Education

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to respond and echo the comments of Senator Kennedy. A year ago, with much hope and great fanfare, we all looked at the signing of the No Child Left Behind Act as a positive step forward, a recognition that we could not simply sit back and let education in the United States continue on its then-current course.

We also hoped the great rhetoric would be matched with real resources. Sadly, those resources have not materialized. The President, only a few weeks after signing the bill, released his budget numbers for fiscal year 2003 which significantly reduced funding for the No Child Left Behind Act. In fact, the President's budget contained the smallest increase overall for education funding in years. A small increase, but nothing commensurate with the kind of expectations that were generated by the No Child Left Behind Act.

We fear—I fear—that that same reality will be visited upon us this evening in the State of the Union speech, and next week when the President releases this year's budget. There will be no significant increase overall in education spending.

The President may point to an increase in title I that he has advertised, a $1 billion increase. That would raise title I funding to $12.3 billion. But let me remind all who are listening, that $12.3 billion is about $6 billion less than the authorized figure in the No Child Left Behind Act.

I can remember the discussions, the debate when we were urging a level of title I funding that would be adequate to deal with the challenges we have placed on all the school districts in this country, to be accountable and to perform at a level that is equal to the challenges of this new and very demanding world we face. So the title I money is an increase, but it is insignificant compared to the target we established, agreed on, and fought for in the No Child Left Behind Act.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. REED. I am happy to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. Seeing the Senator from Connecticut here, does my friend from Rhode Island remember that we had a specific vote? I believe it was a vote on a Dodd-Collins amendment, which ended up with 79 votes, Republicans and Democrats alike. Seventy-nine Senators voted for that full funding here on the floor of the Senate. Yet we were unable to get that kind of support from the administration. Republicans, Democrats alike here on the floor of the Senate said this is a priority for us. Does the Senator remember? This is not a partisan issue. We were joined, were we not, by Republican colleagues?

Mr. REED. Indeed, you are correct, I say to the Senator. We were joined by practically every Member of the Senate regardless of party and region. They believed, as we did, in the need for real resources, particularly for the title I program. What the President is proposing is more of a cosmetic increase in title I, rather than the kind of increase we need to do the job.

I was listening to Senator Kennedy, my colleague from Massachusetts. He laid out the current dilemma of local school districts, where they are cutting class days, they are charging for transportation, they are charging for music education. That is in response to the current distressed economy. Don't forget, school districts are now required to do much more, by the Federal Government, by the No Child Left Behind Act. They are in a situation where they have to cut costs. At the same time, they have to respond to more challenges, more mandates from the Federal Government. It is getting worse.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for another point?

Mr. REED. I am happy to yield.

Mr. KENNEDY. I see we are joined by another member of the committee, the Senator from New York.

Would the Senator not agree with me, and I hope my colleagues would comment, one of the very sad aspects of this is, not only are they having the cuts, but where there are percentage cuts—which have taken place and which were initially proposed in my own State of Massachusetts—in the wealthier communities, they are making up the difference.

I have several illustrations which show how communities that have greater affluence are making up the difference of what they are getting shortchanged, but the poorer districts are once again left high and dry. In well-off Manhattan Beach, CA, parents and the district raised $1.4 million in private funding to pay for music and art staff and teacher aides. The average home in this district is worth $900,000. Also, in a wealthy Kansas City suburb, the Belinder Elementary School brought in proceeds from parent donations earlier this year to help pay the salaries of a nurse, counselor, and foreign language teacher. The efforts raised $78,000 in two weeks to pay for positions that would have been cut as the district faced a $6 million shortfall. But in poor communities, parental philanthropy is not an option—and the children in those communities will be left behind. In Boston, Massachusetts, principals were told to brace for a $60 million cut—and there is no hope for making up that money from somewhere else. According to Boston's Chief Operating Officer, Michael Contompasis, this means, ".    .    . humongous layoffs. Everything is on the table." So, again, those children who come from particularly trying and difficult or disadvantaged circumstances are paying even a higher price.

Mr. REED. I think that is absolutely right. I think the Senator from Connecticut might have a comment also, and I yield to him for a comment.

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I thank our colleagues from Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island who are here to talk about this issue. In just a few short hours from now we are going to hear the President address the Nation on the State of the Union. If you were to ask the question, what is the state of the union, to the average person, if the question were to be asked, I suppose, of the average family, you may get this sort of analysis: How secure is my family economically? Personally? What does our future look like? That is not a bad question, when you ask how are you doing.

When it comes to the issue of education, I think the answer has to be: Worried about how I see the future for my family and our children. I am relying on the Federal Government to be a supporter of basic needs in education.

You have to be able to listen to the rhetoric. You will hear a speech tonight. I presume it will be a good one. Presidents normally give pretty good speeches on the State of the Union. But I also think, as my colleagues pointed out, matching up the rhetoric, the language, with the action is critically important. It is the same as we would ask of anyone else. It is nice to hear words about diversity of higher education, nice to hear about making college more affordable, and leaving no child behind. But then you quickly have to ask, Now, what have you done to increase the diversity of our populations in higher education? What have you done or what are you doing to make higher education more affordable? And what, in fact, are you doing to see to it that no child is left behind in our elementary and secondary public school education system?

If you look at those three issues alone—as our colleagues already pointed out here, but it deserves being repeated—in the area of diversity, of course, we find the President attacking the affirmative action programs in the country.

My friend from Rhode Island is maybe in a unique position to talk about the United States military, the United States military academies, and what a remarkable job they have done. He is a graduate of West Point and was a distinguished officer in the United States Army for many years, as a professor at West Point. Certainly our military academies have demonstrated how having affirmative action perhaps has contributed significantly to the strength and well-being and diversity of our officer corps in the United States.

In fact, I would argue that the affirmative action programs in our military academies are exactly the affirmative action programs the President has attacked at the University of Michigan and elsewhere.

Second, I ask my colleagues from Rhode Island, New York, or Massachusetts, what has happened to make college more affordable? We have asked that Pell grants be supported. Yet the administration has said already—maybe they will change their mind tonight; I hope they do. Nothing would please me more than to have the President announce in the State of the Union tonight that he is supporting the full funding of the Pell grant program. I hope this evening he will talk about that.

Third, of course, our colleagues have already spoken out about the Leave No Child Behind legislation, with special education, where we are abysmally short. The White House did not stand up last year in support of special education and still continues to oppose the $4.6 billion necessary to meet the goals.

But my colleague may want to comment on the diversity issue, since he is a graduate of the West Point Academy and knows how important those programs have been to strengthening the United States military. I ask him whether or not that is the case.

Mr. REED. Reclaiming my time, whatever is left, I believe in fact that it is a model for the kind of program that recognizes talent, effort and initiative, but also considers that we want not just a student body at West Point, but also an officer corps in the Army that represents every segment of society. I also serve currently as Chairman of the Board of Visitors at West Point. We have the opportunity to review the admissions process every year.

Frankly, it is a success. The admissions policy at West Point provides an opportunity to broaden, diversify, and make better the institution with some very talented individuals.

Let me put it in perspective. I graduated in 1971. We had two African-Americans in my class. Today, African-Americans make up 8 percent of the student body. Frankly, the military has a larger representation of minorities than that 8 percent, but it represents an officer corps that is both diverse and, let me emphasize, talented. There is no sacrificing standards. There is no sacrificing ability. There is no sacrificing patriotism or anything else. We get wonderful people.

To me, affirmative action is not about quotas. It is about looking beyond just the people who want to show up in the front ranks because they have gone to good high schools, they have parents helping them along, and all the other things that lead them to even apply to West Point. It is about looking beyond that. It has been very successful.

I also suggest that it has been represented by the success of those young men and women in our military forces who are now general officers. The Commandant of Cadets of West Point today is an African-American officer, a graduate of West Point. That would have been exceptional 30 years ago.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, I asked someone once to define or describe affirmative action. They said: Senator, affirmative action is when someone tells you they can't find somebody, try again. If they still can't, try again.

What my colleague from Rhode Island is saying, when we talk about the success and the wisdom of affirmative action, it has been because of places such as West Point Academy and other of our military academies, where they have tried again to identify and find qualified students and consider them as enrollees to these universities where, in fact, they may have looked into a lot of issues other than just the simple criteria that you might apply to everyone else. As a result of that, they have been able to bring people into our academies. It is not a determining factor, but a factor, in considering the admissions to these academies. Is that not true?

Mr. REED. That is exactly correct.

Frankly, the other argument that is made against affirmative action programs is that they stigmatize the beneficiaries. That could not be further from the truth when it comes to the wonderful officers who have graduated from West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy. They walk out well qualified, well prepared, well trained. There is no stigma. It is with pride that they serve their country.