Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator may have whatever time I have.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct. Last year, there were about 450,000 to 500,000 children who dropped out. It is a challenge as to how we bring them back in. There are a number of very effective programs that are doing it, but they are dramatically underfunded. They are not prioritized either. We will welcome the opportunity to join with the Senator as this process moves forward to see what we can do to fund them. I thank the Senator. Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator has asked the absolutely correct question. We are making the reforms in this legislation. The question is, Who is going to benefit and who is going to be left out, left behind? This chart is a reflection of the budget where the appropriation was $3.6 billion for 2001. Under the Bush budget, there is requested $1.669 billion--a 3.5-percent increase. That was the request for this year-- $3.6 billion, down to $1.669 billion. We weren't reaching all the children. I wish we had. I wish the Democrats had done more in terms of education and the allocation of resources. It is interesting. If you take the last 5 years of the Democratic administration, we averaged a 12.8-percent increase in education at a time when we were having the deficits in this country. Now we have the surpluses in this country and we are finding out that we are willing to request only a fraction of that. We are still only covering a third, which can bring you to only one conclusion, and that is that tax breaks for the very wealthy individuals, the 1 percent--we could take a small fraction of the tax breaks that are going to the 1 percent of this country, the top millionaires of this country. Only .008 of the tax break could fully fund title I. Imagine that. We are not even asking for 1 percent. We are not even asking for a half percent, a fraction of that. But no. No. We have to have the tax break. I do not think that expresses the values of the American people. That is translated, I say to the Senator, into the children who are sitting there in those classrooms today--whether they are going to get the supplementary services, whether their teachers are going to get trained. Today in the classrooms across this country, in the urban areas, 80 percent of them do not have math teachers. If they do not get algebra in the eighth grade, they are never going on to college and they are never going to be a participant.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, since 1971 the Nation's schools have faced increased challenges, including higher poverty rates, an increase in children with special education needs, and steadily rising enrollment, with barely adequate resources. Listen to this. From 1989 to 1995, the education expenditures for students grew by less than 1 percent. Between 1994 and 2000, during a time of increasing standards, rising enrollment, increased diversity in schools per pupil, expenditures rose by only 6 percent during that whole period. From 1979 to 1998, the national child poverty rate increased by almost 15 percent. The numbers are going up, and poverty is going up in terms of the children. The poor children are becoming poorer. We hear a great deal about what happened to these poor children. We haven't seen an enormous blossoming under the title I program when we spend about 1 or 2 cents in comparison to what is being spent by the States. We find that in most instances, cities which have the highest number of urban poor don't have the ability really to address this. If we look at what the projections are going to be, from 2000 to the outer 90 years, we are going to double our population. We reach only a third of the children now. We ought to at least commit ourselves to reaching all of the eligible children now. If we are talking about the expanding numbers and extrapolated on that, the figures would be a good deal higher. We are just talking about trying to do what is necessary now. From 1972 to 1998, the percentage of public school students who are a part of minority groups increased from 22 percent to 37 percent. From 1989 to 1997, the enrollment of limited-English-proficient students in our Nation's schools grew by 70 percent. During the same period, the total enrollment of students grew by 14 percent. In the year 2000, States reported more than 864,000 immigrant students enrolled in schools during this period of time. This is what is happening. The poorer schools are expanding. There is a great deal more diversity. More languages are being spoken. In my State of Massachusetts, there are 43 different programs for different languages in the schools to try to help students. There is the impact of the breakup of the family with all of the fallout that has on children. We see growth in substance abuse and growth of violence in our society. There has been very little done for these children. With the fashioning and shaping of this legislation which is going to offer new opportunity and hope for these children, the principal question is, What is going to be the commitment of this body to make sure that it is going to reach the greatest number of children? That is what we are distressed about at this time. If we are really interested in no child being left behind, we can't say we are satisfied with the funding commitment of this bill because it will only reach a third of them. If we don't reach out to the other two-thirds, this bill is effectively a cliche, a shibboleth, a slogan; it isn't real. And there has not been anyone on this floor since we have been debating or talking about this bill who has made the case that these resources are adequate to reach all of the children; they are not. Under the proposals that on this side we support and that we are going to hear about with the amendment of Senator Dodd and others, we meet the challenge as well under IDEA. Under the Bush budget, from 2001 to 2005, we will cover 4.2 million children out of the 13 million. Under our Democratic proposal, by the year 2005 we cover every child. And the $250 billion that went to the other side, if the budgeteers and if the leadership of the other side of the aisle had taken the position, would have come back in support of covering every child. But no; we are still back covering only a third. That is wrong. It is the wrong priority for this country because we are talking about the future of this Nation. It is a mistake for the administration not to understand that we are going to continue to fight for this every step along the way until we get the funding for this program.

Mr. KENNEDY. This, we think, is a very compelling case, particularly juxtaposed against what we are going to be voting on this afternoon. We find it troublesome we are not able to get the strong support from the administration for the funding. Mr. President, how much time do I have that remains?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for his very helpful comments. Virtually all of us on this side of the aisle believe these investments in our children ought to receive a priority. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter sent by 43 different groups that have historically represented children and teachers and parents in schools, many of them for 75, 85, 100 years, urging full funding for the title I programs. Again, we are reaching a third. This is in support of the full funding of the program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from the National Council of the Churches of Christ USA, where they are recommending that we have the full funding for these programs because they understand what difference it makes to the children themselves. I also ask to have printed in the Record the letter we have from the Governors that indicates if we are going to move ahead with this legislation, we should have funding for that program as well.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself another 10 minutes. There is one final area about which I would like to inquire of the Senator. I have a report here that says 36 percent of North Carolina schools report that at least one building needs extensive repair or should be replaced; 68 percent have at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition; 75 percent have crumbling roofs; 14 percent have inadequate heating; 22 percent, bad plumbing; 23 percent, poor ventilation; and 42 percent of the schools do not have sufficient power outlets and electric wiring to accommodate computers and multimedia equipment in classrooms. You can use those figures. I think in my own State it would be higher than these. The point is, the GAO has talked about over $120 billion of needs out there in our schools. I am just wondering what the Senator from North Carolina believes. What sort of message do we send to our children if we send them to these schools in these conditions, when we have the opportunity--and, Lord only knows the resources, with a $1.6 trillion tax cut--that we are still not going to fix those schools up? What kind of message does that send either to the children of North Carolina or the children of Massachusetts who are facing these kinds of problems in schools? Should we not try to be a partner with the State and local communities, trying to help that situation? Does the Senator not believe, with me, that we are talking about these children, now, with this bill, to try to help these children to make sure the facilities they are learning in are going to be safe and secure--at least to respond to the breakdown of some of these buildings themselves?

Mr. KENNEDY. If I could ask the Senator one more question. As I understand it, North Carolina has this Teaching Fellows Program where it recruits talented high school students into the teaching profession--those with a minimum 1100 SAT, 3.6 GPA, and in the top 10 percent of the class--with priorities given to males and minorities. The program provides $5,000 a year for 4 years to 400 outstanding North Carolina high school seniors who agree to teach for 4 years following graduation in one of North Carolina's public schools or U.S. Government schools. This is a model program in North Carolina. The Senator has spoken to it. Has he found this is a program that has helped North Carolina get the quality teachers who have made such an important difference to the children in North Carolina?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for his response. As he knows, this $250 billion did not come back as $200 billion or $175 billion or $100 billion or $50 billion. It came back as no dollars. I hope our Republican friends are able to explain that. I want to ask a final question of the Senator. The State of North Carolina, as I understand, is one of 12 or 13 States that uses its own money to enhance the Head Start Program. Otherwise, I imagine it would be somewhat similar to Massachusetts where about 42, 43 percent of the children are in the Head Start Program. Some of the most urban areas and some of the poorest have lower percentages than that, 35 percent. I was listening to a story about certain areas of the South Bronx are down to 25 percent because they have not been able to get the programs developed. The State of North Carolina has a comprehensive approach. It has Smart Start and North Carolina also has the Head Start Program from which it is getting additional resources. As I understand the position of the Senator from North Carolina, this ought to be a continuum. We ought to have early intervention with children, help them build confidence, help them build their interests in learning, help to open up their minds a bit to the idea of working with other students, as child psychiatrists point out, helping to develop a sense of humor so they can interact with other children. They work in those areas, and also, in their Head Start Programs in a number of the North Carolina situations, they build into those programs the development of some academic challenges that are suitable for those children as well, in an attempt to make sure that when they actually get to the schools, they can benefit. This is a pathway. I know the Senator is committed to each step along the way, as I am. But we are finding out that even if they take this, if North Carolina does what is necessary and they arrive at these schools, at the Federal level we are only funding a third of all those children, those who will be able to get the supplementary services, the other kinds of afterschool programs, the other kinds of help and assistance these children need. Does the Senator think this is important, that we try to build on what has happened in North Carolina, to meet our commitments to those children by covering all the eligible children in North Carolina?

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 10 more minutes. We are trying to make sure these children will not be disadvantaged in academic achievement and will be able to move ahead toward the American dream. That is what this is about. I am wondering whether the Senator agrees with me that what was achieved in North Carolina took resources, took commitment, took a blueprint and would not have happened without the resources. With the resources, they were able to do it and what a difference it has made to those children.

Mr. KENNEDY. We will be voting this afternoon on the Republican budget. We will be able to debate that under the time limitations, but it is coming back now with a little over $1.2 trillion. The Senator, I am sure, remembers the debate we had on the Harkin amendment. This body, in a bipartisan way, gave instructions to the conference that there be $250 billion more committed to education. It is directly relevant to the matters about which the Senator has referred: To take what is working in North Carolina--and we might come back to that in a minute or two--to take those very excellent examples of how North Carolina has taken schools which were seriously behind in academic achievement and promoted those schools. I read where one or two of them are at the top in achievement. As the Senator has pointed out, this is a blueprint we have which the Senator worked on in the committee and has been helping us fashion over the past few days. Does the Senator agree with me that if we have this blueprint, what is going to give life to this blueprint is resources? It is about the future. We are going to be voting on the budget proposal. The Harkin amendment had 19 million classroom slots for students. We are reaching 3 million now. There are 10 million children who qualify. If we had the Harkin amendment, we could have gotten to full funding of title I. We would have had 7 million more slots for afterschool opportunities for youth; 2,750,000 fewer children in Head Start; 2 million opportunities for teachers to build skills by training and mentoring; 50,000 more teachers every year and reducing class sizes in the critically early grades; 2,000 fewer crumbling and unsafe schools. That is what we voted for on a bipartisan basis. We are not going to get a single one of those in the budget that comes here. Doesn't this concern the Senator from North Carolina when we are trying to take this bill we have all worked on in a bipartisan way and believe it is a fundamental building stone of the future of this country because we are talking about our children, and 20 percent, one out of five, are living in serious poverty in this country. We are trying to at least move----

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I congratulate my friend and colleague from Maine for an excellent statement and for her amendment. I am in strong support of her amendment. I spoke to her briefly yesterday about authorizing the Early Reading First Program at $75 million which complements the Reading First initiative by supporting effective approaches for improving the early language literacy skills of children age 3 to 5, and under the program, 4-year competitive grants may be awarded to school districts and nonprofit organization consortia, such as organizations that serve preschool children. Her amendment is not only building on the Reading Excellence Act, and not only provides funds for children in the early grades, but also for the preschool children. That is an area of opportunity and need as well. I am hopeful we will, over a period of time, build on that program. I thank the chairman of our committee. No one knows this issue better than Senator Jeffords. He is the founder of the Everyone Wins Program in Washington, DC, and he is constantly urging Republicans and Democrats to join him in reading to a child at the Brent School. He and I shared that experience on Tuesday. I welcome that opportunity. I know when he speaks about reading and the importance of reading, it is a deeply held belief and one that is rooted in his soul because he lives those words very effectively. It has been a great opportunity. I have enjoyed participating with him in that program, and I know a number of our colleagues do as well. Anyone who has any question in their mind about the importance of developing effective programs in reading, if they would spend a few hours--just an hour, actually, a week--they would be the most enthusiastic supporter of this program. It will have an enormous impact on the children. Most important, it will enhance their ability to learn. It will excite them about learning. It will give them countless joy in the future. It is a wonderful undertaking. The expansion of this program, which started a few years ago, will be enormously important. I look forward to working with Senator Collins in giving additional focus and life to the earlier interventions for children because that is of major importance. Finally, we have heard a great deal about what title I has not done over the years. For the benefit of the membership, this chart is NAEP reading scores over the past 25 years. These are the constant scores for the same test. If you look at this chart from 1971 to 1999, you will see there has been a very modest increase in 13-year-olds over that period of time. There has been a very modest increase among black teenagers and Hispanic teenagers. There has been a very modest reduction in the difference between the races, which is encouraging. It is interesting to note, if you look over what was happening to children during this period of time with increased poverty, an increased number of immigrant children, non-English-speaking children, that is also an indicator and has a significant impact on these numbers. One can see looking at this chart that there is a gradual improvement for all 13-year-olds over that period of time. The next chart is NAEP reading scores for 9-year-olds over the past 25 years. We see the same: a very modest increase for 9-year-olds and somewhat a closing of the gap among the other children as well, although it has been very modest. The next chart is in the area of math. The significance of these charts show, if one goes from 1973 to 1999, for 13-year-olds, the line is moving in a positive direction. That is a hopeful sign. These are NAEP scores. If one looks at the black children, we see the gap, which was 46 points in 1973, has been reduced to 32 points in 1999 which is a very sizable reduction. There have been some rather important gains made in math. Another chart, again the NAEP tests, the 1990 trends in academic progress, shows the gap closing in math for 13-year-olds. It was a 35- point gap in 1973, and it is down to 24 points. Again, those lines are moving in a positive direction. This chart is the older children, 17-year-olds, and one will see a 52-point gap in 1971 down to a 29-point gap. The point is we have a long way to go, but we have made some important progress. The other important point about these charts is the schools that made the greatest difference had both reform and resources. That is why we come back to the basic point that is underlying this bill and why we have been able to fashion a very good, effective bill. In a number of ways, if I had been drafting it, I would have drafted it differently. This is a very important bill, but it needs the resources to give these trend lines a real boost in the future. That is what we want. We want reform and resources. We are talking about investments in children, investments in the futures of children. Children are the future. We need those kinds of investments. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is true that probably 5 or 7 percent of this has just been drafted, but 85 percent of it had been drafted and completed 4 days ago. The Senator is quite within his rights, but just for the membership, those on the committees who are interested, 85 percent of that has been in draft form. It is still a sizable amount.

Mr. KENNEDY. I yield that time.

Mr. KENNEDY. Of that time, I only have 5 minutes?

Mr. KENNEDY. Parliamentary inquiry: Is this the time divided earlier until noon? Is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. I have 5 minutes?

Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield the Senator 10 minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we generally try to follow a format here, where the Members file their amendments, and then those who were the principal sponsors speak to them, and those others who are in support or in opposition get an opportunity to address it. I welcome the opportunity to do so. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold.