I HOPE MANY OF MY PARTY. I THINK, MR. PRESIDENT, FIRST, LET ME
           START OUT WITH WHAT I THINK PEOPLE IN MINNESOTA AND PEOPLE IN
           THE COUNTRY MEAN BY CIVILITY. I DON'T THINK THEY MEAN THAT
           THERE SHOULD BE NO DEBATE HERE. I THINK PEOPLE ARE ALL FOR
           PASSIONATE DEBATE. THEY JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CIVIL
           DEBATE. AND 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'S 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 OF ALL, ANOTHER
           OPERATIONAL DEFINITION BEFORE I GO FORWARD WITH MY COMMENTS,
           WHAT DO PEOPLE MEAN BY THE CENTER?
           I THINK THAT PEOPLE WANT US TO GOVERN AT THE CENTER OF THEIR
           LIVES, AND I'LL TELL YOU SOMETHING. AND I HEARD MY COLLEAGUE
           FROM WYOMING MENTION THIS AND I AGREE WITH HIM. PART OF WHAT

           PEOPLE ARE VERY FOCUSED ON IS EDUCATION. NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.
           AND THEIR CHILDREN. I THINK PEOPLE ARE VERY FOCUSED ON HEALTH
           SECURITY. PEOPLE ARE VERY FOCUSED ON AFFORDABLE CHILD CARE
           WHICH I, BY THE WAY, VIEW AS EDUCATION. I THINK IT'S JUST SILLY
           TO DEFINE EDUCATION AS KINDERGARTEN THROUGH 12. I THINK IT'S
           PREKINDERGARTEN THROUGH AGE 65. I THINK OTHER WORKING FAMILIES
           ARE FOCUSED ON THE COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. MANY CAN'T
           AFFORD IT. PEOPLE ARE ALSO FOCUSED ON, OF COURSE, HOW TO HAVE A
           SMALL BUSINESS OR A FAMILY FARM OR HAVE A JOB THAT YOU CAN

           SUPPORT YOUR FAMILY ON. THOSE ARE ISSUES THAT ARE TERRIBLY
           IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE. THERE ARE OTHERS AS WELL. ONE OF THEM
           WE'RE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH WITHIN THE NEXT MONTH AND THAT'S
           GOING TO 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. MR. PRESIDENT, I WANT
           TO SPEAK DIRECTLY, GIVEN THIS INTRODUCTION, TO THE PRESIDENT'S
           TAX CUT. WE'VE HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF SENATORS ABOUT ALL THE

           SPECIFICS, SO I DON'T NEED TO GO OVER THEM AGAIN, BUT TO MAKE A
           VERY LONG STORY SHORT, AFTER YOU TAKE THIS $1.6 TRILLION TAX
           CUT AND ADD ADDITIONAL CUTS, INTEREST THAT HAS TO BE PAID, SO
           ON AND SO FORTH, AND AFTER YOU LOOK AT WHAT WE REALLY HAVE BY
           WAY OF SURPLUS, THAT IS TO SAY, NON-SOCIAL SECURITY,
           NON-MEDICARE, BASICALLY WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS A TAX CUT THAT
           REPRESENTS A ROBIN HOOD IN REVERSE APPROACH TO PUBLIC POLICY. I

           MEAN, THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE WHEN DEPENDING UPON WHOSE ESTIMATES
           YOU WANT TO BELIEVE, THE TOP 1% OF OUR POPULATION GET ANYWHERE
           FROM 40% TO 45% TAX BENEFITS OF THE BUSH PLAN. UNBELIEVABLE.
           IT'S LIKE SUBSIDY AND INVERSE RELATIONSHIP TO NEED. NOW, AGAIN,
           UNDERSTAND ROBIN HOOD IN REVERSE TAX CUT, WEALTHY BENEFITING.
           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 THAT WILL NOT RECEIVE ONE DIME FROM THIS TAX CUT. 50%
           OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN CHILDREN LIVE IN FAMILIES IN OUR COUNTRY
           THAT WILL NOT RECEIVE ONE DIME FROM THIS TAX CUT. AND ABOUT 57%
           OF LATINO CHILDREN LIVE IN FAMILIES WILL WILL NOT RECEIVE ONE
           DIME FROM THIS TAX CUT BECAUSE NONE OF IT IS REFUNDABLE, AND IF
           YOU LIVE IN A FAMILY WITH AN INCOME OF LESS THAN $27,000 A YEAR

           OR SO, YOU RECEIVE NO BENEFIT AT ALL. THE ARGUMENT IS, WELL,
           THEY DON'T PAY ANY TAXES. THESE FAMILIES PAY PAYROLL TAX. THEY
           PAY SALES TAX. YOU BETTER BELIEVE THEY PAY TAXES. AND THESE ARE
           SOME OF THE CHILDREN WHO ARE MOST DESERVING IN TERMS OF BEING
           GIVEN A CHANCE TO REACH THEIR FULL POTENTIAL. IT'S NOT IN THIS
           TAX CUT PROPOSAL. SO WHILE ON THE ONE HAND YOU'VE GOT MOST OF
           THE BENEFITS GOING TO THE TOP 1%, YOU'VE GOT VERY FEW OF THE
           BENEFITS GOING TO THOSE FAMILIES AND THOSE CHILDREN MOST IN

           NEED. IT'S OUTRAGEOUS. IT REALLY IS. AND ONE AMENDMENT I WILL
           HAVE WHEN WE BRING THIS RECONCILIATION BILL TO THE FLOOR WILL
           BE AN AMENDMENT TO MAKE THE CHILD CREDIT REFUNDABLE. THEN YOU
           CAN REALLY HELP A LOT OF CHILDREN AND A LOT OF FAMILIES. FOR
           ALL SENATORS WHO SAY WE'RE FOR CHILDREN, WE'RE FOR CHILDREN,
           WE'RE FOR CHILDREN, WE'RE FOR THE FUTURE, LEAVE NO CHILD
           BEHIND, I WANT TO GIVE EVERY SENATOR A CHANCE TO VOTE ON THAT.
           MR. PRESIDENT, 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'S NOT LIKE -- IT'S
           NOT UNLIKE 1981. IF WE DO THIS, IT WILL -- THERE WILL BE
           PRECIOUS LITTLE FOR 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 THAT 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'S ALREADY BEEN
           SHOT DOWN THAT THERE'S A HUGE INCREASE IN THE EDUCATION BUDGET.
           WELL, MR. PRESIDENT, FIRST OF ALL, SOME OF IT WAS FORWARD
           FUNDING FROM THIS PAST YEAR. AS IT TURNS OUT, OVER THE LAST

           FIVE OR SIX YEARS, THIS IS THE SMALLEST PERCENTAGE INCREASE
           WE'VE SEEN EXCEPT FOR ONE OUT OF THE LAST FIVE YEARS. THAT
           HARDLY REPRESENTS SOME DRAMATIC NEW INVESTMENT IN CHILDREN. SO
           WHAT WE HAVE -- SO MY QUESTION IS HOW DO YOU LEAVE NO CHILD
           BEHIND WHEN ONLY 2% OF THE CHILDREN WHO COULD BENEFIT FROM
           EARLY HEAD START, TWO YEARS OF AGE AND UNDER, THE MOST CRITICAL
           YEARS FOR LEARNING, RIGHT NOW BENEFIT. THAT'S ALL THE FUNDING
           WE HAVE AND THERE'S REALLY NO ADDITIONAL RESOURCES FOR EARLY

           HEAD START. WHEN ONLY 50% OF THE CHILDREN IN THE COUNTRY WHO
           COULD BENEFIT FROM HEAD START, THAT IS TO SAY, TO GIVE A HEAD
           START TO THE CHILDREN WHO COME FROM DISADVANTAGED BACKGROUNDS
           AND THERE'S GOING FOR A PITTANCE FOR ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDING,
           WHEN 11% OF THE CHILDREN WHO COULD BENEFIT FROM AFFORDABLE
           CHILD CARE, AND THAT'S JUST LOW-INCOME FAMILIES, MUCH LESS
           WORKING FAMILIES, MUCH LESS MODERATE INCOME, MIDDLE-INCOME
           FAMILIES, 11% WHO ARE OF THE ELIGIBLE CHILDREN RIGHT NOW ARE

           ABLE TO BENEFIT BECAUSE WE SO SEVERELY UNDERFUND EARLY
           CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT. SO WE'VE GOT A PRESIDENT WHO SAYS HE'S
           COMMITTED TO EDUCATION. WE'VE GOT A PRESIDENT WHO SAYS HE'LL
           LEAVE NO CHILD BEHIND. AND WE'VE GOT TAX CUTS THAT GO TO THE
           WEALTHY BUT DON'T BENEFIT THE FAMILIES. ONE-THIRD OF THE
           CHILDREN IN THIS COUNTRY WHO LIVE IN LOW AND MODERATE INCOME
           FAMILIES AND HALF OF THE CHILDREN OF COLOR WHO LIVE IN LOW AND
           MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES AND WE'VE GOT A TAX CUT PROPOSAL WHICH
           MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO INVEST IN THE HEALTH AND SKILLS
           AND INTELLECT AND CHARACTER OF OUR CHILDREN. SO FRANKLY LEAVE

           NO CHILD BEHIND BECOMES JUST A SLOGAN. AND I EXPRESS
           INDIGNATION ABOUT THIS. AND THEN WHEN IT COMES TO SOME OF THE
           -- SOME OF THE K-12 PROGRAMS, LET ME BE REALLY CLEAR ABOUT
           THIS. RIGHT NOW THE TITLE ONE PROGRAM FOR LOW AND MODERATE
           INCOME CHILDREN IS FUNDED AT A 30% LEVEL. THERE IS AGAIN A
           PITTANCE IN THIS BUDGET FOR ANY INCREASE IN THAT FUNDING. AND
           THE "IDEA" PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS IS VASTLY

           UNDERFUNDED. MY STATE OF MINNESOTA, FROM GOVERNOR TO DEMOCRATS
           TO REPUBLICANS, ALL SAY LIVE UP TO YOUR 40% FUNDING COMMITMENT,
           FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THEN WE'D HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO
           DO OTHER THINGS FOR CHILDREN. AND GUESS WHAT?
           IN THIS BUDGET, WE'RE GOING TO SEE A PITTANCE FOR -- WHEN IT
           COMES TO ANY INCREASE IN FUNDING FOR THE "IDEA" PROGRAM FOR
           CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS. SO, MR. PRESIDENT, WHAT WE'VE GOT

           HERE IS AN EDUCATION PROGRAM CALLED "LEAVE NO CHILD BEHIND,"
           WHICH IS GOING TO RELY ON TESTING. FROM THE LANGUAGE THAT I'VE
           SEEN FROM THE ADMINISTRATION, NOT CLEARLY LANGUAGE ABOUT
           TESTING WHICH MAKES IT CLEAR THAT YOU CAN -- 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, PUTS THE KIDS IN A STRAITJACKET, PUTS THE TEACHERS
           IN A JAIT EXTRACT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT. WHAT WE'RE

           GOING TO DO IS TAKE A LOT OF SCHOOLS IN THIS COUNTRY WHO HAVE
           BEEN UNDER UNDERFUNDED BECAUSE THEY COME FROM 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 SUBURBS. SCHOOLS WHERE CHILDREN COME FROM HOMES THAT
           SPEAK A SECOND LANGUAGE, WHERE ENGLISH IS THE SECOND LANGUAGE,
           I'M SORRY. 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'RE HUNGRY WHEN
           THEY COME TO SCHOOL. CHILDREN WHO COME FROM HOMES WHERE THEY

           HAVEN'T HAD THE REALLY GOOD DEVELOPMENTAL CHILD CARE, THEY
           HAVEN'T BEEN READ TO WIDELY, THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE THE
           COMPUTER, THEY HAVEN'T HAD ANY OF THOSE OPPORTUNITIES. AND THEY
           COME TO KINDERGARTEN WAY BEHIND. AND THIS BUDGET DOES NOTHING
           TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE CHILDREN WILL HAVE THE SAME CHANCE AS
           OTHER CHILDREN TO REACH THEIR FULL POTENTIAL. INSTEAD WE'VE GOT
           TAX CUTS, 40%-PLUS OF THE BENEFITS GOING TO THE TOP 1% OF THE

           TOP LAIGS LAIGS. -- TOP 1% OF THE POPULATION. I JUST WANT TO
           SAY ON THE FLOOR OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE, AND WE'VE GOT
           TESTING. ALL'S WE'RE GOING TO DO IS SET UP THESE KIDS AND THESE
           SCHOOLS AND THESE TEACHERS FOR FAILURE. WE'RE GIVING THEM NONE
           OF THE RESOURCES AND NONE OF THE TOOLS TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE
           CHILDREN CAN ACHIEVE AND DO WELL BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TESTS
           AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TEST KIDS STARTING AS YOUNG AS AGE
           EIGHT EVERY SINGLE YEAR. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SAY
           AFTER THREE YEARS, SCHOOLS, IF YOU DON'T MAKE THE GRADE, THEN
           WE FLUNK YOU AND WE'LL MOVE TO VOUCHERS. I THINK THE PEOPLE WHO

           DESERVE AN "F" GRADE ARE THE WHITE HOUSE AND THOSE MEMBERS OF
           THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE WHO DON'T SEEM TO WANT TO BE HELD
           ACCOUNTABLE FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT IN THE HEALTH AND SKILLS
           AND INTELLECT AND CHARACTER OF ALL THE CHILDREN IN OUR COUNTRY.
           THAT, TO ME, IS THE FAILING GRADE. SO, MR. PRESIDENT, I HOPE
           THAT MY PARTY DOES NOT JOIN IN THIS TAX-CUTTING FRENZY. I HOPE

           THAT WE WILL FOCUS ON TAX CUTS THAT BENEFIT -- THAT ARE HONEST
           TAX CUTS, THAT BENEFIT WORKING FAMILIES, MIDDLE-INCOME
           FAMILIES, MODERATE-INCOME FAMILIES. I HOPE WE FOCUS ON A CHILD
           CARE CREDIT FOR ALL FAMILIES SO WE'LL BE HELPING ALL CHILDREN.
           I HOPE WE GET THE HELP WHERE IT'S NEEDED. I HOPE THIS IS NOT
           JUST ONE HUGE BONANZA FOR WEALTHY PEOPLE. AND, FRANKLY, I WOULD
           SAY TO DEMOCRATS, THIS IS OUR MOMENT OF TRUTH. IF WE CAN'T SAY
           ABOVE AND BEYOND TAX CUTS THAT WORK FOR CITIZENS IN THIS

           COUNTRY, THAT, MOREOVER, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S THE
           RESOURCES FOR THE INVESTMENT. AND IF WE'RE NOT WILLING TO DRAW
           THE LINE AND SAY REPUBLICANS -- PRESIDENT BUSH AND REPUBLICANS,
           YOU GO WITH YOUR TAX-CUT PLAN, 40% TO 44% OF THE BENEFITS GOING
           TO THE TOP 1%, WE GO FOR INVESTMENT IN CHILDREN AND EDUCATION.
           PRESIDENT BUSH, YOU GO FOR TAX-CUT PLAN 44% OF THE BENEFITS
           GOING TO THE TOP 1%. WE GO FOR EXPANDING HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

           PRESIDENT BUSH, REPUBLICANS, YOU GO FOR A TAX-CUT PLAN, ROBIN
           HOOD IN REVERSE, MOST OF THE BENEFITS GOING TO WEALTHY PEOPLE.
           WE GO TO MAKING SURE THAT FOR OUR PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS,
           THEY CAN AFFORD PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE. PRESIDENT BUSH, YOU
           GO FOR YOUR TAX-CUT ROBIN HOOD IN REVERSE, GOING TO WEALTHY
           PEOPLE IN THE COUNTRY, WE GO FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I MEAN,
           THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ABOUT ABOUT. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE THE PARTY
           OF THE PEOPLE. SO LET'S TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TAX CUTS, IN
           COMBINATION WITH THE INVESTMENT, BENEFIT THE VAST MAJORITY OF

           PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY. AND I THINK THAT 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
           ANNUNCIATION OF WHAT WE STAND FOR. AND WHAT WE STAND FOR ARE
           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'S WHAT WE'RE ABOUT. PRESIDENT BUSH I THINK -- I'M
           LUCKY ENOUGH TO BE FRIENDS WITH MARIANNE WRIGHT-EDDELMAN,
           DIRECTOR OF CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND, HER HUSBAND, PETER, TWO
           WONDERFUL JUSTICE PEOPLE. THE THEME OF CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND

           HAS BEEN "LEAVE NO CHILD BEHIND." THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ABOUT.
           PRESIDENT BUSH HAS NOW BEEN 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
{END: 2001/02/27 TIME: 11-15 , Tue.  107TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}