Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004

DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

AMENDMENT NO. 1611 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1542

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for calling on me and allowing this unanimous consent request which gives me an opportunity to present an amendment.

Most of us in the Senate joined President Bush in voting for No Child Left Behind. When the President took office and said he wanted to make a bipartisan commitment to change education in America, many of us took him seriously and did our best to join him and passed legislation which was historic because it established an obligation of local school districts across America to test children to make certain that they were making progress. It also included some penalties for those schools that were not making progress, for fear that children, after a number of years, would fall so far behind they would never have a chance. It really created an incentive in one respect and a penalty in another respect for those school districts where schools found children falling further and further behind.

There were those who said that this focus on testing was excessive. I shared their concerns but believed that it was an important element in bringing our schools to a national standard of excellence. And there were those who said this is expensive. If you have a child who is struggling to keep up with the class, that child needs extra attention and help. Tutoring, a helping hand, that child may need an afterschool program, a summer program, that child may need a personal mentor or teacher to help—all of those things were reasonable, but all of those things were expensive.

The bill also said, we want to make certain the teacher standing in front of the classroom is qualified to teach. If you hold yourself out as a math or science or foreign language teacher, you need to have a background. If you don't, the bill requires that these teachers go back to school, pick up the necessary college credits to indicate that they deserve a certification in that specialty.

So overall, this is a bill which has a good goal and one I supported.

No Child Left Behind was a bargain between the Federal Government and the school districts. We were going to provide resources to the school districts in exchange for reform, tough accountability provisions. And consequences for failure were implemented.

In return, we pledged new investments of Federal money to pay for the needed improvements. The Senate bill we are considering, this appropriations bill, is more than $6 billion short of meeting our end of the bargain under title I. We had a chance the other day when ROBERT BYRD had an amendment saying let's keep our end of the bargain and provide the $6 billion, and it was voted down.

So we have a mandate on school districts across America that is unfunded—unfunded to the tune of $6 billion. I have here a chart, which I will share with you, which Senator Byrd brought to the floor. It shows, State by State, what each State will lose as a result of our failure to fund No Child Left Behind as promised. Let's take one State, for example.

In Nebraska, $24 million will be lost; money that was promised to that State will not be coming for No Child Left Behind, but the mandates and requirements will be coming. There is a $255 million shortfall in my State of illinois. The total is $6 billion.

The Durbin-Schumer amendment that I am offering here prohibits the Department of Education from imposing penalties on schools for failing to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind if we fail to fund it as promised. Schools should not be penalized for not meeting requirements of this unfunded mandate. This amendment does not repeal or weaken the standards of No Child Left Behind. It does not affect testing or measurement provisions. The tests will continue. So the testing of students will continue. It provides schools with a 1-year respite from corrective action when we fail to live up to our funding commitment for title I. An identical amendment was supported a few weeks ago in the House by 195 members.

When No Child Left Behind was signed into law, we pledged $18.5 billion to the States for this year to help them meet the tough accountability standards. Without the extra funding provided by the Byrd amendment, which was defeated, we are going to miss that target by $6 billion. It means 6 million kids are being left behind by the Senate appropriation—by the failure of the Bush administration and this appropriation bill to keep our word.

In my State of Illinois, we are struggling with problems that many States are facing. School districts across Illinois are laying off thousands of teachers and support staff. Class sizes of 40 students are found in some schools. Salaries are being cut for other school employees. The Chicago public schools closed down two schools for teen parents. Hamilton County closed two elementary schools. The Carpentersville suburban school district cut 140 teaching positions. Elgin Unit School District 46, already operating with 600 fewer teachers because of cuts, will be forced to leave four recently built schools vacant for the entire school year because it cannot afford to staff them. Middle-school students in Gurnie must now pay $145 to play a team sport and $60 to join the band or choir.

In Pennsylvania, the Mill Creek school board cut 30 positions, including teachers, educational assistants, custodians, and athletic staff. Yesterday the Pennsylvania State legislature announced an education initiative funded at $610 million below the Governor's request. This leaves Pennsylvania's 501 school districts with just $53 million—roughly $105,000 per district—to help students meet the mandates of the Federal Government in No Child Left Behind.

The Philadelphia school district has had problems for years attracting qualified teachers. At the end of last week, there were 109 vacancies out of 12,000 teaching positions—up from 67 vacancies last week. This increase in teacher vacancies in Philadelphia is a result of new hires not showing up for class on the day they were due to start.

In Tennessee, Montgomery County schools are laying off 30 bus drivers. Rhea County teachers, administrators, and parents pleaded with the local board of education to rehire two school nurses. A Nashville elementary school principal, frustrated with the condition of 49 aging windows at her school, smashed them herself in an attempt to force the district to replace them.

In Massachusetts, the State is planning to eliminate tutorial assistance to students who fail its MCAS test—which is required for graduation—on the first try. More than 100 districts are charging students a fee for school bus transportation, ranging from $25 to $850.

The list goes on. Of the most recent news reports of what school districts are facing and the reality across America, one that just came across my desk I think is particularly troubling. It comes from Florida. The headline is, "Law Lets Students
Forego Senior Year." It says:

Of all the ways attempted to free up space in Florida's crowded classrooms, this one could be a dream come true for high schoolers in a hurry: a diploma without a senior year.

Supporters of a law granting a high school diploma in just three years said it will help curb crowding in Florida's schools.
This is the reality of the state of funding for education across America.

For us to impose a mandate on school districts in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, Tennessee, Massachusetts, and New York and not provide the funding is, frankly, to put additional financial burdens on these school districts, which we are not paying for.

Frankly, I think there is a way to address this in a sensible fashion. If we are not going to provide 95 percent of the money we promised for No Child Left Behind, then we should suspend the penalties that will be imposed on school districts under
No Child Left Behind. The testing goes on, and the accountability goes on. But to say to school districts that they have to assume the responsibilities of paying the consequences of our failure to fund No Child Left Behind is fundamentally unfair.

No Child Left Behind provisions that would be suspended under this amendment include mandatory transportation to other schools in the district for students who wish to transfer—a very expensive undertaking, particularly in large cities such as Philadelphia and Chicago; supplemental tutoring, paid for by the district for students not meeting State proficiency standards. We would like to see that, but we should fund the bill as promised.

My colleagues should remember that Senator Dodd came to the floor, and his concern was that No Child Left Behind would not be adequately funded. He offered a bipartisan amendment, which we adopted as a final part of the bill, which promised each and every year the exact amount of money we would appropriate for No Child Left Behind. This year we missed that target by $6 billion.

My amendment would also suspend corrective action which could include one or more of the following: replacing school staff, implementing new curriculum, appointing an outside consultant, or extending the school day or year. Every one of these is a good idea. I voted for them. But why in the world would we impose that corrective action on a school district and not provide them the resources to take care of it, to provide the tutors and outside consultants?

We also would suspend the mandated restructuring or alternative governance, to reopen a school as a charter school, and replacing all or a majority of the school staff.

I am asking my colleagues to listen to the families, the parents, the schoolteachers, and administrators in their home States.
You know what you have heard. I have heard it as well. In school districts large and small, they believe in reform. They will accept accountability. But they ask us for the resources to help. At a time when school districts across America are struggling to keep the doors open, struggling to hire the teachers, crowding into classrooms because of State deficits and local property tax problems, how can we in Washington, in our infinite wisdom, decide we are going to impose new standards and costs on these school districts and not pay for them? That is what we are doing.

This is clearly an unfunded mandate. Frankly, I think the Bush administration and this Congress made a promise.
Unfortunately, the President has not worked as ferociously for No Child Left Behind funding as he has for other things, such as his tax-cut program. He has not shown the same passion for providing school resources as he has for many other elements of this budget.

Many of the people who now criticize this amendment claim the authorized amounts for title I are not promises; they are just suggestions. In many cases that is true, but it is not true on this bill.

The Dodd amendment puts specific authorization levels into place for each and every year—authorization levels we failed to meet with this bill's appropriation. We have never done that before in education bills. Traditionally, Congress only said we would appropriate such amounts as may be necessary. The Dodd amendment locked in authorization levels. In other words, we put those amounts in for a reason.

Not funding title I at the level we set is breaking our promise to schools and families and children across the country. The difference between what Congress agreed in 2001 it would cost to implement the reforms in No Child Left Behind and what has actually been delivered to schools is widening each year. If this bill passes, we are shortchanging schools across America by $6 billion, but we are sending them the full cost of the mandate—unfunded mandates on local schools at the worst possible moment—in the midst of a national recession, when State budgets are unable to provide the resources they need. It is an unfunded mandate we should not be party to.

Many people have raised the question about the IDEA special education funding. Well, would you suspend that mandate? I, frankly, hope we will vote—and I think the amendment will be offered shortly—to fully fund IDEA. That is a responsibility we should take on our shoulders. Many of us said we believe in it. This bill doesn't fund it properly. I think we can.

The administration's approach to funding IDEA, incidentally, for school districts across America is totally unrealistic.

We just are not going to be able to fund it if we follow the President's lead.

Since we cannot seem to find the money to pay for the reforms of No Child Left Behind, I am offering this amendment that will alleviate some of the pressures for schools until we live up to our promises.

The amendment prevents the Department of Education from penalizing a school for failing to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind unless the authorized level of funding is provided. The mandate is yes if the funding is yes. No mandate, no funding.

I voted for this law. I want it to work. But just as funneling money into failing schools without accountability is unacceptable, so is imposing new mandates without fully funding them.

The amendment does not repeal or weaken the standards contained in No Child Left Behind. It is not a retreat in the face of reform. Schools are serious about meeting their challenges, but they need the resources to make it work.

When I talk with these teachers working hard to prepare children for this test, they tell me: Senator, I can do well with a lot of kids in my class, but some of them need extra special attention. These are kids who have been transferred just recently into our schools, kids with serious family problems, and kids who have had problems in their classes last year.

These are situations which reflect the real world of classrooms today. Yet by not funding title I in State after State, we fall $6 billion short of giving that teacher the resources he or she needs to bring that child up to the appropriate level of testing competence.

My amendment does not affect the testing or measurement provisions of No Child Left Behind. It does not change the requirement that all teachers be highly qualified. My amendment would give schools a 1-year respite from corrective action when we fail to live up to our funding. The Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, NANCY PELOSI, spoke on the floor when they considered a similar amendment, which had 198 votes in favor. She said:

This amendment presents the Chamber with a moment of truth as to whether Congress is honest about its commitment to education; whether or not it will honor its promise to America's children contained in the No Child Left Behind Act.

We need to keep our word and demonstrate our commitment to reform not just by talking tough and imposing new standards, but by giving our schools and teachers the resources we promised, the resources we authorized specifically for this year. When we fail to provide these school districts those resources at this critical time, we are shortchanging education across America. We are saying our Federal brilliance, when it comes to education, that led to these mandates, is much more compelling than the personal and local challenges which these school districts are meeting every single day.

Whether I go to the rural areas of Illinois or the big city of Chicago, I hear the same thing: Senator, it is a good idea. We will do our best to make it work. We are prepared to face the challenge of No Child Left Behind. But send us the resources you
promised. Don't mandate this No Child Left Behind Program without the resources to make it work.

Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be stated by the clerk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. DURBIN], for himself, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 1611 to amendment No. 1542.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit funds appropriated in this Act from being used by the Department of Education to enforce any requirement under section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, or to implement penalties or sanctions under part A of title I of such Act, if the amount appropriated to carry out such part A for fiscal year 2004 is less than $18,500,000,000)

At the end of title III (relating to the Department of Education), insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following:

SEC. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used by the Department of Education to enforce any requirement under section 1116 of part A of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6316), or to implement any penalty or sanction applicable to a State, a State educational agency, a local educational agency, or a school under such part A, if the amount appropriated in this Act for the purpose of carrying out such part A for fiscal year 2004 is less than $18,500,000,000, as authorized to be appropriated for such purpose in section 1002(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6302(a)). Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a State, a State educational agency, a local educational agency, or a school from implementing the requirements of section 1116 of such Act

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I just listened to the passionate commitment of the Senator from New Hampshire to No Child Left Behind, and it is no surprise. When he made the same speech on the floor on behalf of the legislation, it was so compelling, I joined him and voted for it. But I wonder, where was that passionate commitment to No Child Left Behind when ROBERT C. BYRD of West Virginia offered an amendment yesterday to pay for it?

Here is the rollcall. With the exception of my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, those who were giving these passionate speeches about No Child Left Behind had a chance yesterday to pay for it and refused to do so. They refused to put the money down to pay for this great, new idea, this new Federal mandate.

Lest you believe this is just an issue in Chicago, IL, in a place called Concord, NH, on August 18 they released the State budget. They have a problem. The budget contains $1 in each—$1 in each—of the next 2 years for State assessment tests.
If the money is not found, and soon, to pay for the next round of tests, the schools that are on the failing schools list cannot get off it.

It tells me that New Hampshire and Nebraska, like Illinois, like Massachusetts, and every State, are struggling to come up with resources for education.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DURBIN. No, I will not. You have your own time.

If we had voted for the Byrd amendment, $19 million would have gone to the State of New Hampshire. If we had joined
Senator Kennedy voting for it, the Massachusetts allocation would have been $129, and $250 million from my own State.
So let me say to those passionately committed to No Child Left Behind today, where were you yesterday? Where were you on the Byrd amendment when you could have put the money we promised into the bill?

To my friend Senator Kennedy, it is indeed painful. It was unthinkable, when I ran for the Senate, that I would be in this position of debating him on an education issue, but we do disagree.

What I am eliminating is the mandate. Each and every school district in his State and my State can use the Federal funds for tutoring, for teacher quality, for afterschool. The funds that are available can be used. But the mandate is removed until we put an adequate amount of money on the table.

Regarding his State of Massachusetts, he speaks about the MCAS score, and he is proud of it. Yet the most recent report is this out of Massachusetts. The State is planning to eliminate tutorial assistance to students who fail the MCAS test, which is required for graduation, on their first try. Massachusetts, as good a story as there is to be told, is struggling, like the State of Louisiana and the State of Nebraska and the State of New Hampshire and the State of Illinois. Yet our mandates continue.

When I asked the head of the Chicago Public Schools System, his position on it, he said:

I am prepared to implement No Child Left Behind. I am happy to do it. But send me the resources to get it done.

And let me quote from a speech he recently gave in Chicago—Arne Duncan, head of Chicago Public Schools:

I would much rather invest Federal dollars in tutoring struggling students than transporting students outside their neighborhood. I would much rather invest Federal dollars for new schools and buy more buildings and help our teachers and our principals become better educators.

What this professional educator is saying to us is: For goodness' sake, if you are not going to fund the Federal mandate, don't impose it on us. Let us respond to the emergencies we face every single day.

I urge our colleagues to listen to their educators at home and support the amendment today.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 1613 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1542

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the amendment which I am offering, with Senator Kennedy now having joined forces with me as well as Senator Edwards and others in support, is an effort to provide money for teacher quality in the No Child Left Behind Act; that is; to fund the Federal mandate.

This bill cuts teacher quality grants by $84 million, eliminating training for 20,000 teachers nationwide. The No Child Left
Behind Act raises the standard for students and requires school districts to close the achievement gap between minority and nonminority students. It also raises standards for teachers, mandating that all teachers are highly qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year.

Research shows that teacher effectiveness is the single most important factor that influences student achievement. It is more important than the income of the student's family, for cumulative expenditures or any other investment in the classroom.

Students assigned to high-quality teachers can gain a full grade level of achievement of students over students in ineffective classes. Nine out of 10 Americans believe that improving teaching is the most important strategy for improving schools.

Recent research links student learning to having licensed teachers.

Researchers in Arizona State found that students with certified teachers perform 20 percent better than assessments of those with noncertified.

A study at Stanford found that States such as North Carolina, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Maine that have complement student achievement standards and investment in teacher quality have higher achievement in reading and math.

The list goes on and on.

What we are saying with this amendment is that we need to find the resources that we promised under the No Child Left Behind Act.

This amendment is going to provide greater teacher quality and training that will help these students across America reach their potential because they have competent and qualified teachers in the classroom.

I hope my colleagues here who have had second thoughts about whether they want to fund the No Child Left Behind Act will not have second thoughts when it comes to teacher quality. Let us provide the resources that are necessary to make the No Child Left Behind Act work and allow teachers to have the competence in the classroom to succeed.

I withhold the remainder of my time and yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. I have very brief remarks and then I will conclude.

Let me make sure we understand exactly what this amendment does. I have spoken to the issue of teacher quality. There is $325 million in State grants for that purpose. I think this shows an increase in the teacher quality commitment which is important for us to make sure the No Child Left Behind Act succeeds. There is another $2 million for training teachers in technology.

How many times have we visited the classroom as Senators and found older teachers such as myself in age struggling to understand the new technology? The bill before us zeros that out. There is no money for preparing our teachers to use technology. This amendment adds $62 million, and $50 million for training teachers in math and science. It increases the investment by $50 million to a total of $150 million.

I think this is an extremely high priority when you consider the technical challenges facing us in this century. Finally, there is $12.1 million for school leadership which helps to recruit, train, and retain principals and assistant principals. These are the people who have the responsibility to make the school work.

I think this $450 million is money well spent—money that lets the No Child Left Behind Act have a chance to succeed. To shortchange it, unfortunately, will cause us to fall short of our promise and fall short of the mark in improving education across America.

I yield the remainder of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 1611

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, like many Members of the Senate, I voted in favor of No Child Left Behind, a bipartisan effort to bring accountability to education, mandates on local school districts to test kids, and if the test scores did not meet certain levels they would be mandated to make necessary changes in the way they taught the children. The understanding was we would provide resources to the school districts to help them meet this challenge. This bill fails by $6 billion to provide the resources for the school districts.

My amendment says this: We will suspend the mandates. We require the testing to continue so we know the progress being made by the students. But unless and until we are ready to fund this bill as we promised, we are suspending the mandates on the school districts to move children within the school districts, and the other mandated requirements.

I say to my friends, when you go home and speak to the leaders in school districts, they will tell you, as good an idea as this was, Senator, you are not providing the funds. It is an unfunded Federal mandate.

I hope if you have heard the same story from your local school districts that are ready to work with us, ready to comply with No Child Left Behind, you will join me in suspending these mandates until we reach the funding level we promised under No Child Left Behind.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, for those tortured souls who are following this debate, understand what we have said about the centerpiece of education reform in America, No Child Left Behind. Yesterday, we said we were unwilling to provide the funds that we promised to make No Child Left Behind work—unwilling to provide the title I funds. We are going to undercut that funding by some $6 billion so money will not be available to help tutor children who are not doing well on tests.

In the previous amendment, I said if we are not going to provide the funds, we should not mandate the school districts to comply with No Child Left Behind, and that was defeated. So the Members of the Senate said, despite the fact we have not funded No Child Left Behind, we are going to enforce mandates on the school districts in America.

Now I give colleagues another chance. This says that when it comes to teacher quality and mandates in No Child Left
Behind, we will provide the money we promised so that the teacher in the classroom is qualified to teach. It is a $450 million amendment. I commend it to my colleagues.