Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I was listening to the Senator from Montana. I have to say to him, with all due respect, he was talking about how we locked this in for agriculture, and this for prescription drugs--although I will tell you something, it is fiction, what has been locked in for prescription drugs to make it affordable. If we can lock it in for other areas, why can't we lock it in for children and education? The only thing I have gotten from the Senator from Montana is this vague commitment--oh, well, you know, sometime, someplace, later on we will get this done. We have an opportunity right now to lock this in for children and education. We can lock it in right now--$120 billion over 10 years, half of what we voted for in the budget resolution, coming out of the tax cut, coming out of the very highest 39.6 percent--although the very highest income people, couples with $297,000, still will get a break of $8,400. In exchange for not cutting it any further, we will have $120 billion for children and education. I mean, vague commitments about the future--why don't we lock it in now? This is real money. That is what this is all about. There is a zero-sum game between how much you do by way of tax cuts and how much you erode the revenue base and what we will be able to do for children and education. I say especially to my Democratic colleagues, if we can't step up to the plate and vote for children and education, we don't have a politics. We don't have a politics. No wonder people wonder what in the world is going on. You have these Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cuts still mainly going to the top 1 percent. You erode the revenue base and you are unwilling to lock in a commitment right now to children and education, albeit a very modest commitment. Senators, in the words of Rabbi Hillel: If you can't make the commitment to children and education now, whenever will you? If you don't speak for children in education now, whenever will you? If we are not for children and education, who in the world are we for? Who do we think we represent? It is time to step up to the plate now. This is real money. Let's not play symbolic politics any longer. How much time do I have left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to respond.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Montana, 60 Senators can make this the proper time and place. That is what this debate is all about. Sixty Senators can make this the proper time and place to make a modest commitment to children and education. We can do it right now, or tonight when we vote on this motion. With all due respect, I will tell you, people in the trenches working with children in schools around the country look at these arcane rules and say, hey, if 60 of you can step to the plate and be there for children and education, please do so. We are waiting for you to act on what you say you believe in. So I hope we get 60 votes, and then it will be the time and place. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this motion will provide $120 billion over the next 10 years for children and education. We do this by cutting the tax cuts for the top .7 percent, although a couple will still be able to have tax cuts up to $8,400 a year. This is just half of the Harkin amendment. Fifty-two Senators voted to take money out of the tax cuts and put it into children and education. We need 60 votes on this amendment. In other words, even after this amendment passes, you have $10 for tax cuts and you will have $1 for children and education. That seems to be balance to me. I hope there will be a strong vote for this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if I could be locked in.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will just take 3 minutes because I want to give the Senator from Washington as much time as possible.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Michigan for her response. I ask unanimous consent I be included as an original cosponsor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I heard the Senator from Florida state to the Senator from Washington he appreciated her grassroots perspective. I do as well. I didn't serve on a school board. I wish I had. I keep calling on people in Minnesota to please run for the school board. We desperately need good leadership on our school boards. There is no more important issue and there is no more important public service. I certainly agree with what the Senator from Michigan has said. The only thing I would add to this debate is, while I didn't serve on a school board, I have averaged being in a school every 2 weeks for the last 10\1/2\ years. I love to teach. I was a college teacher. I was in Woodbury High School yesterday. I love being in schools. Almost every time now in the last year or so we have gotten into discussions about education, I pretty much ask students: What do you think makes for a good education? Where do you think the gaps are? What works well? what does not? Why? Really, over and over again the first of two things students talk about is good teachers. When they talk about good teachers, they never then define good teachers as teachers who teach to worksheets. They are not talking about drill education. They are talking about teachers who fire their imagination, get them to relate themselves personally in relation to the material that is being discussed. Also you hear about smaller class size. I agree certainly with the little ones, under 4 feet tall, it is critically important. But I frankly think it goes all the way through high school. When you ask students to talk about why, it is just a no- brainer to them. They say the good teachers are the teachers who get to know us, who can interact with us and can really support us, and they are much better able to do that when there is a smaller class size. I am a proud Jewish father. My daughter is a great teacher. Next year, the school in which she is teaching will have to lay off 40 teachers for many reasons, including an awful State budget. She will have 50 students in her Spanish class. It is hard to get to know them well and give them the help they need. Maybe this is the best way I can support this amendment. She said she kept the parents around the night of the parent/teacher conference and had them all crammed into the classroom. She sat them all down and said this year she has 40. She said: Next year, there will be 10 more. That means your child will get 1 minute. If you think about a class, and they were all sitting there, thinking: This doesn't work very well, does it? It does not. At the national level, the one thing we can say is there are certain priorities we have, and there is a certain commitment we make to all children wherever they live. We at the Senate say we know good teachers and small class size are important, so we make this commitment in our education legislation. Therefore, I am proud to support your amendment. I certainly hope it will be agreed to in the Senate. I have no doubt that at the grassroots level in all of our States, the people we represent, including the students who maybe cannot even vote, view this as a priority for them. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to speak for and offer my strong support to my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Dayton. My understanding is I am an original cosponsor, along with Senator Corzine. I will not take much time. There are other colleagues who are on the floor. This amendment fully funds the IDEA program within 2 years, and the spending will be mandatory. Because of the special rules regarding mandatory spending, my understanding is this amendment will require 60 votes for it to be adopted. To give some sense of the impact IDEA full funding will have on some school districts in Minnesota, Minneapolis will receive around $16 million; St. Paul, $15 million; Duluth will receive around $4.5 million; Blue Earth area public schools will receive around $550,000; Deer River will receive $419,000; and Walnut Grove will receive $54,000. For those who do not know each of these towns, they probably know Minneapolis and St. Paul. I am also giving some greater Minnesota examples so no one will labor under the misunderstanding that this amendment only applies to urban or metropolitan areas. It is terribly important to rural areas as well. We have had some other important amendments dealing with IDEA, and, in particular, there was the Harkin-Hagel amendment which passed last week. That was to fully fund IDEA and also to make it mandatory. That was to provide full funding over a 6-year period. I commend the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Nebraska for their work. I also want to say this about the Senator from Iowa. I do not think there is another Senator--one has to be careful when one says this because one doesn't want to slight anyone, but I do not believe there has been anybody in the Senate who has been, if you will, more there for children and adults with disabilities than Senator Harkin. The IDEA program in some ways is Tom Harkin's idea. This is who he is. The amendment that was adopted is terribly important, and Senator Hagel's support was critical as well. We also have done some other work on this education bill that is critically important. The real importance of this amendment and what Senator Dayton is saying and the reason this is a joint effort by both Senators from Minnesota--I worry a lot about what we are doing on this education bill. I worry about what we are doing for a couple of different reasons. I will try to make a couple quick points, I say to the Senator from Missouri and also to my friend from Arkansas. I have not even had a chance to read this article yet today, but I was skim reading a piece where I saw--and this is really important--a reference to a letter or a statement that has been put out by Dr. Robert Coles and Dr. Albert Poussant who are two child psychologists or, in the case of Coles, a psychiatrist, and maybe Dr. Poussant is a psychiatrist as well. They have done the best work with children in the country. Robert Coles has written 46 books on children. I remember assigning one of his books to my students called ``Children in Crisis.'' I say to the Senator from Vermont, their letter is a plea to the Senate not to rush to these tests. What they are saying is--these are now my words--you are taking the childhood away from children. They are finding 8-year-olds and 9-year- olds who are under tremendous stress and showing signs of being under tremendous stress because of all these tests they are now taking. We have to think this through. Some of the amendments I have--and I hope to have as many of them adopted as possible, and I appreciate the support from other colleagues--are to make sure we do this the best possible way. In my own mind, I raise the philosophical question again: Should the Federal Government be telling every school district in every State to test every child starting at age 8 all the way every year to age 13? I do not know whether we should even be doing this. Should we be doing this to these little children? I am not sure we should. That is a philosophical question, and I will now put it aside. The second problem is whether the resources are going to be there. I want to again put my colleagues on notice, not in a confrontational way, but I want them to know there are a couple of amendments I have prepared that I look forward to offering which basically say: When we adopt these amendments that authorize money, that does not mean it will ever happen, so we have to make sure that if we are going to do this testing, not only do we do it the right way, but that the funding will be available, be it the IDEA program-- that is what is so important about Senator Dayton's amendment--for children with special needs, be it title I for children who come from economically disadvantaged families so that there is more help for reading, more help for afterschool programs, more help for good teachers and teaching assistants, you name it--which will be another amendment which I, frankly, think is just as important, especially if we are going to start testing 8-year-olds, third graders. I will argue forever that far more important in determining how that child is going to do--maybe not at age 13, but at age 8--far more important than the teacher, although good teachers are always critically important, and far more important than reduced class size, far more important than whether the school is inviting and a good facility is whether or not that child came to kindergarten ready to learn. So the issue is, if we are going to start testing 8-year-olds, then we do that when we make the commitment to fully fund the Head Start Program, and that includes Early Head Start. I am convinced, the more I think about this moving beyond Head Start, that we have to get to the point where, for 4-year-olds, if not 3-year- olds--and it could be optional--you need to pay teachers who do this work decent salaries. The Head Start Program is optional for families, but every family has that opportunity, and we fund it within our overall goal of public education. We really need to get real about it. I think the context for Senator Dayton's amendment is twofold. No. 1, for Minnesota, let me repeat these figures: Minneapolis, an additional $16 million; St. Paul, $15 million; Duluth, $4.5 million; Blue Earth Area Public School, $550,000; Deer River, $419,000; Walnut Grove, $54,000. It would be hugely important for us to make this commitment. That is why I join my colleague, Senator Dayton, in this effort. Final point: I really think the work that is being done for the IDEA program, that deals with children with special needs, is, as my good friend from Iowa likes to say, a constitutional mandate. We believe these children with special needs should have every right to be in school with other children and to get the best possible education. But we are nowhere near our 40-percent funding to which we made a commitment. We are at about 14 percent. What Senator Dayton is saying in this amendment is: Why 7 years? Why 10 years? If it is the right thing to do and we have this huge surplus now, then let's do the right thing over the next 2 years. The sooner we do it, the sooner we get the assistance to the local school districts, the sooner we get the assistance to the children, the sooner we get the assistance to our teachers, the sooner we get the assistance to our States. Therefore, if it is a great idea and a compelling idea and the right thing to do, it is the right thing to do now. Make it mandatory and fully fund it over a 2-year period of time. I strongly support this amendment, and I hope my colleagues will vote for it. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 555

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, last year in my home State, a talented, spirited young woman named Katie Poirier was abducted from the her job at a Carlton County convenience store. Within days of her disappearance, there was an enormous outpouring of community concern and support, with hundreds of volunteers helping local law enforcement search for Katie. Tragically, Katier's body was later recovered and a suspect arrested and tried for her murder. The Poirier, Holmquist and Swanson cases in Minnesota, all involving abductions and homicides, demonstrate that resources and good information are absolutely crucial to successful law enforcement, particularly in our small towns and rural communities which are too often overlooked. To that end, I am re-introducing legislation called ``Katie's Law,'' in honor of Katie Poirier, which will give rural law enforcement the assistance they need to deal with high profile, major crimes. This legislation will establish a Federal ``Katie Poirier Abduction Emergency Fund'' to assist local and rural law enforcement agencies with the unanticipated expenses of major crimes. Second, it will provide grants to local and rural law enforcement agencies to integrate their identification technologies, or to establish systems that work with the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, IAFIS. In many rural communities, this will cut down the time it takes to identify a violent suspect from two months to two hours. There are hundreds of thousands adult and child abductions and homicides each year in rural counties. When a high profile, major crime occurs, like the Wetterling or Poirier abduction, local and rural law enforcement with small budgets are frequently overwhelmed by the financial demands these large cases make. The overwhelming hours and investigative demand can wipe out small budgets with expenses, including overtime pay, transporting witnesses and suspects if there is a change of trial venue, as occurred in the Poirier case, and other unanticipated costs. As the sheriffs across my home State will tell you, the first 72 hours in an abduction case are the most critical. After that, the chances of locating the victim alive drop dramatically. No matter how short staffed or small the budget, law enforcement must put its pedal to the metal 100 percent after an abduction or homicide. It is crucial that rural law enforcement agencies with limited resources handling major crimes get the support they need from the State and Federal governments. In Minnesota when a high profile case occurs, a joint task force is established between the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, the FBI, and the local law enforcement agency. Sheriffs I have spoken with say the task force model is effective and extremely helpful. Yet, they still must cover many unanticipated expenses such as huge surges in overtime. Many of them just can't do it. As one sheriff said to my staff, ``I am running my agency on fumes, not gas. I've got nothing left.'' My bill would establish a Federal Abduction Emergency Fund to help small law enforcement agencies with expenses from high-profile, major crimes, including kidnaping and homicides. The Attorney General would make grants available to state agencies to distribute to local and rural law enforcement agencies in need. The total amount would be $10 million for each of three years. Second, my legislation will provide local law enforcement officers with the resources to use the latest identification system to solve and prevent crime. Access to quality, accurate information in a timely fashion is of vital importance in that effort. One of the best tools available is the FBI's IAFIS system. Since rural and local enforcement often do not have the funds to access the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, (IAFIS), they are at a disadvantage when trying to identify violent offenders. State and local law enforcement organizations need to develop and upgrade their criminal information and identification systems, as well as integrate those systems with other jurisdictions. The Federal Government has invested billions in information and identification systems whose benefits will go largely unrealized unless local law enforcement receive the resources to be able to participate in these systems. Unfortunately, there is a wide disparity between the criminal identification systems that are now available, and the ability of state and local law enforcement to use them. Many states, including Minnesota, have been developing systems which will allow, at a minimum, the most populous areas to link up to the FBI's IAFIS system. However, many small, rural localities are being left behind. This reduces the capacity of rural law enforcement to quickly verify the identity and criminal record of dangerous suspects in their custody. Right now, in many rural counties, a sheriff's office may have to wait as long as two months to have a suspect positively identified. Access to FBI's IAFIS system would allow sheriffs like Ray Hunt to determine under two hours a suspect's identity who has an existing file with the FBI. This legislation will be one step in bridging this gap. It will provide grants to states to assist local and rural law enforcement to intergrate information technologies or to establish systems that work with the FBI's. These funds may be used by local law enforcement agencies to integrate information systems with other jurisdictions, or for training, and maintenance and purchase of fingerprint identification technology. The total amount to be authorized is $20 million for each of three years. ``Katie's Law'' will be instrumental in ensuring that rural law enforcement is not left behind. I can never know how the Poirier and the other families really feel, the depth of their pain and the tremendous losses they have suffered. But, I do know how I feel--we must and can do more to safeguard our children and to support rural law enforcement prevent and solve violent crimes. I believe ``Katie's Law'' is an important step forward in that direction. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am introducing the Torture Victims Relief Act of 2001. This bill authorizes increased appropriations to provide assistance for domestic centers and programs for the treatment of victims of torture. The bill authorizes the authorization levels for domestic treatment centers for victims of torture to $20 million for fiscal year 2002, double the $10 million amount currently authorized for fiscal year 2002 by the Torture Relief Re-authorization Act of 1999, and $25 million for fiscal year 2003 (an increase of $15 million over the current authorization) and establishes an authorization level of $30 million for fiscal year 2004. Repressive governments frequently make use of torture to silence those who are defending human rights and democracy in their own country. Many of these people have sought refuge in the United States. The additional funding provided in the Torture Relief Act of 2001 recognizes the debt we own to those courageous people who have made extraordinary sacrifices by speaking out for their principles. We have come a long way in raising the awareness of torture and helping victims of torture since 1985 when the Center for Victims of Torture in Minnesota was founded and began its pioneering work with torture victims, but still much more needs to be done to stop this terrible practice. In 1998, as an outgrowth of my work with the Center for Victims of Torture, I introduced the Torture Victims Relief Act. It was adopted by Congress and became law, PL 105-320. The legislation authorized the Department of Health and Human Services to support U.S. treatment programs for victims of torture. For Fiscal Year 2000, Congress appropriated $7.2 million. The implementing agency, the Office of Refugee Settlement, provided 16 grants with this appropriation. About twice that number applied for funding with a total request several times the available amount. For Fiscal Year 2001, Congress appropriated $10 million for this program, the authorized amount. It has become obvious that the program is significantly underfunded and requires the additional support provided by this legislation. The funds will support treatment services to hundreds of victims each year in 23 treatment centers, located from New York to California and from Minnesota to Texas. The victims have suffered horrendous torture and as a consequence suffer from nightmares, anxiety attacks, flashbacks, depression and other mental health problems. With treatment they can become contributing members of our communities. Without treatment, victims potentially become burdens rather than contributors to our society. Since adoption of TVRA, the number of treatment programs for victims of torture has more than doubled. The National Consortium of Torture Treatment Programs now include 23 organizations and others are seeking membership. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, last year in my home State, a talented, spirited young woman named Katie Poirier was abducted from the her job at a Carlton County convenience store. Within days of her disappearance, there was an enormous outpouring of community concern and support, with hundreds of volunteers helping local law enforcement search for Katie. Tragically, Katier's body was later recovered and a suspect arrested and tried for her murder. The Poirier, Holmquist and Swanson cases in Minnesota, all involving abductions and homicides, demonstrate that resources and good information are absolutely crucial to successful law enforcement, particularly in our small towns and rural communities which are too often overlooked. To that end, I am re-introducing legislation called ``Katie's Law,'' in honor of Katie Poirier, which will give rural law enforcement the assistance they need to deal with high profile, major crimes. This legislation will establish a Federal ``Katie Poirier Abduction Emergency Fund'' to assist local and rural law enforcement agencies with the unanticipated expenses of major crimes. Second, it will provide grants to local and rural law enforcement agencies to integrate their identification technologies, or to establish systems that work with the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, IAFIS. In many rural communities, this will cut down the time it takes to identify a violent suspect from two months to two hours. There are hundreds of thousands adult and child abductions and homicides each year in rural counties. When a high profile, major crime occurs, like the Wetterling or Poirier abduction, local and rural law enforcement with small budgets are frequently overwhelmed by the financial demands these large cases make. The overwhelming hours and investigative demand can wipe out small budgets with expenses, including overtime pay, transporting witnesses and suspects if there is a change of trial venue, as occurred in the Poirier case, and other unanticipated costs. As the sheriffs across my home State will tell you, the first 72 hours in an abduction case are the most critical. After that, the chances of locating the victim alive drop dramatically. No matter how short staffed or small the budget, law enforcement must put its pedal to the metal 100 percent after an abduction or homicide. It is crucial that rural law enforcement agencies with limited resources handling major crimes get the support they need from the State and Federal governments. In Minnesota when a high profile case occurs, a joint task force is established between the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, the FBI, and the local law enforcement agency. Sheriffs I have spoken with say the task force model is effective and extremely helpful. Yet, they still must cover many unanticipated expenses such as huge surges in overtime. Many of them just can't do it. As one sheriff said to my staff, ``I am running my agency on fumes, not gas. I've got nothing left.'' My bill would establish a Federal Abduction Emergency Fund to help small law enforcement agencies with expenses from high-profile, major crimes, including kidnaping and homicides. The Attorney General would make grants available to state agencies to distribute to local and rural law enforcement agencies in need. The total amount would be $10 million for each of three years. Second, my legislation will provide local law enforcement officers with the resources to use the latest identification system to solve and prevent crime. Access to quality, accurate information in a timely fashion is of vital importance in that effort. One of the best tools available is the FBI's IAFIS system. Since rural and local enforcement often do not have the funds to access the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, (IAFIS), they are at a disadvantage when trying to identify violent offenders. State and local law enforcement organizations need to develop and upgrade their criminal information and identification systems, as well as integrate those systems with other jurisdictions. The Federal Government has invested billions in information and identification systems whose benefits will go largely unrealized unless local law enforcement receive the resources to be able to participate in these systems. Unfortunately, there is a wide disparity between the criminal identification systems that are now available, and the ability of state and local law enforcement to use them. Many states, including Minnesota, have been developing systems which will allow, at a minimum, the most populous areas to link up to the FBI's IAFIS system. However, many small, rural localities are being left behind. This reduces the capacity of rural law enforcement to quickly verify the identity and criminal record of dangerous suspects in their custody. Right now, in many rural counties, a sheriff's office may have to wait as long as two months to have a suspect positively identified. Access to FBI's IAFIS system would allow sheriffs like Ray Hunt to determine under two hours a suspect's identity who has an existing file with the FBI. This legislation will be one step in bridging this gap. It will provide grants to states to assist local and rural law enforcement to intergrate information technologies or to establish systems that work with the FBI's. These funds may be used by local law enforcement agencies to integrate information systems with other jurisdictions, or for training, and maintenance and purchase of fingerprint identification technology. The total amount to be authorized is $20 million for each of three years. ``Katie's Law'' will be instrumental in ensuring that rural law enforcement is not left behind. I can never know how the Poirier and the other families really feel, the depth of their pain and the tremendous losses they have suffered. But, I do know how I feel--we must and can do more to safeguard our children and to support rural law enforcement prevent and solve violent crimes. I believe ``Katie's Law'' is an important step forward in that direction. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am introducing the Torture Victims Relief Act of 2001. This bill authorizes increased appropriations to provide assistance for domestic centers and programs for the treatment of victims of torture. The bill authorizes the authorization levels for domestic treatment centers for victims of torture to $20 million for fiscal year 2002, double the $10 million amount currently authorized for fiscal year 2002 by the Torture Relief Re-authorization Act of 1999, and $25 million for fiscal year 2003 (an increase of $15 million over the current authorization) and establishes an authorization level of $30 million for fiscal year 2004. Repressive governments frequently make use of torture to silence those who are defending human rights and democracy in their own country. Many of these people have sought refuge in the United States. The additional funding provided in the Torture Relief Act of 2001 recognizes the debt we own to those courageous people who have made extraordinary sacrifices by speaking out for their principles. We have come a long way in raising the awareness of torture and helping victims of torture since 1985 when the Center for Victims of Torture in Minnesota was founded and began its pioneering work with torture victims, but still much more needs to be done to stop this terrible practice. In 1998, as an outgrowth of my work with the Center for Victims of Torture, I introduced the Torture Victims Relief Act. It was adopted by Congress and became law, PL 105-320. The legislation authorized the Department of Health and Human Services to support U.S. treatment programs for victims of torture. For Fiscal Year 2000, Congress appropriated $7.2 million. The implementing agency, the Office of Refugee Settlement, provided 16 grants with this appropriation. About twice that number applied for funding with a total request several times the available amount. For Fiscal Year 2001, Congress appropriated $10 million for this program, the authorized amount. It has become obvious that the program is significantly underfunded and requires the additional support provided by this legislation. The funds will support treatment services to hundreds of victims each year in 23 treatment centers, located from New York to California and from Minnesota to Texas. The victims have suffered horrendous torture and as a consequence suffer from nightmares, anxiety attacks, flashbacks, depression and other mental health problems. With treatment they can become contributing members of our communities. Without treatment, victims potentially become burdens rather than contributors to our society. Since adoption of TVRA, the number of treatment programs for victims of torture has more than doubled. The National Consortium of Torture Treatment Programs now include 23 organizations and others are seeking membership. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Janet Whitehurst of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during the remainder of the debate on S. 1.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two pending amendments be temporarily laid aside and I call up amendment No. 465.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment that I have called up--I do it now because I am hoping--and I certainly thank the Senator from Vermont for his focus on policy last week and his support of an amendment I had on testing. But this amendment is really simple and straightforward. I thought tonight would be a good time to introduce it. Right now, in S. 1, the Secretary can give bonuses to States if they complete their assessments ahead of the deadline outlined in the law, which is the 2005-2006 school year. What we are saying in the amendment is that actually what we ought to do is to, instead, give bonuses to States for developing and using high-quality assessments. That is really where any bonus ought to go. So what this amendment would do is change the bonus grant so the rewards would go to States if they develop high-quality assessments as determined by a peer review process that would be set up by the Secretary--that is done all the time--instead of awarding grants to States just because their assessments get done quickly. The point is not whether they are done quickly, the point is to make sure this is high-quality assessment. To emphasize the thoughtful development of high-quality assessments, these bonuses would not be rewarded until the date at which the new annual testing goes into effect. So I want to start out by saying to colleagues that this is very consistent, interestingly enough, with the piece that Secretary Paige wrote in the Washington Post this weekend. He writes: A good test, the kind the President and I support, is aligned with the curriculum so the schools know whether children are actually learning the material that their States have decided the child should know. So I am saying now and what I was saying last week--that I absolutely agree and, of course, the majority of my colleagues agreed--is let's make sure we meet the basic criteria that the tests are comprehensive-- you don't just have to take off-the-shelf, single standardized test-- and that the tests are coherent, that they are measuring the curriculum being taught, and they are continuous so we can measure the progress of a child over time. Well, I think what Secretary Paige said in his op-ed piece in the Washington Post is, yes; we want to make sure that this is high-quality testing. So I was looking at the language in the bill, I say to my colleagues, and I thought, wait a minute, we don't want to have an incentive saying that the sooner you do the assessment, the more likely you are to get a bonus because then the incentive is all in the wrong direction. What we really want to say is we do not want people rushing and we do not want people as a result of that rush--and I have heard Senator Kennedy talk about this more than once--to use off-the-shelf, relatively low level tests. We want to reward States and provide bonuses for doing high-quality testing. That is what this amendment is about. I was not here earlier, but I thank my colleague and friend from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, who is a cosponsor of this amendment. He came to the Chamber earlier, and I understand he made some very thoughtful comments on the general issue of high quality and fair assessments, and he also raised some very legitimate questions and concerns about the direction in which we are moving. I could spend a lot of time on this. I do not think I need to draw from the different reports and studies that have taken place about the importance of getting it right and making sure this is high-quality testing. If we want to get the tests right, then we ought to provide bonuses for States that do the best job. That is really where the bonuses should go. My point is, let us enhance the accountability systems by enhancing the quality of assessments so that we do not make a mistake, and the way to do that is to provide incentives for States, bonuses for States that do a high-quality job with high-quality tests. That is what I tried to do last week and this week--and I so appreciate the support of the Senators from Massachusetts and Vermont. There will come a point in the debate where I am going to raise the philosophical question--which I do not know I have answered in my own mind--as to whether the Federal Government ought to be dictating this to States and local school districts. That is the question. We have done it before with title I, but this goes way beyond what we have done. The part of the op-ed piece Secretary Paige wrote with which I do not agree is the opening sentence: Anyone who opposes annual testing of children is an apologist for a broken system of education that dismisses certain children and classes of children as unteachable. My fear is, I say to Senator Jeffords, I thought when we were marking up this bill we were saying two things. We were saying yes to accountability and we want to do it the right way, and we were also saying yes to making sure there were resources for the tools, for the students and for the teachers to do well. My concern is, given where we are heading with the budget resolution and where we are heading with this tax cut, as a matter of fact, we are not going to have the resources to help students do better. In which case it seems to me a little disingenuous at best and, I frankly argue, cruel at worst, to take a fourth grader or a third grader, since we start at age 8, who has been in a school where there have been two or three teachers during the school year--that is not uncommon in some of the inner-city schools, and expect those children to do as well as students who have had the best teachers and the best opportunities. Low income children do not have the support necessary to do well, most particularly in the area of early childhood education. A child who comes to kindergarten and is way behind other children who had good nurturing, stimulation, had the best of early childhood development either from their own family or in a really good childcare center the parents could afford, has an immeasurable disadvantage. Yet, we will basically say, without any additional help, that we are going to fail her. We already know these children are not going to do well. The thing Secretary Paige is missing in his piece today is what he testified to before our committee. He said, yes, we need the resources. I do not see those resources, and I think this will end up not being a good piece of legislation if we do not have both. The two colleagues who are in the Chamber, the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Vermont, have made the same point: We need the resources to go with accountability. I have an amendment--I am ready to do it at a good time--that is a trigger amendment--linking the new testing to the funding 79 of us voted for in the Dodd-Collins amendment on fully authorizing title I. My amendment would ensure that there is additional money for reading help, quality teachers, preschool and afterschool care. All that is going to be a key debate. Right now I am in a pragmatic mood, and I am just trying to make sure the testing is done the best possible way. Even if I do not end up voting for the bill, I still want it to be the best possible bill. I think we ought to provide the bonuses for the high-quality testing. It seems to me a mistake that the bonuses go only to the States that develop their assessments as quickly as possible. I hope I get support from my colleagues.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator for his gracious remarks and thank him for his support of this amendment. amendment no. 600

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank Senator Kennedy for his very strong words about the minimum wage. I want him to count me in as a very strong supporter as we bring this legislation to the floor of the Senate. I think the Senator from Massachusetts, in his own characteristic strong, proud way, has made it very clear what is at stake with this minimum wage legislation. I thank him for his remarks. I will use this opportunity to reinforce some of the comments made by my friend, the Senator from Massachusetts. It is pretty amazing to see a front page story in the Washington Post, ``Business Seeks Tax Breaks in Wage Bill''--I believe I heard the Senator from Massachusetts say perhaps to the tune of $100 billion or thereabouts. I want to say to Senators, I think this minimum wage bill goes to the heart and soul of the question of whether we have a heart and soul as a Senate. We are now at $5.15 an hour, and we are talking about trying to get this up to $6.15 an hour, then to $6.65 an hour, in increments. I am going to make two or three points. The first is personal, but it really is true. If we are going to vote ourselves a raise of over $4,000 a year--Senators make about $140,000-some a year--it seems to me we ought to be able to vote for a raise in the wage of the lowest paid workers. We are talking about people who work 40 hours a week, almost 52 weeks a year, and they are still poor. I think there is no standard of justice here if we are going to vote a hefty increase for ourselves--we are handsomely rewarded for our work--and yet are unable to raise the minimum wage for the lowest paid workers. Second, in Minnesota there is a stereotype that it is teenagers working part-time who receive the minimum wage. The fact is, many more people are paid the minimum wage. At the moment--and we will see what happens with the economy, some employers are paying higher wages--many people are working minimum wage, a disproportionate number of them women. I think it is a matter of elementary justice for women and other working poor people to raise the minimum wage. Finally, it takes some real chutzpah on the part of my colleagues, the Republican leadership, to say the only way you are going to get a minimum wage bill through, which speaks to people who are working 52 weeks a year and are still poor in America, is to add in all kinds of corporate welfare and breaks for large businesses. Democratic Senators, that is the deal you have to accept. We are going to bleed the revenue base with these Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cuts that the majority party is trying to push through the Senate this week or next week, with over 40 percent of the benefits going to the top 1 percent, and a pittance, if that, for children, for education. Whatever happened to our commitment for affordable prescription drug costs for elderly people? Now, according to this piece, the strategy is to load onto a minimum wage bill more corporate welfare and more breaks for large financial interests and economic interests in the country. I think it is transparent. I look forward to the debate. Not that long ago--it seems like just yesterday--we had several weeks' worth of debate about campaign finance reform. There were a variety of different arguments made. I suggest that our failure to raise the minimum wage is all about the need for campaign finance reform. These working poor people, men and women in our States--nobody can say they are not hard working --who cannot support their families, they are the last people in the world to be able to hire the lobbyists. They do not have lobbying coalitions here. They are the last people in the world to give the big contributions. They are the last people in the world to be the investors in either political party. But you know what? If you believe it is important for people to earn a decent standard of living so they can support their families and give their children the care they know their children need and deserve, then we ought to be willing to support a raise in the minimum wage. It is just unbelievable to see in today's Washington Post this story. I don't know, maybe I should not be surprised. Frankly, I do not want to be dishonest. You never want to be dishonest. I don't want to feign total shock because I have looked at the greed that is reflected by this tax cut bill that my colleagues want to bring to the floor, and I have looked at who gets the benefits. So I guess I should not be surprised that now what we have is this all-out vigorous opposition to raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15 and to $6.65 unless there is corporate welfare, unless we do well by all these large economic interests, unless we get yet more tax breaks for them. It is really pretty simple to figure out. When I was a political science professor, was it Harold Lasswell's definition that politics is all about who gets what, when, why? That is what this question is about: Who gets what, when, and why? As I would put it as a Senator from Minnesota: Who decides and who benefits and who is asked to sacrifice? Who decides to keep the minimum wage so low that there are so many people who are poor still today in America? If you are working hard, and, as some of my colleagues have said, playing by the rules of the game, then you shouldn't be poor in America. You should be able to support your family. Who decides to keep the minimum wage down? Who decides that instead now we have to load on all kinds of corporate welfare and all kinds of additional tax breaks for large economic interests in the country? I think people in the country are going to focus on this debate. I look forward to joining Senator Kennedy and other Senators. I remember a number of years ago when we first started this debate. I am a proud original cosponsor of this legislation. I don't think any of the arguments that have been made about how, if we raise the minimum wage, we would see a decline in jobs that turned out to be true. The last time we had a raise in the minimum wage--it was very modest--we had colleagues in the Chamber talking about how people were going to lose their jobs. It didn't happen. I would be willing to say that if there is a point at which you raise the minimum wage at too high of a level you could lose jobs, but it is not going from $5.15 an hour to $6.65 an hour. It seems to me Senators are in a fairly awkward situation when we voted ourselves over a $4,000 increase in our already high salary and we are not willing to vote to raise the minimum wage for working poor women and men in this country from $5.15 an hour to $6.65 an hour so people have a better chance of being able to support their children and support their families. This is a perfect example of the song that was written by Florence Reese from Harland County, KY--the song about which side you are on. In this particular case, it is, whose side are you on? Are you on the side of hard-working people? We all say we are for hard- working people. Or are you on the side of large economic interests? Are you on the side of elementary justice to raise the minimum wage for workers and their families? Or are you going to insist on somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 billion of yet more tax breaks for economic interests so there is even less for children, even less for education, and even less for affordable prescription drug costs? I am telling you, my colleagues like to say in the Republican majority that some of these comments are class warfare. And I just have to smile because if there ever were an example of ``class warfare'', if that is what you want to call it, it would be a U.S. Senate that is so generous to itself in giving ourselves big increases in a big salary and are unwilling to raise the minimum wage for poor working people in our States and in our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota. I think this budget proposal on the part of my Republican colleagues should be called ``leave no dollars behind'' when it comes to Robin- Hood-in-reverse tax cuts with over 40 percent of the benefits going to the top 1 percent of the population. That is what we have. I had an amendment to provide $17 billion for veterans' health care over the next 10 years, filling in the gaps to make sure we would do well and say thanks to our veterans--eliminated. I joined with Senator Harkin to provide $250 billion for education, afterschool programs, and title I kids with special needs--you name it. It was eliminated from the budget proposal. This is about the most hard-hitting thing I can say, because I really believe in the chair of this committee, a Senator for whom I have tremendous respect. He is a great Senator. But I am in profound disagreement with his proposal. I have been following the discussion about education. I hope my colleagues on the Democratic side will have the courage to challenge this education bill on the floor, which will not have the resources. Senators, if you love children, then you don't rob them. If you love this little boy or girl, then you don't take their childhood away. If you love these children, you help them for 10 years from now, or 7 or 8 years from now. You must be willing to step up to the plate and make sure you invest some money so these kids will all have the best opportunity to learn. That means that they are kindergarten ready. That means you help the kids who come from low-income backgrounds. That means, just as Senators' children when they go to school, and our grandchildren, they have the best teachers and the schools and the technology and all of the facilities. This is no way to love children. That is to say, do not rob them by not making the investment in children in Minnesota and around the country and instead giving 40 percent-plus of the benefits to the top 1 percent of the population. These are distorted priorities. There is going to be a pittance for children and education, a pittance for health care, and not anywhere near enough for affordable prescription drug costs for the elderly. Whatever happened to that campaign promise? I resist this budget. I will vote against this budget. I am going to have a lot of amendments on this education bill that are going to make people step up to the plate, and we will see who is willing to talk about the resources for children and education. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 403.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.