[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6017-6022]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to spend a couple of minutes, if I 
can, talking about the possibility of us debating and passing a 
comprehensive bill on elementary and secondary education. My hope is, 
of course, that in the coming days this body will do what it should 
have done 2 years ago; that is, to pass legislation, as we are required 
to do only once every 5 or 6 years, on elementary and secondary 
education.
  This morning across America 55 million children went to school. Fifty 
million went to school in a public school; 5 million went to school in 
a private or parochial school. We, as President Bush has said, bear a 
principal responsibility to the education of all our children, but a 
particular responsibility to children in our public schools, and even 
further, from a Federal standpoint, a particular obligation to the most 
disadvantaged children across America.
  That has been our historic participation, to try to assist our 
communities, our States, and most particularly families in this country 
who suffer from various depravations, to see to it that their children 
have an equal opportunity to success. We have no obligation, in my 
view, to guarantee anybody success in America. But we do bear 
responsibility to try to provide an equal opportunity to achieving 
success. That is all really any of us can try to accomplish in our 
public responsibilities.
  So the Elementary and Secondary Education Act historically over the 
years has been an effort by the Federal Government to assist and 
participate in the improvement of the quality of public education in 
the United States. For every dollar of education that is spent by our 
public sectors--State, local governments, and the Federal Government--
out of every dollar that is spent, the Federal Government spends about 
6 to 8 cents. And 93, 94 cents of the dollar spent on elementary and 
secondary education comes from local property taxes in most States. I 
do not know what Oklahoma does, but I know in Connecticut it is mostly 
a local property tax. The State also contributes, but primarily it is 
local property taxes. So the Federal Government's participation 
financially is rather small when you think of it. Out of a dollar 
spent, we contribute about 6 or 7 cents.
  I am not going to debate this point right now, or discuss this point, 
but I happen to believe in the 21st century the Federal Government 
ought to be a better partner financially. I would like to see us become 
someday a one-third partner--the States one-third, the local government 
one-third, and the National Government one-third. What a wonderful 
relief it would be--and I saw the Presiding Officer nod affirmatively 
when I spoke of property taxes in Oklahoma, as is the case in 
Connecticut--what a great relief it would be, putting aside education 
issues, if we could say to people in Oklahoma and Connecticut: We are 
going to reduce your

[[Page 6018]]

local property taxes by a third--that is where most of it goes, to 
education--because your Federal Government is going to step up and be a 
far greater participant in recognizing the national benefits we all 
accumulate if the quality of public education in this country improves. 
So that is what brings us to this particular point.
  There has been a lot of discussion about whether or not we have some 
agreements between the White House and the Senate on an Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act. There has been some progress. But we are 
light-years away from an agreement--light-years away from an agreement.
  I do not say that with any glee. I had hoped after 2 or 3 weeks of 
discussions we would be a lot closer. But reports I have read in the 
newspaper and heard in the press and heard from the White House, heard 
from some quarters here, that we are on the brink of some agreement, is 
very far from the truth. I think it is a sad commentary, but it happens 
to be a fact. Let me tell you why.
  First of all, we are asking schools to do some very dramatic things--
testing, for one.
  I am not terribly enthusiastic about testing as the only means of 
judging performance. Testing is really not a reform; it is a 
measurement of how well one does. That is all. As an educator in my 
State recently said: When children have a fever, taking their 
temperature three times an hour is not going to make them feel better; 
medicine will. Testing every year in and year out is inclined, in my 
view, to turn our schools into nothing more than test prep centers 
across America.
  Who is going to pay for that unfunded mandate if we jam that down the 
throats of communities across the country? I am very concerned with 
this mandatory testing idea as the only way to judge how students are 
performing.
  Many look to our schools as the source of the kids' problems when, in 
fact, in my view, the problems begin before the kids ever get to 
school. The problems too often are occurring at home. We do not want to 
look in the mirror and see what is happening in our own homes long 
before this child enters kindergarten or the first grade. We now blame 
child care centers. We blame the kindergarten teacher, the first, 
second, third, fourth, or fifth grade teacher because Johnny cannot 
read or Johnny is not performing well.
  As I said, too often the problems occur long before a child reaches 
school age or enters a child care center. We need to be a bit more 
realistic about what we can expect by testing kids all the time, at 
some significant cost, as a mandate.
  Accountability standards have been improved. I am willing to support 
some of those. These are the same accountability standards that have 
been developed, frankly, over the last few years. Jeff Bingaman, my 
colleague from New Mexico, has been the principal author of legislation 
to improve accountability standards that will get us closer to a better 
way of getting schools to live up to the obligations they bear for 
their students and families who send their children to these schools.
  Today's children are part of the first generation that is being 
raised in a truly global world. Nothing we do this year or in the 
coming years is more important than how we go about providing for our 
children's education. If we succeed in this endeavor, our country's 
future will be very bright. If we do not succeed, it is going to be 
bleak.
  With that in mind, I believe we have much work to do as we prepare to 
take up the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. If this debate 
turns out to be a feeding frenzy with literally dozens and dozens of 
amendments being proposed every 5 minutes, with Members having little 
knowledge of what they may do, we do not know what we are going to 
produce.
  Since we only deal with this once every 5 or 6 years, we ought to 
take some time and pull this together and come forward with a bill that 
truly recognizes and reflects bipartisanship, that includes the ideas 
of people who spend a lot of time thinking about how to improve the 
quality of education in our country, rather than one that is a jump 
ball that could end up doing a lot more damage despite the press 
releases and pats on the back we give ourselves on how we judge whether 
or not we have lived up to our obligations.
  The first issue we have to talk about candidly is the funding of 
these programs. If, as the President says, education is his top 
national priority--and I applaud him for that; this is what I call the 
hub of the wheel: education. If we get education right, then we 
increase dramatically the likelihood that every other issue will be 
dealt with intelligently, and we can build public support and come up 
with good answers.
  If, in a democratic society, our education system begins to crumble 
and fall apart, then our democratic institutions, in my view, begin to 
fall apart as well. Thomas Jefferson, 200 years ago, said that any 
nation that ever expects to be ignorant and free expects what never was 
and never possibly can be. If that was true at the outset of the 19th 
century, then it is even more profoundly true as we begin the 21st 
century.
  Our children will not just be competing with each other--a child in 
Oklahoma competing with a child in Connecticut or a child in Louisiana 
competing with a child in New Hampshire--it will be a child in Oklahoma 
and a child in Connecticut competing with a child in Beijing, Moscow, 
South Africa, Paris, Berlin, and Australia. That is the world in which 
they will have to be able to compete.
  What we do this year with elementary and secondary education will be 
how we begin the 21st century, giving this generation the tools it must 
have to succeed as a generation and to also perpetuate the vision and 
dream that each generation has embraced over our more-than-200-year 
history.
  Funding is important. I happen to believe if elementary and secondary 
education is the top priority, then it ought to be reflected in the 
funding. We know we need approximately $14 billion to meet the 6 or 7 
cents out of every dollar the U.S. Government contributes to elementary 
and secondary education.
  What resources will we devote to title I, the most important title of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the primary mechanism 
through which the Federal Government provides resources to help low-
income schools improve student achievement, resources to pay for more 
teachers, new computers, curricula, and other reforms?
  According to a study published this year:

       Whenever an inner city or poor rural school is found to be 
     achieving outstanding results with its students by improving 
     innovative strategies, these innovations are almost 
     invariably funded by title I.

  The President's budget provides for an additional $42 billion for all 
education programs over 10 years. That is approximately $4.2 billion a 
year out of a huge economy, and I will speak to that in a minute. At 
the same time, the President's budget includes a $1.6 trillion tax cut 
over that same 10-year period.
  Think about this. The President said: This is my top priority. He has 
only been in office about 100 days: This is my top priority. All during 
the campaign: This is my top priority; $4.2 billion a year versus $1.6 
trillion. The numbers speak louder than the rhetoric--much louder.
  By the way, under the President's tax proposal, approximately $680 
billion will go to people who earn more than $300,000 a year. Those are 
not my numbers; those are the President's numbers: $681 billion will be 
going to people who earn $300,000 or more a year. That is where the tax 
cuts go. It appears the President considers tax cuts for people making 
over $300,000 a year to be seven times more important than increased 
funding for education in America.
  I do not agree with those priorities. I do not think the President 
does, or at least he says he does not. And I know the American public 
does not either. In fact, 3 weeks ago, this party on a bipartisan basis 
showed it does not agree with those priorities either. That is why we 
supported the amendment of Senator Harkin from Iowa to decrease the tax 
cut by $450 million and devote

[[Page 6019]]

that amount equally to education and debt reduction. That is why we 
supported the amendment of Senator Breaux and Senator Jeffords to 
reduce the tax cut to provide funding for special education.
  I suspect Connecticut is not different from Oklahoma, Minnesota, or 
Louisiana. When I go home every week and meet with the mayors or first-
select people--forget about meeting with the superintendents of schools 
and the PTAs--I say: Tell me what you think are the top priorities. I 
am going back to Washington on Monday; what can I do to help?
  The answer is: Special education. You guys promised 40 percent of the 
cost of this. You mandated it basically. You said: We will come up with 
40 percent of the money for it. That was 25 years ago, and we have done 
about, at best, 11 percent. That money is not even included in the 
President's budget, although we force it down the throat of the 
administration.
  Special education is critically important. Contrary to what some in 
the administration say: we as a nation cannot afford the increased 
funding for education, the Democrats are saying we can afford it if we 
really believe it is a top priority.
  We are not talking about eliminating the tax cut. We are saying make 
a more modest tax cut and use some of those resources for making 
education the top priority that most people think it ought to be. I 
believe it is a priority to help children and communities by fully 
funding special education. I believe it should be a priority to provide 
children with afterschool programs to enrich their lives.
  I have been willing to go along with the accountability standards. 
Some testing may be fine. We will work that out. But I have asked the 
administration: How about school construction funds? That is something 
I really care about and I think a lot of parents do, too.
  Mr. President, 50 percent of our students this morning went to school 
in a building built prior to 1950. Think of that: 50 percent of our 
elementary and secondary kids walked into a building that was built 
prior to 1950.
  How about some resources for new school construction, wired to 
compete in a global economy, to have access to the great libraries and 
institutions all over the world? A kid who walks into a falling-apart 
building is going to get a falling-apart education. That is not any 
great leap of logic; that is a fact.
  How about some resources for new school construction? How about the 
White House saying: We will go along with you on that? I say: You want 
me to support some of your ideas that I think are questionable at best. 
How about supporting my ideas and those of us who advocate funds for 
school construction.
  Smaller class sizes: This should not take more than 5 minutes of 
debate. If a teacher is in a classroom and has more than 20 kids they 
are not teaching; all they are doing is managing chaos in most 
instances. The teacher cannot teach; the kids cannot learn. That is not 
a leap of logic; that is a fact. Every parent knows it; every teacher 
knows it. We do not need to do any studies; what we need is some 
resources to help poor communities across the country and others to 
come up with some resources so they can reduce class size and attract 
good people to the teaching profession.
  We talk about the administration that says we want to test teachers 
every year or every 2 years. I wonder, if I said we are going to test 
all lawyers every 2 years or test all doctors every 2 years--how about 
testing every Senator for 2 years? What other profession do we mandate 
at the Federal level we are going to require testing every year?
  If the administration tries to write that into the bill, I will not 
vote for it under any circumstance. That is punitive. It doesn't 
accomplish anything. It only creates great divisions within this 
country. It isolated the teaching profession.
  There are ways of determining whether or not teachers are doing a 
good job. A lot of the States are doing a good job in making those 
evaluations. Test the new ones coming in and decide whether or not they 
can teach at all and use some of the creative methods developed to 
determine whether or not teachers are up to the job. This rush to test 
everybody, every year, is not a model of form.
  We have asked for $14 billion, an increase of the elementary and 
secondary education authorization. I don't think that is too much. I 
don't think it is too much to demand in the context of a $1.6 trillion 
tax cut. I know many colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree with 
me. That is why I will offer an amendment with Senator Collins of Maine 
to authorize full funding for title I grants to schools over the next 
10 years. Congress must go on record in making that, not a tax cut for 
the wealthy, a top national priority. That is why this education bill 
must include class size reduction funds. No one questions that smaller 
class sizes and better teachers result in better student achievement. 
That is why this education bill must include school construction funds.
  According to the GAO, the problem of inadequate, unsafe school 
facilities is a $112 million problem. The average school student goes 
to a school built around the 1950s. There are issues far from being 
resolved. They are not being discussed in these negotiations. Come out 
to the floor, offer your amendment, and see what happens. You accept 
all of our provisions and we will have a jump ball over yours.
  What happened to bipartisanship? How many times did I hear we would 
work things out? It is 50/50 here, almost 50/50 in the House. I heard 
the President say over and over again: I want to work in a bipartisan 
fashion. Bipartisanship means you take my ideas and we will see what 
happens to yours? That may be enough for some people; it is not enough 
for me.
  This bill will not be voted on again for 5 or 6 years. For many, this 
may be the last time we get to express how public education at the 
elementary and secondary schools across the country ought to be dealt 
with.
  We took 2 weeks on campaign finance reform. We took 2 weeks last year 
to name the Ronald Reagan National Airport. We can take a few weeks to 
try to get this right. The American people expect nothing less. I 
remember the days, not that many years ago, when an elementary and 
secondary education bill passed this Chamber by votes of 92-6, 96-4. 
Today we ought to try to achieve the same results and to truly work to 
include these provisions which are necessary.
  Democrats support real increases in proven programs. Yet the 
President, who says education is his top priority, would provide 
inadequate increases, $4.2 billion each year over the next 10 years, in 
a budget where he advocates a $1.6 trillion tax cut.
  We can do better than that. I know our colleagues agree with that 
conclusion. That is why this education bill must include construction 
funds, include class size reforms.
  We have to speak with a clear voice and build consensus. We are not 
there yet. In my view, we ought to be. But we are a long way from 
achieving the kind of consensus that those who have been out there 
suggest we are on the brink of; we are not. We may have to take some 
time before this is resolved.
  I intend to be heard on these matters. I don't want to see a bill 
come up which will turn into a mess out here that allows these ideas to 
go down the drain and the President claiming a bipartisan achievement 
because a few Democrats go along with something that isn't adequately 
funded, doesn't provide for the true reforms that are needed, and we 
end up doing some real damage to kids, and then build a consensus that 
our public schools have failed for this country and you have to walk 
away from it. That is my fear of what will happen down the road and we 
will look back to these days and rue the fact we didn't try to come 
together with a truly compromised bill that reflected the attitudes of 
all people in this Chamber and particularly the values and aspirations 
of the people we represent.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I rise to add my voice to my distinguished colleague

[[Page 6020]]

from Connecticut and to thank him for his outstanding leadership. 
Senator Dodd and my staff have been enthusiastically involved in this 
particular debate. As a member of the committee, he has been a 
tremendous voice for education reform. I acknowledge the work Senator 
Dodd has done with many of our colleagues on this issue and to say how 
much I agree with all of the points he has raised. I will join with him 
in as many hours as it takes through this week and the next week to try 
to bring some of these points home to our constituents and to the 
country at large.
  I thank the Senator again for continuing to keep Senators focused on 
not only the increases in investments that we need in education but the 
targets of those investments to reach the children who need the most 
help, whether in Connecticut, Louisiana, Oklahoma, or other States, for 
whom we are fighting. I thank the Senator for that.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague, and I admire her work. She has been 
at these issues for a long number of years both in her home in 
Louisiana before she arrived in the Senate and as a Member of this 
body.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Let me follow up by making a few points. The President 
is right about one thing. That is, simply throwing more money at the 
problems facing our educational system in America will do little to 
create the type of reform necessary to move America forward in the new 
global economy.
  However, conversely what is true, passing new mandates and new 
accountability and new standards and new goals for our students and our 
teachers and our communities, without that important and strategic and 
significant new investment in education, is a hollow and an empty 
promise.
  I call attention to a wonderful ad that caught my attention a couple 
of weeks ago. It was put out by the Business Leader Council. We do a 
lot of talking in this Chamber about budgets, taxes, futures trading, 
commodities trading, and economic issues.
  With my compliments to the Business Roundtable, this is the ad they 
ran. It said under the picture of the bright-eyed optimistic and 
hopeful children:

       Our Nation's classrooms are America's true futures market, 
     where a commitment today will yield individual and national 
     prosperity tomorrow.

  Let me repeat that:

       Our Nation's classrooms are America's true futures market, 
     where a commitment today--

  Not next year, not 5 years from now, but a commitment today--

     will yield individual and national prosperity tomorrow.

  I hope my colleagues can see the faces of these children. What jumped 
out at me from the picture is the hopefulness in these children's eyes. 
They look like children in every classroom in Louisiana, with smiles on 
their faces, with hands in the air, anxious to answer questions 
presented by their teachers, with hope and optimism for the future.
  The debate we will have in this Chamber and with our colleagues in 
the House will determine whether these children walk away with supplies 
or whether they walk away with heads hung, shoulders stooped down, 
opportunities taken from them because we have made the wrong decisions 
on this floor.
  That is what this debate is about. This budget is not just about 
numbers. It is not just about hard, cold facts. It is not just about 
statistics. It is about hearts, minds, souls, and opportunities for our 
children and for our families and for this country. I am afraid if we 
don't come to terms and make the best decisions we can, and good 
decisions this week, these children and millions and millions like 
them, and their parents, are going to be sorely disappointed.
  Let me try to explain. One of the major debates we are preparing for 
is what kind of investment in education should we be making. The 
President has recommended what might seem to be a lot of money. When we 
talk about billions and hundreds of millions of dollars, those are 
large figures and people's eyes tend to glaze over because that sounds 
like a lot of money. We are debating an underlying bill, a 
reauthorization of elementary and secondary education, that is going to 
fundamentally change the way the Federal Government helps local and 
State government.
  We are saying, instead of just sending you money and crossing our 
fingers and hoping for results, we are now going to tie the resources 
in a real and meaningful way. When we give you these moneys, we are 
going to expect real performance, real excellence, and there are going 
to be real consequences for failure. Schools may have to be 
reconstructed, reorganized; principals and teachers may need to be 
removed and we may need to have a new leadership team come in. Students 
are to be tested not once every few years but every year. Teachers are 
going to be held to higher standards because we believe in excellence. 
We do not want to leave any child behind, and we want to make sure 
that, whether you are in a poor rural area or a poor urban area or in a 
wealthy urban area or wealthy rural area, that you have a chance, as a 
child, to get an excellent education.
  We are also going to give local officials more flexibility. We are 
not going to micromanage from Washington any longer. We are not going 
to specifically mandate that you have to cross every t and dot every i. 
We are going to be less focused on compliance and more focused on 
performance.
  I agree with the President that all of those things are important and 
that we should change the way Washington funds our elementary and 
secondary education system. But doing that and yet not providing the 
money at a high level for our schools to be able to do that is an 
empty, hollow promise to our children and an unfunded mandate of 
gigantic proportions to our local governments and to our States.
  It would not be right. It is not what the American people want. It is 
not what we should do. That is what this debate is about. Yes, we want 
reform, but we must have the significant, historic, huge investments 
necessary to make those reforms work.
  Let me say to those who might say money doesn't matter--yes, it does. 
Testing costs money. Improving teacher quality costs money. Fixing 
leaky roofs costs money. Buying textbooks and computers and training 
teachers and students costs money. You cannot just wish it. We can be 
more efficient. We can spend our money more wisely. But in this year, 
in 2001, as we begin this new century, it has to be a combination of 
new reforms and new investments.
  Let me share some interesting poll numbers that came out because 
people might say: Senator, you feel this way, but does anybody else 
feel this way? Senator Dodd feels this way, but does anyone else?
  This is a Washington Post poll issued today. The question was very 
basic. It says, Is the Federal Government spending too much, about 
right, or too little for education? Mr. President, 60 percent of the 
public says we are spending too little; 60 percent of Americans are 
saying we are spending too little at the Federal level for education. 
Only about 24 percent say ``about right'' and 8 percent say ``too 
much.'' So 60 percent of Americans.
  When we talk about at the State level, Is your State government 
spending enough on education? Mr. President, 61 percent say the State 
governments are spending too little on education. At the local level 
you can see that number drops fairly significantly because we are 
paying a greater portion at the local level.
  This chart indicates to me that at the State level, but particularly 
at the Federal level, people across the board--and I think this was 
across regions and economic income levels--suggest our current 
investment level is not sufficient to meet the challenges.
  Let me also share with you, from the same poll, a question: Which is 
more important to you, holding down the size of government, providing 
needed services, or both?
  Mr. President, 31 percent said ``holding down the size of 
government,'' 62 percent, ``providing needed services.'' Does that mean 
the American public

[[Page 6021]]

supports sort of a runaway government? Obviously not. But do they 
support a government that has efficient programs and effective programs 
and also makes investments in areas that matter to them--education 
being one of them? Absolutely.
  Let me show you the second chart that shows what their priorities 
are. This is what the American people said in the same poll. If given 
the chance, how would you spend your money and what are some of your 
most important concerns? Education is at the top of the chart, 47 
percent. The next closest is 34 percent, Social Security and Medicare, 
making sure the resources are there to provide for Social Security and 
strengthen it, and provide, hopefully, for reforms in the Medicare 
system, and an expansion for prescription drugs. Health care is 
important also, at 29 percent.
  I want to focus on this area--education. The President, when he was 
running for President, said it over and over again: Let's not leave any 
child behind. I agree with him. Many, many people in this Chamber, both 
on the Republican and Democratic side, do. But that is just a slogan 
unless it is backed up with real dollars that actually move children 
forward, that give them hope, that fulfill a promise for life to help 
them develop their skills and their abilities.
  Again the Business Roundtable said:

       Our Nation's classrooms are America's true futures market--
     where a commitment today will yield individual and national 
     prosperity tomorrow.

  Let me share, for the record, a specific example from one of 
Louisiana's industries, Avondale Industries. It is one of the largest 
employers in Louisiana, an industry that I certainly try to help and 
support, that is building some of the finest ships for our commercial 
shippers as well as our national defense. It does a magnificent job, 
let me add. They are now part of the Northrop Grumman Corporation, 
which is one of the five remaining facilities left in this whole 
country capable of building large combat vessels.
  My staff called them and asked them if they could send us some 
applications for jobs that they might periodically put out to try to 
hire some of the individuals necessary for this work. These positions 
range from electrical engineer to data entry clerk. But the one 
requirement that comes through in all of these applications is that a 
high school diploma is necessary. What that translates to is really an 
11th or 12th grade proficiency in math. Many of these jobs are related 
to calculations, to making analytical decisions based on plans and 
graphs, as you can imagine.
  Right now in our Nation, according to the latest data, only 30 
percent of our eighth graders are functioning at the proficient level 
in math. Here is an industry in my State that could employ thousands of 
individuals, that puts out applications daily for a variety of 
different jobs. The minimum requirement is a high school education. 
Part of that is functioning just at the proficient level--not 
outstanding, not the top 1 percent in the Nation, just at the 
proficiency level for math.
  I have to stand here as a Senator and look these industry people in 
the eye and tell them that we can only create a school system that can, 
at best, give them 30 percent of the eighth graders who can fill out 
the application. This is not going to work. It is not going to work for 
Louisiana. It is not going to work for Connecticut. It is not going to 
work for New York. It is simply not going to work. And a budget that 
does not fund more science teachers, more math teachers, makes a real 
investment to give those kids an opportunity, is not going to help 
them, their families, or Avondale.
  I know the last administration asked me--it was a hard vote and I did 
it--to vote for 50,000 H-1B visas to bring in people from outside this 
Nation to fill jobs because we were not able to find people in America 
to take these jobs. I cast that vote, but I will tell you I thought 
about that vote, because when I cast that vote it allowed high-tech 
industries and some industries such as Louisiana's shipbuilders to be 
able to hire people from other nations.
  I go home and drive through neighborhoods, walk through communities, 
sit and talk to young people who have been left out because we have not 
provided them the kind of education they need. They have to step aside 
and watch someone from another country walk past their door, fill out 
the application, and take the job that they could have had if we had 
had a school system that could have given them the education necessary 
for the job.
  That is a tough thing for a Senator to have to do because I do not 
represent any other country; I represent the United States, and I 
represent Louisiana. I represent cities and communities where there are 
thousands of people who cannot pass 11th grade math because we will not 
put the resources and the money where they need to be to give them the 
chance. Are they willing? Yes. But we have not done what we need to do.
  So my message to the President and to my colleagues is, let's do it 
while we can. Perhaps when we were running terrible deficits and 
running up large, large bills, you could say: Look, we would love to do 
it but we simply can't afford it. We are running huge deficits. We 
can't keep spending money we don't have. Money doesn't grow on trees. 
We can't tax people any more. So I am all for that and when we have to 
cut back, let's do it.
  But now that we have a historic and significant surplus, now I am 
listening to people say: We have the surplus; we have the money; it is 
sitting there in the bank, but we don't want to spend it on these 
children. We don't want to spend it on them. They are not our future. 
We want to give a huge tax cut, and we don't want to make any 
investments in education.
  I am not talking about the same kind of investments for the same 
mediocre results. We can't keep doing it 3 or 4 or 5 percent a year, 
which is what the President is recommending, and think we are going to 
get a 50-percent increase in results. It doesn't work that way.
  We have to make an extraordinary commitment now and put our money 
where our mouth is to reach the children that we need to reach through 
our schools. Yes, reform our schools with strong accountability 
standards mat
ched with a true investment and targeted to the kids who need it the 
most.
  We do a great job sometimes in Washington inventing new programs, and 
everything sounds great. And every year we invent about five, six, or 
seven more programs. We need to get back to the basics and fund through 
elementary and secondary education a significant amount, if not 
tripling the amount of money, for title I--flexible grants that go to 
places in Louisiana, New York, Connecticut, Alabama, New Mexico, or 
where the communities can't raise the tax dollars because they are 
relatively poor or have a limited capacity.
  The Federal Government can honestly stand up and say, whether you are 
little girls in Oregon or you were born into a poor, rural area or a 
poor urban area, it doesn't matter because we have a system at the 
Federal level that ensures, because of the way we fund education, that 
the school you go to will help you pass and exceed that proficiency in 
math so that you can get a job and we don't have to import someone from 
another country to take the job while you collect welfare or while you 
have to live on food stamps or while you tell your children they cannot 
ever live in a home of their own because you can't bring home a 
paycheck enough for you to be able to live in a home of your own.
  I am not going to say that as a Senator because the money is in the 
bank. The question is, Are we going to write the check for the kids who 
need it or to our schools, or are we going to squander the surplus and 
not make the investments that we need?
  I will come to the floor every single day this week and next week, as 
long as it takes, because I know as a Senator from Louisiana, 
particularly, my State's future rests in large measure on how our 
schools can function so that every child in every part of our State can 
get the quality education that in some small way perhaps will make up 
for what they do not always get in their homes.

[[Page 6022]]

  I don't know what kind of miracle schools can achieve. I know schools 
can't do it without the parents. I know there is a limit to what 
schools can contribute to a child if they are not getting that support 
at home. But I am tired of making excuses and hearing excuses such as 
this kid can't learn because this child only has one parent or this 
child can't learn because this child is poor or this child can't learn 
because this child is a special education student.
  I am here to tell you that every child can learn, but it takes a good 
system and good investments from the Federal Government, the State 
government, and the local government working in partnership with 
parents.
  I am about fed up with the excuses because I want to support trade 
and globalization, and I want our businesses to have the workers they 
need. I have to fight for children to have the opportunity. I urge our 
President to please work with us. Work with the Democrats. We don't 
want to waste money. We want to make a significant investment in 
education, coupled with accountability, new standards and exciting 
possibilities for our Nation. I most certainly want to work with him. I 
believe we can make a real difference in Louisiana and Texas and many 
places throughout our Nation.
  In conclusion, I refer to the vision of Lyndon Baines Johnson when we 
created the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--a vision that would 
make the dream of a quality education a reality for all children 
regardless of their race, their socioeconomic status, or their gender. 
This is what America is about. It is about opportunities.
  In many ways, while education begins at home, it is most certainly 
enhanced at the school level. We are shortchanging ourselves, 
shortchanging our children, and shortchanging our future to do anything 
less.
  I will end saying, again, I am going to be down here every day until 
we complete this debate, urging my colleagues to push hard for a 
significant investment and targeting that investment to the schools and 
communities that need the most help, and also helping all of our 
districts to achieve success in educational excellence.
  I yield any remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before my colleague from Louisiana leaves 
the floor, I thank her so much for saying what the issue before us 
really is. We all agree that we need to make children our No. 1 
priority. We all agree that there are things in our schools that need 
to be improved, and we need to, frankly, underscore the things that are 
working. We don't want to leave any child behind. That is President 
Bush's comment.
  When we get the chance to have an education bill brought here with 
our friends, Senator Kennedy, Senator Jeffords, and others, we want to 
make sure it is not just an empty promise. I think she has fleshed this 
out. I thank her very much.
  In California, we test every year. It is not a big deal. We have that 
reform in place. But if you test them and find they are failing and you 
don't have anything in place to help them after school or during school 
to give them the smaller class sizes, to give them a facility that 
feels good, looks good, and is safe for them, they are not going to 
improve.
  When this education bill comes up, I predict that the Senate will 
take that Bush bill and change it dramatically in terms of the 
resources we put behind the rhetoric. There are two R's. Usually they 
say there are three R's. But there is rhetoric here, then there is 
requirement. Those are the two R's. The rhetoric is fine. Let's get the 
requirements in there so that we can meet the needs of our children. 
There is a third R--results. That is what we want to do.
  How much time do I have? Is there a limit on time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 10 minutes 
per speaker, and the Democrats have 40 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would like to know when I have 1 minute remaining of my 
10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will notify the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________