[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 138 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11980-S11981]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HATFIELD:
  S. 2166. A bill to increase the overall economy and efficiency of 
Government operations and enable more efficient use of Federal funding, 
by enabling State, local, and tribal governments and private, nonprofit 
organizations to use amounts available under certain Federal assistance 
programs in accordance with approved flexibility plans; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


        THE LOCAL EMPOWERMENT AND FLEXIBILITY PILOT ACT OF 1996

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the appropriations process of the 
past few weeks has been very complex. Rolling several spending bills 
into one--to the tune of $600 billion--is not the most appropriate 
method to appropriate. However, as the fiscal year expires tonight, 
avoiding a Government shutdown is our national priority. As a result of 
our need to be hasty, many Members have lost, or been asked to 
withhold, their legislative priorities. This is the compromising nature 
absolutely necessary to reach agreement in time for the President to 
sign this bill today.
  One withheld legislative goal that I would like to expound upon is my 
own--the Local Empowerment and Flexibility Act of 1996. I introduced 
this bill on the first day of the 104th Congress. Congress has held 
three hearings, one in the Senate and two in the House, and ``Local-
Flex,'' as I call it, was reported favorably out of both the House 
Government Reform and Oversight Committee and the Senate Governmental 
Affairs Committee months ago.
  An agreement had been reached to include a six-State Local-Flex pilot 
in the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. The assistance of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee as well as Senators Shelby, Kerrey, 
Kennedy, and Simon was greatly appreciated. However, before the 
agreement could be incorporated into the Treasury-Postal bill, various 
other amendments forced leadership to pull the bill off the floor. I 
then included the agreed upon pilot in the Senate CR with the hope and 
expectation that it would be included in the final omnibus bill. 
Unfortunately, the necessary haste of the government-wide spending bill 
precluded securing final agreement to incorporate the Local-Flex pilot. 
I have no doubt that a few additional moments would have made this 
possible.

  Local-Flex provides communities flexibility in the administration of 
Federal funding. States and localities receive numerous Federal grants, 
each with their categorical purposes and

[[Page S11981]]

specific requirements. As grantees use more than one grant together, 
requirements conflict and common sense government can be lost. Under 
Local-Flex, in exchange for flexibility in the form of waivers of 
statutory and regulatory requirements, grantees agree to focus on and 
measure results rather than procedural compliance. With over 635 
Federal grants available to be mixed and matched at the local level, 
there should be little doubt that flexibility is required.
  Mr. President, the past year, the Governmental Affairs Committee, 
House of Representatives, administration, interest groups and other 
interested Members have come to the table to practically discuss how 
the bill would work and what improvements should be made. Serious 
concerns have been addressed and great headway was made to the point 
that the Local-Flexibility Pilot has the broad bipartisan support of 
the Governmental Affairs Committee.

  Unfortunately, I am disappointed to report that even with the 
bipartisan support of the committee of jurisdiction, the support of the 
National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and 
yet other interest groups have targeted Local-Flex, warning their 
members of the danger that results whenever communities are empowered 
to make decisions which affect their citizens.
  As former Governor of Oregon, I vividly recall the lack of trust 
Washington has for the State and local level. That is why for several 
years I have been pushing forward what I call the ``flexibility 
factor.'' The Education Flexibility Act or ``Ed-Flex,'' was my first 
piece and become law in 1993. It provides much needed flexibility in a 
select number of education programs. Ed-Flex has been enormously 
successful, and what started as a six-State pilot is being expanded 
with New Mexico becoming the most recent Ed-Flex State.
  The second piece to my flexibility factor is ``Work-Flex.'' 
Originally a part of the Careers Act of Senator Kassebaum, and now a 
part of the omnibus appropriations bill, Work-Flex reduces Government 
bureaucracy specifically in the area of job training programs, of which 
there are over 100, by measuring and rewarding outcomes and not 
bureaucratic procedure.
  The last and most significant piece to the flexibility factor has 
been Local-Flex--legislation which will not be passed this year, but I 
would like to, in a moment, introduce as a free-standing bill the 
Local Empowerment and Flexibility Pilot Act of 1996.

  The key organization that resisted the concept of local-flexibility, 
was the National Education Association. No matter what changes were 
made to Local-Flex, an offshoot of the Education Flexibility Act, it 
has been made clear to me that the NEA would never support Local-Flex. 
It is not my usual custom to focus on any one group or individual on 
the Senate floor, but I cannot be silent as my commitment to education 
is questioned as flagrantly as it has been by the NEA. My support for 
education funding is absolute, but my support for flexible funding is 
just as strong.
  More than once I have been endorsed by the Oregon Education 
Association, and on the issue of education vouchers, the NEA and I have 
stood on the same ground. To witness the NEA's uncompromising view on 
this matter has been at best disheartening. While I single out the NEA, 
many groups trying to protect their piece of the Federal pie have been 
vocal in their opposition.
  Madam President, I would just like to close by explaining why I 
believe the flexibility factor is so important. As I mentioned a moment 
ago, we have been attempting--and when I say we I mean Members on both 
sides of the aisle and both sides of the Mall--to balance the budget on 
an 18-percent baseline of nondefense discretionary programs. By 2002, 
it is projected this baseline will decrease by 12 percent. In barely 5 
years, it is estimated that nondefense discretionary spending will be 
only 13 percent of the Federal budget. These numbers should encourage 
each of us to stop and think. In short, we are running out of 
nondefense discretionary dollars.

  On the first day of this Congress I introduced the Local Empowerment 
and Flexibility Act because if we are going to try and get our fiscal 
house in order using 18 percent of our budget, we may as well ensure 
that Federal dollars are doing more than being thrown at problems--we 
ought to be providing flexibility and measuring results.
  It is appropriate then, that on this last day, the Local Empowerment 
and Flexibility Pilot Act--which has been built on the foundation of my 
original bill--be introduced today and made available to the 105th 
Congress for debate.
  Mr. President, I would like to especially thank the Governmental 
Affairs Committee for their work with Local-Flex, especially Chairman 
Stevens, Ranking Member Glenn and Senator Levin. I would also like to 
thank Senator Kennedy for his assistance with this legislation. Their 
expertise has been invaluable. The Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee on the House side has also shown excellent leadership under 
Chairman Clinger and the companion bill's sponsor Congressman Shays. 
And finally, I am delighted to know of Congressman Steny Hoyer's 
interest in moving the flexibility factor forward in the 105th 
Congress. I introduce this bill today to serve as a starting point for 
next year's discussion.
                                 ______