[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S464-S467]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Burns, 
        Mr. Shelby, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Brownback):
  S. 52. A bill to provide a direct check for education; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                     DIRECT CHECK FOR EDUCATION ACT

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as we start this 106th Congress, I think it 
is clear that education is going to be one of the top priorities we 
will address in this session of Congress. We are going to be working on 
the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and 
I believe all of us, on both sides, are saying that this is a national 
priority.
  As my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator John Kerry, said in a 
speech that he made at Northeastern University, ``Ever since there has 
been a United States of America, there have been public schools. And 
there has been a constant debate about how to make them work.'' I know 
that since I was elected to the United States Senate 12 years ago I 
have listened and participated in the many debates on public education 
that have occurred in this institution. I have even had some ideas of 
my own on how to improve education--some of which have been passed by 
this body and signed into law.
  My intentions, like those of my Senate colleagues--have been good 
intentions. We all share the same goal of providing our children with a 
great education. We have been trying to do the right thing.
  Today, however, our good intentions have mushroomed into burdensome 
regulations, unfunded mandates, and unwanted meddling. Parents, 
teachers, and local school officials have less and less control over 
what happens in the classroom. Instead of empowering parents, teachers, 
and local school officials we have empowered the federal government and 
bureaucrats. We have slowly eroded the opportunity for creativity and 
innovation on the local level and have once again established a system 
where supposedly the Olympians on the hill know what is best for the 
peasants in the valley.
  Mr. President, let me give you some examples of what our good 
intentions have gotten us.
  We have 760 education programs scattered throughout 39 different 
federal agencies. Vice President Gore's National Performance Review 
said that the Department of Education's discretionary grant process 
lasts 26 weeks and takes 487 steps from start to finish. The General 
Accounting Office has estimated that there are nearly 13,400 full-time 
jobs in the 50 states funded by the Department of Education with an 
additional 4,600 direct Department of Education employees.
  We have teachers being taken off the task of teaching, preparing 
lesson plans, taking on after school student activities, etc. and 
instead are researching for grant opportunities, reading regulations, 
preparing applications, filling out paperwork requirements, complying 
with cumbersome rules, and reporting on how they spend the federal 
money received. Or we have teachers and administrators deciding that 
the extra federal money is not worth the time and effort that it will 
take to get and comply with that they do not even bother to go through 
the process.
  Most of us are now aware of the Third International Mathematics and 
Science Study, released last year by the National Center for Education 
Statistics, that ranked American senior high school students 19th out 
of 21 industrialized nations in math, and 16th out of the same 21 
countries in science. In addition, 40 percent of our Nation's fourth 
graders do not read at even a basic level. Colleges across this country 
are spending over $1 billion a year in remedial education.
  Is this acceptable? Are we satisfied with the status quo? The answer 
should be--must be--an unequivocal NO.
  In our business we pay a lot of attention to polls. For several 
years, the polls across the country have been telling us that we have a 
problem with public education. This is not new news and the question 
remains the same: How do we fix public education?
  Mr. President, before I provide my answer to that question I want to 
take this opportunity to read from an editorial from a home-state 
newspaper, the Southeast Missourian.

       Nearly a decade ago, then-President Bush and the nation's 
     governors set a series of goals for America's schoolchildren 
     in reading, math, graduation rates and other measures. But 
     the national education goals panel says the nation's public 
     schools will fall short of the goals for 2000.
       We can only hope these continued failures to improve 
     education will result in a overthrow of the so-called 
     experts. These are the people, usually far removed from the 
     classroom, who embrace quick fixes and fads in the face of 
     each hand-wringing report.
       Unfortunately, the fixes make the problems worse. What's 
     needed is to return America's schools back to the basics and 
     back to local teachers, administrators, school boards, and 
     parents. Without a foundation in the basics, the rest of 
     education just won't take.
       We must take so-called remedies out of the hands of the 
     federal government. National mandates are meaningless for 
     America's schools. The problem must be addressed one district 
     and one school at a time. Why not let classroom teachers--
     instead of bureaucrats and politicians--fashion a plan to 
     improve learning in the classroom? Give more control to the 
     local districts in building reading retention, math skills 
     and graduation rates?

  Mr. President, the editorial goes on, but it ends with the following:

       The answer to fixing America's educational woes rests with 
     individual school boards and passionate educators. The 
     bureaucrats must reduce the red tape and mandates that are 
     strangling our schools. Give those who know best the time, 
     talent and incentives to finally fix public education.

  I agree with the Southeast Missourian. The answer to improving public 
education does not lie within the halls of Congress or in the granite 
buildings of the downtown Washington education establishment. As the 
editorial stated, we are ``far removed from the classroom.''
  In my opinion, the real solutions--the laboratories--are local 
schools when they are given the opportunity to excel and not play the 
``Mother, May I?'' game with Washington.
  Here in Congress we must not be afraid to propose change. But in 
proposing change we must go directly to those who can provide some 
answers--the teachers, principals, school administrators, school board 
members, and parents.
  For the past couple of years, I have done just that and have 
developed in conjunction with them the ``Direct Check for Education 
Act.
  Quite simply, the purpose of this bill is to consolidate six, 
primarily competitive grant programs of the Department of Education's 
programs. The programs are Goals 2000, School-to-Work, Education 
Technology, Innovative Education Program Strategies, Fund for the 
Improvement of Education, and the President's 100,000 teachers program. 
The bill then proposes to return the federal funding by issuing a 
``Direct Check'' to the local school district based on the number of 
students in each district. The result would be a resource of flexible 
funding that would allow individual schools and parents to determine 
how best to use the funds, including the hiring of new teachers, 
additional classrooms, new textbooks, expanded technology initiatives, 
drug and alcohol prevention programs, etc. The list goes on and on.
  My ``Direct Check'' proposal is not the ``save-all'' answer. But the 
``Direct Check'' will reduce the costly and time-consuming paperwork 
process that local school districts endure in obtaining federal grants 
and funding. It will treat children and schools the same by awarding 
funding to schools based upon the students served instead of rewarding 
some and penalizing others. My ``Direct Check for Education'' is a 
first step in simplifying and going ``back to the basics'' of 
education.
  Mr. President, there will be those in the Washington education 
establishment who will oppose this bill. Instead

[[Page S465]]

of finding ways to empower those at the local level the opposition will 
argue that we need even more federal programs, more bureaucracy, more 
micro management of the classroom.
  I believe the bottom line is this: Education, while a national 
priority, is a local responsibility. We must empower parents, teachers, 
school administrators, school boards, etc. because education decisions 
can best be made by people at the local schools who know the names and 
the challenges facing the students in those schools.
  Let's keep things simple. Let's take off the Federal stranglehold and 
let local school districts do their jobs. Let's educate our children 
for a lifetime of achievement.
  We have burdened it with excessive regulations and red tape. We have 
once again established a system where supposedly the ``olympians'' on 
the Hill know what is best for the ``peasants'' in the valley.
  I agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Education is 
and must be a national priority. But the good intentions that we have 
had in this body have led to the creation of more than 760 Federal 
education programs. Has that made education better? I don't think so. 
We added three more last year. And now we gather that the President is 
going to come up with a grand new Federal scheme. How many people 
really believe that the 764th Federal education program is going to 
assure that our kids can read? Is it going to assure that we get our 
high school students out of the 19th place out of 21 in terms of 
mathematics? I don't believe so.
  Our system is not working. If you want to know how well it is 
working, go back home. Ask the teachers in your local school district. 
Ask the principals in your local school district. Ask the parents at 
home. Ask the school board members. If you do that, I believe you will 
hear what I have heard, time and time again: They are tired of playing 
``Mother, May I?'' with the Federal Government. They are tired of 
spending the time to fill out the forms for the grants, to comply and 
jump through the hoops that the Federal Government sets out for them, 
to write the reports and fill out the evaluation forms that are needed, 
only to have a competitive grant program run out at the end of 3 years. 
They are tired of playing ``Mother, May I?'' with the Federal 
Government.
  We have an opportunity to do something that I think is very 
significant. Instead of going down the road that is going to be 
proposed of another new Federal program, we ought to take the remedies 
out of the hands of the Federal Government. National mandates are 
meaningless for American schools. The problems must be addressed one 
school district, one school, at a time. Why not let classroom teachers, 
the parents, the administrators--instead of bureaucrats and 
politicians--make the decisions on how to improve the education in 
their school districts? Give more control back to local districts and 
let them build reading retention, math skills, and improve graduation 
rates.
  Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill we call the direct check 
for education bill. It takes six of the major Federal competitive grant 
programs--Goals 2000, School-to-Work, Education Technology, Innovative 
Education Program Strategies, the Fund for the Improvement of 
Education, and the President's 100,000 teachers program--and puts them 
into a pool. That pool is to be divided on the basis of the students--K 
through 12--on average daily attendance. And it is to be returned to 
those local school districts on the basis of the number of students 
they have. Very simple. Cut the Federal red tape. Let them use those 
education dollars.
  It starts off with a $3.5-million authorization, because we want to 
allow schools that already have competitive grants of multiyear tenure 
to complete those grants. At the end it will rise to $5 billion. It 
should come out to about $100 per student in every school--and turn the 
job back to the local schools, the parents, the teachers, the school 
board members, the administrators.
  There are those who oppose this approach. They argue that we need 
even more Federal control. But as I said at the beginning, while it is 
a national priority, education must be returned to the local school 
districts as a local responsibility, to empower the people who know the 
names of the kids, their problems, their challenges, and their 
opportunities, to make the decision.
  Let's keep things simple. Let's take off the Federal stranglehold. 
Let's let local schools do their jobs. Let's educate our children for a 
lifetime of achievement. Ask your teachers, your principals, your 
superintendents, your school board members; and then I ask my 
colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation that Senator 
Ashcroft and I are introducing today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
common questions about the direct check for education bill be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 52

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Direct Check for Education 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) education should be a national priority but must remain 
     a local responsibility;
       (2) the Federal Government's regulations and involvement 
     often creates barriers and obstacles to local creativity and 
     reform;
       (3) parents, teachers, and local school districts must be 
     allowed and empowered to set local education priorities; and
       (4) schools and education professionals must be accountable 
     to the people and children served.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational 
     agency'' has the meaning given the term in section 14101 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     8801).
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the United 
     States Virgin Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, 
     the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of 
     Palau.

     SEC. 4. DIRECT AWARDS TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.

       (a) Direct Awards.--From amounts appropriated under 
     subsection (b) and not used to carry out subsection (c), the 
     Secretary shall make direct awards to local educational 
     agencies in amounts determined under subsection (e) to enable 
     the local educational agencies to support programs or 
     activities, for kindergarten through grade 12 students, that 
     the local educational agencies deem appropriate.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this Act $3,500,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2000 and 2001, $4,000,000,000 for 
     each of the fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and $5,000,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2004.
       (c) Multiyear Awards.--The Secretary shall use funds 
     appropriated under subsection (b) for each fiscal year to 
     continue to make payments to eligible recipients pursuant to 
     any multiyear award made prior to the date of enactment of 
     this Act under the provisions of law repealed under 
     subsection (d). The payments shall be made for the duration 
     of the multiyear award.
       (d) Repeals.--The following provisions of law are repealed:
       (1) The Goals 2000: Educate America Act (20 U.S.C. 5801 et 
     seq.).
       (2) Section 307 of the Department of Education 
     Appropriations Act, 1999.
       (3) Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.).
       (4) Part B of title VI of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7331 et seq.).
       (5) Part A of title X of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8001 et seq.).
       (6) The School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 
     6101 et seq.).
       (e) Determination of Amount.--
       (1) Per child amount.--The Secretary, using the information 
     provided under subsection (f), shall determine a per child 
     amount for a year by dividing the total amount appropriated 
     under subsection (b) for the year, by the average daily 
     attendance of kindergarten through grade 12 students in all 
     States for the preceding year.
       (2) Local educational agency award.--The Secretary, using 
     the information provided under subsection (f), shall 
     determine the amount provided to each local educational 
     agency under this section for a year by multiplying--
       (A) the per child amount determined under paragraph (1) for 
     the year; by
       (B) the average daily attendance of kindergarten through 
     grade 12 students that are served by the local educational 
     agency for the preceding year.
       (f) Census Determination.--
       (1) In general.--Each local educational agency shall 
     conduct a census to determine the average daily attendance of 
     kindergarten through grade 12 students served by the local

[[Page S466]]

     educational agency not later than December 1 of each year.
       (2) Submission.--Each local educational agency shall submit 
     the number described in paragraph (1) to the Secretary not 
     later than March 1 of each year.
       (g) Penalty.--If the Secretary determines that a local 
     educational agency has knowingly submitted false information 
     under subsection (f) for the purpose of gaining additional 
     funds under this section, then the local educational agency 
     shall be fined an amount equal to twice the difference 
     between the amount the local educational agency received 
     under this section, and the correct amount the local 
     educational agency would have received under this section if 
     the agency had submitted accurate information under 
     subsection (f).
       (h) Disbursal.--The Secretary shall disburse the amount 
     awarded to a local educational agency under this Act for a 
     fiscal year not later than July 1 of each year.

     SEC. 5. AUDIT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may conduct audits of the 
     expenditures of local educational agencies under this Act to 
     ensure that the funds made available under this Act are used 
     in accordance with this Act.
       (b) Sanctions and Penalties.--If the Secretary determines 
     that the funds made available under section 4 were not used 
     in accordance with section 4(a), the Secretary may use the 
     enforcement provisions available to the Secretary under part 
     D of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1234 et 
     seq.).
                                  ____

  


         Common Questions About the Direct Check for Education

     What programs make up the new Direct Check for Education?
       Goals 2000; School-to-Work; Education Technology (Title 
     III); Innovative Education Program Strategies (Part B, Title 
     VI); Fund for the Improvement of Education (Part A, Title X); 
     100,000 Teachers.
     What is the level of funding for the Direct Check for 
         Education?
       Based on fiscal year 1999 appropriations first year funding 
     could be more than $3.5 billion. Over 5 years the ``Direct 
     Check'' total could provide over $20 billion in direct checks 
     to local schools.
     How can the Direct Check funds by spent?
       The local school district, with parents, teachers, 
     administrators, etc., would have the flexibility to spend the 
     funds on what they determine to be the priorities--new 
     teachers, new classrooms, textbooks, computers, drug 
     prevention programs, etc.
     Does the Direct Check for Education impact Title I funding 
         for disadvantaged students?
       The bill does not make any changes to Title I.
     How are private schools affected by the Direct Check for 
         Education?
       The bill makes no changes affecting private schools.
     How will States and the federal government be sure the funds 
         are properly spent?
       The Department of Education will have post-audit review 
     authority and would retain the same sanctions and penalties 
     currently in place.
     What will determine the Direct Check amount for a local 
         school?
       The total amount for funds provided divided by the number 
     of students nationally will give you a per student average. 
     That average multiplied by the number of students in a local 
     school will give that school the amount of its ``Direct 
     Check''.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Senior 
Senator from Missouri for his introduction of the ``Direct Check for 
Education'' bill. It is with great pleasure that I add my name as a 
cosponsor of this important legislation, which will improve the 
educational opportunities for our nation's school children by sending 
federal resources directly to local school districts to use in the way 
they know will benefit students most effectively.
  Mr. President, when we talk about education, we should start by 
asking: ``What do our parents want for their children? We know that 
parents want their children to get a first-class education that boosts 
student achievement and elevates them to excellence. Parents want 
schools that are safe, classes that are small, and principals and 
teachers to have authority to make the right decisions in all areas of 
learning, school discipline and after-school activities. Parents want 
teachers who care for students and know the subjects they teach. 
Parents do not want Washington in control of classrooms.
  The next question we should ask is: How can we attain what parents 
want? How can our children achieve academic excellence? The House 
Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations answered this question in a report released in July of 
1998, called ``Education at a Crossroads: What Works and What's Wasted 
in Education Today.'' The Subcommittee found that successful schools 
and school systems were not the product of federal funding and 
directives, but instead were characterized by: parental involvement in 
the education of their children, local control, emphasis on basic 
academics, and dollars spent in the classroom, not on distant 
bureaucracy and ineffective programs. These are the ingredients we must 
have to elevate educational performance.
  Knowing the ingredients of educational success for our children, we 
must next ask whether our current federal education programs contain 
these ingredients.
  First, we should observe that in a sense, the federal government has 
played conflicting roles in education, providing resources with one 
hand, while creating obstacles with the other. We have spent over $12 
billion on major education programs in the last two years, and this 
year, we are slated to spend nearly $15 billion. Yet, if current trends 
continue, only about 65% of federal education dollars will be spent 
this year on educating our children, due to the excessive bureaucracy 
in our federal programs.
  And we should remember that federal funding accounts for only about 
7% of the total amount spent on education, while the lion's share comes 
from state and local taxes. However, that 7% of the funding pie 
consumes a disproportionate share of the time states and local school 
districts need to administer education programs. Unfortunately, most 
federal education programs often do not contain the basic ingredients 
for educational success, but rather contain components that can 
actually stifle the ingredients for success.
  In the last 35 years, the federal government has continued to take 
away parental involvement, local control, flexibility, and teacher and 
community input by spinning a complex web of federal elementary and 
secondary education programs, each of which contain their own set of 
rules that consume the time and resources of states and school 
districts.
  A 1990 study found that 52% of the paperwork required of an Ohio 
school district was related to participation in federal programs, while 
federal dollars provided less than 5% of total education funding in 
Ohio. In Florida, 374 employees administer $8 billion in state funds. 
However, 297 state employees are needed to oversee only $1 billion in 
federal funds--six times as many per dollar. The Federal Department of 
Education requires over 48.6 million hours worth of paperwork to 
receive federal dollars. This bureaucratic maze takes up to 35% of 
every federal education dollar.
  Many federal programs have taken away precious dollars and teacher 
time. Rather than being able to spend time on classroom preparation, 
teachers instead have to spend hours filling out federal forms to 
comply with federal rules.
  Another problem with a number of our federal education programs is 
that many of our children and school districts never get to see the 
federal tax dollars that their parents pay for education. This is 
because a great deal of federal educational funding is awarded on a 
competitive basis. In essence, local schools must come to Washington 
and beg for the money taxpayers sent to the federal treasury. As a 
result, smaller and poorer schools, who don't have the time and money 
to wade through thick grant applications or hire a grant writer, cannot 
share in the money their parents sent to the federal government.
  To make matters worse, once a school district is successful in 
obtaining a competitive grant after a harrowing application process, it 
must spend countless hours and resources complying with the leviathan 
of regulations and rules attached to the grant.
  Competitive funding, along with the vast number of federal education 
programs, has led to a cottage industry in selling information on 
education program descriptions, filing instructions, and application 
deadlines for each of these programs. The ``Education at a Crossroads'' 
report I mentioned earlier describes this cottage industry:

       ``The Education Funding Research Council identifies 
     potential sources of funds for local school districts, and 
     sells for nearly $400 the Guide to Federal Funding for 
     Education. The company promises to steer its subscribers to

[[Page S467]]

     ``a wide range of Federal programs,'' and offers these 
     subscribers timely updates on ``500 education programs.'' 
     More recently, the Aid for Education Report published by CD 
     Publications advertised that ``huge sums are available. . .in 
     the federal government alone, there are nearly 800 different 
     education programs that receive authorization totaling almost 
     a hundred billion dollars.''

  It's a shame that a school district has to pay $400 for a catalog to 
learn how to get back the money that its community has sent to 
Washington to educate its children. But sadly, this is often the case.
  A third problem we can identify with many current federal education 
programs is that federal dollars are often earmarked for one particular 
use, and cannot be used for any other purpose. This inflexible funding 
hurts schools that have other needs than the ones prescribed by the 
federal government. A recent example of this is the $1.2 billion 
earmarked last year for classroom size reduction. While more teachers 
and class size reduction are noble endeavors, some schools don't need 
more teachers, but instead need more computers. However, the only use 
of this $1.2 billion can be for hiring more teachers. Such a policy 
flies in the face of one ingredient for educational success, local 
control.
  So, we know we have created a lot of federal education programs and 
we have dedicated a great deal of resources for these programs. What 
results are we getting? The National Center for Education Statistics' 
NAEP 1994 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States reveals 
that 40 percent of fourth graders do not read at a basic level. The 
same report also indicates that half of the students from urban school 
districts fail to graduate on time, if at all. And the NAEP Report Card 
also shows that United States 12th graders only outperformed two out of 
21 nations in mathematics. The Brookings Institution released a study 
in April of 1998 indicating that public institutions of higher 
education have to spend $1 billion each year on remedial education for 
students.
  Knowing these disastrous results, we cannot afford to keep spending 
our federal education dollars in the same way we have been doing for 
years if it's not stimulating academic success. Parents, teachers, 
school boards, and members of our community won't stand for this kind 
of failure. They want and need opportunities to be more involved in 
deciding how to spend the federal education dollar, because they know 
what works. We must spend our federal resources for elementary and 
secondary education in ways that embrace the ingredients of success.
  Rather than fund the patchwork of federal elementary and secondary 
education programs that Washington wants, Congress should send that 
money directly to local school districts. Parents and teachers need the 
financing, flexibility and freedom to fund programs they know will 
improve their children's education.
  Senator Bond's ``Direct Check for Education'' proposal does just 
this. He takes some of the Department of Education's largest 
competitive grant programs and returns the money in the form of a 
``direct check'' to the local school districts based on the number of 
students in each district. Schools may use the funds in ways they 
believe will be most effective in elevating student achievement.
  Under the ``Direct Check'' proposal, no longer would school districts 
have to come to Washington and beg for the money they sent to 
Washington to educate their children. No longer would teachers and 
administrators have to spend countless and wasted hours filling out 
federal grant application and compliance forms. No longer would schools 
be forced to earmark federal dollars for programs that have no 
relevance to their students' needs. Rather, school districts with the 
input of teachers, school boards, administrators, and of course, 
parents, would have the authority and flexibility to use federal 
dollars for what they best see fit.
  For example, local schools could deploy resources to hire new 
teachers, raise teacher salaries, buy new textbooks or new computers--
whatever the schools deem most important to the educational success of 
their students. The Direct Check to Education proposals gives schools 
more time, flexibility, and money to spend on what's most important: 
providing classroom instruction to our nation's children.
  With the flexible, equitable distribution of federal funding under 
Senator Bond's proposal comes accountability. Local school districts 
will be penalized for knowingly submitting false information regarding 
the number of students in their districts. Moreover, the Secretary of 
Education may audit local educational agency expenditures to ensure 
that funds are used in accordance with the Direct Check in Education 
Act. And most importantly, parents, school boards, and members of the 
community will be able to give direct input into funding decisions, 
since those decisions will be made right in the community, rather than 
hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of miles away in Washington, D.C. 
Local decision making allows for local accountability.
  Mr. President, we have learned from experience that our many of our 
current federal education programs and dollars are not producing what 
we expect for our students. We know that successful education programs 
occur when crucial decisions are made by local communities, teachers, 
school boards, and parents. This is why I support Senator Bond's 
``Direct Check for Education'' proposal. His plan embraces the 
ingredients of educational success, as it gives parents, teachers and 
school boards the authority and flexibility to direct funds to programs 
they know work for their children.
  As I said earlier, Senator Bond's proposal consolidates a number of 
the Department of Education's federal programs for elementary and 
secondary education. I believe we should explore whether other federal 
education programs--both within and outside the Department of 
Education--should also be taken and put into a ``direct check'' to our 
local school districts. We must continue to look for ways to direct our 
federal resources in ways that reflect the ingredients of success and 
educational excellence for our children.
                                 ______