[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6012-6013]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                               EDUCATION

  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

[[Page 6013]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________