[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18239-18240]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST KEEP ITS EDUCATION PROMISES

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, throughout America, another new school 
year is beginning. As children settle into new classes and parents meet 
their children's new teachers, we are reminded once again of the 
importance of public education to America's future.
  Good, strong public schools are not a Democratic or a Republican 
concern; they are a cornerstone of American democracy. They are what 
has helped America create the most innovative, powerful economy the 
world has ever known and they are essential to the survival of the 
middle class in this country.
  Nearly 3 years ago, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act 
containing the most far-reaching changes in Federal education policy in 
nearly 40 years. Recently, States released their second annual No Child 
Left Behind report cards, showing how their schools are measuring up 
under the new law. This afternoon, I would like to talk briefly about 
how the Federal Government is measuring up--whether we are keeping the 
promises we made under No Child Left Behind and other important 
education laws.
  All of us know that, if we mention No Child Left Behind at a town 
hall meeting, we are just as likely to hear boos as we are to hear 
applause. Why is that?
  One reason is because of some basic design flaws. What seemed to work 
well on paper, we are discovering, may not work as well in practice. 
Parts of No Child Left Behind need fine-tuning.
  There were also some problems, early on, with the way the 
administration was implementing the new law. Fortunately, some of those 
problems are starting to be addressed. Yesterday, Senator Kennedy 
introduced legislation to make sure the No Child Left Behind Act is 
implemented correctly. No one understands the No Child Left Behind Act 
better, and no one worked harder with President Bush to pass it. We 
ought to have a serious debate--and a vote--on Senator Kennedy's bill 
this year.
  Unfortunately, the administration and Congressional Republicans 
remain unwilling to acknowledge one of the biggest impediments to the 
success of the No Child Left Behind Act: inadequate resources.
  Our Republican colleagues cite numbers to show that education funding 
is increasing. With all due respect, their numbers miss the point. The 
question isn't: Is the Federal Government spending more on education? 
The question is: Is the Federal Government providing States with the 
resources they need to make the No Child Left Behind Act, and other 
Federal education mandates, work? The answer is no. The President's 
budget for this year provides the smallest increase in education in 
nearly a decade. Over the last 3 years, the President's budgets have 
shortchanged No Child Left Behind by $26 billion.
  We all know that more money alone won't make schools better. But we 
also know that money does matter. It costs money to make the changes 
the No Child Left Behind Act requires. It costs money to put a highly 
trained teacher in every classroom. It costs money to test every 
student, every year, in grades 3 through 8. It costs money to produce 
and distribute the school report cards that are required under the new 
law, and to collect and analyze all the data that go into those report 
cards.
  The No Child Left Behind Act aims to close the achievement gap by 
raising the educational achievement of poor and minority students and 
students with disabilities. This is a noble and necessary goal. Yet, 
year after year, the programs that actually help close that achievement 
gap are the very programs that are the most seriously underfunded. In 
the President's budget this year, 80 percent of the total shortfall in 
the No Child Left Behind Act is in Title I programs. The children and 
schools that need the most help are instead targeted for the biggest 
funding shortfalls.
  Shortchanging Title I and other parts of the No Child Left Behind Act 
means denying schools the resources they need to succeed--then 
punishing them for not measuring up.
  Refusing to fund No Child Left Behind adequately also undermines 
local control of schools. Rapid City, SD, is a good example. Parents 
and educators in Rapid City have come up with an innovative plan for a 
new, year-round school that would provide extra help to low-income 
children. It would also work with the children's parents so they can be 
better partners in their children's education. It is exactly the kind 
of intensive help that is needed to close the achievement gap. But 
Rapid City doesn't have the Title I resources to make it a reality.
  The underfunding of the No Child Left Behind Act is a major reason 
that legislators in 17 States--many of them Republican-controlled 
States--have endorsed bills protesting the law.
  The President's budget also provides less than half of what Congress 
agreed nearly 40 years ago was Washington's fair share of special 
education costs.
  The National Council of State Legislatures estimates the cost of 
unfunded Federal mandates will hit an unprecedented $34 billion this 
year. The two most expensive unfunded Federal mandates? No Child Left 
Behind, and special education. In South Dakota, the shortfall this year 
just in these two programs is $61 million; $30 million for No Child 
Left Behind, and $31 million for special education.
  Accountability is critical. But accountability has to work both ways. 
If the Federal Government passes a law, we ought to fund it 
adequately--not push the cost off on State and local taxpayers.
  In South Dakota, we have a State law that allows school districts to 
``opt out'' of the State freeze on local property taxes if they can't 
provide basic educational programs and still balance their budgets. 
These are not cases where communities choose to pay higher taxes in 
order to pay for extras. Before districts can even seek an opt out 
agreement they have to have already made significant budget cuts.
  The number of districts seeking such agreements has increased 
dramatically since No Child Left Behind was passed. Today, 46 percent 
of South Dakota school districts are operating under opt out 
agreements. Think about that: Nearly half the school districts in South 
Dakota are raising local property taxes, in part to make up for the 
Federal Government's failure to keep its education promises.
  Custer is one those communities. It is a small ranching town in 
western South Dakota. Last year, Custer went to a 4-day school-week to 
balance its budget--and it still ended the year with a deficit. This 
year, Custer has to find an extra $300,000 to replace the 70-year-old 
boiler in its elementary school. It has no idea where the money will 
come from.
  In Faith, SD, the town's only school building was condemned in June. 
The people of Faith have no idea how they will replace their school. 
The local tax base can produce only a fraction of the

[[Page 18240]]

cost. For now, the children of Faith are attending classes in double-
wide trailers.
  During the debate on No Child Left Behind, I fought to include a 
Rural Education Assistance Program to address the unique circumstances 
of schools in small towns like Custer and Faith. That program, too, is 
underfunded in the President's budget. In South Dakota alone, the 
shortfall in rural education this year is $700,000.
  Nearly every district in our State has laid off teachers in the last 
few years. They have cut advanced placement courses, art programs, 
foreign languages, vocational education programs--you name it. Wall, 
SD, has eliminated its entire middle-school staff. High school teachers 
in Wall now teach high school and middle school. Rural districts are 
forming consortia to share administrators and education specialists.
  Across the country, schools are laying off teachers and other 
employees, and cutting programs, bus routes, textbook purchases, and 
other expenses. Many communities are rationing Title I funds--limiting 
them to elementary schools only--because, they say, if they had to 
include high schools, there wouldn't be enough left for elementary 
schools to make a difference.
  The refusal by Republicans in Washington to adequately fund Federal 
education programs is not the only reason many public schools are 
having a difficult time balancing their budgets. But, at a time when 
many State and local governments are still struggling, these Republican 
unfunded education mandates are making a difficult situation worse in 
many places.
  And it is going to get much worse. That is not speculation. The Bush 
administration's own internal budget documents project more than $5.5 
billion in cuts for elementary and secondary education in fiscal years 
2005 through 2009. Those cuts are more than six times larger than the 
education increases they are calling for in this election year. That is 
from the President's own Office of Management and Budget.
  If we really couldn't do any better, that would be one thing. But 
this is a matter of choice, not necessity. At the same time the 
President and Congressional Republicans are telling us that we can't 
afford--or don't need--to keep the education promises the Federal 
Government makes, they insist that Congress needs to create tens of 
billions of dollars in new tax breaks for millionaires and wealthy 
corporations. That is the wrong choice for America. Real reform 
requires real resources, otherwise it is just an empty slogan, or 
worse--a set-up for failure.
  As they start this new school year, most children probably aren't 
paying any attention to what goes on in Washington. But what we decide 
here about education will have a profound effect on their future. 
During the education appropriations debate, Democrats are going to 
fight to keep the education promises our Government has made. We hope 
our Republican colleagues will join us--for our children's future, and 
for the future of our democracy.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________