Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Would the Senator state to me, at this time is the Senator the ranking member of the Banking Committee or is the Senator the Chairman of the Banking Committee?

Mr. GREGG. It will be the last one. I agree with the purposes of protecting the minority. That obviously is one of the core elements of our structure of government. My question is this: Under a constitutional government that has a two-party system, when there is an election, is it not appropriate and, in fact, an obligation of a majority which loses its majority to turn over the chairmanships of the committees which operate that government and operate that house to the party which has taken the majority? And is it not the sole purpose of this resolution to accomplish that goal, to establish the committees, and thereby establish the majority party as having the chairmen of those committees? And why is the minority not respecting this understanding of our form of government? Why deny the ability of people who assume the chairmanships of the committees as majority Members of the party?

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

Mr. GREGG. Is it not only the tradition but the legally appropriate action that in a constitutional democracy, where there are two major parties, when a majority takes control of a body within that constitutional democracy, the committees be chaired by the majority party?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question?

Mr. GREGG. Is it not true that the resolution, as brought forth by the majority leader, is consistent with all the resolutions that have been brought forward in the last 10 Congresses relative to the language in that resolution specifically applying only to the membership of the committee?

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

Mr. GREGG. Is it not true that the resolution before the Senate has nothing to do with money either; that it simply deals with the appointment of Members to the committees and the chairmanships of those committees?

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. This is a significant point. We have had a number of extraordinarily enlightening discussions on this floor involving the history of the Senate and the history of the Senate in the context, for example, of the Roman Senate. If you look at the history of this Senate and at the history of legislative bodies similar to the Senate, when there has been a sliding away from the traditional transfer of power as a result of an election; when there has been a sliding away from that, that is when crisis has occurred. I know the Senator who was often giving us extraordinary statements and information on the issue of the Roman Senate, and he would probably have to concede that the Roman Senate--if I may refer to that body as the precursor of ours--really fell into disrepair and became a nonfunctional body when Caesar refused to abide by the Roman Senate and stepped on the authority of the Roman Senate and took away its authority and didn't acknowledge its elective role. The only time in our history when we have not had a transfer of power that has occurred as a result of an election, when the right of an election has been superseded, was in the Civil War, and there were extenuating circumstances for why that occurred. It occurred in the Maryland Legislature, to be specific. So this decision by the other side of the body to retain their chairmanships in the face of an election which has removed them from them, because the majority has shifted, sets a precedent which has immense impact, potentially, on the way this body functions as a reflection of a democratic government. So before the Democratic side of the aisle continues down this course, I think they need to think about what they are doing. Are they damaging the integrity of our process, of the elective process, by continuing to insist that they remain in power when they have lost power through the election? That is what this is about. They want to retain power even though they lost power through the elective process. I think the Senator has touched the issue rather effectively. I suppose it can be understated, but I don't think it is.

Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield further.

Mr. GREGG. I think the Senator is making an excellent point, and it goes beyond just the question of the operation of the Senate. It really goes to the constitutional form of government we have. We have a constitutional democracy in this country. One of the key elements of constitutional democracy is that after there is an election in which one party is succeeded by another party in power, that transfer of power occurs smoothly and seamlessly. That has been the tradition in this country for over 200 years. Yet now we see the other side of the aisle insisting on maintaining their chairmanships after they have lost the majority. That flies in the face of the concept of a constitutional form of government, does it not?

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

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that Senator Nelson of Florida be recognized at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended to 2 p.m., with the time equally divided, and that Senators be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to address again an issue I addressed yesterday on the floor relative to the funding and the activity under the No Child Left Behind legislation which is landmark legislation we passed a year ago which the President of the United States signed and which was a bipartisan effort. After I spoke yesterday, a couple of Senators came down to the Chamber and addressed the issue but, once again, misrepresented the facts. I think it is important, therefore, to restate what the facts are and go through some of the history and also review in more depth a letter which was sent by Senator Kennedy and Senator Miller to the Department of Education, which letter, in my opinion, is off base and inaccurate. To begin with, the No Child Left Behind bill is landmark legislation, the purpose of which is to give parents of low-income children and low- income children an opportunity to participate in the American dream by assuring they get a decent education and have a chance to learn what they need to learn to be competitive with their peers, especially as they proceed through the early years of education. It is a bill that ties four different elements to it. No. 1, the purpose is to obviously give low-income children a better educational opportunity through a process of giving the local school districts flexibility over how they deal with the rules under title I, which is the low-income child education part of the Federal law. No. 2, there is an initiative in this bill to make sure that low- income children are reaching the standards of their peers through putting in place a testing regime which basically sets up accountability and to establish that children of all ethnic groups in the same classroom are learning at a level which is necessary for them to move on so that the children are not being warehoused, are not simply being passed through the system--as we discovered, unfortunately, was happening for years and, at the end of their educational experience in public schools, they really did not know enough to compete in America and to have a successful life. No. 3, if a child was found to be in a school that simply was not working, was not educating that child, there are certain rules put into the bill which empower the parent to take some action so they can get their child the educational assistance they need, such as public school choice, such as getting tutorial support outside the school. And if the school continued not to work, then the public school system was given a lot of funds and resources to correct that problem. No. 4, there was a significant amount of Federal dollars--a dramatic increase in Federal funding--that was put into local schools for the purpose of addressing this bill. That is what I want to talk about today because, once again, that was misrepresented on this floor. The amount of funding which President Bush has put into the new bill represents the most historic increase in the educational funding in the history of Federal funding. It has been a 132-percent increase in funding. We have seen a 132-percent increase in funding in education over the last 6 years, and that compares to a 48-percent increase in Defense, or a 96-percent increase in Health and Human Services. It is a dramatic increase in educational funding. One might say that ties to the Clinton years, too. Yes, it does, but if we look at what President Bush has done in his first year in office, he increased funding in education by approximately $20 billion over the last year of the Clinton administration. That is a dramatic increase, a 50-percent increase almost in funding over the last year of the Clinton administration. The request of the President for new funding in areas of, for example, special education, was historic compared to President Clinton who essentially requested no increases in special education until his last year, this being a chart showing President Clinton's request. The red represents the $1 billion increase in special education funding that President Bush requested and received in his first year, and the $1 billion increase in special education funding which President Bush requested on top of that $1 billion in the coming year. If one looks at the history of the commitment of this President to educational funding, it dwarfs--dwarfs--the commitment made by the Clinton administration. For example, if one looks at the 7 years of increases in educational funding under the Clinton administration, they are almost 25-percent less than the increases which President Bush has put into educational funding in just 2 years. He has not only made this type of a commitment in 2 years, but he has already stated that he intends to increase title I funding by another $1 billion this year. He has asked for that, and I expect we are going to see the same type of dramatic increase in special education funding and across the board. This letter was sent by Senator Kennedy and Senator Miller to Secretary Paige, and it outlined their concerns with the No Child Left Behind legislation. I think it is important to respond to this because this letter was truly an inaccurate letter. It began--and I heard Senator Harkin yesterday parroting this position--by saying that the President has cut No Child Left Behind spending. That is absolutely inaccurate. Not only has he not cut it, he has increased that specific account, title I, by over $4 billion since he has been President. How do they define it as a cut? There is one program--one program-- that they did not fund. It was a $90 million program called the Fund for Improvement of Education. Because they did not fund that one program, that is a cut in the minds of Senator Harkin and Senator Kennedy. That is a very interesting way to account. If you increase spending in one year by $1 billion, but as part of that $1-billion increase you eliminate a program worth $90 million, you have cut spending, according to Senator Kennedy and Senator Harkin. That is a truly unique way to look at the way math is done. I think maybe they should go back and do math in the third grade and see if they pass the test which we are going to try to make sure kids have to pass to be competent in the third grade. Clearly, if the funds have been increased by $1 billion, you have not cut the program. If you have eliminated an earmarked program--which is not working to begin with and which has virtually no purpose other than to fund special interest activity--which is worth $90 million, but at the same time you have increased funding over $1 billion in that account, you have not cut the program; you have improved the program and you have made sure that billion dollars is going to be spent much more effectively. What do we do with the $90 million they eliminated? We sent it back to the towns, the cities, and let the teachers and principals and the school boards decide how to spend that money rather than have it be a categorical program. That representation in the letter was specious. The letter goes on to say the bill is filled with an unfunded mandate 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 in 1995 Congress prohibited unfunded mandates. With regard to school construction, the Department of Education has never required districts to build new schools. Of course, it has not required that in order to accommodate the No Child Left Behind law. Furthermore, the Department is still waiting for the States to draw down $900 million in school construction renovation money that was passed in the year 2001. So the money is still sitting there and has not even been spent. With regard to the new teacher requirement, which simply says the teachers have to be highly qualified teachers, that is not a mandate. In fact, what this bill does is dramatically increase and has dramatically increased the funding for teacher training and for teacher pay and for teacher support. A $742 million increase in one year. Three billion dollars is now going out to the States to assist them with teacher training, teacher qualification, and teacher support. What we did in this bill which is unique and special and is going to help the local school, instead of having a whole set of categorical programs, one of which says you must have this number of teachers in your schoolroom depending on this number of kids, instead of telling schools that is how they have to educate their children, we said we are going to take all this money, this $3 billion--we have increased it now by $742 million--and we will put it together in a pool and we will say to you, the principal, you tell us how you can use this to improve your teachers. If you need more teachers in the classroom, if you need to hire more teachers, you can use the money for that. If you have really good teachers you want to keep in your classroom, you can pay them more. If you have teachers who need technical support, computers, whatever, in their classroom to help them, you can use it that way. If you have teachers who need a little extra help, a little extra education, or want that to improve themselves, you can use it that way. We gave the flexibility to local school districts to make the decisions as to how they were going to use this money to improve their teachers so all the teachers would be of high quality. But that does not satisfy the Senator from Iowa or the Senator from Massachusetts. They want that categorical program which says with this money you have to hire this number of teachers if you have this number of students. That was rejected in No Child Left Behind. You cannot come around the corner now and say you have to do it now because that is not the law anymore. Therefore, you cannot claim there is an unfunded mandate. Let's remember, this President has increased funding for teachers by 35 percent over what the Clinton administration funded. The letter also says the final regulations established an incentive for schools to focus on test scores while ignoring high school 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 and the regulations state even if all children are doing well in school, if the dropout rates are high, the school is still identified as being in need of improvement, a tougher standard than what we passed in the Congress. The letter also criticizes the Department for not 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 my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do the teachers union bidding by trying to prevent individuals who do not go through the traditional teacher certification process, which is dominated by, unfortunately, union rules which sometimes have no relevance to capacity to teach. It restricts those people from being hired. They do not want competition. They do not want teachers coming in from the Teach for America Program or other programs and encourage professionals from other fields to move into the teaching arena. This bill, No Child Left Behind, encourages drawing into our school systems people who are qualified but are not necessarily professional teachers--going to the military services, for example, to get people out of the Army and the Armed Forces into teaching. And as I said, Teach for America. That language was a strong addition to the bill, not a weakening of the bill. The letter also states that the No Child Left Behind prohibited norm- reference tests which measures students' achievements against that of their peers. This is patently false. Patently false. The House bill originally had that language; this language was dropped. It is another example, as is the example that I pointed out prior, of using the old law of the way things used to be to attack the new law, the way things are and the way things are improving. The letter also claims the Department allowed States to use a patchwork of local tests to meet the new annual testing requirements, making it possible to measure whether achievement gaps are closed. The Department has made it crystal clear if you use local tests they have to be comparable tests. That is the way it should be. There is no reason to deny school districts from using local tests. If they put together a plan which makes it clear that those local tests are comparable, of course we should let them use local tests. That is called flexibility. As long as there is a way to compare them and the Department has said that is a commitment, that is something a State has to do in deciding their plan. And let's remember here, one of the States that has met the test of putting forward an accountability system that will work happens to be Massachusetts. Massachusetts has proved you can do it. As has New York. As has Indiana. As has Ohio. Big States. States with lots of kids in their system. Their plans have been approved, ahead of schedule, that they can meet the tests of this bill. And what is the purpose of this bill? Remember, the purpose of the bill is to make sure kids learn. These people who put these plans together are excited about the fact they now have a law they can follow which allows them to make sure that kids do learn. All the teachers in this country, all teachers, that is their purpose. They are altruistic people because they want to help kids learn. Now we put in place a system to help them find out whether the kids are meeting those standards and whether they are learning. These States which have already come up and put forward plans and initiatives which work under the bill are reflecting the energy out there to do good under this bill, and yet we get a letter like this which is basically trying to undermine the bill. Last point. This letter engaged in a bit of what I call revisionist history when it claims No Child Left Behind allows Federal educational programs to directly fund religious organizations and to permit organizations to discriminate based on religion. After many hours of negotiation--I was there; Senator Kennedy was there; Senator Miller was there--and I am very surprised to see this language in this letter. We reached a bipartisan agreement to be silent. That is to allow current law to operate on the issue of the Civil Rights Act. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, religion, national origin and employment, except with regard to employment by religious institutions. We did not nor did we intend to reverse this precedent. To claim otherwise is simply to ridicule the process we went through for months and misrepresents the outcome of the process which we resolved over those months. What my colleagues are asking for in this letter is to have the Department of Education pile more and more regulations onto the States and the local communities as they try to come into compliance and make the No Child Left Behind bill work. That is just the opposite of our goal. Our goal was to free up the local communities in the States to give them the opportunity to use their energy, their creativity, and their individuality to address this very serious problem we have in America, which is that so many kids, especially low-income kids, are not being educated well enough to participate in American society. We don't want to go back to the old way where there were strings running from every desk in this Chamber out to every school district. We were saying: You must do this or we are going to pull that string and jerk you around. We want to go to the new way, which says: We are going to give you flexibility; we are going to give you money; we are going to empower parents to know what is going on. But at the end of the day we are going to expect accountability; we are going to expect results; we are going to expect these kids actually are learning. We are going to test them. The tests will be designed by local folks, but we are going to expect them to learn to the standards the local folks design. It is a reasonable bill. It is going to help a lot of kids in America. And it is unfortunate there appears to be this orchestrated effort to undermine it. It is extremely unfortunate that we hear, again and again, misrepresentations on the floor of this Senate about how much money is committed to it and about the commitment of this President to funding education. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would simply ask if we could enter a unanimous consent agreement on order. I certainly do not object to the Senator from New Jersey having an extra 5 minutes, but I understand the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Ohio wish to speak. I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Utah has spoken, who will speak after the Senator from New Jersey, and after the Senator from Ohio has spoken, I be recognized at the completion of the comments of the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I join with the Senator from Arkansas in thanking her staff member for going to serve our country. We wish him good luck and godspeed as he goes forth to protect us.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I yield the floor. I especially thank the Senator from Minnesota for his courtesy in allowing me to proceed.

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 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.

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 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 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 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, 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.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I will speak for about 40 minutes. I understood the Senator from Arkansas only needed about 5 minutes. I am happy to yield to her now as long as it does not impact my 40 minutes, if the Senator from Arkansas wishes to proceed.

Mr. GREGG. I have no objection.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bill Lucia of my HELP Committee staff be granted floor privileges.