[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 55 (Tuesday, April 27, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4386-S4387]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wish to talk this morning about the 
ambitious education reforms the President signed into law just 2 years 
ago. We all recall 2 years ago when President Bush signed the No Child 
Left Behind Act. We also know it requires States to set high standards 
for all students and place a well-qualified teacher in every classroom 
and holds schools responsible for results. In exchange, it promises 
schools they will have the resources to meet the new standards and to 
make the law work.
  When the President signed it, No Child Left Behind enjoyed 
overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. It also had strong public 
support. Unfortunately, when implementing the law, the administration 
has often acted in a heavy-handed manner, and it has failed to provide 
schools the resources they need to make sure every child is given the 
opportunity to learn. As a result, there is now a growing backlash 
against No Child Left Behind.
  This is not a partisan issue. A good deal of criticism is coming from 
Republican lawmakers. In Utah, the Republican-controlled House of 
Representatives voted 64 to 8 not to comply with any requirements in 
the No Child Left Behind Act that are not paid for by the Federal 
Government. In Virginia, the Republican-controlled House of Delegates 
voted 98 to 1 to ask Congress to exempt it from the new law. According 
to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 23 States have now 
lodged formal complaints against No Child Left Behind.
  One reason for the erosion of support is the initial difficulty many 
school districts had getting answers from the Department of Education 
on how the law would work. It took the Department a long time to issue 
its regulations, and when the rules were finally announced, many 
educators considered them overly rigid.
  Fortunately, the administration has begun to address some of these 
concerns. In recent months, the Department of Education has announced 
changes in the testing requirements for students with serious 
disabilities and for children who speak English as a second language. 
It has announced it is giving schools more leeway to meet the 
requirement that 95 percent of all students be tested.
  Last month, the Department announced it is giving States more 
flexibility to determine when a teacher is highly qualified. In 
addition, it announced it is giving teachers in rural school districts 
an extra year, until 2007, to show they are qualified in all of their 
subjects.
  These are all important changes. The extra year for teachers in rural 
districts to meet the new standards is especially important to rural 
States such as mine which have a harder time attracting and keeping 
good teachers. I commend the administration for its newfound 
willingness to try to address some of the real problems.
  None of us who voted for No Child Left Behind ever intended for the 
Federal Government to dictate to local communities exactly what they 
should teach their children and how they should test them. It was never 
the intention of Congress to strangle local decisionmaking and 
creativity with Federal redtape.
  It is important the Department of Education continue to listen. It is 
counterproductive when the education Secretary labels as ``terrorists'' 
people who raise questions about the way the law is being implemented.
  It may be, and certainly in this case if it is going to be 
successful, that No Child Left Behind requires something we have not 
seen enough of: a committed partnership. It is the most comprehensive 
overhaul of our Nation's education laws in a generation. Making 
adjustments is not admitting defeat; it is a necessary part of making 
this ambitious law work. But some of the most serious concerns being 
expressed about No Child Left Behind cannot be fixed simply by 
rewriting legislation or the regulations.
  Since he signed No Child Left Behind into law, President Bush sent 
Congress three proposed budgets. When you add all three of his budget 
proposals together, the President has recommended underfunding No Child 
Left Behind by a staggering $26.5 billion.
  The President's proposed budget for next year contains $9.4 billion 
less for the act than the law promises. More than $7 billion of that 
shortfall is in title I, the very program that is most critical to 
closing the achievement gap for minority students, poor children, and 
children who do not speak English. The President's education budget 
does not leave no child behind; it leaves 4.6 million children behind. 
The alternative budget proposed by our Republican colleagues in the 
Senate is much better. It underfunds No Child Left Behind by $8.6 
billion.
  The reason we are underfunding education is clear: The administration 
and congressional leadership would rather take more of these resources 
for tax breaks to the very wealthy than keep the promise we made when 
we passed No Child Left Behind.
  The repeated refusal to adequately fund education is hurting schools 
and not just in big cities.
  In my State, schools in small towns and rural communities are 
stretched

[[Page S4387]]

thin because of their shrinking tax bases and high transportation and 
other costs. They cannot afford any more unfunded mandates from 
Washington.
  They need help attracting and keeping good teachers.
  They need help to keep up with advances in technology.
  I talk to teachers and principals in South Dakota all the time who 
tell me, ``We're not afraid of accountability. We welcome high 
standards; we know we can meet them. Please, just don't set us up to 
fail.''
  Last month, during the Senate debate on the budget resolution, we 
offered an amendment sponsored by Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Patty 
Murray to fully fund No Child Left Behind. Our amendment would have 
provided exactly what Democrats and Republicans agreed was needed to 
make the law work when we passed it 2 years ago.
  Regrettably, Republicans defeated our amendment.
  But this is not over. There are still months to go before Congress 
passes a final budget. At every opportunity, we are going to continue 
to press for full funding of No Child Left Behind. We will also press 
for the Federal Government to honor its commitment to shoulder 40 
percent of the cost of special education.
  Accountability in education is essential. But accountability has to 
work both ways. Congress cannot pass the most sweeping education 
reforms in a generation and then refuse, year after year, to pay for 
them. The reforms in No Child Left Behind are the right reforms for our 
children's schools. But they will not work if we refuse to fund them.
  I recently received a letter from an elementary-school student in 
South Dakota. Because of budget shortfalls, her school district is 
considering merging with another district.
  She wrote, ``Even though we are just two small towns in South Dakota, 
the Burke school means very much to me.''
  Then she added, ``I know that NASA is trying to help mankind, but 
right now, my school needs that $3 trillion more! . . . I'm in the 
fifth grade. . . . The school means very much to me, so please HURRY.''
  Budgets are statements of our priorities and values.
  Before we vote to spend trillions of dollars to make permanent the 
President's tax breaks for the very wealthiest Americans, and before we 
spend hundreds of billions more to send a person to Mars, we need to 
fund our children's schools.
  In his first budget address to Congress, President Bush said, ``The 
highest percentage increase in our budget should go to our children's 
education.'' Yet, the President's proposed budget for next year 
includes the smallest increase for education in 9 years.
  We must restore the broad, bipartisan support for No Child Left 
Behind that existed 2 years ago. To do that, we must fund the law.
  The Federal Government needs to keep its end of the agreement. Words 
alone are not enough. Real reform requires real resources.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. How much time remains for morning business on our side?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Thirty-two minutes.

                          ____________________