[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 22, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4657-S4661]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               EDUCATION

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I have done on other occasions, I want 
to bring attention of the Senate to where

[[Page S4658]]

we are in education funding, an issue which is of central concern to 
families all over this country. I think if we asked the families across 
America--I know around Massachusetts--they are obviously concerned, 
particularly in the last few days and certainly in the last few months 
about the dangers of terrorism. They want to be sure we are going to be 
able to support our forces overseas. They are very concerned about it.
  In my State, even with the rosy predictions of some, we still have 
communities with sizable unemployment. Families have a great deal of 
uncertainty about their future.
  But right underneath the surface are two other major issues. One is 
health care, and that is reflected in the cost of prescription drugs 
and the availability of prescription drugs, but, second, and equal to 
that, is the question of ensuring their children will receive a quality 
education.
  We addressed that issue in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
last year. We worked together with President Bush. We are proud of the 
fact we were effective in working together, bridging many of the 
differences. We were able to get a sizable downpayment for that 
legislation.
  We have still left many children behind. Even though the bill is 
called No Child Left Behind, we are still leaving millions of children 
behind. Under the administration's proposal, we are going to even leave 
additional children behind.
  As this chart shows, as we started the proposal last year, the Bush 
proposal was 3.5 percent. We were able to effectively get it up to 20 
percent.
  All of us are very familiar with the statements, the comments the 
President has made about how we all have responsibility. Students have 
responsibility and accountability; schools have responsibility; parents 
have responsibility.
  That raises another issue. In the drafting of the rules, I think all 
of us understand the first educator for a child is the parents. We have 
put a special requirement in the legislation to make sure parents will 
be involved every step along the way in the implementation of the act 
we passed last year.
  So it brings us some dismay that the administration has failed to do 
that, and done this in such a way that the parents are now bringing a 
suit against the administration because they are being excluded at the 
local level. That makes no sense. We should welcome parents in at the 
local level. We should welcome parents into the process of the 
education of their children.
  But very quickly, before leaving this chart, I, again, want to show 
from the 3.5-percent increase, we were able to raise that up to 20 
percent. We heard the administration talk a great deal, with the great 
sense of pride they had, with all the additional resources, and now it 
is back to 2.8 percent.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Please.
  Mr. DURBIN. I think the Senator has hit an important point when we 
talk about the future of education and teachers. That chart tells an 
interesting story.
  In Illinois, when I went to one of the universities that graduates 
more teachers than other schools, I said: What are we going to do about 
the shortage of teachers which we are facing in America? How are we 
going to find more teachers?
  They said: Certainly we need more teachers, and good teachers, but 
our biggest problem is retaining teachers. Teachers who are educated, 
who graduate with student loans and the burdens that they face, start 
teaching in a classroom and after 2 or 3 years get discouraged, leave 
the classroom and go into the private sector. They said that we have to 
find a way to retain good teachers.
  That is also an important element.
  What the Senator pointed out here is that if the Bush administration 
will not continue its funding level for teachers, there is going to be 
unpredictability, unreliability for the teacher in the future.
  My State is facing budget problems. Most are. They are going to be 
cutting back on education. So the double hit from both State funding 
and the Bush administration's refusal to fund its own education bill is 
going to jeopardize the number of teachers who are going to be 
available.
  I think that is going to create problems far beyond next year.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate what the Senator has pointed out. This 
chart indicates that $742 million was added by the Congress last year 
for teacher quality. That is effectively zeroed out in terms of this 
year for teachers, in terms of recruiting teachers and in terms of 
retaining teachers. This is professional development.
  I want to remind the American people that we have an administration 
which says, with the No. 1 domestic priority of education, we are 
confined to $600 billion in tax cuts that they asked us to verify and 
make permanent for the future. And here we have virtually zero in terms 
of increasing the retention of teachers, training of teachers, and 
professional development.
  Do the American people really believe this is the first domestic 
priority for the administration when they don't fund it and they asked 
the Congress to make permanent $600 billion in tax cuts over the next 7 
years?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield 
on another question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am happy to yield to the leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much what the Senator 
from Illinois said. Last weekend I spoke in South Dakota at the last 
graduation of a high school at Hecla in my State. Hecla is closing its 
doors. They will no longer have a high school in that small town. What 
I find is that what is happening in Hecla is happening in places all 
over my State and in the country. Budgets are collapsing at the local 
level. They are not able to fund the priorities because the property 
tax base is shrinking. Every school administrator and every school 
district president I have talked to says they no longer have the budget 
they had just a couple of years ago. The situation is exacerbated by 
the tremendous loss of revenue at the local level.
  On top of that, we now see a loss of revenue at the Federal level. 
Schools are getting caught in the squeeze. There is less money at the 
local level to hire teachers, to do what they have to do to improve the 
schools, and to ensure they have the proper classroom size at the very 
time of a double whammy by the administration which comes out with a 
budget that is sorely lacking in commitment of resources needed to meet 
the issues and challenges these schools are facing.
  We are going to continue to see schools close, schools downsize, 
classes get larger, and students subjected to teachers who in some 
cases may not be qualified, in large measure because funding is not 
there.
  We cannot have reform that we hear this administration wants without 
having resources. I appreciate very much the Senator from Massachusetts 
calling attention to that fact. But I ask: Does the Senator from 
Massachusetts have any similar situations he has experienced? Are 
schools not having that problem now not only in rural areas but in 
urban areas as well?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct. I think the Senator 
would agree with me that parents back home just want their children 
educated. They want a partnership. I imagine in South Dakota and 
Massachusetts they want a partnership to make sure we are going to have 
investment in children.
  It is a question of priorities. The leader has pointed out what was 
happening in his State. This isn't just something that the Senator from 
South Dakota has pointed out. Here is an article from the Wall Street 
Journal. This is not an organ of the Democratic Party. It is a very 
extensive article about the tight budget posing a threat to the smaller 
class sizes, which as we have all seen has a direct impact on children 
learning.
  The article says:

       In the prosperous 1990's, cutting class sizes gained 
     importance, fueled by a Clinton-era program providing Federal 
     aid for teacher hiring. But now some districts can't afford 
     smaller classes partly due to unexpected costs of the hiring 
     they've already done, and partly because of the economic 
     slowdown.

  And it is escalating dramatically.
  It is an extensive article. I ask unanimous consent to have the 
article printed in the Record.

[[Page S4659]]

  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, May 16, 2002]

              Tight Budgets Pose a Threat to Small Classes

                           (By Robert Tomsho)

       The crowded classroom may be coming back.
       In the prosperous 1990s, cutting class sizes gained 
     importance, fueled by a Clinton-era program providing federal 
     aid for teacher hiring. But now some districts can't afford 
     smaller classes partly due to unexpected costs of the hiring 
     they've already done, and partly because of the economic 
     slowdown.
       Meanwhile, a new federal policy shift soon will permit 
     states to spend federal money formerly dedicated to smaller 
     classes on other school programs.
       Districts that stopped maintaining smaller classes may not 
     see class sizes go up for a few years. Still, worried 
     advocates of small classes are starting to take action now to 
     protect a policy widely popular among parents and teachers.
       In 1996 the Irvine Unified School District, near Los 
     Angeles, joined California's big push to reduce class sizes 
     in kindergarten through third grade to no more than 20 
     students per class. With the state picking up 70% of the tab, 
     the district hired about 200 teachers. Since then, related 
     costs have increased as these new teachers moved up the pay 
     scale. Because state funding hasn't kept up, Irvine had to 
     tap local revenue, thereby increasing classes in the higher 
     grades. Since the district began reducing K-3 class sizes in 
     1996, it has had to raise class sizes in grades 4-12 to an 
     average of 35 students per class, up from 33. The jumps have 
     been sharpest at the high-school level: Some classes have as 
     many as 40 students.
       Barbara Kadar, an Irvine first-grade teacher, says the 
     program allowed her to spot individual problems early on. She 
     says she's shocked at the policy reversal. ``They found the 
     goose that laid the golden egg, and now they're killing it.''
       At least nine other California school districts, out of 
     1,048, including the Cabrillo Unified School District, in 
     Half Moon Bay, and Livermore Valley Joint Unified School 
     District, in Livermore, made similar moves. State education 
     officials expect many more districts to do the same by fall.
       Similar funding cuts for class-size reduction programs have 
     been proposed in Massachusetts, Wisconsin and other cash-
     strapped states. Even in places where state money for them 
     has gone untouched, sharp cuts in state aid have forced 
     districts to consider staff cuts that would result in higher 
     class sizes. Brian Benzel, superintendent of schools in 
     Spokane Wash., said: ``We are going to be in a very difficult 
     set of trade-offs.''
       Parents aren't likely to sympathize. This past month, 
     dozens attended a meeting of the Riverside, Calif., board of 
     education to protect its elimination of class-size reduction 
     for the third grade. Meanwhile, in Memphis, amid a campaign 
     by the local PTA, parents have been driving to the state 
     Capitol in Nashville to demand that Tennessee legislators 
     pass a budget that keeps the state's program. Recent polls 
     show that an overwhelming margin of Florida voters back a 
     constitutional amendment requiring the state to adequately 
     fund a drive for smaller classes. ``I can't go anywhere in 
     public without someone coming up to me and saying that we 
     have to do something,'' says state Sen. Debby Wasserman-
     Schultz, a Florida Democrat involved in an effort to put the 
     proposed amendment on the November ballot.
       For fiscal 2003, the Bush administration has combined the 
     stand-alone federal class-reduction program with a program 
     intended to enhance teacher quality. Now, states and school 
     districts can decide whether to use about $2.85 billion in 
     related funds for new hires or to bolster teacher quality. 
     The move was designed to give states more ``flexibility and 
     accountability,'' says Eugene Hickok, U.S. undersecretary of 
     education.
       Critics say the federal move enables states to shrink their 
     own programs and sets the stage for endless wrangling over 
     future funding for such initiatives. ``It's going to come 
     down to how much clout the teachers and parents have,'' says 
     retired Tennessee State University education professor Helen 
     Pate-Bain, a prominent advocate of smaller classes and former 
     head of the National Education Association, a teachers union.
       About 25 states have class-size reduction programs. In 
     1998, President Clinton, who championed the cause, called the 
     hiring of 100,000 new teachers and establishing the federal 
     class-size reduction program.
       Research over the years has indicated that smaller class 
     sizes lead to higher achievement in the primary grades, with 
     the most marked improvements occurring when a classroom has 
     20 or fewer students. The effect of small classes beyond 
     third grade is more mixed. During the 30 years of reduction 
     in the federal ratios, nationwide achievement trends were a 
     mixed bag: Math scores rose steadly as science results fell 
     for some age groups.
       California, having already spent nearly $8 billion since 
     1996 to hire 28,000 new teachers, expects to complete an 
     evaluation of its program by summer. Meanwhile, its program 
     has had some unintended effects: In its hiring binge, the 
     state had to take on more uncertified teachers to fill its 
     classrooms, and about two-thirds of districts cut other 
     programs, such as in music and art, to keep the classes 
     small.
       Such side effects haven't blunted support for small 
     classes. Earlier this year, California's program was barely 
     touched by budget cuts. Even as individual districts cut 
     their programs, the California PTA is lobbying the state for 
     more funding for smaller classes. ``Parents and teachers 
     still strongly believe that this is good for their kids,'' 
     says Teri Burns, California's deputy superintendent of 
     education, governmental affairs. ``That pressure is still 
     there.''

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is at a time when the administration 
is asking for $600 billion more in tax cuts. We cannot help the 
parents, the small towns, communities, and working families make sure 
they are going to have a qualified teacher in every classroom in South 
Dakota, in Illinois, and New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Massachusetts yield 
for an observation?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Please.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, the point the Senator from Massachusetts 
is making with regard to cutting the resources we have available for 
education and then not funding the mandates really bites in the State 
of New Jersey. We have a $6 billion budget deficit in the upcoming 
year. Educational funding is going to have to be cut just to balance 
the budget. We have serious conflicts going on between teachers and 
administrations across the State.
  If I have heard the Senator correctly, we are going to have virtually 
no increase in education spending at the Federal level this year at a 
time when we have decided we want to make permanent these tax cuts 
which really are going to people who are doing extraordinarily well in 
society.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator has defined the choice. This is a question 
of priority which the Senator has outlined, the challenges in his home 
State, and what the choices are.
  The administration, whatever we think about the past tax cuts, has 
now requested of this Congress $600 billion more. The administration 
indicates that they have two priorities: Low-income children and 
special needs children.
  I see both of my colleagues are here on this issue. They have 
indicated that the President has these two priorities.
  Look at the special needs children. If we fund the $1 billion each 
year, as the administration proposed, it would take 33 years to fully 
fund IDEA. A first grader at the time IDEA was first enacted would be 
67 years old by the time the Republicans' proposal fully funded IDEA.
  That is the program that helps communities with special needs 
children. That program was fully funded when it passed here and went to 
the conference when the Republicans ran the Senate. When it came back, 
it was zeroed out. It was called special interest funding.
  Then, as a matter of principle, the decision was made by our 
colleague and friend, the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords. He said 
that isn't enough. He became an independent because he did not believe 
meeting our responsibilities to special needs children was a boondoggle 
or pork spending.
  I don't think the Senator from Illinois or the Senator from New 
Jersey believe that either. I want to know if they believe, as I do, 
that this is a national priority and should be a national priority, and 
that we ought to be willing to make sure we meet our commitment to 
those families who have the special needs children and to the taxpayers 
in those communities to make sure it is adequately funded.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, that is the 
important point, the last statement is the important point, because 
school districts in Illinois, New Jersey, and Massachusetts are facing 
a Federal mandate. Children with special needs, with learning 
disabilities, physical disabilities, and other problems are going to 
have to be given every opportunity to learn and be productive members 
of society.
  That is something Congress and the Federal Government said to the 
local school districts. Yet we have not provided them the opportunity 
to do it.
  The Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, and the Senator from 
Massachusetts, as well as the Senator from New Jersey and I, want the 
Federal Government to keep its words. We do not want to say to school 
districts: This is your responsibility; you figure

[[Page S4660]]

out how to pay for it. In some States, school districts have to move 
children great distances to find that special learning situation and 
environment where they can prosper, and at great expense. That is money 
taken out of the regular classrooms, from the students and teachers. We 
need to make sure there is quality education for all kids.
  The Bush administration says it is a good mandate. But if they want 
to spend additional money for tax cuts, we can't see it. They want to 
put $600 billion more into tax cuts primarily for wealthy Americans and 
not for education, for teachers, for students, and particularly for 
children with special needs. That is exactly the burden my school 
districts face in Illinois.
  Mr. KENNEDY. There are smaller towns and communities that have 
children with special needs. When the school districts attempt to 
provide for children with special needs, suddenly the property tax 
rates go up in the local towns and communities. Parents feel they are 
blessed to have children with special needs. They understand the 
challenges faced in trying to take care of those children. I have never 
met a parent who does not believe in some way that child gives them an 
additional sense of purpose in life. All we are trying to say as a 
nation is we are going to try to help relieve that community from those 
very special kinds of additional obligations. We are going to provide 
some help--not all but some help and assistance.

  Can either Senator explain to me why that is a lesser priority than 
trying to have this $600 billion tax cut? That is the choice. Are we 
going to help small towns? They can be in North Carolina the State of 
our Presiding Officer, or they can be in South Carolina. They can be in 
western Massachusetts, southern Illinois, or any part of the State of 
New Jersey. But these local communities are hurting and hurting deeply.
  We have a lot of lip service, but if we are to follow what the 
administration has said in terms of funding for IDEA, it is going to 
take us another 33 years in order to do it.
  Mr. CORZINE. If the Senator will yield for just a moment, I will make 
the observation this is not only for small communities. I think about 
towns such as Camden and Newark in the State of New Jersey, where class 
sizes average about 30. Many of these children who have special needs 
are mainstreamed, but they have special programs to try to lift those 
with learning disabilities.
  These towns and cities do not have the tax base to even raise the 
necessary money. So what happens is, in fact, we are forcing failure to 
comply with the law, failure to meet the needs of our children. And if 
we, as a nation, do not begin to prioritize these elements of our 
population in this educational process, we are going to recycle these 
problems because it just goes on and on, and it is extraordinarily 
dangerous in our small towns and cities for our urban kids, 
particularly where you combine the problem of large class size and 
special needs for kids who have been mainstreamed in classrooms because 
there are no other choices.
  I hope we can speak strongly about doing what we always argue: That 
we want to make sure we fully fund IDEA. It is not happening. I commend 
the Senator from Massachusetts for his effort.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator because we have recognized this IDEA 
program has been built upon the Supreme Court holdings about 
responsibility. We have the responsibility to make sure education is 
going to be available and accessible to children with special needs. 
That is effectively the Court's decision.
  So we have said we are going to provide help and assistance. We have 
failed to do so. As the Senator points out, the fact is, 25 years ago 
there were 4 million children who were effectively either being kept at 
home or pushed off in different kinds of settings who never had the 
opportunity for education. Now we know those children are working their 
way through.
  What we have found, in terms of the graduation rates, employment 
rates, and even the college graduation rates, they have all 
dramatically increased. And the difference it has made is extraordinary 
in terms of their lives, living lives of independence and even being 
taxpayers.
  My friend from New Jersey is in the Chamber. I want to mention one 
other area in which I know he is interested; that is, what has happened 
with the Pell grants.
  We just have a brief opportunity. We have seen what the cost of 
education has been, the shrinking buying power of the Pell grants. We 
know how important this is in terms of children. The average income is 
$17,000 for those who are eligible for the Pell grants.
  We found out back in the mid-1970s that paid for about 80 percent of 
the tuition for children who went to 4-year public colleges less so in 
private institutions. Now we have seen that purchasing power go down.
  Does the Senator not agree with me that we, at some time, made a 
decision we were going to try to make sure that children of ability and 
talent, from wherever they came, whatever part of the country--despite 
their families' resources--would be able to gain entrance into a fine 
school or college in New Jersey or Massachusetts or any other State, 
that they would be able, with their limited means, to put together the 
Pell grants, have the Work-Study Program, and with their summer 
income--the extra work they might be able to do--have an education?
  Will the Senator comment about what has happened with that Pell grant 
which has really been the key to opportunity? We will hear a lot of 
speeches in this body and a lot of speeches being made in America about 
the importance of education and how that opens the doors of 
opportunity. Does the Senator from New Jersey not agree with me that 
effectively we are closing those doors for a very significant number of 
Americans and, therefore, we are losing, at least for those young 
Americans, the real hope and opportunity that education provides?
  Mr. CORZINE. The Senator from Massachusetts is exactly correct. It is 
extraordinarily disappointing that we have seen this kind of trend, 
particularly at our public universities, which were really designed to 
give every American access to higher education. I have not studied the 
numbers in the last couple months, but I think the average earnings of 
a college graduate relative to a high school graduate are almost double 
for someone who completes a 4-year college degree.
  If we do not understand that reflects productivity into our economy 
and into our society, we are making a huge mistake. This kind of 
underfunding of access to the American promise, the American dream, I 
find hard to conceive. I know it has been important in my life, and it 
has been for many of our colleagues.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate the Senator's comments because this Nation 
had been committed to that value. We had the land-grant colleges in the 
1870s, which was the beginning of the commitment to make sure children 
with limited means would be able to go to college. We had the GI bill 
after World War II, and every evaluation shows that those who received 
the GI bill paid five times as much in taxes as it actually cost.
  We had this commitment in the early 1960s with the Pell grants and 
the Stafford loans to put together, and day after day, when we have 
failed to fund this program, we are increasingly denying that 
opportunity for millions of Americans.
  We have a responsibility to invest in the children of this country. 
The choice is clear: Are we going to follow what the President has 
suggested, $600 billion more in terms of tax cuts, or are we going to 
invest in the children of this country in K-12 to help provide help and 
assistance to those families, the special needs children, and the 
gifted and talented children, to take advantage of the Pell grants, or 
to otherwise be denied the education?
  Mr. President, this is a matter of importance to every family. We 
want to give them the assurances that we on this side, on the 
Democratic side, are going to stand with the families. We are going to 
fight for this funding because it is our priority, their priority, and 
we will do everything we possibly can to make it a reality.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S4661]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Am I scheduled 
now in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further use of time on the 
majority side, the Senator may proceed.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2540 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call to the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. We are in morning business; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

                          ____________________