[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 52 (Wednesday, May 1, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3587-S3588]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               EDUCATION

  Mr. WELLSTONE. My third topic is education. I spoke yesterday almost 
with a twinkle in my eye when I heard what this administration is 
proposing to do.
  In Minnesota, in 1999, students took out $483 million in loans; $406 
million in Federal loans. In 1987, it was $188 million, $483 million 
versus $188 million.
  Saying the students cannot consolidate loans and keep them at 4 
percent and not worry about interest rates going up, average students--
if this administration has its way--are going to be charged an 
additional $3,000 more. It is unconscionable.
  All Senators need to understand many of our students are not 19 or 
20, living in a dorm. Even if they are, a significant number of them 
are working 30 hours a week. These are not people for whom the cost of 
higher education for their families is easy. A lot of them are students 
not living in the dorm--40, 45, and 50 years of age--going back to 
school. Some of our taconite workers are going back to school to try to 
find employment and support their families. These are hard-pressed 
people.
  Now, this administration doesn't want to give them a break on 
interest rates on their loans? It is the most distorted of priorities. 
Give it all away in tax cuts. A vast majority of these tax cuts go to 
huge multinational corporations, wealthy citizens, the top 1 percent of 
the population. And to give them credit, many of them say: We do not 
need it.
  Instead, we are told we don't have enough money to fund the Pell 
grant, so the way we will do it is to charge higher interest rates for 
students, many of whom are hard pressed. It is unconscionable, 
unacceptable.

  I announce on the floor of the Senate, along with other Senators, 
including the Senator from Minnesota, the Presiding Chair, who cannot 
speak but I can speak for him, we are not going to let it happen. It is 
not going to happen. I say to the White House: It is not going to 
happen.
  Tomorrow we will talk with teachers, including teachers from 
Minnesota. I will talk about the education budget. We had all of the 
symbolic politics ``leave no child behind,'' with all the travel around 
the country, including in Minnesota and coming to the high school, Eden 
Prairie High School, all for education, all for the children--accept 
for when it comes to digging in the pocket and providing resources.
  The State of Minnesota anxiously awaits the administration living up 
to the commitment to provide the full funding for special education. We 
had it done in the Senate. It was on a glidepath. The Presiding Chair 
and I would have liked to have seen it happen quicker. Over 5 years, it 
would be full funding, and over the next 5 years and the rest of the 
decade it would be mandatory, automatic full funding, $2 billion more 
in resources for education for the State of Minnesota, half of which 
would be used for special education, and half to be used to cover other 
costs which we incur because we do not get the funding from the Federal 
Government. The House Republican leadership and the White House blocked 
it.
  We are going to have a debate on this issue. There are a lot of 
different formulations. I say forego the tax cuts for the top 1 
percent; forego giving multinational corporations breaks so they don't 
pay taxes. Then we will have $130 billion, and over the next 10 years 
that is exactly what we need to provide full funding for special 
education.
  I stake my political reputation on that tradeoff. I come from a State 
where we cut teachers, prekindergarten for children, and early 
childhood education programs. It breaks my heart to see that happen, 
where class sizes are going up. My daughter, Marsha, says her advanced 
Spanish class has 50 students.
  Colleagues, education is a compelling issue in people's lives. If you 
want to talk about what is good for the country, good for the economy, 
and good for democracy, you are going to want to support education. We 
ought to be doing this. There will be a debate and every Senator will 
be held accountable. We need the full funding. That will be a fight. I 
know the Democrats will fight for it, and I hope many Republicans do as 
well.
  Finally, ``leave no child behind,'' is the mission statement of the 
Children's Defense Fund. It is probably too much for them to take 
because all we have is a tin cup budget from this administration. To 
me, education is pre-K through 65; it is not K through 12.
  Talking about higher education, older students, talking about 
students going back to school, and then there is the prekindergarten, 
which for some reason always is put in parenthesis, that is probably 
the most important education of all.
  I don't want to celebrate the administration's budget. I am in 
profound disagreement with the priorities of this administration on 
children and education. I celebrate the work of these childcare 
teachers, many of whom make $7 an hour, with no health care benefits. 
It is preposterous. We say we love children, believe in children, but 
we devalue the work of the adults who help those children.
  We are going to be meeting with Commissioner O'Keefe, probably with 
the Presiding Chair, as well, who has come from Minnesota. We are 
talking about TANF and welfare reform, and the administration has a new 
formula that 70 percent of the single parents, mainly women, will be 
working out of the home 40 hours a week, but they don't have additional 
money for childcare. There are a lot of other things that are wrong 
with this reform as well.

  My point is, whether it be welfare mothers, whether it be families 
with

[[Page S3588]]

parents, whether it be single parents working, whether it be both 
parents working, whether it be low-income, moderate-income, or middle-
income, this is a huge issue.
  I ask unanimous consent that I have 3 more minutes to finish.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. This is a huge issue for working families. Many of 
these families pay more for childcare than they do for higher 
education. In Minnesota, 30 percent of adult workers make under $10 an 
hour.
  Let's talk about another issue, affordable housing. To pay for the 
rent of a two-bedroom apartment, not amounting to that much, they will 
be lucky if they pay less than $900 in Metropolitan Minnesota and it is 
pretty expensive in Greater Minnesota. If they have a 2- or 3-year-old, 
they will be very lucky if it is less than $1,000 for childcare. If you 
have a single parent, that is two-thirds of their income gone. I have 
not even included health care or transportation or food. I have not 
even included, maybe once in a blue Moon, being able to take in a movie 
or maybe taking your children out to eat.
  This administration talks about ``leave no child behind.'' Now they 
want to expand the absolute requirement that these mothers are all 
going to work. They do not provide the money for childcare. Right now 
we have about 10 percent of low-income families who can take advantage 
of childcare and get any help because we do not have the funding. In 
Early Head Start, it is about 3 percent of these children who can take 
advantage of Early Head Start because we don't have the funding.
  Then there are the middle-income people who look for some assistance, 
and this administration gives us nothing. And they want to talk about 
``leave no child behind.'' In all due respect, they want to talk about 
the importance of reading, all of which is fine, but where is the 
investment? Where is the investment in these children?
  I finish in these words. I borrow in part from Jonathan Kozol but in 
part myself. This is my favorite way of putting it.
  You help these children when they are little, not because when you 
help them when they are little they are more likely to graduate from 
high school--true; not because when you help them when they are little 
they are more likely to go to college--true; not because when you help 
them when they are little they are more likely to graduate and 
contribute to our economy and be good citizens--true. You help them 
when they are little because they are all under 4 feet tall and they 
are beautiful and we should be nice to them. That is why we should help 
children when they are little. That is a spiritual argument.
  I don't see that in the budget from this administration. I intend, as 
a Senator, working with Democrats and as many Republicans as possible, 
to have amendments out here calling for a dramatic increase in 
investment in early childhood education, in K-12, in higher education. 
To me it starts with education.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement, the Senator from 
New Jersey is recognized for a period of up to 30 minutes.

                          ____________________