Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague, he is absolutely right. There have been a number of meetings I have been at and I know the same applies to Senator Dayton. I can remember one. It was right before Christmas. It was a meeting in Aurora. There were a lot of people there, a lot of the steelworkers, taconite workers, and also some of their families. I was asking people, besides legislation, what else can be done? This is the first time this has ever happened in the Iron Range, at least in the 20 or 25 years I have been up there. Senator Dayton, this one fairly young worker stood up and he said: We need help for Christmas presents. I never heard that before. When people were working, they made good wages and had health care benefits. Now they are worried about presents. On the other issue that we are going to come up with, I don't know what the position of the administration will be. I think the Clinton administration was not strong enough at all. I am very skeptical about where the Bush administration is going to go, but we are going to push very hard, and where we can cooperate with them, we will do so; no question about it. One of the terrible issues when we get to the bankruptcy bill soon is that for younger workers, next to losing their jobs, the next worst thing is health care. You are losing your job, but then you are scared to death about what is going to happen to health care coverage with your children. For the younger workers who have been laid off in the case of the LTV mine shutting down, in a few months, they lose their health benefits; for the older workers who have worked a little longer, 1 year. Maybe the Senator would want to respond to this. Then there are the retirees. What I heard from the retirees was they are terrified LTV will file for chapter 7 and walk away from any health care. A lot of those retirees--too many I think--are struggling with cancer. Did the Senator find that people were talking about health care as well when he met with them, and does he think that is yet another issue we ought to focus on?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleague, Senator Dayton, on this. I think two Senators from the same State who care deeply about people who are really hurting and who love northeastern Minnesota are going to give this every bit of effort. I am really looking forward to working with the Senator on this. I so much want to help people. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if there is one thing we all can agree on in education, it is that quality teachers are absolutely critical to how well children learn. Yet, the nation confronts one of the worst teacher shortages in history. With expanding enrollment, decreasing class size and one third of the nation's teachers nearing retirement age, public schools will need to hire as many as 2.2 million teachers over the next decade. The need is greatest in specific subject areas such as mathematics, science, special education and bilingual education, all important subjects if the nation is to have an educated work force to keep it competitive in the world marketplace. Teacher shortages are also greatest in specific geographical areas such as the inner city and rural areas. Ironically, it is the most educationally and socio-economically disadvantaged students that are under-served. If there is one action we can take that is guaranteed to help struggling schools and children, it is to provide states and school districts the means to ensure that there is a highly qualified teacher in every class room. My bill, Teacher Corps, which I am proud to introduce today with my colleagues, Senators Kennedy and Schumer, who for so long have fought to bring the best possible educational opportunities to all of America's children, is designed to do just that. Its components are based on a definite need and sound research concerning effective mechanisms for meeting that need. Teacher Corps would fund collaboratives between state education agencies, local education agencies and institutions of higher education. The collaboratives would recruit top ranked college students and qualified mid career individuals, who have not yet been trained as teachers, to teach in the nation's poorest schools in the areas of greatest need--both geographically and academically. Districts and universities would work together to recruit only candidates who have an academic major or extensive and substantive professional experience in the subject in which they will teach. The collaboratives would provide recruits a tuition free alternative route to certification which includes intensive study and a teaching internship. The internship would include mentoring, co-teaching and advanced course work in pedagogy, state standards, technology and other areas. After the internship period, the collaboratives would offer individualized follow up training and mentoring in the first two years of full time teaching. Corps members that become certified will be given priority in hiring within that district in exchange for a commitment to teach in low income schools for 3 years. A good teacher can mean the world to any child whether it is through caring or through providing children with the skills they need to open their own doors to the future. Every time I enter schools in Minnesota, I am in awe of teachers' work. When a skilled, energetic teacher creates an invigorating learning environment for his or her students it is truly a magical thing. In my travels to schools around Minnesota and the country I see a great deal of that magic happening. That is why it is so tragic to think that there are so many children that do not have access to qualified teachers, at the same time that many people interested in teaching are either not entering the profession or are not staying there once they have qualified. Teacher Corps will help meet the growing need for teachers in low income urban and rural schools, and in high need subject areas such as math, science, bilingual and special education. It will do so because Teacher Corps is rooted in three fundamental parts. Recruitment, retention and innovative, flexible, high quality training programs for college graduates and mid-career professionals who want to teach in high need areas. The first principle is recruitment. As I mentioned before, we may need to hire as many as 2.2 million new teachers in the next decade to ensure that there are enough teachers in our schools. But, overall quantity is not the only issue. Quality and shortages in specific geographic and curriculum areas are equally critical. While there are teacher surpluses in some areas, certain states and cities are facing acute teacher shortages. In California, 1 out of every 10 teachers lacks proper credentials. Fifty-eight percent of new hires in Los Angeles are not certified. There are also crucial shortages in some subject areas such as math, science, bilingual and special education. In my home state of Minnesota, 90 percent of principals report a serious shortage of strong candidates in at least one curriculum area. Fifty-four percent of the mathematics teachers in the state of Idaho and 48 percent of the science teachers in Florida and Tennessee did not major in the subject of their primary assignment. The report recently released by the Commission chaired by our former colleague John Glenn highlights this problem in the area of math and science teaching. The Glenn Commission--in its report ominously, but accurately, titled ``Before It's Too Late''--called on all the decision-makers in our country to establish an ongoing system to improve the quality of mathematics and science teaching in our elementary and secondary schools and to improve the quality of those teachers' preparation for the classroom. Teacher Corps would meet this need because it would recruit and train thousands of high quality teachers into the field to meet the specific teaching needs of local school districts. It would recruit and train top college students and mid-career professionals from around the country, who increasingly want to enter the teaching profession. More college students want to enter teaching today than have wanted to join the profession in the past 30 years. In the surveys of incoming college students that UCLA conducts each fall, in recent years over 10 percent of all freshman consistently have said they want to teach in elementary and secondary schools. Second, the design of the program ensures that the needs of local school districts will be considered so that only those candidates who meet the specific needs of that district will be recruited and trained. If, for example, there is a shortage of special education, bilingual, math and science teachers in a particular district, Teacher Corps would train people with only those skills. In setting up collaboratives in this way, teacher corps helps avoid the overproduction of candidates in areas where they are not needed. Finally, Teacher Corps gives priority to high-need rural, inner suburban and urban districts to ensure that new teachers will enter where they are needed most. However, it does not help to recruit teachers into high-need schools and train them if we cannot retain them in the profession. Teaching is one of the hardest, most important jobs there is. We ask teachers to prepare our children for adulthood. We ask them to educate our children so that they may be productive members of society. We entrust them with our children's minds and with their future. It is a disgrace how little support we give them in return. It is no surprise that one of the major causes of our teacher shortage is that teachers decide to change professions before retirement. Seventy-three percent of Minnesota teachers who leave the profession, leave for reasons other than retirement. In urban schools, 50 percent of teachers leave the field within five years of when they start teaching. To retain high quality teachers in the profession, we must give teachers the support they deserve. Teachers, like doctors, need mentoring and support during the first years of their professional life. Teacher Corps offers new teachers the training, mentoring and support they need to meet the profession's many challenges. It includes methods of support that have proven effective in ensuring that teachers stay in schools. The key elements for effective teacher retention were laid out by the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future in 1996. Effective programs organize professional development around standards for teachers and students; provide a year long, pre-service internship; include mentoring and strong evaluation of teacher skills; offer stable, high quality professional development. Each of these criteria are included in the Teacher Corps program. Further, Teacher Corps supports people who choose teaching by paying for their training. Through this financial and professional support, Teacher Corps will go a long way toward keeping recruits in teaching. But, it is still not enough to recruit and retain teachers. Quality must be of primary importance. Research shows that the most important predictor of student success is not income, but the quality of the teacher. Despite this need, studies show that as the proportion of students of color and students from low-income families increases in schools, the test scores of teachers decline. This is wrong. We are denying children from low income areas, children from racial minorities, children with limited English proficiency, access to what we know works. Several studies have shown that if poor and minority students are taught by high quality teachers at the same rate as other students, a large part of the gap between poor and minority students and their more affluent white counterparts would disappear. For example, one Alabama study shows that an increase of one standard deviation in teacher test scores leads to a two-third reduction in the gap between black/white tests scores. We cannot turn our back on this knowledge. We must act on it. We must give low income, minority and limited English proficiency children the same opportunities that all children have and we must do it now. The very essence of Teacher Corps is to funnel high quality teachers where they are needed most. Teacher Corps would help ensure quality by using a selective, competitive recruitment process. It would provide high quality training, professional development, mentoring and evaluations of corps member performance, all of which have been proven to increase the quality of the teaching force and the achievement of the students they teach. Further, by creating strong connections between universities and districts and by implementing effective professional development projects within districts, we are setting up powerful structures to benefit all teachers and students. We have an opportunity to do what we know works to help children who need our help most. Good teachers have an extraordinary impact on children's lives and learning. We need to be sure that all children have access to such teachers and all children have the opportunity to learn so that all children may take advantage of the many opportunities this country provides.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President: I rise today to introduce legislation that will go a long way to increase the accountability of our schools and to help parents become more involved in their children's education. We all know that families are crucial to improving our nation's schools. To ensure that schools and students meet challenging educational goals, families must be involved. Parents must insist that their children get the best education. They must understand, shape and support the reforms in their schools; and, they must work with schools to help all children meet their goals. We know that when families are fully engaged in the educational process, students have: higher grades and test scores; better attendance and more homework done; fewer placements in special education; more positive attitudes and behavior; higher graduation rates; and greater enrollment in post-secondary education. For school reforms to help all children, we must move to ensure that all parents are involved in their children's education. For many parents, this is not an easy task. Parents, particularly those who have limited English proficiency, those who are homeless, or those who have a troubled history with the school system, often need outside help to get the information, support, and training they need to help their children navigate through the school system. Parent involvement is more important now than ever before. As we move in the direction of increased accountability, high stakes testing and expanded public school choice, it is critical that parents know everything that is required of them and their children. They need to be sure that they have access to every aspect of their child's schooling, or their child could easily be left behind. Current provisions in Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provide for excellent and important ways for parents to get involved in their children's education. However, in some cases, parent involvement of the type envisioned by Title I remains a distant goal. Many Title I schools, though not all, have failed to fully bring parents into the development of parent involvement policies, school- parent compacts, and into planning and improvement for the school as provided for in Title I. Therefore, it is essential for families to have an independent source of information and support that they understand and trust so that they can participate in an informed and effective manner and help move the schools toward the goal of full parental participation. To achieve this critical end, this legislation would provide competitive grants to community-based organizations to establish Local Family Information Centers. These centers, made up of community members as well as professionals from the Title I schools in the area, should have a track record of effective outreach and work with low income communities. They, in consultation with the school district, would develop a plan to provide parents with the full support that they need to be partners in their children's education. For example, they would help parents understand standards, tests, and accountability systems; support activities that are likely to improve student achievement in Title I schools; understand and analyze data that schools, districts, and states must provide under reporting requirements of ESEA and other laws; understand and participate in the implementation of parent involvement requirements of ESEA, including; understand school choice options; and, communicate effectively with school personnel. This legislation is essential because it would reach and assist parents most isolated from participation by poverty, race, limited English proficiency and other factors. It is essential because ultimately, it should be parents that are the greatest lever for strong accountability in schools. It is essential because of what we know about how children learn--that children who are the farthest behind make the greatest gains when their parents are part of their school life. Many schools do a very good job of involving parents in education reform. This bill does nothing but ensure that parents have the option of an independent voice in districts where schools do not do such a good job. If we are to educate our children, we must also educate and empower their parents. This legislation provides one necessary means to do so.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jake Jagdfeld and Marge Baker be granted the privilege of the floor today.

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, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I know there will be other Democrats coming to the floor to respond to President Bush's address last night to the Nation. I thought I might just take a few minutes. First of all, I want to start by congratulating the President. When it comes to delivery and a sincere presentation, he deserves very high marks. I am more worried about the substance. I am more worried about what the President was not very explicit about; in other words, what was left out of the speech, what were some unpleasant realities that were kind of put in parentheses. I would like to just make a couple of points--because I think the people in the country ultimately, where this budget debate becomes most important and where the rubber meets the road and how all of these priorities affect people where they work, where they live, where their children go to school--about what wasn't in this speech last night. In focusing on families and the benefits for families and children, the President neglected to say yesterday that one-third of all children in the United States of America live in homes that will not see one penny of the tax cut; about 56 percent of Spanish children in homes will not receive one penny of relief from the President's tax proposal, to the fact that over 40 percent of the benefits go to the top 1 percent. That doesn't meet the Minnesota standard of fairness. I don't think it meets the standard of fairness for people in the country. What the President didn't really focus on was whether or not in his budget proposal he is committed to having the Federal Government live up to its commitment on a very important program called the IDEA program for kids with special needs. Governors talked about this at the conference. Our Governor from Minnesota talked about it. Every school, on demand, about every 2 weeks people talk about it. This is the program for children with special needs, the IDEA program that Senator Harkin and others fought so hard on. We are really supposed to be contributing 40 percent of the costs. I believe Minnesotans and people around the country, when they see the President's budget, are going to see a Robin Hood in reverse; a tax cut of 40 percent-plus of the benefits going to the top 1 percent, and crowding out any money or any investment or any commitment on our part to dramatically expanding our funding for the IDEA program. It is not going to be there. You are going to see no new significant investment of Federal resources in the IDEA program. The President didn't talk about that. What was left out? The President did not focus on his proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In just a few minutes, I will be at a press conference with Senator Lieberman and others at which we are all going to support preserving 125 million acres of the Coastal Plain, a very precious area, as a wilderness area. We are going to be proposing that we not drill our way to energy security. Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be similar to doing it in the Boundary Waters Conservation Area in Minnesota. It really defines the very value that we should have as to preservation and conservation. We are all but strangers, I guess, on this land, and we ought to leave it better for our children and our grandchildren. The President did not talk about his proposal for oil drilling in the ANWR, and he didn't talk about the cuts that are going to take place. Because if you have huge tax cuts, to be really honest about what it will cost and the surplus, and if you are not willing to raid the Medicare and Social Security trust fund--the President didn't talk about the fact that in order to make his numbers add up, they may very well have to do that--we are going to see some reductions. There was a piece yesterday in USA Today that the President intends to cut the budget for renewable energy policy by 30 percent. For States such as Minnesota, a cold weather State at the other end of the pipeline, we are interested in the environment. We are not interested in importing more barrels of oil or millions of cubic feet of natural gas. We are interested in biomass, electricity, wind, saving energy, and fuel efficiency standards which are clean technology, and where small business is more respectful of the environment and, indeed, where it would enable our country to be more energy independent. The President didn't focus on that in his speech last night. There were rumors--only rumors because we don't have the numbers yet--that the SBA is going to take a huge cut. I tell you that small businesses are similar to family farms. We love them in the abstract. But when it comes to actually making the commitment to small businesses, that is where we fall short. The 504 program has leveraged a tremendous amount of money in the State of Minnesota to enable people to start a small business and to grow that business. I feel an outrage in just telling you that when people get a chance to look at the specifics of these numbers, they are going to see a set of priorities that is not going to be pretty. And I don't think they are going to be consistent with what most people believe. Most people are saying tax cuts for all families. Don't do it disproportionately for the wealthy. Please make sure there is help for people who need help, and let's do it based on the standard of fairness. Most people are saying don't touch the Social Security and Medicare trust fund. Most people are saying we are interested in whether or not for our parents and grandparents we can cover prescription drug costs. We are committed to education and children. We want to see a commitment. What happened with expanded health care coverage? All of that prioritizing goes out the window when you get rigorous in your analysis. It is the Yiddish proverb, ``You cannot dance at two weddings at the same time.'' You can't have a tax cut over $2 trillion and do what the President says he wants to do and make these investments. It won't happen. Finally, I was at a joint congressional hearing where the VFW testified. There was a huge delegation of VFW representatives from Minnesota. I would like to put all Democrats and Republicans on alert. The veterans are already very focused on this budget. They came up with an independent budget proposal. We fell short. Senator Johnson and I had some comments on this. We were only partially successful. I will tell my colleagues that the veterans community wants us to live up to our commitment to them. This is a community that is getting older, and the issue is long-term care. In my State, it is an issue of whether or not our region gets its fair share of resources. There are too many veterans--about 2 percent of the homeless population in the United States--who are homeless, and many of them are Vietnam vets. That is a national disgrace. They are interested in the commitment to those veterans. They are interested in making sure we can do good outpatient care. They are interested in making sure there are not long waits for veterans who need health care. They are interested in whether or not we are going to fund veterans' health care. They are interested in whether or not this budget is going to make any sense. Frankly, in the context of all these tax cuts mainly going to the wealthy, I am going to go on record today on the floor of the Senate to say that this administration will not be able to follow through on its commitment to veterans, its commitment to children, its commitment to leaving no child behind, its commitment to education, its commitment to covering prescription drug costs for senior citizens. My mom and dad both had Parkinson's disease. Don't say to a couple: You make $20,000 a year or $21,000 a year; therefore, you make too much money to get any help. You are not making much money when you try to live on $21,000 a year, or whatever it is. So I simply say, I think ultimately what we have before us could be a grand and important debate. I am absolutely confident as to where people in the country will come down on this matter when they see the specifics and how it affects them, their children, where they live, where they work, where their children go to school. It is a value question. I think it is a spiritual question. We have done well. We have the prosperity. The question is, What decisions do we make as a nation and as a community? What are our priorities? Is it going to be mainly Robin- Hood-in-reverse tax cuts, with the top 1 percent getting over 40 percent of the benefits or will we be talking about tax cuts that benefit all families? And will we be talking about making sure we protect Social Security and Medicare? And, yes, will we live up to our words, to our commitments for children, for education, for prescription drug costs, for expanded health care coverage? That is what we are about. That is what this debate is about. I think it is more of a conservative saying, but I like it as a liberal, as a Senator from the State of Minnesota: There is no such thing as a free lunch. We can't do it all. So we need to make our priorities clear. We are going to have to make value choices. I make a choice, as a Senator, for children and education. I make a choice for affordable prescription drugs. I make a choice for expanded health care coverage. I make a choice for two very important social insurance programs: Social Security and Medicare. And I make a choice for tax cuts that benefit all families, not just having benefits that disproportionately go to the top 1 or 5 percent. I think that is what this debate is about. I think we are ready for it. I think the outcome of this debate is going to be hugely important to people in Minnesota and all over our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I apologize; I am going to be with other Senators at a gathering that will focus on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to which we are opposed. That is the only reason I leave the floor. One thing I wish to say to my colleague from Illinois, I congratulate the President's delivery, and I think he is sincere in what he said. That is the good part. I think there is one maybe bad part to last night, and I think it is a very important challenge for President Bush, which is, that if you talk about education and children and leaving no child behind and you talk about covering prescription drug costs for elderly people and helping people with that hardship--to use but two examples--then people hear that and they say: You know what, this is going to be a Government that responds to us. The hope builds up, and ultimately, if you are not able to back that with the investment of resources, and it is just symbolic because you basically put it all into a tax cut, mainly going to the wealthy people, the top 1 percent or 5 percent, then that really invites--mutiny is too strong a word-- anger. You can't play around with those issues. You have to back the rhetoric with the resources. If I had to critique the President's speech last night, to me that is the disconnect. I am troubled by that because these issues affect real people and their lives. And why are we here except to do better for people. I think we have to back up our speeches and our rhetoric with our priorities.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I was at a conference dealing with health care policy when my colleague, Senator Dayton, spoke. I come to the floor to congratulate Senator Dayton for his words. When he campaigned for the U.S. Senate seat, he spoke on cost of prescription drugs, especially for the elderly. I think it applies to many other families as well. Over and over again, he said this was his No. 1 priority. He said our country could do better. He said this was a matter of elementary justice. He talked about older people in Minnesota--senior citizens--two-thirds of whom have no prescription drug coverage. He talked about, for example, seniors cutting pills in half because they could not afford them or people running out of food or their homes being cold. I think it is very significant that when Senator Dayton came to the floor of the Senate today to give his first speech, his maiden speech, he talked about prescription drug costs and his commitment to introducing responsible legislation that will make a real difference in the lives of people. The reason I think it is significant is not only because he spoke on an issue that is very important to people's lives, but it is all the more important because he said something about Mark Dayton in very personal terms. He campaigned on this issue. He listened to many people in Minnesota, and many elderly people talk about these costs. He came to the Senate after winning the election, and he basically stayed true to the commitment he made to people in his State. Senator Dayton has been my friend for many years. I think he will be a great Senator. I always said--and I said to Senator Rod Grams after the election-- that no one can ever say to Senator Rod Grams that he did not vote for what he believed in; that he did not say what he believed. I think he deserves an awful lot of credit for that. I never like it when anyone loses. I don't like to see people lose. I like to see people win. It is because of my Jewish roots. I think Mark Dayton is going to be a great Senator for the State of Minnesota and for this country, and I am very honored to serve in the Senate with him. As the senior Senator, I hope he will consider my views over and over again. I doubt that he will. And it will probably make him an even better Senator if he doesn't. He spoke powerful words. I am sorry I was not on the floor with him. But I thank him for his commitment to the people. I thank him for his passion. I thank him for caring about public service, and I thank Senator Dayton for caring about senior citizens and other citizens in the country. I thank him for his commitment to Minnesota. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will follow our minority leader. I wanted to respond to what the majority leader said, but I will follow the leader.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I won't be long. I thank the majority leader for his graciousness, even though we are in disagreement. I appreciate not only what he said but the way he said it. It is extremely important that to the maximum extent possible we work together. This bill is going to come to the floor of the Senate; there is no question about it. There are going to be votes. As a Senator from Minnesota, I will use this occasion. Perhaps we will have discussion tomorrow and can reach some agreement about how to move forward. Let me say that to the majority leader. This is an opportunity for me to say to other Senators and, more importantly, to the people of Minnesota, this bill is harsh and one sided. I cannot believe that we make it so difficult for people who find themselves in such difficult circumstances. Fifty percent of the people of the country who declare bankruptcy do it because of a major medical expense. Almost all the rest of the cases are because of someone losing a job or because of a divorce. I will not speak long, but I want the majority leader to know how heartfelt my objection is. It is not just a question of procedure or inside baseball in the Senate. I don't want to miss an opportunity to talk about how harsh and mistaken this piece of legislation is. We just had 1,300 LTV workers laid off work in northeast Minnesota. The way this bill reads, in terms of what they can file for chapter 7, they are supposed to look at the average of their income over the last 5 months. That doesn't help them. Many of them just lost their jobs. I don't want them to go under. I want them to be able to rebuild their lives. In my not so humble opinion, this is a classic example of a financial services industry with enormous clout putting on a full court press. I am proud, working with other Senators, to have held them off and held them off. This bill may pass. It doesn't ask these credit card companies to be accountable at all. It does not deal with some of the worst circumstances that affect families that are going to go under. It has an onerous means test. It is extremely one sided. The first piece of legislation we are going to pass in the Senate, as the economy begins to go down and people are worried about losing their jobs and are feeling the economic squeeze, is a piece of legislation that is going to make it practically impossible for many families that are going under, through no fault of their own, to file for chapter 7 and rebuild their lives. What a start. I come to the floor to object because I believe this is an egregious piece of legislation. The majority leader has been gracious to me. He knows I have the right, as does the minority leader, to object. I say to the majority leader: This is tonight. Because he has been gracious, we can talk tomorrow and maybe we can figure out a way that we can proceed. However, I am not going to give up my opportunity to talk about how harsh this legislation is, and I am not going to give up my opportunity, in every way I can, to point out the weaknesses. There will be plenty of opportunity next week as well. I hope when we do move forward--and this is something I want to discuss with the leader--there will be the opportunity for amendments, and we will have a full-scale debate; we will operate as a Senate, which is what the majority leader and minority leader want us to do. For tonight, I have to object, and I object for those reasons.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I don't want to debate the majority leader tonight. I want him to know that one of the good things about the very important debate we are going to have is that I will be able-- the Presiding Officer is involved in this debate as well--to cite independent study after independent study showing that the abuse, when it comes to bankruptcy, is a very small percentage. I think the majority leader will be pleased to hear that given the comment he made. We will have the debate. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would be pleased to speak for the Republican Party if the Senator wants me to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will follow the Senator.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, if there is time remaining for the majority party, I won't take their time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Fine.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I won't speak for the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Kansas, or Republicans but I will speak for myself and I hope many in my party. First, I start with what I think people in Minnesota and people in the country mean by civility. I don't think they mean there should be no debate. I think people are all for passionate debate. They just want to make sure it is civil debate. What I say on the floor of the Senate is based upon what I honestly believe is good and right for Minnesota and my country, but it is not at all directed at any of my colleagues on the other side in any personal way, nor is it directed at the President in any personal way. Second, another operational definition before I go forward with my comments: what do people mean by ``the center''? I think people want us to govern at the center of their lives. I will say something I heard my colleague from Wyoming mention and I agree. Part of what people are focused on is education--no question. People are focused on health security. People are very focused on affordable child care, which I view as education. It is silly to define education as kindergarten through 12. I think it is pre-K all the way to age 65. Elderly people and other working families are focused on the cost of prescription drugs. Many can't afford it. People are also focused, of course, on how to have a small business or a family farm or have a job from which they can support their family. Those are issues that are terribly important to people, and there are other issues as well. One we will deal with within the next month will be reform and how we can really move to a political process which, hopefully, will be less dependent on big money and more dependent on big and little people. I want to speak directly, given this introduction, to the President's tax cut. We have heard from a number of Senators about specifics, so I don't need to go over them. To make a very long story short, after we take this $1.6 trillion tax cut and add additional costs, interest that has to be paid, and after we look at what we have by way of surplus-- that is to say, non-Social Security, non-Medicare--basically, what we have is a tax cut that represents a Robin-Hood-in-reverse approach to public policy. That is what we have when, depending upon whose estimate one believes, the top 1 percent of our population gets anywhere from 40 to 45 percent of the tax benefits of the Bush plan. Unbelievable. It is similar to a subsidy in inverse relationship to need. Now, again, understand--a Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cut has the wealthy benefitting. At the same time, let me take the President's words in his inaugural speech about leaving no child behind. At the same time, one-third of the children in America today live in families who will not receive one dime from this tax cut; 50 percent of African American children live in families in our country who will not receive one dime from this tax cut; and about 57 percent of Latino, Latina children live in families who will not receive one dime from this tax cut because none of it is refundable. If you live in a family with an income of less than $27,000 a year, you receive no benefit. The argument is, they don't pay any taxes. These families pay payroll tax; they pay sales tax. You better believe they pay taxes. These are some of the children who are most deserving in terms of being given a chance to reach their full potential. It is not in this tax cut proposal. While on the one hand we have most of the benefits going to the top 1 percent, we have very few of the benefits going to those families and those children most in need. It is outrageous. One amendment I will prepare when we bring this reconciliation bill to the floor will be an amendment to make the child credit refundable. Then we can help a lot of children and a lot of families. For all Senators who say, ``we are for children, we are for children, we are for children, we are for the future, leave no child behind,'' I want to give them a chance to vote on that. Let me go on and make another point which I think is the second and, to me, the most devastating critique of this tax cut proposal by President Bush. It is not unlike 1981. If we do this, there will be precious little for any investment in any other areas--I think by design. I think this is an administration, in spite of its rhetoric about leaving no child behind, which basically believes most citizens should be on their own. So there will not be the funding to make sure senior citizens can afford prescription drug costs. No question about it. There will not be the funding for expanding health care coverage for our citizens. No question about it. And there certainly will not be the funding for education and to leave no child behind. Now, the President tried to argue the other day--it has already been shot down--that there is a huge increase in the education budget. Mr. President, some of it was forward funding from this past year. As it turns out, over the last 5 or 6 years, this is the smallest percentage increase we have seen except for one out of the last 5 years. That hardly represents some dramatic, new investment in children. So my question is, How do you leave no child behind when only 2 percent of the children who could benefit from early Head Start--2 years of age and under, the most critical years for learning--right now benefit? That is all the funding we have. And there are really no additional resources for early Head Start. Only 50 percent of the children who can benefit from Head Start--that is, to give a head start to the children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds--and there is going to be a pittance for any additional funding--when 11 percent of the children who could benefit from affordable child care--that is just low-income families, much less working families, much less moderate- income, middle-income families--11 percent who are of the eligible children right now are able to benefit because we so severely underfund early childhood development. So we have a President who says he is committed to education, we have a President who says he will leave no child behind, and we have tax cuts that go to the wealthy. But will they benefit the families--one- third of the children who live in low- and moderate-income families, half of the children who live in low- and moderate-income families? We have a tax cut proposal that makes it impossible for us to invest in the health and skills and intellect and character of our children. Frankly, ``leave no child behind'' becomes just a slogan, and I express indignation about this. There will be a pittance to make sure our children are kindergarten ready, and then when it comes to some of the K-through-12 programs, let me be really clear. Right now, the Title 1 Program for low- and moderate-income children is funded at the 30-percent level. There is, again, a pittance in this budget for any increase in that funding. The IDEA program for children with special needs is vastly underfunded. In my State of Minnesota, from the Governor to Democrat to Republicans, they say: Live up to your 40-percent funding commitment, Federal Government. Then we would have some additional resources to do other things for children. Guess what. In this budget we will see a pittance when it comes to any increase in funding for the IDEA program for children with special needs. We have an education program called Leave No Child Behind, which is going to rely on testing, testing which makes it clear that we should not rely on one single standardized multiple-choice test which everyone who does testing says we should not do, which is educationally deadening; it puts the kids in a straitjacket; it puts the teachers in a straitjacket. We will not have that. What we will do is take a lot of schools in this country that have been underfunded because they are in districts that are property-tax poor--not rich; they can't have the same resources; they don't have the same resources as the most affluent of suburbs--schools where children come from homes where English is the second language, children who come from homes where families have to move two or three or four times a year because of inadequate housing, children who come from homes where they are hungry when they come to school, children who come from homes where they haven't had the good developmental child care; they haven't been read to; they don't know how to use the computer; they haven't had any of those opportunities; they come to kindergarten way behind--this budget does nothing to make sure these children will have the same chance as other children to reach their full potential. Instead, we have tax cuts, 40 percent plus of the benefits going to the top 1 percent of the population. We have testing. All we are going to do is set up these kids, these schools, and these teachers for failure. We are providing none of the resources and none of the tools to make sure these children can achieve and do well, but we are going to have tests and we are going to test kids starting as young as age 8, every single year, and then we are going to say after 3 years: Schools, if you don't make the grade, we will flunk you and we will move to vouchers. I think the people who deserve an F grade are the White House and those people in the House and the Senate who do not seem to be willing to be held accountable for the health, skills, intellect, and character of all the children in our country. That, to me, merits a failing grade. I hope my party does not join in this tax-cutting frenzy. I hope we will focus on honest tax cuts that benefit working families, middle- income families and moderate-income families. I hope we focus on a child care credit for all families so we will be helping all children. I hope we get the help where it is needed. I hope this is not just one huge bonanza for wealthy people. Frankly, I say to Democrats, this is our moment of truth. Above and beyond tax cuts that work for citizens in this country, we want to make sure there are resources for investment. We must be willing to draw the line and say to President Bush and Republicans: You go with your tax cut plan, 40 to 44 percent of the benefits going to the top 1 percent; we go for investment in children and education. President Bush, you go for a tax cut plan with 44 percent of the benefits going to the top 1 percent; we go for expanding health care coverage. President Bush, Republicans: You go for a tax cut plan that is Robin Hood in reverse, with most of the benefits going to wealthy people; we go for making sure our parents and grandparents can afford prescription drug coverage. President Bush, you go for your tax cut, Robin Hood in reverse, going to wealthy people in this country; we go for affordable housing--that is what we are about. We are supposed to be the party of the people, so let's try to make sure the tax cuts, in combination with the investment, benefit the vast majority of people in this country. I think it is terribly important for Democrats to find their voice and for us to be as strong as possible, both in opposition to President Bush's tax cut proposal going mainly to the wealthy and in enunciation of what we stand for. We stand for some tax cuts that are honest tax cuts that benefit the majority of families and citizens in our country, not leaving out those families who are most in need of help, and in addition investment in our children, in education, in health care. That is what we are about. I am lucky enough to be friends with Marian Wright Edelman, director of the Children's Defense Fund, and her husband Peter, two wonderful people of justice. The theme of the Children's Defense Fund has been ``Leave no child behind.'' That is what they are all about. President Bush is now talking about, ``Leave no child behind.'' ``Leave no child behind'' I take seriously. ``Leave no child behind'' is a beautiful way of calling on all of us in the United States of America to be our own best selves. But if ``Leave no child behind'' is just an empty slogan and we do not back up the rhetoric with resources, and we don't put our money where our mouth is, and we don't make the true investment, which is not in this tax cut proposal or in the budget we are getting from this President, then, frankly, we will have engaged in just symbolic politics. We will not have done well for children, all the children in our country. That will be a profound mistake, and I think we will not be the better for it. Without trying to sound pseudo-anything, I look forward to this debate. I am going to have a lot of amendments that are going to focus on leaving no child behind. Education, leave no child behind; health care, leave no child behind; housing, leave no child behind; violence, leave no child behind. We are going to have votes on all of these. If my colleagues have a better proposal for how not to leave any child behind, I am all for it. I certainly do not see it in the proposal of the President. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of this year's Black History Month theme, ``Creating and Defining the African American Community: Family, Church, Politics and Culture.'' I would like to note that while we take time in February to recall the contributions, accomplishments and services that our fellow citizens have rendered, it is important to remember that the contributions of African Americans to America happen everyday in every walk of life. Moreover, in our review of these vital contributions, we are called upon to acknowledge the courage, talent, determination, leadership and vision of those men, women and children who made an impact in the face of incredible obstacles. This year's theme, I believe, is fundamental not only in defining the African American community, but the American community at large. The struggle for a better America begins with each individual and his or her call to civic duty. The historical context of building a better America begins with gaining a deeper understanding of our history and how our social environment has been shaped. The civil rights movement helped our Nation, and particularly our government, recognize that universal participation and rights are enjoined upon all citizens, regardless of the color of their skin. One of the many lessons that can be gleaned from this movement is that it is our duty as Americans to embrace the diverse elements of our society so that future generations can see themselves in our Nation's past and realize that they have a role to play in seizing the future's countless opportunities. In acknowledging the various elements of the African American community of Family, Church, Politics and Culture, I would like to acknowledge a few of the outstanding contributions of African Americans in the state of Minnesota. Their efforts have helped shape the social, economic and political landscape of that vibrant community as well as the community at large. Just recently, the United States Postal Service issued a stamp in its Postal Service's Black Heritage commemorative series. This stamp commemorates the life and accomplishments of one of the great leaders of the civil rights movement, Mr. Roy Wilkins, who grew up in St. Paul and attended the University of Minnesota. In 1931 he was appointed assistant executive secretary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, the largest civil rights organization in the U.S. From 1934 to 1949 he was editor of The Crisis, the official magazine of the NAACP. Wilkins served as a consultant to the War Department on black employment during World War II. After the war he continued his service to the NAACP; he was executive secretary from 1955 to 1965 and executive director from 1965 until his retirement in 1977. He played a major role in the preparation of Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka, 1954, and was one of the organizers of the March on Washington in 1963. It is only fitting that the legacy of a man of such integrity, vision, and deep conviction is given tribute through this special recognition. His leadership and dedication to the civil rights cause is exemplary. I am proud to honor the religious community not only for their spiritual guidance of the African American community, but also for their unwavering efforts to improve the quality of life in our cities and state. The Coalition of Black Churches in Minneapolis and the St. Paul Ministerial Alliance truly have made a difference in the community with their outreach on behalf of their congregations and community, through their experience and sacrifice, through their political will with their legislative agendas, and most importantly, through their leadership and exemplary behavior. They are not simply preaching the meaning of values, family and community service, they are also showing us. In the arena of politics, Ms. Neva Walker became the first African American woman to be elected to the Minnesota Legislature just last fall. Given the dispiriting level of civic participation in our society today, I truly am appreciative of the vision and leadership that Representative Walker brings to her constituents and our state. I am honored to know and work with Representative Walker. As the first African American woman legislator in our state I know she will make important changes, provide needed leadership, and introduce legislation that will greatly help many people. Our community also is extremely privileged to have an organization with the capacity and outreach of African American Family Services. For 25 years, this organization has reached out to the community to provide culturally specific services and programs ranging from providing critical services in clinical health, family preservation, domestic violence, and adolescent violence prevention and anger management. In addition, this organization provides its clients and the community with a resource center, which includes a resource library and a technical assistance center, which creates training programs to educate human resource professionals on enhancing service delivery to African American clients. A tribute to some of the heroes of the community would not be complete without a mention of two men who brought so much joy to the fans of the Minnesota Twins. Mr. Kirby Puckett and Mr. Dave Winfield, who were both inducted into Major League Baseball's Hall of Fame, provided Twins fans in Minnesota and around the country with some spectacular plays which will forever be in our memories. Aside from their outstanding professional accomplishments, both players continue to be exemplary role models and community leaders. Let us take this opportunity to re-dedicate and re-invigorate ourselves, as Americans, to the cause of working together to create a society which not only understands the concept of unity in diversity, but lives it; which not only preaches economic justice, but implements it; that not only espouses equality of opportunity, but ensures it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor two Minnesota heroes. Chaska police officers Brady Juell and Mike Kleber saved the lives of more than a dozen residents as fire burned through an apartment building. On the morning of Tuesday February 6, 2001 a fire broke out in an apartment building in Chaska, Minnesota. With little regard for their own safety, Officers Juell and Kleber searched and found resident after resident. In some instances they literally pulled people to safety. Officers Juell and Kleber did their job. But they did so much more: they inspired us because they showed how great and how selfless we can be. The community will be honoring these brave men on March 3, but I wanted the Senate today to recognize these good and noble men who saved lives and provided us a glimpse of who we can be as a people. I ask that the following articles from the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the Chaska Herald be printed in the Record. [From the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Feb. 7, 2001] Police Officers Save People From Burning Chaska Apartment (By Chris Graves) As he lay choking on smoke and unable to see, Brad Bandas saw the glimmer of a flashlight through the sooty black smoke filling his Chaska apartment building. The 22-year-old man hoped that whoever was on the other side of the light saw his hand frantically waving. Out of the smoke came a hand. Then Bandas was on his feet. Then he was outside, standing--and coughing--in the crisp, predawn air. ``The officer just clutched my hand and pulled me out and gave me the boost I needed,'' Bandas said. ``I could have been dead. Smoke kills you.'' He was one of more than a dozen apartment residents saved by Chaska police officers Brady Juell and Mike Kleber as fire lapped up the side of the three-story stucco building in the 600 block of Ravoux Rd. about 4 a.m. Tuesday. One resident, Robert A. Ebert, 38, died in the blaze after he broke out his garden-level apartment window to try to escape. Chaska Police Chief Scott Knight said a bystander tried to pull Ebert out of his burning apartment, but he fell backward and died in the blaze. Knight said preliminary findings indicate the fire, which started in Ebert's apartment, was caused by an electrical malfunction and was an accident. Knight beamed like a father about his officers' actions. ``They are heroes. I know we would have many more deaths,'' he said, ``with the people sleeping and the rapid spread of fire and smoke.'' Bandas had made it down to a first floor hall before collapsing. His fiancee, Jackie Gallipo, 19, watched from their third-floor apartment as he was pulled out of the building. The officers, as well as Bandas, were yelling at her to jump. The officers assured her they would catch her. And they did. ``I climbed out the window and was hanging off the sill. I didn't want to jump,'' she said. ``But I didn't want to burn up . . . so I jumped.'' Knight said the two officers crawled through the smoke, banged on apartment doors and yelled to awaken residents. Several times, the two men used their shoulders to break down doors. ``They reluctantly accept the title `hero,' '' Knight said. ``They said they were doing nothing short of what their peers would have done. But I have to tell you, they are heroes. ``I'm beaming with pride.''

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to follow the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there are a number of colleagues who want to speak. I had wanted to speak about an amendment that I join Senator Boxer on and she is on the floor. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer be allowed to lead off. I myself will only take 5 minutes following her. I think this amendment will be accepted; is that right?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. First, I defer to my colleagues from Arizona and Louisiana on this if they want to respond right now.