Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is the Muscular Dystrophy Community Assistance, Research And Education Act of 2001. It really is the MD CARE Act. I thank Senators Cochran and Collins, especially, for their assistance. There are 20 colleagues who support this legislation. It is about equally divided between Democrats and Republicans, thank God, because of what this piece of legislation is about. To look at the record of research on these debilitating and deadly diseases is to realize that despite our country's enormous resources, sometimes people are left behind. Today, despite all the advances in medical science, victims of muscular dystrophy--which afflicts tens of thousands of individuals every year in America--have no cure and no effective treatments available to them. I became engaged with the muscular dystrophy community when I was approached by several families in my home state of Minnesota with children suffering from Duchenne's muscular dystrophy (DMD). DMD is the most prevalent form of muscular dystrophy affecting children and it is the most deadly. Children with DMD are most often not diagnosed before the age of two or three years. Because it is sex-linked, the disease only strikes boys but in reality, it strikes the entire family. DMD children don't begin to walk until late, and then in an unusual manner. They frequently fall and have difficulty getting up. Climbing stairs is a major ordeal. By age 9 these children start to rely on a wheelchair and by their teen years reliance becomes total. Most tragically, the disease is characterized by a continued rapidly progressive muscle weakness that almost always results in death by 20 years of age. I have three children, ages 36, 31, and 28. I cannot imagine this. Children afflicted with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy have no ability to produce the protein dystrophin, the protein that binds the muscle cells together. It is an exceptionally cruel disease that slowly robs boys of their independence and ultimately immobilizes them, leading invariably to an early loss of life. Sadly, the federal response to this disease has been inadequate. This year, in an NIH budget of more than $18 billion, research into Duchenne and Becker Muscular Dystrophies totals just $9.2 million. Only $17 million was devoted last year to all of the muscular dystrophies combined. If you want to understand why there is nothing available to treat DMD children, you need look no further than the weak federal response to this disease. The gene that is flawed in this disease is readily identifiable, and has been so for 14 years. Astonishingly, however, the pace of research on DMD actually slowed down after the gene was discovered. One DMD child back in Minnesota that I have become especially fond of is Jacob Gunvalsen. Jacob is an adorable 10-year-old. He loves to play with his siblings out on his parents' farm, draw pictures for his family's refrigerator and play video games. Jacob and his mother Cheri Gunvalsen have made quite an impression on several members of Congress, and Jacob's picture adorns the desks of numerous health care legislative staff throughout Washington. This is because like so many other parents facing the day-to-day experience of living with a child suffering from this debilitating disease, Cheri is focused on leaving no stone unturned in her quest to help improve her son's chance of survival. One day, Jacob drew a picture of himself, and in a cloud above his figure he wrote the words, ``What I want most in the world is a cure for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy''. I say to my colleagues, that's what I want, too. Today, we are getting one step closer to making Jacob's wish come true. David Mesick, also of Minnesota, is the Chairman of the Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy, a national voluntary health organization committed to promoting medical research efforts specific to Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophies. Through David's leadership and the organization's efforts, the muscular dystrophy community has successfully increased Congress' awareness of this devastating disease. Today, their voices are being heard here on the floor of the Senate. I have been moved by the number of families in Minnesota and elsewhere who have been affected by this disease, and I have been moved even more by their tenacious response. We can support this community by improving federal research efforts and public programs to address the needs of individuals with muscular dystrophy. Mr. President, passage of this legislation will improve coordination of research not only into Duchenne's, but into all the various forms of Muscular Dystrophy. It authorizes the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to establish separate Centers of Excellence to promote basic and clinical research, epidemiology, data collection and assessment on the various forms of muscular dystrophy. These steps are needed to ensure a long- term commitment by the federal government to the treatment and cure of muscular dystrophy. I am neither a scientist nor a physician. But I am told that it is highly probable that sooner or later gene therapy will be able to cure diseases of this nature. For diseases like Duchenne's muscular dystrophy, involving flaws on a single, identifiable gene, the outlook is even more positive. Yet the words `sooner' and `later' have profound consequences in the lives of tens of thousands of Americans and their families. With the introduction of the MD CARE Act, we move a step closer to giving those families hope. I encourage my colleagues on the Senate HELP Committee to work steadfastly to move this crucial legislation through the Senate, and I urge all colleagues to support it. I also think of Eric Anderson who is such a good friend of my son. David and Eric came to Washington. So many of the families who came, and many came with their children, were so young and their children were so young. Time is not neutral for them. There is an excellent chance we can make a real breakthrough in finding a cure. It is not too much that these families ask for and it is not too much to pass this legislation and try and push forward a commitment to the funding, a commitment to this research. This is one of those diseases. I hate to label, so few are affected, but for these children and these families, they are not too few in number. These are their lives. These are their hopes. These are their dreams. This is their pain. This is their agony. I want to turn this into hope. I ask all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I am very pleased this has strong bipartisan support.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that Kimberly Walker and Phoebe Trepp of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of the time that I control on this motion.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will my colleague from Tennessee yield for 10 seconds?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I do not think there is any order. My colleague from Tennessee was here first. I ask unanimous consent that I follow the Senator from Tennessee in the order of debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the only thing I want to mention is, I don't think I will take much more time, but I didn't say 20 minutes. I think I will probably stay within that framework, although with the Senator from Arkansas out on the floor, it will take some teaching on my part to get him to look at this in the right way. So it may take a few hours. Seriously, I think I can do it in about 20 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to try to present a little bit of data. First, I will talk about this motion to proceed. There are others who will speak on this. I think Senator Kennedy, of course, is the most prominent one who can speak to the state of the negotiations. Originally, my objection to proceeding before the spring recess was that I wanted to see what was in the bill. That includes policy and there are legitimate concerns and differences of opinion about that-- for example, the Straight A's Block Grant Program. There are other concerns about language dealing with testing. I also want to know exactly what we are talking about by way of resources to, in fact, make sure that these children we are going to test every year have the same opportunity to do well. I don't want to see the Senate do something which could be very reckless, and I want to know what is in this legislation. So my objection has been, and remains, that it doesn't make sense to proceed to a bill unless you know what is in it. That is really what I have been saying. That is what I say today on the floor of the Senate. We need to have a chance to look at what is in this bill. Mr. President, my second point is that I am in profound disagreement with many of the things that I am hearing on this bill from some of my colleagues. I am in, I guess, angry disagreement with Senators who say that this is ``reform'' and this is all about--to quote my colleague from Tennessee--``appropriately invest to leave no child behind.'' If we are going to now have a Federal mandate--and quite frankly, I am amazed at the number of Senators, especially on the other side of the aisle, who now are going to vote for a Federal mandate that will say to every school district in every State, not just Title I schools that they must proceed with these tests. This isn't just about Title I schools, this is about testing every child in every school district in every State every year starting from age 8 to age 13. Who knows where that comes from, based upon what research, what philosophy? If that is going to be a Federal mandate handed down to every school district in every school in the State of Minnesota, I want to put my colleagues on notice. I will, in every way I know how to as a Senator, insist that we have another Federal mandate that goes with it, which would be that there will be equality of opportunity for every child to get a good education and to succeed and to do well. But, do you know what? We are not going to do that. We are not going to do that. Now, let me just start out with the President's budget. The President's budget provides a $669 million net increase. So far that is what we have seen over the last fiscal year for the ESEA program--$669 million with $575 million in new money for title I. The title I program for disadvantaged children is funded at a 30- percent level. As a matter of fact, you would probably need to get close to $24 billion or thereabouts per year to fully fund Title I. We are at one-third that level. The President adds $575 million, and it is ``Leave no child behind''? Can you explain to me how? No additional money for reading, for smaller classes, for teaching assistants to help these children is there. Some of my colleagues say: ``We have spent all this money on title I over the years.'' One-third of the children who should be helped are helped! By the way, the amount of money we spent on title I over the years amounts to one-half of 1 percent of all the money we spent on education in our country during that time. It is hard to blame one program for not leveraging huge progress in this area. But at the very minimum, since this is what the Federal Government is about, how about a commitment to fully fund title I? I will have a triggering amendment on the floor of the Senate that will say that we cannot mandate testing for every child in every school district in every State until we first fully fund title I. It seems to me that if you are going to be serious about leaving no child behind, you would want to make sure all these children have the same opportunity. Let's truly leave no child behind. My colleagues are trying to argue we are going to realize that goal on a tin cup education budget. Now, if you are going to start measuring how children are doing as young as age 8, third graders, it is crystal clear that the most important variables in explaining how these children are going to do, is what happens to them before kindergarten. I am ashamed to say this. Right now, the Congress funds Head Start at a 50-percent level. Early Head Start, 1 and 2 years old--where we say it is even more important to get it right for these children from low-income families--is funded at a 3-percent level. Like Fannie Lou Hamer, the civil rights leader from Mississippi, said, ``I am sick and tired of being sick and tired.'' I am sick and tired of playing symbolic politics with children's lives. I am going to fight like I never fought in my life as a Senator on this issue. The President's budget is going to leave no child behind? There is no significant increase in Head Start funding. We are going to humiliate these children, fail these children, fail the schools, fail the teachers, and then we are going to blame them, after we don't put forward the resources. We should be a player in prekindergarten. We should get real about Head Start. We should get real about developmental child care and about making sure these children are kindergarten ready. But no, no, no, no, no. What we have instead is Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cuts with over 40 percent of the benefits going to the top 1 percent. So President Bush doesn't have any money to invest in these children. Where is this additional significant investment in education for children to make sure they all can do well on these tests? The IDEA program: We are nowhere close to the $17 billion a year that represents the 40-percent commitment the Federal Government made to our school districts. What do we get in the President's budget? We get in the President's budget an additional $1 billion, barely half of the 40- percent commitment we said as the Federal Government we would make. We are supposed to go forward with this legislation that sets up a Federal mandate that requires every school district to give these tests. But at the same time, we are not investing the resources to make sure there is equality of opportunity for every one of these children to do well in these tests. My colleagues call that ``reform''? And they have the nerve to say this is realizing the goal of leaving no child behind? We cannot realize the goal of leaving no child behind on a tin cup education budget. This is symbolic politics with children's lives. I say to the Presiding Officer, I am amazed that all of a sudden there is this support for this Federal mandate to tell every school district in every State that they are going to do this testing. It is a gigantic unfunded mandate because of what I just said: We are not living up to our commitment to provide the kids and the teachers with resources so they can do well. I am going to have a number of amendments, and I think there will be strong support. I have delved into this testing issue. I know Senator Kennedy has been working hard on this. We absolutely have to make sure this testing is done the right way so that we do not have single, low- quality standardized tests being used in the states. I can quote from all sorts of studies. I will wait for that when the amendments come up. I tell my colleagues, everybody who is involved in the testing field, all of the studies that we ourselves have commissioned to look at ``high-stakes testing,'' warn us: You better do this right. You better have multiple measurements. You better make sure this is not rote memorization. You better make sure you do not force teachers into drill education, which is teaching the test, and which is going on all over the country. You better make sure you truly are measuring the depth of knowledge of children. You better make sure you take into account those children who come from families where English is a second language. You better take into account children who have learning disabilities, something with which I have struggled and which has affected me on these tests. Mr. President, did you know that the National Association of State Boards of Education has determined the total cost to States to develop and implement 3 through 8 assessments could be as high starting out as $7 billion? If the simplest tests are used--which will be, frankly, an abuse of testing--the minimum cost would be $2.7 billion. Do you know, Mr. President, what the President has budgeted for testing for the school districts? It is $320 million. I say to my Republican colleagues, I am amazed you are willing to vote for this unfunded mandate. I am amazed. I say to my Democratic colleagues, I am amazed that we would go forward unless we first have some ironclad commitment from the President and from our colleagues that we will, in fact, also live up to our commitment to provide the resources for these children and these teachers and these schools. We cannot do one without the other. We cannot move forward with legislation until we know what is in it. We cannot move forward with legislation until we have some agreement on some of the policy questions some of us are raising. Let me, one more time--I think I can do it in 2 or 3 minutes--spell out my position. We must do testing the right way. Right now I think there is every reason to believe that this is a rush to recklessness. If we do not do the testing the right way, we are going to drive teachers out of teaching. We want to get the best teachers. In fact, when I am in schools--I have averaged being in a school about once every 2 weeks for the last 10\1/2\ years--I ask the students what makes for good education. Before smaller class size, before even repairing dilapidated buildings, before discussion of good textbooks and technology, they say good teachers. They all say we want to attract the best and the brightest. Please think this through. We want to attract the best and the brightest, but we are going to say to the best and the brightest: When you teach--I have two children who teach--we are going to tell them when to teach, how to teach, and what to teach. You and your students are going to be measured by these tests every single year. Many of them will be standardized tests, simple, and everybody is going to be forced into worksheet teaching, drill education. We already know who is not doing as well. Suburban schools are doing well and the kids are doing well and thank God for that. It is the rural and the inner city where we have the most trouble. It is in those areas where we have the most trouble recruiting the teachers. Guess what. The best and the brightest are not going to go into teaching. What in the world do we think we are doing? That is my first point. My second point is, if we are going to do the testing right, the National Association of State Boards of Education said it could cost, starting out, as much as $7 billion, and we have, Mr. President--and I appreciate your attention; thank you for your graciousness--we have from the President's proposal $320 million. That is an unfunded mandate. Any good conservative, much less flaming liberal, should vote against this on that basis alone, unless you have that investment in paying for these tests. I will have a triggering amendment. Right now we are spending 30 percent of what it would take to do title I. I am going to have an amendment that says until we fully fund title I so that the children from the disadvantaged backgrounds--those are the ones not doing as well. Is anybody surprised? Are you surprised? They do not come to kindergarten as ready. They do not have the same breaks. They do not go to the schools which have all the facilities. They do not go to the schools with the most highly qualified teachers, although I must say, some of the teachers I have seen in the inner city and rural schools are saints. As a matter of fact, I hear discussions about accountability. Some of the harshest critics in the Senate of these public school teachers could not last 1 hour in the classrooms they condemn. At the very minimum, let's get real. If we are going to have these tests, do it the right way. If we are going to have these tests, hold everybody accountable. Then also make sure there is another Federal mandate that there will be equality of opportunity for every child to have a good education and succeed. Therefore, with my amendment, this cannot be implemented. They cannot have this Federal mandate of testing every year until we first fully fund title I. Let's give these children and schools the resources they need. By the way, I am thinking seriously of other triggering amendments. Another one is we cannot do the testing until we fully fund Head Start. The truth is, that is the place to start. Before the Chair came in, I said right now it is 50 percent of the kids and that is it. In early Head Start, it is 3 percent. That is for the 1-year-olds and 2-year- olds. I might have another triggering amendment--for sure I will have one on title I--that says until we fund the IDEA program, we cannot go forward with this testing. There are plenty of reasons not to proceed. I don't want to proceed on a piece of legislation that I haven't yet seen. The language is technical. Frankly, we could be making a major change in the Federal role in education. I want to see the language. I don't think we should rush through this. This issue is too important. In addition, we should know exactly the agreements on the policy questions. I do not believe we should go forward with this legislation, this Federal mandate, to test every child, unless we also have a Federal mandate, backed up by resources, that there will be equality of opportunity for every child to have a good education and to succeed. We can't do one without the other. I know for a fact this administration is not willing to make that investment. I have seen nothing on the table because of the commitment to these Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cuts. I am opposed to 42 percent of the benefits going to millionaires; I prefer more money into title I, special reading, additional help. I prefer more resources into afterschool programs. I prefer more resources into prekindergarten, into kids, into opportunities for every child in America. It is not in this bill. Please don't make the mistake of believing that a test guarantees good teachers. It doesn't. A test doesn't rebuild crumbling buildings. A test doesn't bring technology to schools. A test doesn't provide the resources for children with special needs. A test doesn't provide smaller class size. A test doesn't provide counseling and support of services for children. Where is the commitment to these resources? This is not reform; this is a charade; this is a mockery. I am indignant. I am determined to over and over and over and over again come to the Senate with amendments to make my case. I don't mean I take it as a foregone conclusion we will move to the bill, but I oppose the bill until I know what is in it and until I know whether there is an agreement. In fact, if I lose on such a vote, I will come to the floor with amendments, over and over and over again, to fight for what I truly believe. I say to my colleague from Arkansas, since we are not always in agreement, I truly believe it is necessary to realize the goal of leaving no child behind.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to praise Bill George, a constituent who is a valued member of the Minnesota community and a good friend, on the occasion of his retirement as CEO of Medtronic Corporation. The first comment I should make is that there is something very unique about Bill George and that uniqueness has translated into the way he has led Medtronic. Medtronic is one of the world's leading medical technology companies, providing lifelong solutions for people with chronic disease. Its preeminence is due in large part to the leadership of Bill George, its CEO since 1991. During his tenure, Bill George has transformed Medtronic into a company that employs 25,000 people in 120 countries, and has scientific, manufacturing, education, and sales facilities worldwide. The company has extended its core technological competencies so that they now make pacemakers and a whole host of devices for patients facing cardiac arrest and heart failure. The company also makes devices for patients dealing with spacticity associated with cerebral palsy, cancer and cancer pain, neurological disorders like Parkinsons, and women's health conditions like incontinence. Bill George's philosophy of excellence has led the company to seek those opportunities where it can excel. The products it has produced and the relief it has brought to patients testify to the success of Bill's philosophy. I am told that every three seconds, somewhere in the world, a Medtronic product is used to save or enhance someone's life. Bill George doesn't just think about his company and its future. He has a vision for the health care system in this country and has worked to align the company's goals with that vision. His vision of holistic, patient-centered care that is enabled by the technological leaps we are making today is reflected in the planning he has done for the future. Bill instituted Vision 2010 to focus Medtronic on the nexus of the rapid developments happening in medical technology, computer technology, drug therapy and gene therapy in order to develop even better, more advanced treatments for chronic diseases in the next 10 years. During Bill's tenure, Medtronic has encouraged innovation by launching a ``Science and Technology Are Rewarding'' program, with $3 million in grants. Under Bill George's leadership, the Medtronic Foundation has reached out to patient groups in unprecedented ways, giving $12 million in grants to non-profit organizations in communities worldwide last year. I want to single out the Patient Summit that the Medtronic Foundation sponsored in Washington, D.C. last year. I had the honor of speaking at that meeting, whose purpose was to encourage a dialogue between patients, policymakers, and advocacy groups about the role patients can play in directing their own health care. As a fellow Minnesotan, I've watched Bill's personal efforts in the community with much admiration. His service as chair of the board of the United Way of Minneapolis and vice chair of the board of the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, as well as his work on the boards of the American Red Cross and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace show Bill's dedication and breadth of interests. Bill's lifestyle, his mission, and his vision are all reflected in the recognition Medtronic regularly receives. Fortune Magazine designated Medtronic as one of the ``Best Companies to Work for in America''. Industry Week's ranked it as one of the ``Best Managed Companies.'' Money magazine chose Medtronic as one of the ``Best Investments in 2000 and Beyond.'' Business Ethics recognized the company for its demonstrated leadership in ethics and social responsibility with its ``General Excellence in Ethics'' award. In his 10 years as CEO, Bill George has helped to expand Medtronic to an even higher plane as an organization that is dynamic, creative, and passionate about its mission of restoring people to full life and health. As the Senior Senator from Minnesota, I thank him for his dedication to his work, for his service to his community--and I don't mean just Minneapolis or Minnesota, but the whole international community in which he is engaged, and for his friendship. I wish him well as he continues his active life which not only will include chairing Medtronic's board and involvement in community service, but also writing and teaching.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I came to the floor and I heard Senator Byrd and Senator Daschle speak about Jim English. The only thing I can say about Jim English--not nearly as well as the two of them have spoken about him--is, No. 1, he has worked for and with the master, Senator Byrd. I think he knows almost as much as Senator Byrd does about the appropriations process--maybe not quite as much. But I can tell Senator Byrd that I think Jim is a lot like Mike Epstein, my former deputy. I came here and I knew so little. Maybe I now know a little more. I still have a lot to learn. Jim is just so gracious and so willing, when people are just rushing and rushing, to take time and mentor you and to be your teacher. Jim worked for Senator Byrd, but in a way I believe he was there to work for all of us. He certainly helped me a lot. At the beginning I hesitated to ask him. I knew of his expertise. When he was so gracious and so obliging and never made me feel as if I was a fool, then I believed he was a great teacher, willing to answer more questions. I have asked him many, many questions. He has answered those questions. He has helped me. He has helped a lot of Senators. He truly represents the very best of public service. We are going to lose a great man. The country is going to lose a great man. There is no question about it. I thank you, Jim.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, I say to the majority leader that where I would dissent from his remarks is that actually there is a lot of negotiation going on. I think Senators on our side have made some very basic points. One is, it is important what is in the bill before it comes to the floor. Two, I think we are quite far apart, although hopefully we at some time will be together about whether or not, in fact, there will be the investment in children, to make sure that the children and the teachers and the schools have the tools to succeed. This is really a choice between whether or not you want to put so much into, I say to the majority leader, Robin-Hood-in- reverse tax cuts, with over 40 percent of the benefits going to the top 1 percent of the population, or you are willing to make the investment in education and children. I am so pleased the President has announced the goal of leaving no child behind. But it cannot be done on a tin cup budget. We are looking at the whole issue of kids with special needs, the IDEA program, the title I program, afterschool programs, teacher recruitment, smaller class size, and doing something about these dilapidated buildings. So my hope is we will be able to resolve what I think are important questions. But I think the Democrats are very committed to this discussion about education, very committed to doing it right. If, in fact, we are going to call this piece of legislation, as the President has, the BEST, then we ought to be doing our best for children. I have no doubt that the people in Minnesota and the people across this country are looking for a real commitment of resources and the Federal Government living up to its obligation. We should be accountable. Just as we call for the teachers and the children to be accountable, we should be accountable as well. That is what we are going to be strong on. I object.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I said I object to going forward with the education bill while we are in negotiation, while we do not know what is in the bill, while we do not have a commitment yet on the investment of resources and the Federal Government and the Senate and the House living up to our commitment to children and education in the country.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nicky Yuen on my staff be allowed floor privileges during the duration of the day.

Mr. WELLSTONE

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

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, maybe I should have taken the time to look at some notes. Instead, I will speak extemporaneously about the education bill. I will take a few moments to talk about an issue that is near and dear to me, given my own background as a teacher and my great passion about children and education. I will talk about the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Before we went on break, I objected to a motion to proceed to this bill. The main reason I objected was I did not know what was in the bill. As a legislator, as a Senator from Minnesota, who gives, if you will, a special priority to children and education, I wanted to know what is in the bill. The second question, of course, has to do with appropriations. But, first things first. I wanted to know what is in this bill, and there are some questions I want to raise right now in anticipation of what will probably be a very rigorous and vigorous debate about education before the Senate. This is as it should be. The title of this bill is called BEST. President Bush is arguing we can do our best for children and for education by the Federal Government requiring that every school throughout the United States of America having annual testing starting at age 8 with third graders, going through age 13. This will be in addition to the testing that now takes place. The first point I want to make today about this legislation is that we have to be very clear in the language that there is no abuse of testing and that at the local and State level, school officials and those who administer this test will be able to rely on multiple measures. We want to be very careful that this testing is consistent with National professional standards of testing. That is very important. Quite often there is confusion between accountability, which we are all for, and a single standardized test. They are not one in the same thing. The second point is if, in fact, we are going to have this mandate on all of the States to do this testing, there has to be money committed to administer these tests. This should not become an ``unfunded mandate.'' States and school districts will be interested in that. Most important of all, if we are going to have a massive requirement which puts all of the emphasis on testing, we also should make a massive commitment by way of resources to make sure all of the schools, teachers, and children have the same opportunity to do well on these tests. Right now, we do not have that. What we have from the President is a tin cup budget for education. I have said it over and over and over again in the Senate, and in articles, one cannot realize the goal of leaving no child behind on a tin cup budget. At the moment, we have very little by way of increase in expenditures for education under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That, to me, is unconscionable. If we are going to now basically say to every State, every school district, every school, every child, take these tests and this is going to be how we will measure how you are doing, we will set up a lot of schools, teachers, and children for failure unless we give them the resources to make sure the children can do well. I will be very interested to see when we move to this bill, whether or not there is a new, bold commitment to the title I program for kids who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Now it is funded at a 33- percent level. I will be interested to see whether or not there is a commitment to afterschool programs, whether or not there is a commitment to additional help for kids in reading, and whether or not there is a commitment for rebuilding our crumbling schools. I will want to see whether or not we have a commitment to smaller class size and whether or not we have a commitment to recruiting good teachers. If we don't do that and we don't live up to what is our responsibility, we have put the cart before the horse. We are going to hold the schools, children, and teachers accountable where we should be held accountable. Where is the investment, I ask. I probably will offer a trigger amendment, if, in fact, this bill comes to the floor, which will say that no state will be required to implement the new testing under this bill until we fully fund the federal share of the IDEA program, which is a program for kids with special needs. How can we not fully fund this program? Right now, we are funding IDEA at one-third of what we owe. We need to pay for everything that we owe. How can we not fund that? How can we not fully fund the title I program? How can we not fund teacher recruitment, smaller class size, investing in crumbling buildings, before we start saying we will have tests every year? What the President has done, what the administration has done, and what too many Democrats seem to be accepting is the idea that tests are the reform. The tests are the way we assess reform. I do not believe we will be doing our best for children in America if the only thing we will do is force tests on every State and school district in the country without at the same time giving the schools and teachers and children the resources to do well. If we want to make the argument that to invest money and not have any tests is to not have any accountability, fine; let's have accountability, if the testing is done the right way. My argument is if all we do is have the tests and we have hardly any new additional investment in education and in children, what we have done is have accountability but it is a waste of time. Quite frankly, until we get serious--the President is not; not in the budget--it does not matter the words we utter. It is not the photo ops. It is not visiting children in schools. Where it matters is whether or not we are willing to make the investment. Senator Harkin and I had an amendment that called for $225 billion more by way of investment in education over the next 10 years. That must be kept in the Budget Conference Committee. That amendment is all about investment in children. Unless we do that, unless we make that kind of a commitment, we are not doing our best for children. My hope is that Democrats will make it very clear to our colleagues on the other side that anything and everything that helps children and education, we are for. Any way we can work together, we should do so. But we are not going to throw our support behind an education program which calls itself BEST--which does not come anywhere close to how we can do our best for children--all for the sake of $2 trillion in Robin- Hood-in-reverse tax cuts, with over 40 percent of the benefits going to millionaires. This President so far has not shown the commitment to make the investment in children and education. I hope the Democrats will stand up for children and stand up for education. We will make it crystal clear that if we are going to have this mandate of all these tests, the resources are going to come with it. That is the second point. Finally, there are some fairly serious policy questions left outstanding. One of those policy questions has to do with what is called the Straight A's Program. The question is whether or not we are now beginning to go to block granting to, seven States. This, theoretically could affect a large number of children in America. It would mean we would all of a sudden move away from safe and drug-free schools, move away from afterschool programs, move away from certain programs that we have passed as a national community. We want to have separate funding for these programs, we want to make these programs a priority, for every child, no matter where he or she lives. To move away from that Federal commitment without some fairly strong language that makes sure all of the children are going to benefit; that makes sure this is not abused in any way, shape, or form; that makes sure this is not used for extras as opposed to what can help children do their very best; I think we have to be vigilant on this question. I think this could shape up as a historic agreement if it is real. But if it is not real, and the President is not willing to back his rhetoric with resources, and instead he puts most of these resources into tax cuts for, basically, wealthy people at the top, and does not make this investment in education for children, Democrats should speak up for kids. We should speak up for education. We should speak up for our school boards and our school districts and our States. As far as my State of Minnesota is concerned, I have been in enough meetings with enough schools and enough teachers. We are going through a very difficult battle at the State level, as well, on the education budget. More than anything, what all of the good teachers tell me is give them the resources to work. And, by the way, in addition, what the really good teachers say is they do not want to be forced into some sort of straitjacket education, where everybody is teaching to low quality tests and to the lowest common denominator. This is the educational deadening. If we are going to use tests, they must be high quality. We have got to get it right, do it the right way. Maybe every Senator has been in a school. I have tried to be in a school every 2 weeks for the last 10\1/2\ years. If you get to the school level, you get down in the trenches, you realize a lot of what purports to be reform, may, in fact, not be so good for kids in schools. It may, in fact, be counterproductive. It certainly will be, unless we get the investment in resources. For my own part, I objected before spring recess to move forward with the bill, and I will continue to object until I see what is in the bill, and then we will see whether we go forward in the debate. I hope, unless the President comes forward with a real investment of resources, that Democrats and some Republicans will directly challenge this piece of legislation. I don't want to have a piece of legislation that has this great acronym ``BEST'' with all of the symbolic politics that purport to do so well for children and, in fact, do not. We shouldn't play symbolic politics with children's lives. We ought to be able to do well for kids and get the resources to the school districts, the resources to the States, the resources to the schools, the resources to the teachers, and the resources to the kids. At the minimum, we ought to do that. That would be my commitment in this debate that is to come. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton speak next for 15 minutes and I be allowed to speak after for 10 minutes, and the Republicans then be allowed to have the time they need to respond.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator one or two quick questions?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I have been very moved by what she said. On the question of accountability and then the whole issue of unfunded mandates, one argument I heard the Senator make was we have to provide the funding for the actual tests to make sure these are high quality, which means we should not confuse accountability, testing, and standardized tests as being one and the same thing; is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. The second point I want to make and I want to be sure we are clear about is that it would also be an unfunded mandate, even if you provided the funding for the administration of the testing, without the investment in our children and our schools to make sure each and every child had the same chance to achieve and do well in these tests. Then I tried to remember what you described it as. You said it was hollow, and you said it would be an educational fraud. That is fairly strong language. I will put the Senator on the spot, but could I ask her why she feels so strongly about this point?

Mr. WELLSTONE. When I go back to Minnesota, I try to be in the schools every 2 weeks. For the last 10\1/2\ years there has been concern about the testing, especially standardized tests; people have to kind of teach within a straightjacket. But what about the issue? I ask the Senator from New York because this is also, I think, part of her passion and part of her work. I hear a lot about two other things: The IDEA program, which isn't within ESEA, but it seems to me that we have to be very clear with some kind of trigger amount so that testing doesn't take its place unless we fully fund IDEA, because that is really a threat and a strain that a lot of districts feel. The other one is prekindergarten. With all due respect, I want to get the Senator's opinion. If we start testing kids at age 8, I might argue at age 12 or 13, ``Schools, what have you done?'' But at age 8, I would argue that much more of what will explain how that child is doing is what happened to the child before kindergarten. Where is the administration, if the administration is going to talk about leaving no child behind? Where is the community in early childhood development to make sure that these children are kindergarten ready? Shouldn't that all fit within what is defined as reform?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from New York. In the time I have remaining, I would like to make the point that I think this is truly a matter of values and truly a matter of priorities. Either we are going to be talking about close to $2 trillion in tax cuts--most of it Robin Hood in reverse. Again, if somebody wants to prove me wrong, about 40 percent of the benefits go to the top 1 percent of the population. Any day of the year, I would stake my reputation back in Minnesota on being able to say, as opposed to those Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cuts, that I am going to be a Senator from Minnesota who is going to insist that if we are going to say a piece of education legislation is the best, we had better make it the best for our children. That means there is a commitment to making sure kids are kindergarten ready. That means we live up to our commitment to fully funding the program for children with special needs, which is getting to the 40-percent level and not the 14-percent level. That means we ought to be moving toward fully funding the title I program for kids who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. That means we ought to be funding afterschool programs and we ought to be talking about teacher recruitment. We ought to be talking about how we can provide the supportive services. I say to Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike, that you will rue the day you voted for a piece of legislation that mandated that every school and every school district in your State every single year had to have tests, starting as young as age 8 and going to age 13, and you did not at the same time vote to provide the resources so that those teachers and those schools and those school districts and, most important of all, the children had the tools so they could succeed and do well. I will tell you something. I hope my colleagues on the Democratic side will draw the line on this question. It seems to me that before we proceed to this kind of legislation, before we talk about a piece of legislation as being reform, we should say we want to make sure there is a commitment of resources. Before we have this mandate on all of our States and all of our schools, we ought to make sure we have provided the funding. If we can't do that, then this becomes very hollow. If we can't do that, then this piece of legislation I believe does nothing but set up the schools and the kids and the teachers for failure. My colleague was saying get it down to the school level. I sometimes think what we have been doing has a sense of unreality to it. If you go down in the trenches, and especially it you go to the schools, a lot of the inner-city neighborhoods and rural areas, you have kids on free or reduced lunch programs. You have homes where sometimes they have to move two or three times a year. You have schools that are crumbling, schools that don't have the resources, schools that don't have the laboratory facilities, and schools that don't have the textbooks. Now what you are saying is you are going to have tests and state with precision the obvious: Guess what. Children who come to school hungry, children who come from families who don't have adequate housing or are even homeless, children who are not kindergarten ready, children who do not receive all of the good stimulation and all of the nurturing that they need to have before kindergarten, those children who come to schools without the facilities, without the best teachers, without the salaries for the teachers, we are going to find out through tests that those children and those schools aren't doing as well as a lot of other schools which have all the resources in the world with which to work. That is what the test does. Absolutely nothing--not without the resources. I can say this from the floor of the Senate. It sounds a little jarring. But in a lot of ways I think the best way you can move to vouchers is to design a system where you guarantee over the next 4 or 5 years that many schools are not going to succeed because you don't give them the resources. Then you can state with precision the obvious; that is, the children who come from low- and moderate-income backgrounds with the least amount of help to do well are continuing to do poorly. The schools are continuing to do poorly because they do not have the resources. Then you use that as a reason for an all-out broadside attack on public education. Some of the harshest critics of these teachers in these schools couldn't last an hour in the classrooms they condemn. I have never met a teacher and I have never met a parent who has said to me what we need is more and more tests, tests, tests. I have had a lot of people in Minnesota talk to me about the IDEA program, the title I program, afterschool programs, how we can make sure kids are kindergarten ready, and how we can make sure we have the best teachers and get the resources to the teachers and have the support for the teachers and the kids. We have a budget from the President of the United States of America who says education is his No. 1 priority, and it is a tin cup budget. How are you going to realize the goal of leaving no child behind on a tin cup budget? At the moment, I agree with Senator Clinton. I think it is an educational fraud bill. Without the resources to back the rhetoric, it becomes nothing more than symbolic politics with children's lives. I will oppose it with all of my might until we get resources to invest in our children--all of our children. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nicky Yuen and Jay Barth, both fellows in my office, be granted privileges of the floor.- The presiding officer. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Just for the record, would the Senator do me the favor of emphasizing this amendment dealing with veterans' health care benefits is an amendment from yesterday? I have, indeed, withdrawn my other two amendments, just so colleagues will know that. Will the Senator amplify that?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Colleagues, this amendment adds $1.7 billion to the veterans' health care budget over the next 10 years. The President's budget proposal is a terrible proposal; it leaves so many gaps, there is no question about it. This amendment has the support of AMVETS, VFW, Paralyzed Veterans, Disabled American Veterans, and many colleagues have signed on to it. I especially thank Senator Johnson and Senator Rockefeller. The problem is between $900 million of medical inflation and then the commitment we made to elderly veterans with the Millennium Program and the commitment for mental health services, hepatitis C, and the commitment to treat veterans who have no health care coverage, this is totally inadequate. This is not a game. If we are committed to veterans, you are going to vote for this amendment. This really does deal with some of the unmet needs. There are amendments that can come in with less funding, but this is the only way we say thank you to veterans. It is extremely important. I can't think of any more important vote from the point of view of working with a very, very important group of people.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President and colleagues, please follow the arithmetic. The President's budget is opposed by so many veterans organizations. With $1 billion for the whole VA budget, medical inflation alone is $900 million. We passed a millennium bill with a commitment to elderly veterans with another $100 million. We talk about mental health services, and another $100 million for treating veterans with hepatitis C. That provides more resources. I do not know, in all due respect, where my colleague gets his numbers. I am glad that we have an amendment on the other side of the aisle that calls for a $900 million increase. I am pleased we are pushing this forward. But, in all due respect, the President's budget is no way to say thanks to veterans. Sure, we can take a little bit out of tax cuts with 40 percent going to the top 1 percent and make the commitment to veterans' health care. This is a clear vote.