia Taft become our Special Coordinator on Tibet out of the U.S. State Department. The Chinese Embassy has refused to meet with Julia Taft. They won't even meet. The Chinese Embassy, whatever they say in their press conference tomorrow, will not even meet with Julia Taft, State Department Special Coordinator on Tibet. What we were told last year was, no, we shouldn't go forward as a government and introduce this resolution on human rights at the Human Rights Commission in Geneva. Senator Hutchinson is right. This is the forum. This is the place. This is the international body. When we do, as an international community, focus on human rights issues--and we were silent last year. Silence is betrayal. And we are insisting today on the floor of U.S. Senate that our Government no longer be silent on these questions. We were told last year, first of all, there will be a lessening of repression. The Chinese Government is going to sign this covenant. They did. We see more repression. We were told that in Tibet that visitors would be allowed to Tibet. You know what happened. Mary Robinson, who was our ambassador on human rights to the United Nations, went to China. Her visit took place in September 1998. But Chinese officials produced none of the information she requested on prisoners, denied her access to Panchen Lama. Panchen Lama is the youngest political prisoner that we know of in the world. She had no access to him. And they made no specific commitments on ratification of two U.N. human rights treaties. They signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but they produced no timetable for ratifying it. And they clearly violated it. I ask you. I ask the administration. I ask the President. The President made a commitment that when we deal in trade in human rights--that is what this debate is about. This is not a debate about MFN. It is not about whether or not trade should be linked to human rights. I think that it should and others don't. I don't know if Senator Hutchinson and I agree or not agree. This is about a different issue. The President of the United States of America said he would put the pressure on at Geneva at the Human Rights Commission. That is the place. And we haven't done it. Last year we had this vote. We have a stronger vote this year. And in spite of our vote, our Government ignored the wishes of the U.S. Senate. This time we are saying don't do that. We are saying you can't argue, our Government can't argue, the State Department can't argue, the President can't argue, the Secretary of State can't argue--that what has happened is, after the President's visit, we have seen now more respect for human rights. They can't argue that there is less repression. They can't argue that there is progress in China or Tibet. We are saying today that if our Government does not introduce this resolution condemning the widespread violations of human rights by the Chinese Government at this important U.N. Human Rights Commission gathering in Geneva in March, then our silence will be betrayal. We should introduce this resolution. As Senator Hutchinson said, we should garner support for it. We should urge the European Community also to come out with a strong resolution. I want to tell Senator Hutchinson that I understand the German Government is looking at the wording of this resolution, and they may very well lead the way with other European countries. It is time to do so. I feel strongly about this. I don't want to be self-righteous at all, but my father fled persecution in Russia in 1914 when he was 17 years of age with czarist Russia. Then there was the revolution. And he thought all the country would be better. And then his parents wrote and said, ``Don't come back.'' The Communists had taken over. And he never went back. My dad passed away in 1983. Sheila and I finally visited where my dad grew up in 1991. It was pretty clear to us that his family was probably all murdered by Stalin. All communication was broken off during the Stalin era. The letters stopped. I was raised in a home where I was told by my dad really almost every day--every night, at 10 at night, starting in high school--he was kind of an embarrassment when I was younger, because he was very ``old country.'' He was almost 50 when I was born, and he wasn't ``cool.'' But when I got to be high school age, I realized what a treasure he was. He could speak 10 languages fluently, and was the wisest, best person I ever knew in my life. We would have hot tea and sponge cake at 10 at night--not on the weekend, but Monday through Thursday, and I would listen to him talk about the world. My father Leon would talk about the importance of the first amendment rights, about the importance of human rights, and about the importance of freedom. I am telling you that I feel as if that is what our Government is all about. That is what the United States of America is all about. That is what we are all about. And we ought to be speaking out on this and we ought to be taking the lead in Geneva. That is what our resolution says, I say to the Senator. Mr. President, I think what I will do, we will have a vote coming up soon, and although I love to speak on this and I am very committed to this, I would like for Senator Hutchinson to make our concluding remarks, because I want to say to Senator Hutchinson, he is right, we don't agree on everything. In fact, this could be the end of my reputation, being out on the floor of the Senate with him. Actually, being a little more serious, it has been a labor of love, working with Senator Hutchinson on this. We are just starting. We are not going to let up. I would like the Senator to conclude on this. I thank the Senator very much for his leadership.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, the problem is we are going to have a vote soon.