[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 28, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1643-S1646]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               EDUCATION

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I welcome the fact that the leadership 
has given this time to express our strong views on a very important 
issue, the whole issue, the quality of education for the children of 
this country.
  It was just about a year ago, Members--I see Senator Reed of Rhode 
Island, Senator Dodd from our committee--remember clearly this Nation 
came together, Republican and Democrat, to sign the No Child Left 
Behind Act, the gateway of opportunity, of progress, for academic 
achievement and accomplishment.
  We all looked forward to smaller classes, better trained teachers, 
afterschool programs. We looked forward to this with great hope and 
great anticipation. We looked forward to parental involvement so 
parents could understand how their children were learning in local 
schools, with greater accountability for students, for schools, for 
teachers and parents, and also for the Congress of the United States.
  As we come to the time of the President of the United States 
speaking, if we listen carefully to what is happening all across this 
country, we will hear we have failed in our understanding and 
commitment to education and the administration has failed in giving 
life to our promises in the form of resources to make sure those 
promises are kept.
  Listen to what the Governor of Delaware, Ruth Ann Minner, said 
recently: Delaware has asked local school districts to return $10 
million from current year budgets. The impact of those kinds of budget-
cutting measures takes a tremendous toll in providing enough teachers 
to continue progress to reduce class size, which is so important to the 
quality of education. Federal programs, such as No Child Left Behind or 
IDEA, implemented without adequate Federal funding--no matter that we 
share the goal and the vision--represent an empty promise.
  We have had debates here on whether we have provided the resources or 
not. Let's listen to what is happening across the country.
  In a Washington Post article today, it says Oregon today is on the 
verge of cutting 15 days, potentially 24 days, from its school year. 
The United States ranks 18th among the industrial nations in school 
year length. How can we expect American schoolchildren to learn in 180 
days as much as Korean children learn in 220? And now Oregon may cut 
back to 165 days of the school year.
  The New York Times reported on the impact on the children. Linda 
Pattison, a fourth grade teacher here uses her fingers to check off the 
lessons that she usually teaches but will skip. Her pupils will not 
study the metric system, arithmetic, electricity and science, nor 
Oregon's history and social studies. ``I can only compare this to my 
divorce,'' said the teacher.
  More than 100 school districts in 8 States have moved to 4-day weeks 
to cut costs. Oklahoma City has cut bus service entirely for 1,000 
students. In Barnstable, MA, they are charging an additional $200 for 
music education, $200 for busing, and $1,800 now for all-day 
kindergarten. In Centennial, MN, schools have upwards of 30 students 
per class. Class sizes have grown significantly in the last year. In 
Colton, OR, academic classes in the junior high have as many as 41 
students per teacher. That's not education; that's crowd control.

  I don't fault these communities. They are in a bind. Local schools 
cannot meet the high standards on a tin-cup budget.
  I see my colleagues here. I think they would share with me the hope 
that tonight the President of the United States will make it clear that 
help is on its way to those families, to those teachers, to those 
parents; that we believe the investment in those children will make a 
real difference, in terms of our economy and in their ability to 
acquire skills. It will make a difference in terms of young people 
being able to make a difference for our society and for our democracy 
and for our leadership. This is something I hope, on the one hand, he 
will explain, why we have not been able to do it and, second, that he 
will have a change of mind and he will say--again, what I believe this 
President understands--what we have failed to follow through with, and 
that is that we are going to invest in our children and our children's 
education.
  I thank our colleagues who are here. I see my friends from Rhode 
Island and Connecticut. I know they want to say a word on the subject.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to respond and echo the comments of 
Senator Kennedy. A year ago, with much hope and great fanfare, we all 
looked at the signing of the No Child Left Behind Act as a positive 
step forward, a recognition that we could not simply sit back and let 
education in the United States continue on its then-current course.
  We also hoped the great rhetoric would be matched with real 
resources. Sadly, those resources have not materialized. The President, 
only a few weeks after signing the bill, released his budget numbers 
for fiscal year 2003 which significantly reduced funding for the No 
Child Left Behind Act. In fact, the President's budget contained the 
smallest increase overall for education funding in years. A small 
increase, but nothing commensurate with the kind of expectations that 
were generated by the No Child Left Behind Act.
  We fear--I fear--that that same reality will be visited upon us this 
evening in the State of the Union speech, and next week when the 
President releases this year's budget. There will be no significant 
increase overall in education spending.
  The President may point to an increase in title I that he has 
advertised, a $1 billion increase. That would raise title I funding to 
$12.3 billion. But let me remind all who are listening, that $12.3 
billion is about $6 billion less than the authorized figure in the No 
Child Left Behind Act.
  I can remember the discussions, the debate when we were urging a 
level of title I funding that would be adequate to deal with the 
challenges we have placed on all the school districts in this country, 
to be accountable and to perform at a level that is equal to the 
challenges of this new and very demanding world we face. So the title I 
money is an increase, but it is insignificant compared to the target we 
established, agreed on, and fought for in the No Child Left Behind Act.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REED. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Seeing the Senator from Connecticut here, does my friend 
from Rhode Island remember that we had a specific vote? I believe it 
was a vote on a Dodd-Collins amendment, which ended up with 79 votes, 
Republicans and Democrats alike. Seventy-nine Senators voted for that 
full funding here on the floor of the Senate. Yet we were unable to get 
that kind of support from the administration. Republicans, Democrats 
alike here on the floor of the Senate said this is a priority for us. 
Does the Senator remember? This is not a partisan issue. We were 
joined, were we not, by Republican colleagues?
  Mr. REED. Indeed, you are correct, I say to the Senator. We were 
joined by practically every Member of the Senate regardless of party 
and region. They believed, as we did, in the need for real resources, 
particularly for the title I program. What the President is proposing 
is more of a cosmetic increase in title I, rather than the kind of 
increase we need to do the job.
  I was listening to Senator Kennedy, my colleague from Massachusetts. 
He laid out the current dilemma of local school districts, where they 
are cutting class days, they are charging for transportation, they are 
charging for music education. That is in response to the current 
distressed economy. Don't forget, school districts are now required to 
do much more, by the Federal Government, by the No Child Left Behind

[[Page S1644]]

Act. They are in a situation where they have to cut costs. At the same 
time, they have to respond to more challenges, more mandates from the 
Federal Government. It is getting worse.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for another point?
  Mr. REED. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I see we are joined by another member of the committee, 
the Senator from New York.
  Would the Senator not agree with me, and I hope my colleagues would 
comment, one of the very sad aspects of this is, not only are they 
having the cuts, but where there are percentage cuts--which have taken 
place and which were initially proposed in my own State of 
Massachusetts--in the wealthier communities, they are making up the 
difference.
  I have several illustrations which show how communities that have 
greater affluence are making up the difference of what they are getting 
shortchanged, but the poorer districts are once again left high and 
dry. In well-off Manhattan Beach, CA, parents and the district raised 
$1.4 million in private funding to pay for music and art staff and 
teacher aides. The average home in this district is worth $900,000. 
Also, in a wealthy Kansas City suburb, the Belinder Elementary School 
brought in proceeds from parent donations earlier this year to help pay 
the salaries of a nurse, counselor, and foreign language teacher. The 
efforts raised $78,000 in two weeks to pay for positions that would 
have been cut as the district faced a $6 million shortfall. But in poor 
communities, parental philanthropy is not an option--and the children 
in those communities will be left behind. In Boston, Massachusetts, 
principals were told to brace for a $60 million cut--and there is no 
hope for making up that money from somewhere else. According to 
Boston's Chief Operating Officer, Michael Contompasis, this means, ``. 
. . humongous layoffs. Everything is on the table.'' So, again, those 
children who come from particularly trying and difficult or 
disadvantaged circumstances are paying even a higher price.
  Mr. REED. I think that is absolutely right. I think the Senator from 
Connecticut might have a comment also, and I yield to him for a 
comment.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank our colleagues from Massachusetts, 
New York, and Rhode Island who are here to talk about this issue. In 
just a few short hours from now we are going to hear the President 
address the Nation on the State of the Union. If you were to ask the 
question, what is the state of the union, to the average person, if the 
question were to be asked, I suppose, of the average family, you may 
get this sort of analysis: How secure is my family economically? 
Personally? What does our future look like? That is not a bad question, 
when you ask how are you doing.
  When it comes to the issue of education, I think the answer has to 
be: Worried about how I see the future for my family and our children. 
I am relying on the Federal Government to be a supporter of basic needs 
in education.
  You have to be able to listen to the rhetoric. You will hear a speech 
tonight. I presume it will be a good one. Presidents normally give 
pretty good speeches on the State of the Union. But I also think, as my 
colleagues pointed out, matching up the rhetoric, the language, with 
the action is critically important. It is the same as we would ask of 
anyone else. It is nice to hear words about diversity of higher 
education, nice to hear about making college more affordable, and 
leaving no child behind. But then you quickly have to ask, Now, what 
have you done to increase the diversity of our populations in higher 
education? What have you done or what are you doing to make higher 
education more affordable? And what, in fact, are you doing to see to 
it that no child is left behind in our elementary and secondary public 
school education system?
  If you look at those three issues alone--as our colleagues already 
pointed out here, but it deserves being repeated--in the area of 
diversity, of course, we find the President attacking the affirmative 
action programs in the country.
  My friend from Rhode Island is maybe in a unique position to talk 
about the United States military, the United States military academies, 
and what a remarkable job they have done. He is a graduate of West 
Point and was a distinguished officer in the United States Army for 
many years, as a professor at West Point. Certainly our military 
academies have demonstrated how having affirmative action perhaps has 
contributed significantly to the strength and well-being and diversity 
of our officer corps in the United States.
  In fact, I would argue that the affirmative action programs in our 
military academies are exactly the affirmative action programs the 
President has attacked at the University of Michigan and elsewhere.
  Second, I ask my colleagues from Rhode Island, New York, or 
Massachusetts, what has happened to make college more affordable? We 
have asked that Pell grants be supported. Yet the administration has 
said already--maybe they will change their mind tonight; I hope they 
do. Nothing would please me more than to have the President announce in 
the State of the Union tonight that he is supporting the full funding 
of the Pell grant program. I hope this evening he will talk about that.
  Third, of course, our colleagues have already spoken out about the 
Leave No Child Behind legislation, with special education, where we are 
abysmally short. The White House did not stand up last year in support 
of special education and still continues to oppose the $4.6 billion 
necessary to meet the goals.
  But my colleague may want to comment on the diversity issue, since he 
is a graduate of the West Point Academy and knows how important those 
programs have been to strengthening the United States military. I ask 
him whether or not that is the case.
  Mr. REED. Reclaiming my time, whatever is left, I believe in fact 
that it is a model for the kind of program that recognizes talent, 
effort and initiative, but also considers that we want not just a 
student body at West Point, but also an officer corps in the Army that 
represents every segment of society. I also serve currently as Chairman 
of the Board of Visitors at West Point. We have the opportunity to 
review the admissions process every year.

  Frankly, it is a success. The admissions policy at West Point 
provides an opportunity to broaden, diversify, and make better the 
institution with some very talented individuals.
  Let me put it in perspective. I graduated in 1971. We had two 
African-Americans in my class. Today, African-Americans make up 8 
percent of the student body. Frankly, the military has a larger 
representation of minorities than that 8 percent, but it represents an 
officer corps that is both diverse and, let me emphasize, talented. 
There is no sacrificing standards. There is no sacrificing ability. 
There is no sacrificing patriotism or anything else. We get wonderful 
people.
  To me, affirmative action is not about quotas. It is about looking 
beyond just the people who want to show up in the front ranks because 
they have gone to good high schools, they have parents helping them 
along, and all the other things that lead them to even apply to West 
Point. It is about looking beyond that. It has been very successful.
  I also suggest that it has been represented by the success of those 
young men and women in our military forces who are now general 
officers. The Commandant of Cadets of West Point today is an African-
American officer, a graduate of West Point. That would have been 
exceptional 30 years ago.
  Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, I asked someone once to define 
or describe affirmative action. They said: Senator, affirmative action 
is when someone tells you they can't find somebody, try again. If they 
still can't, try again.
  What my colleague from Rhode Island is saying, when we talk about the 
success and the wisdom of affirmative action, it has been because of 
places such as West Point Academy and other of our military academies, 
where they have tried again to identify and find qualified students and 
consider them as enrollees to these universities where, in fact, they 
may have looked into a lot of issues other than just the simple 
criteria that you might apply to everyone else. As a result of that, 
they have been able to bring people into our academies. It is not a 
determining factor, but a factor, in considering the admissions to 
these academies. Is that not true?

[[Page S1645]]

  Mr. REED. That is exactly correct.
  Frankly, the other argument that is made against affirmative action 
programs is that they stigmatize the beneficiaries. That could not be 
further from the truth when it comes to the wonderful officers who have 
graduated from West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy. They 
walk out well qualified, well prepared, well trained. There is no 
stigma. It is with pride that they serve their country.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, we have several Members who want to 
speak. Our time runs out at a quarter of the hour. I am told, because 
of the extraordinary circumstances that took place on Sunday afternoon, 
we would yield from 18 minutes to 15 minutes of the hour to our friend 
from Florida to make some comments about the world champion team. But I 
ask unanimous consent that the remaining time be divided between the 
Senators from New York, Maryland, and Vermont.
  Mr. SARBANES. May I have 30 seconds?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I just want to say to the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, in this chart about the 
President breaking his promise to the Nation's children about No Child 
Left Behind, and the budget, which fails to fund the No Child Left 
Behind legislation, that is being done in order to have a tax cut that 
will assure that no millionaire is left behind. That is exactly what 
has happened.
  The President's commitment, with respect to budget priorities, is to 
give this huge tax break on dividends so that no millionaire will be 
left behind. Meanwhile, we are leaving behind tens of thousands of 
schoolchildren all across America.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is quite correct.
  Madam President, the time up to 18 minutes before the hour I ask be 
divided between the Senator from New York and the Senator from Vermont. 
I hope the Senator from New York will comment about the increase in 
tuition. At the New York state universities, I understand it has 
increased 41 percent. I yield to the Senator.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, the Senator from Massachusetts is 
correct. As is his custom, he has done his homework. He knows we are 
facing dire circumstances in New York. I know many other places around 
the country are as well.
  But I want to focus, for my limited time, on what is going to happen 
in my State. News reports tell me that when the Governor addresses the 
budget--probably tomorrow--he will be announcing drastic cuts in 
education, totaling as much as $1.2 billion.
  This is the first time in a decade that the New York education system 
will face an absolute cut in its budget. This is not that we are 
decreasing the amount of the increase; this is an absolute cut.
  New York City, which I am sure you know, has a million children in 
the school system--some of the best kids you will ever meet, and also 
some of the poorest kids from some of the toughest circumstances.
  New York City, which receives 40 percent of the State education 
funds, stands to lose almost $500 million. How will that be dealt with? 
You know how it is going to be dealt with. We are going to be laying 
off teachers. We are going to be putting more children into already 
crowded classrooms. We are going to be limiting opportunities for 
advanced placement classes, for lab classes, for the extra kinds of 
credits in classes that particularly needy children need.

  We are going to be looking at delays and actually the stopping of 
maintenance and other repairs, so that we are going to have not only 
overcrowded classrooms, overcrowded schools, with very few of the 
teachers who are needed, but we are going to be basically sending a 
message to our kids that: You remember that rhetoric. Remember that 
bill that was signed about Leave No Child Behind? Well, you are not in 
that group. We don't know how we define that group anymore because we 
sure are not talking about the million kids in the New York City school 
system or the hundreds of thousands of kids in Buffalo and Rochester, 
and Syracuse, and Albany, and Binghampton, and Elmira, and out on Long 
Island--kids who are going to get left behind.
  What is the alternative to all these drastic cuts? It is to try to 
raise the local taxes to make up for both the Federal and State cuts. I 
have to tell you, first of all, many parts of New York already do a 
tremendous job in trying to provide the best quality education for the 
children in their schools. I live in a community that proudly pays very 
high property taxes because of what we then can provide to the children 
from this community. But many places will not be able to do that. At a 
certain point, the kind of disconnect between bold pronouncements about 
cutting Federal taxes--which have the impact of forcing States to make 
very difficult decisions, which have the further impact of forcing 
local communities either to do without essential services or to raise 
their taxes--somehow that old shell game is going to get exposed; and 
so it should.
  We were promised, when we passed Leave No Child Behind, that the 
resources would be there. That promise is being broken. Yes, it is. It 
is being broken. By breaking it, we are leaving millions and millions 
of children behind. And as the Senator from Massachusetts so well 
knows, we are leaving many children in New York behind.
  So I hope we will try to redress this extraordinary decision and, 
similarly, that we will look at what is going to happen in 
postsecondary education where the Pell grant has lost its purchasing 
power, where in a State such as ours we are slashing tuition assistance 
programs plus increasing tuition at the same time.
  Something has to give. And what will give is that thousands of 
students will leave our institutions of higher learning because they 
will not be able to afford to stay. I think that is a bad bargain for 
New York and a bad bargain for America.
  I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts allowing me 
to express specifically the concerns I have about my State.
  Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand, in about 2 minutes the Senator from 
Florida will be recognized, and after that the Senator from Vermont.
  There are just two items I want to mention and repeat. One is that in 
Oregon we have now about 180 days of education. Some districts are 
thinking of going to 165 days. If all of the school districts in our 
country were to follow this example, that would put us as 23rd in the 
world in terms of the amount of time children are studying in school--
where we talk about being No. 1. We talk about being No. 1? We are 
penalizing our children.
  But a second point. And the Senator spoke very eloquently about the 
increase in tuition.
  Does the Senator not agree with me that today the indebtedness of 
students who come primarily from working families, who have the 
ability, the academic desire to succeed and excel, are now indebting 
themselves three times what they were just 10 years ago because of the 
escalation in tuitions? And therefore, we are saying to a whole group 
of sons and daughters of working families, that in effect, the 
opportunity for education, even though you have the ability and the 
academic success, you will effectively be denied continuing education?
  Mrs. CLINTON. The Senator is absolutely accurate. The problem is made 
even worse by a phenomenon that has occurred over the last several 
years where much of the aid that the colleges themselves have provided 
has gone away from need-based aid to so-called merit-based aid. So 
students who come from families such as mine are meritorious--and I am 
very proud of that--but then they are taking those dollars, those very 
scarce collegiate scholarship dollars, they are taking them, when they 
don't need them, and thereby depriving other students who do need them 
from that access. So it is both the Federal and State programs and even 
the colleges' own programs which, combined, are leaving hundreds of 
thousands of worthy, meritorious, needy students behind.
  We are doing it on both ends of the education spectrum. As the 
Senator so well knows, we are setting ourselves up for a very 
unfortunate set of circumstances.
  If you ask the question: How does this country become richer, safer,

[[Page S1646]]

smarter, and stronger?--any list of answers that has any basis in 
evidence, fact, or logic will tell you, investing in education. We know 
investing in education increases the lifelong earnings of college 
graduates by $600,000. Every year of postsecondary education will 
provide between 5 to 15 percent more in annual earnings. Yet here we 
are closing the door to college education, basically telling a lot of 
kids who depend on loans, depend on grants, depend upon increasing 
student debt: I am sorry; you are not in our plans for the future.
  That is a terrible mistake for this country to make.
  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield on that point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think we had an agreement that the Senator from 
Florida was yielded my time so he can make an important statement about 
the Buccaneers.
  Mr. DODD. Who are the Buccaneers?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, in the midst of these deadly 
serious subjects that we are talking about, I want to bring a little 
bit of levity and a bright spot from an extraordinary football game 
that has now caused the world champions to have the sun especially 
shining brightly in the State of Florida and, in particular, in the 
Tampa Bay region.
  This resolution commends the Tampa Bay fans because they have been so 
faithful over the years. This is a miracle. It is a miracle that it has 
finally happened to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and, oh, do they deserve 
it--the most valuable player of the game, the best NFL defensive 
player, the best defensive record in the whole league, the quarterback 
himself being from Florida.
  I could go on and on. But just to cap off my statement of offering a 
little lightheartedness to an otherwise very serious day is to point 
out that I went to the junior Senator from California, as the junior 
Senator from Florida, to say: Is it worth it to you before the game to 
have a little friendly wager?
  We had a crate of Florida oranges versus a 25-pound box of California 
almonds. I said: Why don't you throw in a little Napa Valley chardonnay 
as well.
  I am going to be enjoying that. Our staff will be enjoying it, for 
the sake of all of our people in Florida who have a big smile on their 
face.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time controlled by the Senator from 
Massachusetts has expired. The next 20 minutes will be controlled by 
the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from California.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

                          ____________________