[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 312-317]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wanted to speak today on a number of 
issues--primarily on the issue of the legislation we passed a year ago, 
which was landmark legislation, called ``No Child Left Behind.'' It 
fundamentally changed the way the Federal Government and many of our 
educational institutions across the Nation will approach the education 
of low-income especially, but children generally.
  Yesterday was the 1-year anniversary of this extraordinary bill, the 
most significant piece of education reform legislation passed by the 
Congress. It was the primary domestic policy initiative of the 
President in his first 2 years in office. It continues to be one of his 
primary focuses. The No Child Left Behind bill had as its goal 
essentially a few items. No. 1 was that low income children who for 
years have been basically warehoused through our system will no longer 
be put into that situation. Low-income children especially will be 
given the opportunity to learn and compete in our society and be given 
the opportunity to receive an education that will allow them to 
participate in the American dream; and that no child--low-income or 
not--should be left behind by our educational system. It did this and 
it tries to accomplish this goal by basically empowering the local 
school districts, the teachers, the principals, and the school boards, 
with more opportunities for educating the low-income child. It gives 
them more flexibility over the dollars the Federal Government puts back 
into the school districts and gives them more dollars. At the same 
time, it is saying to the school districts and the States that we are 
going to give you more dollars and more flexibility for handling the 
dollars and, in addition, we are going to expect results, 
accountability; and the children, as they move through their 
educational experience--in the elementary school systems, especially--
are actually learning to their grade level.
  We are going to have standards and tests--not developed by the 
Federal Government but, rather, by the local communities and the 
States--and those standards and tests are going to be set by the local 
communities and the States. Once they are set, we are going to expect 
that the children in those schools in those districts will have the 
educational experience that will allow them to reach those standards 
and

[[Page 313]]

goals set out by the States and local communities. So we will have 
accountability.
  Most important, we are going to give the parents of those children 
the opportunity to see how successful their children are, to learn 
whether or not the schools they are in are teaching their children at a 
level that gives the children the ability to compete in America and 
participate in the American dream.
  If the school systems regrettably do not succeed, if after years of 
effort in trying to bring them up to speed they are unable still to 
educate the children at a level that is competitive with their peers, 
then we are going to give the parents and the school systems tools to 
allow those schools to reform and we are going to give the parents 
tools to get their children other options for education.
  So under this bill, we would basically do four things: 1, put more 
money into the system; 2, put more flexibility into the system for the 
use of that money; 3, expect accountability; and empower parents to 
take action to try to correct the situation of their child not getting 
the education and assistance that they need.
  This bill, this concept, obviously, is a huge and fundamental change. 
There is clearly going to be, and there has been, a period of 
adjustment and ramping up and organizing that is necessary to put this 
type of change in place. We are just really in the early stages of that 
effort. In fact, the States, under this bill, do not have to have their 
plans in and approved until the end of this month. So as a practical 
matter, many States have not even ordered their plans in order to 
respond to the issue of how you bring your children up to speed and how 
you make sure no child is left behind. A few States have. The President 
yesterday recognized five States that have put in place plans that meet 
the basic goals of the No Child Left Behind bill, which is to create a 
system where there is accountability and where parents will know how 
much their children are learning and where, if it doesn't work, if some 
schools are not reaching the levels of success that are required, then 
there will be options for those parents, such as public school choice, 
such as getting tutorial support for their children, or such as just 
reform fundamentally the school that is having problems.
  Five States have already accomplished that: Ohio, Massachusetts, New 
York, Indiana--I am not sure of the fifth. But these States have a lot 
of kids in their school systems and they have been able to pull 
together the plans to be successful under the No Child Left Behind 
bill.
  As these States and communities and school systems have tried to get 
organized to be ready for the No Child Left Behind initiative and tried 
to address the issue that I think we all want to accomplish--to make 
sure the school systems of America are strong, vibrant, and are giving 
children what they need in order to learn--as that has happened, 
unfortunately, there has been an undercurrent of opposition growing. I 
am not sure what is energizing it. Some is initiated by the fact that 
many of our States and local school districts are going through very 
difficult economic times now, and therefore they are under strain 
financially, and that is understandable. Some of it is initiated simply 
because there are, unfortunately, people in the educational community--
certainly not the majority and certainly not even a large percentage, 
in my opinion, because I think the vast majority of people in education 
really want to succeed and they want this bill to work and they 
understand the importance of making sure our children learn or they 
would not be in education. It is a very altruistic undertaking.
  Some at the higher levels of some of our professional organizations 
basically don't like the idea of accountability. They don't like the 
idea that there will be a scorecard that parents can look at to 
determine whether or not children are getting an education that will 
make them competitive in America and give them a shot at the American 
dream. For years, unfortunately, kids have been allowed to slip through 
the system, to be warehoused and just pushed on. That simply is not 
acceptable under this bill. That means people are going to have to 
perform to bring those kids up to the ability to read and write and do 
the basic elements that are required in order to be a literate person 
in America. Unfortunately, some people do not like that pressure being 
put on them to be accountable.
  Then there is the problem, unfortunately, to some degree, of the old-
fashioned ``we are headed into a Presidential election, so let's be 
partisan.''
  Today I want to spend some time going over what we as the Republican 
Party have put forward in resources to support the bill and why I 
believe we have committed the type of resources that are necessary to 
make No Child Left Behind successful because we have heard a number of 
speeches made on the other side of the aisle by, unfortunately, Members 
who should be familiar with this issue but who appear to not be 
familiar with the facts attacking the issue of whether or not this 
President has made a strong enough commitment in the area of funding to 
support the No Child Left Behind bill.
  It is important to do this in a juxtapositional manner. This 
President came into office saying he was going to make education a No. 
1 goal. He was the successor to an administration which did not make 
education the No. 1 goal of its administration. I believe it is 
important to reflect on the fact that we, as Republicans, have truly 
committed significant resources, especially in comparison to the prior 
administration in this area.
  For example, since 1996, when Republicans took control of the 
Congress, Federal spending for education has more than doubled and Pell 
grants, which are the maximum awards--Pell grants being higher 
education grants--have increased by 62 percent from $2,400 up to 
$4,000.
  Looking at the programs which are covered by the No Child Left Behind 
bill, funding has increased by 49 percent, almost 50 percent in the 
last 2 years. That means that funding for education has grown faster as 
a function of the Federal Government than any other element of the 
Federal Government. That includes Health and Human Services and 
Defense. Defense is up 48 percent; Health and Human Services is up 96 
percent; Education is up 132 percent. That is a massive increase in the 
commitment to education.
  Republicans have committed the highest level of funding to education 
in the history of this country. Last year, under President Bush's 
leadership, we committed $60.5 billion, for an increase of 44 percent 
for K-12 education and higher education. This is nearly $20 billion 
more than the highest level of funding of the Clinton administration. 
This chart shows that: $60 billion versus $42 billion.
  A year ago, President Bush signed into law, as I mentioned, the No 
Child Left Behind bill, which contained the most significant elementary 
and secondary education reforms in the last 30 years, and he followed 
it up with the largest increases in elementary and secondary education 
funding in the history, a whopping $4.8 billion, representing a 28-
percent increase in funding as a result of his commitment to back up 
that law.
  In addition to increasing the funding for the No Child Left Behind 
bill, the Congress passed tax cut legislation that provided $30 billion 
of tax relief for parents who are trying to educate their children. Our 
tax bill created a new deduction for qualified higher education 
expenses, increased the amount individuals can contribute to 
educational savings accounts, allowed tax redistribution from qualified 
tuition plans, expanded deductions which teachers can take as a result 
of expenses they incur to buy classroom supplies and created a loan 
forgiveness program for teachers.
  I note that tax bill which increased spending on education by $30 
billion did not receive one vote from one member of the Democratic side 
of the aisle on the Education Committee. So when I hear these folks who 
come down to this well from the committee on which I have the honor to 
serve say we are not making our commitment--the Republican Party 
specifically, and we have

[[Page 314]]

heard this interminably for the last few months--we are not making our 
commitment to fund education, I find that hard to defend in the face of 
the facts which I have just outlined.
  In addition to the No Child Left Behind bill and the tax bill, we 
have dramatically increased funding for special education under the 
Republican Congress. We have increased funding for IDEA by 224 percent 
since the Republicans took control of the Congress. In fact, unlike the 
previous administration which essentially level funded IDEA with every 
budget they sent up here, President Bush has increased funding for 
special education by over $1 billion in each year of his Presidency.
  There have been dramatic increases, which are shown by this chart, in 
the request for and the actual funding that has gone into special 
education as a result of President Bush being elected President, which 
is the exact opposite of how special education was being treated under 
the prior administration, where virtually no increase was occurring 
from the request put forward by the President, then-President Clinton, 
in his budget.
  President Bush supported the largest increase in the title I program 
in history. Last year, title I received $1.5 billion. Title I is the 
program that is directed specifically at low-income kids. It is the 
program which is the core of the No Child Left Behind bill.
  Last year, President Bush, as I mentioned, put $1.5 billion of new 
money into this title. He has requested an additional $1 billion of new 
money for this year. When you add these together, this will be the 
single largest increase in title I funding in the history of the 
program, and these dollars are dramatic in the face of what occurred 
under the prior administration where the largest increase that was ever 
requested by the prior administration was $200 million to $300 million. 
It was not until President Bush was elected President and took up this 
cause of educating lower income children that significant dollars 
flowed into this program for the purpose of educating low-income 
children. This chart reflects that.
  In 2 years, President Bush has increased funding by over $2.5 
billion, which represents a larger increase in funding in 2 years than 
President Clinton asked for in his entire 7 years by a factor of about 
25 percent.
  If one looks at the specific programs within the educational 
component, such as reading, within the last year alone, we have tripled 
the funds for effective reading programs. As we all know, this 
President and First Lady Laura Bush consider reading to be the real 
civil right of the 21st century. Kids have to be able to read 
competitively with their peers or they cannot compete in the American 
society. They will not have a shot at the American dream. And Mrs. 
Bush, who, of course, is a librarian and a former teacher, has made 
reading the essence of her efforts as First Lady, and President Bush 
has made a commitment to reading, an absolutely critical element of 
making sure that children are not left behind. He has developed a whole 
set of issues in this area of reading.
  The starkness of this chart, which shows the funding differences 
between the President's commitment to reading and the prior 
administration's commitment to reading, pretty dramatically sets out 
the fact that we have made the commitment on a core element of 
education to accomplish the goal of making sure kids are competitive 
and have the knowledge they need to participate in our society.
  It is not just reading that we have funded with significant 
increases. You can look at the programs for immigrant children, where 
we have seen the largest increase ever in that program, to try to help 
kids learn English, kids who come to America and unfortunately--well, 
no, not unfortunately. They have come to America to participate in our 
dream. But they have come here speaking a different language, and this 
program tries to assist them.
  In the area of teachers, I have heard from the other side of the 
aisle, Members on the other side of the aisle make representations that 
we have not made a commitment to teachers. They cannot possibly defend 
that on the facts. Within the last year, State and local school 
districts have received dramatic increases in funding for teacher 
programs, specifically $742 million, a 35 percent increase in teachers' 
programs.
  More important than that, we have taken off of those programs the 
strictures and the categorical directions which came under the prior 
administration. We took all the different programs for teachers, put 
them together, and we no longer say you have to do this with the 
teacher money; you have to do that with the teacher money; you have to 
send the teacher there; you have to give the teacher that. We say to 
the local school district--we say to the local principal, most 
importantly--you are going to get this money. You are supposed to spend 
it the best way you know how to get the best teachers in your 
classrooms. If you want to use it for merit pay, you can; if you want 
to use it to send the teachers to extra course curriculum activity, you 
can; if you want to use it for supplies for your teachers, you can use 
it that way. It is up to the principal and school district on how to 
spend that money. We are not going to decide here in Washington. We are 
not going to send it out with a bunch of strings leading out from this 
desk, telling you how to run that program. We know you, the principal, 
you the school district, know best what your teachers need in order to 
make them better and stronger participants in the classrooms.
  So we are going to give you this 35 percent increase, $742 million, 
without strings. We are simply going to require that at the end of the 
day your teachers be qualified to teach the courses they are in, a 
fairly reasonable requirement. I think most people think it is a 
reasonable requirement.
  But the other side of the aisle says we haven't increased teacher 
funding this year. That is true. That's because we increased it by 35 
percent last year. But that is such a specious argument because the 
dollar increase which we have put into the program has been so 
significant that it hasn't even been all spent. I will get to that in a 
second.
  In addition, the President requested dramatic increases in funding 
for programs specifically designed to help the neediest children--as I 
mentioned, title I and IDEA. For 2003, the President has requested even 
more money in these categories.
  It should be noted that over the last several years, educational 
funding has greatly outpaced the rate of inflation and the rate of 
growth of our schools. I think this is important. We have increased 
elementary and secondary educational funding at the Federal level by 28 
percent, whereas student enrollment over the same period has only 
increased by .3 percent--less than 1 percent. That is a dramatic fact 
and this chart shows it. I am not sure if those who are watching can 
see this. This is the .3 percent increase in enrollment. This is the 
increase in funding. In fact, the funding for education has grown at 
such a rapid rate that school districts simply have not been able to 
absorb it all. This is another important point. We have been putting so 
much money so fast into the educational system that the educational 
community, quite honestly, has not been able to develop the 
programmatic activity to handle the money efficiently and effectively 
yet.
  There is presently $4.5 billion of Federal funds which has been 
appropriated and is unspent. It has not been drawn down by the school 
districts or by the States. This pie chart shows where this money is. A 
lot of it is in the school improvement program. A lot of it is in 
special education. A lot of it is in education for the disadvantaged. 
That is the title I program. These are huge amounts of dollars.
  So when the other side of the aisle comes to this floor and starts 
saying there is not enough money in education, we have not spent enough 
money at the Federal level, first off, they ought to look at the 
history of their leadership when they were in charge, because their 
leadership made nowhere near the commitment this President has made. 
Second, they ought to give the President credit for what he has done, 
which is dramatically increase the amount of funding in

[[Page 315]]

the area of title I activity--over 27 percent. Third, they ought to at 
least acknowledge there has been so much money put into the system so 
fast, because of this President's commitment, that the system is still 
trying to adjust to it and figure out how to handle it efficiently.
  It is interesting to note that a great deal of the money that has not 
been spent here is in the two programs which were true failures that 
were the primary initiatives of the Clinton administration, one being 
class size and the other being school renovation. These two programs, 
which were the classic, categorical, ``we know best'' Washington 
programs, which have basically been merged now into the overall 
approach of giving States more flexibility and sending the money back 
as more of a flexible grant with results-based testing versus input 
control--these programs are the ones with some of the biggest dollars 
waiting here in Washington to be managed by the local communities.
  So we spent a lot of time here talking about dollars, but let's 
remember something else. In the area of education it is not necessarily 
dollars that makes the difference. There are a lot of statistics that 
point this out, but I think common sense points it out as well as 
anything else. I think we all know a good school system depends on a 
lot of factors. It depends on parental involvement, No. 1. You have to 
have parents who want to see their kids educated, in most cases, to get 
participation in that atmosphere at home. It depends on a good 
principal, one of the most important factors; good teachers, obviously; 
good facilities; and the atmosphere in the community that encourages 
academics in the school systems.
  We know for a fact that just putting dollars into the system has not 
worked. That is why our system is doing so poorly. Federal funding has 
increased over the last 10 years, dramatically, but scores, for 
example, in math, have been flat. Reading scores have the same track 
record. Federal funding has increased dramatically, but scores in 
reading have been flat. When we compare ourselves to the other 
industrialized countries in the world, we spend more money on education 
than almost any other industrialized country, per pupil. We are 
spending $8,000. But our reading scores, our math scores, are some of 
the worst in the industrialized world, whereas other nations that are 
spending significantly less per child are doing much better 
academically. Hungary is a good example.
  Granted, these other nations don't have some of the issues we have. 
They may be more homogeneous nations, they are much smaller, so they 
don't have the same concerns. But the fact is that we can show that the 
amount of money we spend is competitive with everybody in the world, 
but the results are not. We as a creative Nation should not tolerate 
that sort of situation.
  So it is not just money that is important. But, if it were just money 
that was important, this administration gets an A+ for having made the 
dollar commitment that is necessary in very difficult times.
  Let's go back to the first chart. This Government, under the 
President and under Republican leadership, has increased spending for 
education by 132 percent--more than we have increased spending in any 
other Federal account, such as defense, which is always used as a 
whipping dog for some of my colleagues across the aisle for increased 
spending, and Health and Human Services.
  When we talk about education, I do want to take a second to talk 
about higher education because that's another area where we have heard 
some fairly aggressive misrepresentation from the other side of the 
aisle. The fact is, President Bush has increased funding for student 
aid at a dramatically faster pace than the prior administration 
increased funding in this area. Let's compare President Bush's higher 
education record to that of President Clinton.
  The last time the Democrats were in charge, they actually cut the 
Pell grant by $100. For the year 2003, President Bush has requested the 
highest level of funding for student aid in the history of these 
programs. Under the President's budget, total funding for financial aid 
for higher education and kids going to college will be $55 billion. 
That is a 5-percent increase over 2002.
  Furthermore, the President has more than tripled the loan forgiveness 
activities in areas such as math and science, special education 
teachers, and low-income schools. And under the President's proposal, 
teachers would qualify for up to $17,500 in loan forgiveness, up from 
the current $5,000 that teachers get if they go into high-need schools.
  The keystone of the President's effort is in the Pell grant. As I 
mentioned, the last time the Democrats were in charge they cut Pell 
grants by $100. President Bush has dramatically increased the Pell 
grant program. Whereas, President Clinton's first budget request for 
the Pell grant program was $8.3 billion, his next six Pell grant budget 
requests were for less than that amount--less than the original amount. 
In his last budget--the 2001 budget--he actually increased Pell grant 
funding.
  President Bush came in and the Pell grant account was at, I think, 
$11 billion. He has increased that dramatically. Under President Bush, 
we have seen a $4.5 million increase. Needy college children who 
weren't getting them before will now be getting Pell grants. He has 
increased the funding. So it is now up to almost $11 billion. That is a 
dramatic increase in Pell grant funding. He has also increased the 
amount of the actual grant for students under the Pell grant program.
  Not only has the President made the commitment in the elementary and 
secondary school level, in title I, in IDEA, in reading, in immigrant 
education, but he has also made a commitment at the higher education 
level.
  Let us go back to the issue of this tax cut directed at benefiting 
people in education. This is something that has sort of been overlooked 
by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they are attacking 
the President for his failure to fund education. It is pretty hard to 
attack him on that, but they have been making this representation.
  Here is how this tax cut has worked, translated into real dollars. We 
put in place a new above-the-line reduction for qualified higher 
education expenses. It is a $3,000 deduction today. It is going to go 
up to $4,000 in 2004. And it represents an $11 billion tax cut for 
Americans who are sending their kids to school. Eliminated is the 60-
month limitation on the student loan interest deduction. That 
represents a $3.4 billion benefit to kids who get out of school with 
lots of loans. We know that is one of the big issues for kids today. 
They leave the school system and their college experience with a lot of 
loans, and they have to pay them back. This is a $3.4 billion attempt 
to try to reduce that burden. He has increased the annual limit on the 
contribution to the educational savings accounts from $500 to $2,000. 
That is a $1.2 billion benefit to people who are trying to save to make 
sure that they can go to college and participate in the American dream.
  He has allowed tax-free deductions for qualified tuition plans used 
to pay educational expenses, and he has permitted private institutions 
to setup those plans. This is a real benefit to people who want to get 
ready for education and to be sure, when they go to college, that they 
have the funds to pay for it, $2.3 billion of benefits is represented 
by this change.
  He made the income exclusion for employer-provided educational 
activity permanent. When your employer gives you the opportunity to go 
to school to better yourself, you will be able to take advantage of 
that. That is a $3 billion benefit to people trying to get their 
education.
  Over the next 5 years these changes will provide almost $22 billion 
in direct in-the-pocket benefit to students and parents who are trying 
to make sure that their kids participate in higher education and as a 
result can go into the American workforce better prepared and have a 
better opportunity to be successful.
  As this chart shows, during the last year of the Clinton 
administration,

[[Page 316]]

total higher education tax benefits amounted to $7.6 billion. President 
Bush's tax benefits for helping families today represents almost a $12 
billion benefit. That is a huge difference. It is something, however, 
that is never mentioned by the other side of the aisle.
  When President Clinton came into office in 1993, the total 
appropriations for discretionary student programs was about $8 billion. 
President Clinton's last budget request for discretionary student aid 
totaled about $11 billion, an increase of about 5.4 percent per year 
over 8 years.
  Let us remember that during all of those 8 years we were fortunate to 
have a surplus and a strong economy. In contrast, when President Bush 
came into office in 2001, as I mentioned, the appropriations was about 
$11 billion for student discretionary programs--for student activities 
for schools. President Bush's latest budget request for discretionary 
student aid will be about $14 billion. That is an increase of 18.3 
percent over the 2001 appropriations. Over 2 years that averages to a 
9.1 percent increase--almost 70 percent higher than the increases 
during the Clinton years.
  Remember that this was done and has been done during the period when 
we were facing a deficit. Of course, if you start adding in things such 
as the higher education and a tax cut, it even gets higher and more 
significant.
  Yesterday, Senator Kennedy--soon to be, I believe, my ranking Member, 
I am not really sure whether he is chairman or ranking Member right 
now. I believe he is still chairman--who I work with on the education 
committee and Congressman Miller, who is the ranking Member of the 
House Education Committee, sent a letter to the Secretary of Education 
that suggested that we were underfunding No Child Left Behind; that the 
administration was actually providing too much flexibility under that 
bill to the local school districts and the States. We have talked a 
little bit here about the funding issue of No Child Left Behind, but 
let me go into some specifics.
  The letter, I believe, was blatantly misleading. It talks about a $90 
million cut.
  The President requested a $1 billion increase in title I and a $1 
billion increase in IDEA. It is very hard to criticize the President 
for cutting a $90 million earmarked program for untested non-means-
tested program--to attack the President for cutting that $90 million 
when he is putting in $2 billion of new funding that will benefit the 
same people in a much more aggressive way, directed with flexibility 
and with accountability at the local school districts. It is truly a 
bit of an inconsistency to attack him on that point.
  Then the letter went on to say, Well, you haven't funded it up to the 
authorization level--No Child Left Behind. There are many pieces of 
legislation attached to this Congress that are funded to the 
authorization level. And there is no legislation that has passed 
through this Congress in the last 2 years that has received the type of 
funding increases that the educational accounts have received, as I 
mentioned earlier.
  Authorization levels is a term we use around here basically to set 
out a thematic approach to an issue; not an actual approach, a wish-
list approach. That is why we almost never go to authorization levels 
in funding. Think of it as your credit card. You have a maximum level 
that you can take out under your credit card, but rarely, hopefully, do 
you ever get to that level. Usually you are borrowing much less than 
that.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the fact is, what counts is what is 
actually being spent in relation to what was spent the year before and 
in relation to the rest of the priorities of the Government. As I have 
mentioned, this President's commitment to education has been $20 
billion higher in 2001 than the Clinton administration's commitment in 
its last year. As a percentage of spending of the Federal Government, 
it dwarfs everything else. We are outspending defense by a factor of 3 
and outspending health and human services by a factor of 2. Yet the 
letter went on to say that the funds were not adequately increased for 
teacher funding. I mentioned that earlier. That is because we raised it 
$742 million the year before.
  We have a total funding for teachers of $3 billion in the 
appropriations process. So it is totally inconsistent to say: Well, 
they have not increased it this year--when they ignore and do not give 
credit for last year's $740 million increase in teacher funding.
  You can go down the list. The same is true with representations made 
in the area of weakening the dropout provisions or in the area of 
alternative certification. Just the idea that there is opposition to 
alternative certification is pretty outrageous. We are trying to get 
classroom teachers who know what they are doing. Alternative 
certification is one of the best ways of accomplishing that.
  They went on to say we are dumbing down the tests because we are 
allowing a patchwork of local tests to meet the new annual testing. But 
that claim is absolutely inaccurate. And the Department has made it 
crystal clear to the States the only local tests that are available to 
meet the uniform tests are those that can still be compared to the rest 
of the States. So you do not have a dumbing down of those tests.
  There are other issues in that letter which I will put in the 
Record--because I have obviously taken more time and appreciate the 
courtesy of the Senator from Minnesota in his allowing me to proceed 
even longer--that are simply inconsistent with the way the law is being 
put in place and being organized.
  The bottom line is this: No child left behind is a dramatic departure 
from the historic role and goal and undertaking that we have had in 
education in this country, a dramatic departure because it says, very 
simply, children can learn and will learn. And we are going to require 
that our school systems not leave children behind. It is a dramatic 
departure because it empowers parents to do something when they find 
their children in schools that are not working. It is a dramatic 
departure because it gives local school districts, teachers, and 
principals a huge amount of flexibility to undertake the goals of 
educating their children. It is a dramatic departure because it has 
accountability, and it allows transparency on that accountability. It 
is a dramatic departure because it has huge increases in funding, as 
have been outlined by the points I have made here today.
  Rather than attacking the funding effort, and rather than attacking 
the underlying goals here, we should be pulling together to make sure 
this bill succeeds because the success of this bill is critical to the 
success of our Nation.
  If we can produce an educational system which really does take care 
of all American children, which really does make sure that every child 
in the first grade, the second grade, and by the third grade can read, 
we will have made a massive stride to eliminating poverty in this 
country, to making our Nation prosperous, and to making sure that all 
Americans have a good and decent life and have a chance to participate 
in the American dream.
  This bill was an extraordinary bipartisan success. I regret there has 
been this growing, orchestrated effort to basically try to undermine 
it. I hope my statements today have made it clear that on the facts the 
funding has been there. I hope that, as we move down the road in the 
future, we can accomplish the goals of this bill, without getting into 
this type of debate but will rather be focused on debates as to how we 
can make it work better in the actual delivery of service to the kids 
in America.
  No child left behind is truly a historic piece of legislation. Let's 
try to make it work right. Let's recognize that we are working 
aggressively to accomplish that.
  On January 8, 2002, the one-year anniversary of the passage of ``No 
Child Left Behind'', Senator Kennedy and Representative Miller sent a 
letter to

[[Page 317]]

Secretary Paige suggesting that we are imperiling the law's goals by 
underfunding NCLB and by providing too much flexibility in its 
implementation.
  I ask unanimous consent that a response to Senator Kennedy and 
Congressman Miller's letter on No Child Left Behind be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the following material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:
  Let's review the letter.

       Funding. Kennedy and Miller misleadingly claim that the 
     Administration cut NCLB by $90 million. Although it's true 
     that $90 million was cut from earmarks and the Fund for the 
     Improvement for Education--which contains many untested, non-
     means tested programs--funding for Title I and IDEA was 
     increased by $1 billion. An administration that requests such 
     an enormous overall funding boost can hardly be criticized 
     for cutting $90 million from untested programs that are not 
     necessarily targeted toward either disadvantaged or disabled 
     kids, and are therefore not critical to successfully 
     implementing ``No Child Left Behind.''
       The Democrats also state that the Administration's budget 
     is $7 billion shy of what was promised in NCLB. Let's keep in 
     mind that authorization levels are maximum numbers that can 
     be spent, not necessarily what should be spent. Think of it 
     as the maximum on your credit card. You have a maximum amount 
     of money you can borrow on your card, but generally you don't 
     spend all of that money. Authorization numbers are similar. 
     They are suggested levels of funding that are not necessarily 
     based on what is needed or what is available to spend.
       Democrats know this. Back in 1995, when they passed the 
     last K-12 education bill, the Democrat Congress and President 
     Clinton authorized $13 billion for education programs, yet 
     they appropriated only $10.3 billion. Curiously, not a single 
     Democrat accused President Clinton of under funding education 
     by $2.7 billion.
       Unfunded mandates. Messrs. Kennedy and Miller claim that 
     NCLB burdens school districts and States with unfunded 
     mandates to build schools and hire highly qualified teachers 
     to comply with the bill's public school choice capacity 
     requirements, but that is not the case. It should be noted 
     that since 1995 Congress has been prohibited from passing 
     unfunded mandates.
       With regard to school construction, the U.S. Department of 
     Education has never required school districts to build new 
     schools to accommodate NCLB's public school choice 
     provisions. Furthermore, the Department is still waiting for 
     States to draw down $900 million in school renovation funds 
     that were appropriated in 2001.
       With regard to the new teacher requirements, it should be 
     noted that the new ``high-quality'' teacher requirements that 
     were included in No Child Left Behind were coupled with one 
     of the largest increases in teacher funding in history. Last 
     year States received over $3 billion to assist them with the 
     teacher requirements--this was a 35 percent increase over 
     anything Clinton provided for teachers. Furthermore, States 
     are guaranteed to continue to receive at least another $3 
     billion.
       Weakening drop-out provisions. Kennedy and Miller say that 
     NCLB final regulations establish an incentive for schools to 
     focus on test scores while ignoring high dropout rates, 
     thereby jeopardizing the law's accountability provisions. 
     Nothing could be further from the truth; the regulations are 
     actually stronger than the statute. The statute was unclear 
     on graduation rates. The regulations state that even if all 
     children are doing well in school, if dropout rates are high, 
     then the school is still identified as in need of 
     improvement.
       Alternative certification. The Democrats criticize the 
     Department for allowing teachers who are alternatively 
     certified or working on becoming alternatively certified to 
     be counted as highly qualified. This is a perfect example of 
     how the Democrats do the teacher union's bidding by trying to 
     prevent individuals who don't go through the traditional 
     teacher certification process--which is dominated by the 
     unions and their allies--from being hired by schools. They 
     want no competition from Teach for America or other programs 
     that encourage professionals from other fields to become 
     teachers.
       Prohibiting norm-referenced tests. Kennedy and Miller state 
     that NCLB prohibits ``norm-referenced'' tests, which measure 
     students' achievement against that of their peers. That is 
     patently false. Although the House bill originally prohibited 
     ``norm-referenced'' tests, that provision was dropped in 
     conference and no such prohibition is contained in the law.
       Different tests for different students. The Democrats claim 
     that the Department allows States to use a patchwork of local 
     tests to meet the new annual testing requirements, making it 
     impossible to measure whether achievement gaps are being 
     closed. The Department, however, has made it crystal clear 
     the States can only use local tests if those tests allow for 
     a uniform or comparable measure of student performance across 
     the State. NCLB is based on President Bush's firm commitment 
     to reduce the achievement gap. To infer that in any way this 
     Administration would allow States to mask the achievement gap 
     is simply absurd.
       Allowing discrimination with federal funds and denying 
     basic civil rights protections for children. The Democrats 
     are engaged in a bit of revisionist history when they claim 
     that NCLB allows federal education programs to directly fund 
     religious organizations and to permit organizations to 
     discriminate based on religion. After many, many hours of 
     negotiations, we reached a bi-partisan agreement to be 
     silent, that is, to allow current law to continue to operate, 
     on the issue of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title 
     VII prohibits discrimination based on race, sex religion, and 
     national origin in employment, except with regard to 
     employment by religious institutions. We did not, nor did we 
     intend to, reverse that precedent. To claim otherwise is 
     simply a ridiculous misinterpretation of the facts.

  In sum, the letter from Messrs. Kennedy and Miller is classic 
political ploy. The Democrats want the Department to pile additional 
requirements onto States and school districts who are already doing a 
yeomen's job to comply with the many reforms in NCLB. This letter is 
nothing short of an attempt to sabotage the bill and ensure that States 
and school districts will be so overwhelmed that they will be unable to 
implement even the smallest provisions in the bill.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield the floor. I especially thank the Senator from 
Minnesota for his courtesy in allowing me to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire for his impassioned set of statements. I share the Senator's 
hope that we can work constructively on both sides of the aisle on 
behalf of education in America.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, 
Senator DeWine be recognized for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________