[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 62 (Wednesday, May 15, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4339-S4342]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               EDUCATION

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership giving me and 
others an opportunity to talk about an issue which is of central 
importance and consequence to families across this country. Families 
are thinking about education. Families are thinking about the coming 
days in May and early June when their children will be graduating. They 
are also thinking about the indebtedness they will face when their 
children graduate. Others are looking forward to the fall as their 
children are

[[Page S4340]]

accepted to schools and colleges across the country.
  Families are very concerned about what is happening in the public 
schools across this Nation. Some 55 million of our children are going 
to public schools. As we know, over the period of the remaining part of 
this century, that population is virtually going to double. It will be 
virtually 98 million. It will be an enormous challenge to ensure we 
continue to lead the world as the premier economic and democratic power 
if we do not provide for the education of our young people. Education 
is a key component of democracy and is key to defending our vital 
interests.
  I remind this Senate where we are in terms of education funding. 
Money is not the answer to everything, but it is a pretty clear 
indication of what our Nation's priorities are. Last year we worked out 
strong bipartisan legislation with the President of the United States, 
Republicans, my friend Senator Gregg, Congressman Boehner, Congressman 
George Miller, and myself, the members of our Education Committee, 
Republicans and Democrats alike. I can see them all in my mind, their 
strong advocacy in terms of the children of this Nation. One of the 
great pleasures of serving in the Senate is working with our colleagues 
on education and investing in education as a priority for our country. 
But, today we are faced with an education budget proposed by the 
President that does not make the promise of the ``No Child Left Behind 
Act'' a reality.

  We are talking about a budget of some $2.3 trillion. In that budget, 
less than 2 cents out of every dollar is focused on education. Parents 
are surprised to hear that. Many Members believe we ought to reflect 
our priorities and their priorities in education by providing greater 
investment. It is appropriate I mention that because this last year we 
had a major restructuring, a reform. We put much greater requirements 
on our children, a greater expectation in terms of accountability. We 
are insisting that the parents be involved. We provide supplemental 
resources for children falling behind. We ensure any evaluation of 
children is based upon a good, well-thought-out curriculum and based 
upon State standards.
  All of the recommendations that have been made over the period of 
recent years have demonstrated positive results. The real issue now is 
whether we are going to fund that program or whether we are going to 
claim that we did something for the American people not back it up.
  I draw the attention of our colleagues to the statement of the 
President of the United States this last week in the Midwest where he 
was talking about the achievements of the No Child Left Behind. In his 
speech, on page 3, he said:

       We have responsibilities throughout our society. We have 
     responsibilities. The Federal Government has 
     responsibilities. Generally, that responsibility is to write 
     a healthy check. We did so in 2002 budget--$22 billion for 
     secondary and elementary schools, it's an increase of 25 
     percent. We have increased the money by 35 percent for 
     teacher recruitment, teacher retention, teacher pay.

  That was done with the strong urging and the insistence of the 
Democrats.
  Now we have the administration on its own, and let us see what they 
are doing with education. Prior to last year, the Bush proposal for 
2002 was an increase of 3.5 percent. What I have just referred to was 
the congressional ``final'' of fiscal year 2002 which was the 20-
percent increase to which the President referred. After that marvelous 
admonition about all the things we are doing and the Federal 
responsibilities, we can ask ourselves, I wonder what they will do for 
the next fiscal year.
  Right out here is your answer. It is a 2.8-percent increase. It is 
basically an abdication of responsibility to the children of this 
country.
  Under the President's program, named ``No Child Left Behind,'' we saw 
in 2002, 6.3 million children who were not covered by Title I and were 
not being helped. Children who are qualified for this program. They are 
not being helped. What happens under the President's own program? In 
2003, the number of students not being served by Title I grows by 
250,000. It is not going down. The number is going up the number of 
children who are not being served. That is in contrast to our 
commitment in that legislation that shows a decline in the total number 
of children who would not be served so that by FY 07 we will have cut 
that number in half--from 6.3 million children to 2.9 million. We 
should fully fund Title I so that no child is left behind. We have, in 
Congress, taken a step in that direction. But what does the President 
propose? A step in the opposite direction. More Title I children left 
behind.
  What is the reason to say all these children are going to be left out 
or left behind? All you have to do is look at the President's budget 
for the out years and see it is effectively zero in each of those 
following years.
  Let's take a few of the essential elements of the No Child Left 
Behind Act. Teacher training--is there a family in this country who 
does not understand that you have to have a well-qualified teacher in 
every classroom? That is one of the prime elements of this legislation. 
We increase the funding for recruitment, retention, and professional 
development. Those elements are included in that legislation in a 
variety of different ways, including mentoring--to have experienced 
teachers mentor younger teachers, with a variety of different 
outreaches to get the best of America to work in the classrooms. This 
is what was committed to last year.
  Look at what is in the President's budget for fiscal year 2003--a 
zero increase in this fund to meet our responsibility for teachers.
  What was a second important element? There are many, and I will just 
mention some. What is the second important element? The second 
important element is after-school learning opportunities. Why is that 
important? It is pretty obvious. Parents understand that after-school 
programs can provide a variety of services. Many now are providing the 
academic help for children, either tied into schools or tied into 
voluntary organizations, and many, as in my own city of Boston, are 
tied into universities to assist the children in those programs. That 
is to make sure the supplementary services that are included in this 
legislation are going to be available to these children, either in 
school or, if it is not possible there, to do it in the after-school 
programs. These after-school programs are enormously important.
  I will not take the time today, but I will later on, to show, where 
children have had the opportunity for after-school programs, how that 
has enhanced their academic accomplishment.
  What does the administration have? Basically no increase whatsoever--
zero--for the after-school programs.
  I will draw the attention of our colleagues to after-school programs 
in terms of demand. There are a great number of applications from local 
school districts across this country that would qualify if the 
resources were there for after-school programs, but remain unfunded. We 
are only able to fund a very small portion. Mr. President, 2,783 
applicants applied for federal after-school funds, and only 308 could 
be funded.
  There are enormous opportunities. If we are going to talk the talk, 
we ought to walk the walk, and walking the walk means investing in 
these children, investing in after-school programs and making sure they 
are going to have good teachers.
  Let's look at what is happening to many of the children coming into 
our schools for whom English is a second language. The challenges for 
those children are extraordinary. But there are a number of very 
exciting efforts, programs that are enhancing both the English and the 
native language of these children. We can get into that, and will at 
another time, but let me just give a couple of statistics.
  Today, as we are here, there are 180,000 children in Los Angeles 
County who do not have desks because there is not adequate funding. In 
Los Angeles County, they have cut back 17 days of school for many 
students because they do not have the resources. And we are cutting 
back in our participation, to reach out to these children who are 
qualified for help? Can somebody explain that? And they say it is a 
national priority? That just does not even pass the laugh test.
  This chart: ``Bush Budget Undermines School Safety.'' This is about 
safe and drug-free schools. Anyone who travels to any high school 
across this

[[Page S4341]]

country will find the parents and teachers, others, will talk about 
these matters I mentioned: A well-qualified teacher, after-school 
programs, books--they talk about their libraries. And they talk about 
the safe and drug-free schools. They talk about safety in the schools. 
They talk about substance abuse in the schools. They talk about trying 
to make sure that you are going to have a safe atmosphere, where 
children can learn, inside the schools.
  That is a key element. And it is a key element of our legislation. 
But certainly not for this administration. This administration has cut 
back on any little marginal increase. Not only are we getting flat 
funding on a number of education priorities, we are actually seeing a 
decline in funding for safe and drug-free schools. That is after that 
program had been carefully worked out by two of our colleagues, Senator 
DeWine and Senator Dodd, who spent a great deal of time having special 
hearings on that program. This program was broadly endorsed across the 
country, and here we have the issue about having safe and drug-free 
schools as a key element to make sure our schools are going to measure 
up, and we have the administration effectively cutting funding for this 
program.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator.
  When it comes to the issue of education, it is clear that this 
President has not done his homework.
  Will the Senator from Massachusetts recount for this Senator, for the 
record, what happened in the debate and deliberation over No Child Left 
Behind? Is it not true that both parties came together in a bipartisan 
fashion, behind the President, to authorize and create the very 
programs the Senator is describing today? Is it not true that the 
Senator from Massachusetts, who has been on this Senate floor as a 
leader in education, worked hand in hand with the President to put in 
place this reform of public education across America with the promise 
it would be more than a press conference, that it would be a commitment 
to funding education to make certain these programs work? Is that not a 
fact?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator states the history entirely accurately. We 
were stalemated here on the floor of the Senate when we tried to visit 
the reauthorization of elementary and secondary education. President 
Bush made this an important item during the course of his campaign. All 
of us welcomed the opportunity to work with him.

  I do not question his own personal commitment to education reform. 
But if we are going to really be serious about trying to make a 
difference, after we have the reform, we have to fund it.
  The question of the Senator suggests a very important item with which 
we wrestled. If you have money without reform, you are not having an 
effective use of your money. If you have reform without resources, you 
are not going to achieve any goal. That was basically the dilemma we 
were facing. We put the reform together. The question is now whether we 
are going to give the help to those children, to those teachers, to 
those parents.
  Let me, since the Senator is on his feet, just mention one item in 
addition which is of enormous importance. I see my friend from 
Minnesota here as well. The Bush budget provides zero funding to 
support parental involvement. There is not a successful school district 
in this country that does not have the involvement of the parents, the 
representation of the parents--people who are involved whose interest 
is the interest of the child in the school. Not only that, the 
administration has failed to include parents in a meaningful way in the 
development of the rules and regulations for the No Child Left Behind 
Act. Of the 22 panelists presiding over the Title I rules, only 2 
represented parents and the administration is now facing a law suit for 
leaving parents behind in this process.
  Now the parents organizations are challenging the Department of 
Education to say: ``Let us in the door.'' ``We thought we were 
included.'' We see parents being closed out here with no involvement 
and effectively being denied inclusion in the development of the rules 
and regulations. I will come back to them in just a few moments. But 
this must be a matter of concern as well.

  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Isn't it also a fact, as we read the newspapers from 
across the United States, that State after State is facing a cutback in 
the resources that the States have available for education? In my home 
State of Illinois, they are currently in session in Springfield trying 
to figure out how they are going to deal with diminished resources. 
This morning's paper talks about the State of California losing 20 to 
25 percent of its revenue in the coming year, forcing hard decisions in 
every area, including education.
  So this refusal of the Bush administration to fund the very programs 
they were crowing about, announcing just a few months ago, is going to 
have a multiple impact on these States that are already facing tough 
times when it comes to their own budgets, as I see it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct. The estimates are 
anywhere from $40 to $50 billion of shortfalls in States in terms of 
deficits. And, of course, an important impact of that $40 to $50 
billion shortfall will be in areas of education, both higher education 
and also State support to K-12 education.
  We have, in this legislation, requirements that the States are not 
permitted to let the Federal money supplant the States' obligations.
  And now, when we have the situation that the Senator has outlined, 
how are we going to say to the States, no, you can't cut back--when we 
are already cutting back on them, when we are already undercutting what 
is happening in the States by denying the investment in these children 
in these areas which we have worked out in a bipartisan way, virtually 
unanimously, in both Houses, with the great support of parents, of 
educators, of school boards, superintendents? It was not completely 
unanimous, but about as close to it as you could have on a major kind 
of a policy issue. And I am just as troubled, as the Senator must be, 
that we are failing.
  I am troubled, as well, with what we saw just this past week. I ask 
the Senator whether he would agree that we have to ask ourselves, is 
this administration really committed to quality education, when they 
were about to eliminate the possibility of students consolidating their 
loans at the current lower interest rates and save students and 
families hundreds of millions of dollars? And they beat a quick retreat 
on this.
  But does it not suggest to the Senator that we are at least missing 
the note on investing in children and making good education more 
available and accessible?
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Massachusetts, I think, brings two 
points together. When you reduce the ability of students to go to 
college, you necessarily reduce the opportunities to create tomorrow's 
teachers. We need to hire 55,000 new teachers in my State of Illinois 
over the next 4 years. What the Bush administration proposed was to 
make it more expensive for students across America to go to college.
  Students who are working hard and sacrificing would have paid more 
were it not for the efforts of the Senator from Massachusetts and many 
on this side of the aisle that forced the Bush administration, in the 
last few days, to back off that.
  But let me ask the Senator, if I may, this one last question because 
my colleague from Minnesota would also like to participate in this. Is 
this not, in this budget this year from this Bush administration, the 
smallest proposed increase in K through 12 education since 1988?

  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct, this is the smallest increase 
not only for K-12 education since 1988, but also the smallest proposed 
increase for education as a whole in seven years, as I am quickly 
reminded by my wonderful staffer Danica. As this chart says: ``The Bush 
Administration: Smallest Increase for Education in 7 Years.'' This 
represents the increase in education. As you can see, The increase for 
1997 was 16 percent, for 1998, 12 percent, for 1999, 12 percent, for 
2000, 6 percent, for 2001, 19 percent, for 2002, 16 percent and then 
for next year Bush proposes only 3 percent. This is total education. 
Sometimes there is a flyspecking in terms of education. We have not 
gotten into, for example, the IDEA and the retreat the Republicans had 
in making

[[Page S4342]]

sure we are going to have the full funding for the IDEA, which the 
Senator fought for and is so important.
  But let me just mention one final item--going back to the 
consolidation issue. Only 3 percent of the graduate degrees conferred 
in this country are in law and in medicine. If you remember the 
rationale of the administration, they said: we do not need to provide 
for consolidation at a fixed rate because these young people are all 
going to be lawyers and doctors, and they will be able to pay it off. 
They represent only 3 percent of the graduate degrees conferred.
  The people I am concerned about are those childcare workers--who we 
are trying to help in terms of providing better quality childcare--who 
are trying to get their degrees and are going to have to borrow money. 
I am concerned about the nurses who are trying to get those advanced 
degrees so they can provide better care. And I am concerned about the 
teachers who are trying to get a better upgrading of their own kinds of 
skills who are going to have to go out and borrow. Those are the ones 
who would have been affected by denying these borrowers the lower 
interest rates. So that is why I am so glad the administration 
retreated on it.
  I thank the Senator for bringing up these important points.
  Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. DAYTON. I applaud the Senator from Massachusetts whose leadership 
and commitment to these children for decades have been resolute. When I 
came to the Senate a year ago, I thought what a phenomenal opportunity 
I would have to work with the Senator and others of our colleagues, 
given the resources we seemed to have available at that time. As I 
recall, we had trillions of dollars of surpluses. That was the context 
in which I recall the Leave No Child Behind partnership was forged.
  I wonder how the Senator feels about having made that commitment, and 
seeing that promise made for funding for all these areas, and now 
seeing a budget that comes out like this. What happened to all that 
money we were going to spend on children?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is quite correct. As a matter of fact, the 
$1.3 billion the OMB had expected, if their proposal in terms of 
eliminating the consolidation of loans had taken place, would have 
effectively been used for the tax breaks. You would have had a 
transferring of resources from the sons and daughters of working 
families--and not just the sons and daughters because many now in these 
community colleges, I am sure in your State as well as mine, are mid-
career people trying the upgrade their skills. So it is also mothers 
and fathers who are going for graduate degrees, as well as sons and 
daughters. But it effectively would have had those individuals paying 
more interest on their student loans so that the top 1 or 2 percent of 
the income-tax payers would have been able to get their additional 
kinds of tax relief. I think those are absolutely the wrong priorities.

  It seems to me we heard in the Senate not long ago that we can have 
it all, we can have the tax cut and the education and the defense--we 
can have it all. And there were many of us who did not believe you 
could have it all. There are still some trying to say you still can.
  But the Senator's question points out how the education for working 
families--in the K through 12, and also in college--is going to be 
limited because of the administration policy.
  Mr. DAYTON. The Senator's use of the word ``priorities'' is exactly 
the right choice. I recall this year we approved another $43 billion in 
tax breaks for the largest corporations in this country. Combined with 
what was done last year, would the Senator agree that the priorities of 
this administration are just fundamentally at odds with the interests 
of children in America?
  Mr. KENNEDY. It seems to me most Americans are agreeing, we have a 
new day in America as a result of the tragedies of September 11: 
enormous loss, incredible inspiration for the men in blue, who will be 
honored outside this Capitol today, and mindful of the 233 who were 
lost, and the incredible courage of those Americans. We have a new and 
different day. We have a different economy, different obligations in 
homeland security, in foreign policy. We have a responsibility here at 
home to meet the needs of our people.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think that is what is enormously important: Be strong 
at home. And there is no place we can be stronger at home than 
investing in the children of this country.
  Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Senator, again, for his courageous leadership 
on this issue for so many years.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Under the previous order, the 
time until 10:30 a.m. shall be under the control of the Republican 
leader or his designee.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes of that time. I 
understand the Senator from Ohio would like 15 minutes off that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized 
for 10 minutes.

                          ____________________