[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 44 (Thursday, April 1, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3596-S3597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   VOTING TO HELP THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I am troubled by some of the comments made 
earlier as we debated whether to continue with this bill before us. In 
particular, one of the leaders on the other side of the aisle is quoted 
in today's paper as saying--this a direct quote--``Why put our Members 
through the whole litany of Democratic political votes for no 
discernible gain?''
  I am amazed at the implication these amendments we in the Democratic 
caucus are trying in vain to have voted upon by the Senate are 
political votes. I am even more astonished it could be said they are 
for no discernible gain.
  For whose gain are we talking? Not, perhaps, for Republican Members 
of the Senate. But that is not the purpose of our amendments. These are 
amendments to benefit the American people.
  We are talking about extending unemployment benefits for the over 1.1 
million Americans who have exhausted those benefits since December of 
last year. The Children's Defense Fund, originators of the No Child 
Left Behind concept, are committed to seeing it carried out and have 
estimated 622,000 American children live in families whose parents have 
exhausted their unemployment benefits. They estimate each of those 
families loses an average of $1,100 a month in income when their 
unemployment benefits run out. It drives over a third of them below the 
poverty level. Over two-thirds of those families lose their health care 
coverage.
  No discernible gain from a vote on extending unemployment benefits? 
Perhaps not to the Republican caucus. But it would surely make a huge 
difference to 1.1 million American adults and their 622,000 children.
  No discernible gain to a vote on protecting overtime pay for some 8 
million Americans who stand to lose those benefits through the 
unilateral action of the Secretary of Labor? These are not idle 
political gestures. These are real decisions affecting the lives of 
millions of Americans.
  It may be inconvenient for some Members to vote on them, but that is 
our responsibility in this body.


                           Education Funding

  As another illustration of how these votes and these decisions really 
do affect people's lives, about a month ago we were holding rollcall 
votes regarding the budget resolution for the next fiscal year, and 
just about that same time the Secretary of Education was in my State of 
Minnesota, where he met with educators and with State officials, and 
with, evidently, some of the Members of the Minnesota congressional 
delegation on the other side of the aisle--I was not invited to either 
of those meetings, which seemed a shame since they were being billed as 
nonpolitical meetings, but, nevertheless, they did occur--and at that 
meeting--again, I was not invited, so I was not there--according to the 
reports of those who attended, the Secretary assured these Minnesota 
educators that No Child Left Behind is adequately funded.
  Well, there had been rumors that there were going to be cutbacks 
affecting Minnesota in the title I program, which is the major source 
of funds under the so-called No Child Left Behind. So the Minnesota 
educators were temporarily relieved by that, until just a few weeks 
later--scarcely a month later, in fact--when the actual title I 
allocations for the next fiscal year, 2005, became known.
  Lo and behold, Minnesota will experience a reduction of over $2.5 
million. Only two States in the Nation are going to experience cuts in 
title I funding from the year 2004 to the next year, 2005: 
Massachusetts and Minnesota.
  Now, I am not running for President or anything else, for that 
matter, this year, so I am shocked that Minnesota would be paired with 
Massachusetts as being the only two States to be cut back in title I 
dollars at the same time we are experiencing an increase in the 
children who are eligible for title I funding. As that reduction gets 
spread across our school districts, some of the consequences are very 
severe. Quite a number of districts will be taken off of title I 
funding whatsoever. They will not be able to serve any of the children 
in those school districts who are eligible, individually, for title I.
  One of the school districts, Anoka-Hennepin, is going to experience a 
40-percent reduction in funding for title I programs at the same time 
the number of children eligible for title I is going up.
  Now, how can we say that there is no child going to be left behind 
under this program, and that it is adequately funded, when a school 
district such as that is going to experience a 40-percent reduction in 
funding? How is it that two States in the Nation--Massachusetts and 
Minnesota--are going to see a reduction in funding while the overall 
program nationwide is going to receive a $1 billion increase?
  Why are we being punished? Why are we being penalized? Why are we 
being singled out for those reductions? Why does the Secretary of 
Education come to our State one month earlier and assure our educators 
that there is plenty of money, that these reductions are not going to 
take place, when either he did not know--in which case he was 
unbelievably ill-informed--or he knew and did not speak honestly to our 
educators? And either one of those I find enormously reprehensible.

[[Page S3597]]

  Mr. President, $2,727,000 is a huge loss in money for the 
disadvantaged children of the State of Minnesota, meaning that less 
than half--less than half--of all the children in my State who are 
eligible for title I funding are actually going to get services 
provided to them. And that is no child left behind? That is a fraud. 
That is adequate funding for No Child Left Behind? That is a lie. That 
is a lie.

  In this room I have heard it said several times: There is plenty of 
money for title I. There is plenty of money for No Child Left Behind. 
Not for Minnesota. We were underfunded before, and it is being cut back 
now. We are one of two States being cut. I ask the Secretary of 
Education: I want to know why. Come back to Minnesota, Mr. Secretary, 
now that you have the facts, evidently. Come back to Minnesota and meet 
with those educators and tell them why, why our money is being cut 
back.
  The chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee 
has stood on this floor--and I have had this debate with him; he is not 
here presently, but I look forward to that opportunity again in the 
future--saying there is additional money available to the States under 
No Child Left Behind. In fact, there is so much additional money that 
some States don't know what to do with it all.
  Well, I can see why that distinguished Senator made that statement, 
because in his home State, over the last 5 years, they have experienced 
a 44-percent increase in funding under title I. In this next year, they 
are going to receive an increase of almost the same $2.5 million which 
Minnesota is going to lose. They will receive an 8.1-percent increase 
in title I funding, whereas we will experience a reduction of over 
$2,727,000.
  So I guess for some States this is a good deal because they are 
getting more money. I am glad they are, if they have that additional 
need. But the State of Minnesota has the additional need, also. More 
children are coming in from all over the world; children who need 
English second-language skills; children who are without any education 
from countries that have been war ravaged for years; children coming 
from other States with educational achievement levels grades behind the 
students in Minnesota.
  We cannot offer the services they are entitled to under Federal law 
that existed before No Child Left Behind? We cannot offer the services 
that were promised to them and to us as a condition for voting in favor 
of No Child Left Behind? I voted against that, I will confess, as did 
my colleague at the time in the Senate. Maybe that is why Minnesota is 
being singled out and punished. I do not know. I do not understand why, 
except that I know the two Senators from Massachusetts--one is the 
ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, 
and he certainly made a commitment to this program at the time because 
he was assured there was going to be full funding; the other Senator, 
of course, is now the Democratic candidate for President of the United 
States. I find it really not coincidental that is one of the two States 
that is singled out to be cut back in funds.
  But I do not understand why Minnesota--why Minnesota--is suffering 
accordingly. It is wrong. It is wrong to be cutting back funds when you 
are saying to the American people that no child is going to be left 
behind and then you turn around and make that a lie. It is wrong. It is 
unfair to the State of Minnesota.
  Mr. Secretary of Education, you owe it to our State to come back and 
explain to our educators why it is that they are going to have to do 
more with less next year. Why is it that we are one of two States being 
cut back?
  I am deeply offended. On behalf of the people of Minnesota, I am 
enraged that we are being treated in this unfair way--and on behalf, 
most of all, of the children in the State of Minnesota who are not 
going to be receiving the special services to which they are entitled. 
We are going to force cutbacks in educational services affecting all of 
our schoolchildren. They are being left behind, Mr. Secretary. Mr. 
President, they are being left behind. What are you going to do about 
it?
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Maryland is recognized for up to 10 minutes.

                          ____________________