[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1325-1327]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  STATEMENTS ON SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

SENATE RESOLUTION 22--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE 
         IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001

  Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Conrad) submitted the following 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions:

                               S. Res. 22

       Whereas all students, no matter where they live, should 
     receive the highest quality education possible, and Congress 
     and the President enacted the No Child Left Behind Act of 
     2001 (Public Law 107-110) to ensure high academic standards 
     and the tools and resources to meet those standards;
       Whereas the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 imposes many 
     new requirements and challenges for States, school districts, 
     and individual educators;
       Whereas many States and school districts are struggling to 
     understand the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act 
     of 2001, even as additional regulations and guidance continue 
     to be forthcoming from the Department of Education;
       Whereas the small size, remoteness, and lack of resources 
     of many rural schools pose potential additional problems in 
     implementing the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001;
       Whereas many rural schools and school districts have very 
     small numbers of students, such that the performance of a few 
     students on the assessments required by the No Child Left 
     Behind Act of 2001 can determine the progress or lack of 
     progress of that school or school district;
       Whereas the small number of students in many rural schools 
     can make the disaggregation of testing results difficult and 
     even statistically unreliable;
       Whereas some of the options created for students attending 
     failing schools, including the choice to attend another 
     public school and the availability of supplemental tutoring 
     services, simply may not be available in rural areas or may 
     be prohibitively expensive due to the cost of transportation 
     over long distances;
       Whereas many rural schools already have shortages of 
     teachers in key subject areas, rural teachers frequently 
     teach in multiple subject areas, and rural teachers tend to 
     be older, and lower paid than their urban counterparts;
       Whereas many experienced teachers and paraprofessionals in 
     rural schools may not meet the definition of ``highly 
     qualified'' in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and rural 
     school districts will have difficulty competing with large 
     school districts in recruiting and retaining quality 
     teachers;
       Whereas the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 imposes many 
     new requirements on schools and school districts, but the 
     President's budget request for fiscal year 2003 does not 
     provide the level of funding needed and authorized to meet 
     those requirements and in fact cuts funding by $90,000,000 
     for programs contained in the No Child Left Behind Act of 
     2001; and
       Whereas a majority of the States are being forced to cut 
     budgets and local governments are also struggling with 
     revenue shortfalls that make it difficult to provide the 
     increased resources necessary to implement the No Child Left 
     Behind Act of 2001 in the absence of adequate federal 
     funding: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That--
       (1) the Secretary of Education should provide the maximum 
     flexibility possible in assisting predominantly rural States 
     and school districts in meeting the unique challenges 
     presented to them by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 
     (Public Law 107-110);
       (2) the President should, in his fiscal year 2004 budget 
     request, request the full levels of funding authorized under 
     the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 for all programs, 
     including the Rural Education Achievement Program (20 U.S.C. 
     7341 et seq.); and
       (3) it is the sense of the Senate that, if the President 
     does not request and Congress does not provide full funding 
     for the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 in fiscal year 2004, 
     Congress should suspend the enforcement of the implementation 
     of the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 
     until full funding is provided.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today, I am submitting a Sense of the 
Senate Resolution that expresses my concerns about the implementation 
of the No Child Left Behind Act.
  I supported this law when it was passed by the Senate with 
overwhelming bipartisan support, and I still support it. In general, I 
think it is very appropriate and important for us as a Nation to demand 
very high standards of performance from our schools and to identify 
those schools that should be doing better and give them the assistance 
they need to improve.

[[Page 1326]]

  Having said that, I do have concerns that a lack of adequate funding 
and a potential lack of flexibility in the implementation of this new 
law could set out public schools up for failure, and that is wrong. All 
of us have an obligation, as parents, educators, concerned citizens, 
and policymakers, to get the implementation of this law right.
  Nationwide, about 25 percent of public schools are rural. In North 
Dakota,
fully 89 percent of our public school districts are rural. The No Child 
Left Behind Act imposes many new requirements that will be challenging 
for all States and schools to meet. However, rural school districts 
face unique challenges that are compounded by the small size, 
remoteness, and lack of resources facing many rural schools.
  Rural educators in my State have pointed out a number of unique 
concerns facing them. For example, many rural school districts in North 
Dakota have very small numbers of students. The poor performance of 
just a few students on the tests required by the No Child Left Behind 
Act could result in a school being identified as needing improvement, 
even when most of the students are performing very well.
  In addition, some of the options created under the No Child Left 
Behind Act for students attending schools identified for improvement 
simply may not be available in rural areas. For instance, most of the 
school districts in my State only include one school, so another public 
school choice is not an option. Likewise, the distance to the next 
nearest school district may be impractical or the cost of 
transportation may be prohibitively expensive. Similar concerns exist 
with the availability of supplemental tutoring services.
  Many rural schools already have shortages of teachers in key subject 
areas, even though rural instructors frequently tech in multiple 
subject areas. Some of the experienced teachers and paraprofessionals 
in rural schools may not meet the new ``highly qualified'' requirements 
of the No Child Left Behind Act, and it will be very difficult for 
rural school districts to complete with large school districts in 
recruiting and retaining quality teachers.
  I believe the No Child Left Behind Law provides States with the 
flexibility that is needed to address these and other concerns, if the 
Department of Education allows States to use that flexibility and the 
States take advantage of it. As President Bush himself said last week, 
``One size doesn't fit all when it comes to public education.''
  Of course, the other ingredient that is needed is funding. Even with 
the necessary flexibility, if schools do not have the resources to make 
needed reforms, they will not be able to improve.
  When the Congress and the President last year reached bipartisan 
agreement on the No Child Left Behind Act, we agreed on the levels of 
funding that would be necessary to meet the new expectations and 
requirements. That law authorizes $31 billion for the No Child Left 
Behind Act in fiscal year 2003, a $9 billion increase over the fiscal 
year 2002 level.
  Unfortuantely, barely a month after this legislation was signed into 
law, the President sent to Congress a budget that no only did not fully 
fund the increases in the No Child Left Behind Act, it actually cut 
funding by $90 million.
  One cut of particular concern to me is the President's proposal to 
eliminate funding for the Rural Education Achievement Program, REAP, 
which was funded in fiscal year 2002 at $162.5 million. REAP funding is 
particularly important because it is targeted at small, rural districts 
that do not receive large enough amounts of money through the 
individual federal formula ``title programs'' to make substantive 
changes or investments. In addition, because small rural districts 
often lack the administrative staff to apply for competitive grants 
from the State and Federal level, they receive a smaller proportion of 
federal dollars then their suburban or urban counterparts.
  For many rural school districts, REAP will mean an additional $20,000 
to $60,000 in new funding that will help them to meet the challenges of 
implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. While this may not seem like 
much funding to an urban or suburban district, to a small rural 
district it makes a real impact.
  As Congress completes work on the fiscal year 2003 Education 
appropriations bill, I hope we will provide the $31 billion authorized 
in No Child Left Behind. I understand that Senator Harkin plans to 
offer an amendment to bring the funding level up to the authorized 
amount. Given that the No Child Left Behind Act was passed by the 
Senate by an 87-10 vote, I would hope and expect that Senator Harkin's 
amendment would receive similarly strong bipartisan support.
  However, my Sense of the Senate resolution also calls on President 
Bush to request the authorized level of funding of $34 billion in his 
fiscal year 2004 budget he will send to Congress next month, and it 
calls on Congress to appropriate that level of funding in fiscal year 
2004.
  If full funding is not provided in fiscal year 2004, my resolution 
expresses the ``Sense of the Senate'' that enforcement of the No Child 
Left Behind Act should be suspended. A moratorium on enforcement is not 
my preference. Our children would be much better off if Congress and 
the President simply lived up to their commitment to provide the level 
of funding and flexibility needed to implement this law correctly. That 
should be our goal.
  However, without this funding, we are simply imposing an enormous 
``unfunded mandate'' on states and local school districts. The reality 
is that the budget crises facing just about every state and local 
government make it virtually impossible for states and local 
governments to make up for the lack of resources from the federal 
government.
  Fundamentally, this can be a good law, and I think it would be a 
shame, and irresponsible to our children, if it cannot be implemented 
properly because Congress did not provide the resources it said it 
would.
                                 ______
                                 

SENATE RESOLUTION 23--SUPPORTING A DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT 
 OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT RELATING TO THE ADMISSIONS POLICY OF 
                       THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

  Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Graham of Florida) submitted the 
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary:

                               S. Res. 23

       Whereas racial and ethnic diversity has far-reaching 
     benefits for all students, nonminorities and minorities 
     alike;
       Whereas racial and ethnic diversity increases the range of 
     ideas and perspectives raised in the classroom, generates 
     complex thinking, and prepares students to become 
     participants in a pluralistic democratic society;
       Whereas racial and ethnic diversity has a positive effect 
     on students' intellectual and personal development because 
     such diversity causes students to challenge stereotypes, 
     broaden perspectives, and sharpen critical thinking skills;
       Whereas a study done in 2000 by the American College on 
     Education and the American Association of University 
     Professors found that students and faculty believe that 
     having multiracial and multiethnic student populations has a 
     positive effect on students' cognitive and personal 
     development;
       Whereas in 1955, 1 year after the Supreme Court decided 
     Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), less than 5 
     percent of college students in the United States were 
     African-American;
       Whereas by 1990, because of affirmative action and other 
     initiatives, over 11 percent of college students in the 
     United States were African-American;
       Whereas after the United States Court of Appeals for the 
     Fifth Circuit ruled, in Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th 
     Cir. 1996), that the University of Texas Law School's 
     affirmative action program was unconstitutional, Latino and 
     African-American admissions to the law school plummeted by 64 
     percent and 88 percent, respectively;
       Whereas after California's anti-affirmative action measure, 
     Proposition 209, took affect, law school admissions dropped 
     nearly 72 percent among African-American applicants and 35 
     percent among Latino applicants;
       Whereas, even with affirmative action measures there 
     continues to be significant racial disparities between the 
     enrollment rates of minority students and white students;
       Whereas in 1978, in Regents of University of California v. 
     Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that 
     campus diversity is a ``compelling governmental interest'' 
     
     
[[Page 1327]]    
     
     
     that justifies race and ethnicity as one of many factors that 
     a university may consider in developing a diverse student 
     body;
       Whereas the admissions policy of the University of Michigan 
     adheres to the standards set out in the landmark Bakke 
     decision;
       Whereas the University of Michigan does not have racial 
     quotas for admission, and instead uses many factors to select 
     students, including race, social and economic background, 
     geographic origin, athletic ability,
     and a relationship to alumni, as well as test scores, grades, 
     and essay scores;
       Whereas all of those factors help the University of 
     Michigan select a diverse well-rounded student body that is 
     not just racially diverse, but economically and 
     geographically diverse; and
       Whereas the University of Michigan's admissions policy so 
     far has been upheld as constitutional by the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in the case of 
     Grutter v. Bollinger, 288 F.3d 732 (6th Cir. 2002): Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, that the Senate--
       (1) strongly supports the decision of the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in the case of 
     Grutter v. Bollinger; and
       (2) authorizes and instructs the Senate Legal Counsel to 
     appear as amicus curiae in that case, in the name of the 
     Senate, to defend the constitutionality of the University of 
     Michigan's admissions policy to ensure a diverse student 
     body.

                          ____________________