[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 30 (Thursday, February 25, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1983-S1989]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we will be discussing two critical areas as 
we address the education of our youth in this country. Those two areas 
are flexibility and accountability. Discussing this topic with me will 
be Senators Chafee, Bond, Craig, Voinovich, Gregg, Hutchinson, and 
Collins.
  The issue that we will discuss is called Ed-Flex. Specifically, it is 
the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. The shorthand 
version is ``Ed-Flex.'' That is the way it will be referred to, I am 
sure, over the next several hours and the next several days as we look 
at this particular bill which I expect to come to the floor next week.
  Let me begin by discussing what Ed-Flex is so people will know what 
we are talking about. It is really pretty simple. Ed-Flex is a State 
waiver program that allows schools and school districts at the local 
level to obtain or have the opportunity to obtain a waiver to carry out 
and accomplish a specific educational mission, but with flexibility 
free of Washington red tape, free of the administrative regulatory 
burden which too often--and we hear it as we travel across the State 
again and again--shackles them in terms of meeting those specific 
goals. These regulations are often well intentioned. We create them 
right here in this room in Washington, DC, and then we expect them to 
fit every local community. They simply don't fit. That is No. 1. That 
is what Ed-Flex is.
  No. 2, we as a country recognize we are failing our children today in 
terms of education. We are trying hard, teachers are trying hard, local 
schools are trying hard, but we simply are not doing the job that our 
children deserve in preparing them for the next millennium.
  Ed-Flex allows every State the option of participating in a 
demonstration program which has been enormously successful; this 
program was first established in 1994 and expanded in 1996. So we have 
a track record. Right now Ed-Flex is in 12 States. What this bill does 
is strengthen the accountability provisions and then gives all 50 
States the opportunity to participate in Ed-Flex to help our States, to 
help our localities.
  Education is primarily a local issue. That is where these decisions 
should be made. Washington must give these localities, these schools, 
these school districts, the flexibility they need in order to innovate, 
to do a better job, to do what they know is best.
  Let me cite some examples that really make it clear to people. They 
understand Ed-Flex is a State waiver program that allows schools and 
school districts to accomplish goals free of red tape. Here are some 
examples:
  In Maryland, Ed-Flex reduced class size for math and science students 
from 25 to 1 to 12 to 1. It has cut it in half. They wouldn't have been 
able to do it without Ed-Flex.
  In Oregon, Ed-Flex allowed high schools and community colleges to 
work together to provide advanced computer courses to students who 
would otherwise not be able to receive this technical instruction.
  A third example: In Kansas, waivers provide all-day kindergarten, 
preschool for 4-year-olds, and new reading strategies for all students. 
It would not be possible without Ed-Flex.
  It is common sense. It is bipartisan. It is a plan that has been 
supported by every Governor in this country. It is one that we are 
going to move ahead, doing the Nation's business in a bipartisan way to 
accomplish what I believe is one of the most important goals before us, 
and that is to improve education in this country.

[[Page S1984]]

  Now, that describes the flexibility, innovation, and creativity. The 
accountability is an important issue, because if you strip away 
Washington red tape, you have to be accountable. Accountability is 
built strongly into this bill. It is even tiered-in so that you have 
local accountability, State accountability, and Federal accountability 
to make sure that those missions are accomplished.
  At the local level, schools have to demonstrate why this waiver is 
necessary, what the objectives will be; they have to have specific, 
measurable goals.
  At the State level, there must be in place an accountability system 
in three ways: You have to have content standards, No. 1; No. 2, you 
have to have performance standards; and No. 3, you have to have 
assessment standards. Backing that up at the Federal level, the 
Secretary of Education is required to monitor the performance of 
States, and in fact the Secretary can terminate the State's waiver 
authority at any time.
  So we have a three-tiered approach to accountability.
  Ed-Flex expansion has passed twice in the Senate Labor Committee. It 
has the support of 38 Senators from both sides of the aisle. It has the 
support of the National Governors' Association. It has the support of 
the Democratic Governors' Association. The Secretary of Education and 
the President have all called for Ed-Flex expansion.
  Last year, we ran out of time to pass Ed-Flex. It has already gone 
through the Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee this year. 
We need to keep the bill clean and simple. There will be an unfortunate 
tendency to put a lot of amendments on the bill and attach your 
favorite education bill. We have an opportunity to have a bill passed 
in this body next week, passed by the House of Representatives within a 
couple of weeks, and at the President's desk within 6 weeks. It is a 
simple message: Congress cares about education.
  Congress respects local control, local innovation, local creativity. 
And we, by passing this bill, demonstrate to the American people that 
we can work together in the interest of our children, preparing them 
for that next century, the next millennium. Let's untie the hands of 
local government. Let them do the jobs they are entrusted to do. Ed-
Flex is a modest bill, but an important first step at administrative 
regulatory simplification with strong accountability built in. I look 
forward to the Senate's consideration of this bill next week, again, 
with strong bipartisan support.
  I thank the Chair. At this juncture, I will yield to my distinguished 
colleague from Rhode Island. I will yield to colleagues, and they can 
take from my time as we go forth over the next 45 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Rhode Island is 
recognized.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and the manager of this 
legislation. I rise in support of this legislation introduced by the 
Senator from Tennessee, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act. Last 
week, while the Senate was in recess, I spent time in Rhode Island 
talking with educators about Ed-Flex. I had a group of educators from 
our schools come in; principally, they were principals of our schools. 
As a result of those conversations, I became a cosponsor of this 
legislation, Ed-Flex.
  First, it is important to point out what it is not. It is not a block 
grant proposal. Senator Frist's bill, which will be the next order of 
business, as I understand it, next week, expands a demonstration 
program, as he pointed out, for six States where it was created in 
1994. Now, 2 years later, it is expanded from 6 to 12 States. This bill 
would permit all 50 States to benefit from it.
  Now, what is this bill? Ed-Flex allows State departments of education 
to apply for waivers of Federal requirements for State administrative 
programs. Examples of these programs are: the title I program, the 
Eisenhower Professional Grants Program, and the Safe and Drug-Free 
Schools Program. The States must agree to waive any corresponding State 
regulations for these programs. If we are going to waive the Federal 
regulations, we are going to waive the State regulations as well. The 
States must have made demonstrable progress in creating and putting 
into place the challenging statewide content standards. In other words, 
States must have a place in statewide school reform, and that is what 
this is designed to do.
  One of the best examples of how Ed-Flex can benefit schools was 
offered by an elementary school principal in my State when I talked to 
him last week. He noted that for several years, his school district's 
emphasis had been on raising achievement in math and science. 
Professional development had been squarely focused on math and science, 
and students in his school were showing the results through increased 
test scores. Now he would like to be able to use the funds he receives 
from the Eisenhower Professional Grants Program, which is targeted to 
math and science--he wants to use it for professional development in 
reading, have his teachers become better reading teachers. Ed-Flex 
would allow him to do that. Absent Ed-Flex, he could not use these 
professional development moneys for anything except science and math. 
He could not use it for reading. This permits this legislation to be 
used with this flexibility.
  Since enactment of Goals 2000, States and school districts have been 
working hard to develop schoolwide reform plans that will improve the 
quality of education for all children. I believe this legislation will 
help give schools the needed reforms that they seek. It has, as was 
mentioned, strong bipartisan support. A companion bill, I understand, 
is moving through the House, and the President has indicated his 
willingness to sign it. So this is a hopeful sign for all of us, and I 
think it is excellent legislation. I commend it to my colleagues.

  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Missouri is 
recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague 
from Tennessee for his great leadership.
  Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Ed-Flex because it gives 
States and local officials in 12 States now greater freedom from 
regulation in the use of Federal education dollars. We need to expand 
that. This is moving in the right direction. It is not all the way 
there. They should be encouraging innovation, creativity, and 
flexibility on the local level in regard to education. We should not be 
handcuffing teachers, principals, and others from trying to do what is 
right for the kids in their schools.
  I think expanding Ed-Flex is a step in the right direction of putting 
our Nation's children first and not the red tape and bureaucracy.
  Ed-Flex is a step in the right direction because it moves in the 
direction of putting decisionmaking back where it belongs, on the local 
and State level. It proposes consolidating funding and removing the 
strings that Washington has put on.
  My colleague from Rhode Island has talked about his meetings with 
local educators in Rhode Island. Over the last 2 years, I have met with 
principals, teachers, superintendents, parents, and school board 
members in every section of my State. It is amazing what they tell me 
when I ask them about how our Federal programs are helping them. They 
say, ``They are burying us in red tape. We have to hire people to write 
grant applications, and to try to play `Mother May I' with the Federal 
Government. We are taking away time from our task, which should be 
educating our children and providing them with a quality education.'' 
They say that too many of them--if they fight and finally get a 
competitive grant for 3 years, that grant runs out and then they are 
faced with taking away money from their basic programs of providing 
quality education to fund a Federal program that was stuffed down their 
throats.
  At our best count, we have about 763 Federal education programs. I 
challenge every single one of my colleagues to go back home and ask the 
educators: Do you really need 763 different Federal prescriptions? Are 
they really helping you educate your children? I can tell you that the 
response from my State is overwhelming, and I believe it will be from 
your States as well.
  When we think about the tremendous waste in time and bureaucracy with 
4,500 people in the DOE, the bureaucracy overseeing them, and 13,000 at 
the

[[Page S1985]]

State bureaucracies, those are dollars that are not going to the 
classrooms. Who is accountable for education? Are we as a Congress? I 
don't think so. I don't think anybody elected us to a national school 
board. Ed-Flex is moving away from the concept that we have come to 
Washington to be a national school board.
  I say to you, to the President, and I say to the Secretary of 
Education: If you want to run local education, run for the school 
board, or be a superintendent or a principal.
  Now, I hope we can pass this bill cleanly out of here and send it on 
to the President, get it signed. Let's expand on this program. I will 
tell you one thing for sure. If they start adding amendments to it, I 
have something called a ``Direct Check for Education.'' Direct check 
for education would put the money directly in the schools, not on the 
basis of a complicated formula, but on the basis of average daily 
attendance. I have explained that program to school districts 
throughout my State.
  I have a sampling of letters from school superintendents. I ask 
unanimous consent that these may be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            Harrisburg R-VIII School District,

                                                   Harrisburg, MO.
     Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Senator Bond, The Harrisburg School District is in support 
     of ``Direct Check for Education'' proposed by yourself. The 
     Senator's office indicated funds available at $76.00 per 
     pupil. The funds from this ``Direct Check'' would 
     significantly enhance our educational offerings.
           Sincerely,
                                                  William E. View,
     Superintendent.
                                  ____



                                         Rolla Public Schools,

                                      Rolla, MO, February 9, 1999.
     Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: As per your request, I have reviewed 
     your ``Direct Check'' proposal and am responding to your 
     idea. I am very interested in what you are proposing through 
     the ``Direct Check'' alternative. Our school district is, I 
     assume, fairly typical of many within our great state in that 
     we participate and offer many of the federally subsidized 
     programs. Through your ``Direct Check'' proposal, our 
     district will not only receive more dollars than it presently 
     does, but also have the latitude to utilize those dollars as 
     deemed appropriate by our Board of Education and this school 
     system.
       I fully understand the potential turf issues that you face 
     with this ``Direct Check'' for Education proposal. I am also 
     cognizant of the bureaucracy that is affiliated with each of 
     these programs subsidized by federal education dollars. I am 
     most appreciative of and agree with your assessment that this 
     is substantive reform, and, therefore, our district would 
     gladly offer any assistance that we might. If there is 
     anything that we might do to further your ``Direct Check'' 
     for Education proposal, please do not hesitate to ask. Again, 
     we very much appreciate your concern for public education and 
     this demonstration of a return to local control.
           Sincerely,
                                           Larry E. Ewing, Ed. D.,
     Superintendent of Schools.
                                  ____



                                 Carthage R-9 School District,

                                 Carthage, MO., February 10, 1999.
     Senator Christopher S. Bond,
     Russell State Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: I appreciate the recent opportunity to 
     attend the news conference in Joplin, Missouri, concerning 
     your Direct Check proposal. Likewise, it was encouraging to 
     receive your recent correspondence concerning the proposal.
       On behalf of the Carthage R-9 School District in Carthage, 
     Missouri, I want to express our strong support for the 
     proposal. It is our belief the plan will bring about equity 
     and benefit our students in numerous ways.
       Your work to reform this payment process is highly valued. 
     If at any time our district can be of service to you, please 
     let us know.
           Sincerely,
                                           Kenneth C. Bowman, Jr.,
     Superintendent of Schools.
                                  ____



                                          Valley R-VI Schools,

                                                    Caledonia, MO.
     Christopher S. Bond,
     U.S. Senator,
     St. Louis, MO.
       Dear Senator Bond: I am writing to let you know that I 
     fully support your ``Direct Check for Education'' proposal. 
     After so many false promises by lawmakers regarding help for 
     education, your idea is one that I have hoped to see for many 
     years. It should truly be the job of local decisionmakers to 
     decide how funds are spent on each school. We do not mind 
     being held accountable for producing results when we have the 
     freedom to spend dollars as the local board sees fit. I 
     congratulate you for the stand you have taken on this issue. 
     I doubt it is popular among other lawmakers, because it will 
     no doubt rock the boat in some circles.
       Again, thank you for this initiative.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Larry Graves,
     Superintendent.
                                  ____



                                 Blue Springs School District,

                               Blue Springs, MO, February 8, 1999.
     Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: I am writing in response to your 
     proposal to include a ``Direct Check for Education'' into the 
     reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
     Act.
       The Blue Springs R-IV School District overwhelmingly 
     supports such a proposal. The ``Direct Check'' proposal would 
     allow us, at the local level, to make the decisions we need 
     to make without the restrictions that are often applied at 
     the state and federal levels.
       We encourage you to press forward with this initiative.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Charles McGraw,
     Superintendent.
                                  ____



                            Reeds Spring R-IV School District,

                               Reeds Spring, MO, February 9, 1999.
     Hon. Christopher S. Bond,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: Your ``Direct Check'' proposal does what 
     legislation should do. It puts the money where it can do the 
     most good. Leaders in local schools will be able to address 
     specific needs of students rather than conform to directives 
     from bureaucratic number crunches.
           Respectfully,
                                                 Dr. Bill Wheeler,
     Superintendent.
                                  ____



                                     Kirbyville Public School,

                                                   Kirbyville, MO.
     Senator Christopher Bond,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: ``Direct Check'' is one small ``step'' 
     in the right direction. Sending tax money back to the people 
     it came from has never been a bad idea. Eliminating federal 
     and state bureaucratic taxpayer payrolls has always been a 
     good idea but appears to be an impossibility.
       Local boards of education should be held accountable for 
     the quality of public education programs within their own 
     communities. If state and federal governments want to support 
     programming efforts through certification standards, a simple 
     process that ties certification to funding would seem 
     appropriate. If student performance is the primary indicator 
     used for certification, it shouldn't require multi-billion 
     dollar bureaucracies to manage the process.
       Public education in America is in serious trouble. 
     Solutions to the problems will require a comprehensive 
     approach from every level, i.e., federal, state and local. I 
     applaud your leadership with this effort at the federal 
     level.
       I encourage you to look for different funding approaches 
     for public education. The local property tax is a very useful 
     tool, but it has been extended beyond its limits. State 
     funding is also very useful and has been a lifesaver for many 
     Missouri Schools. However, the ``Big Dogs'', i.e., the 
     industries that produce ``adult'' products, when used as 
     directed can kill, have been allowed to advertise their 
     products over airways owned by the federal government without 
     regard to the collateral damage to the minds of our youth.
       Public education should not be required to spend taxpayer 
     money to remediate problems cause by these irresponsible 
     industries that target the youth of our nation as future 
     addicts of their products. It is my understanding that the 
     top five contributors to the nations two political parties 
     are: the tobacco industry, the liquor industry, the movie 
     (media) and music industries and trial lawyers. Local 
     taxpayers should not be the only responsible agent for the 
     costs associated with drug education, violence prevention, 
     sex education and character development programs for public 
     schools. If the ``Bid Dogs'' are going to play the game they 
     should have the opportunity to pay for the dance.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Lonnie Spurlock,
     Superintendent
                                  ____



                                Webb City School District R-7,

                                  Webb City, MO, February 4, 1999.
     Senator Christopher S. Bond,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: Please accept my enthusiastic support 
     for the ``Direct Check'' education initiative you are 
     sponsoring. It is my opinion that a program of this nature is 
     long overdue. Those of us who have spent a career in 
     education have repeatedly experienced the jubilation of 
     anticipation that arose from promises made by the Federal 
     Government toward education. Unfortunately, however, 
     excitement was then always tempered by the reality of the red 
     tape that accompanied the promise. As the result, frustration 
     was generally the only product forthcoming.

[[Page S1986]]

       It is my opinion that one size does not fit all in 
     anything, especially education. I would welcome your program 
     and see it as an opportunity for real improvement of results 
     that would arise from federal dollars that flow toward 
     education. You can count on me as a supporter of your 
     efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Ronald Lankford,
     Superintendent.
                                  ____

                                                   Pemiscot County


                                       Special School District

                                      Hayti, MO, February 5, 1999.
       Senator Bond, As a school administrator, parent, and 
     taxpayer, I would like to commend your Direct Check efforts 
     and offer my support in its passage.
       I must remind myself daily that, even though some decisions 
     appear to be more easily made from our Central Office, the 
     best decisions are those that are made from the source of 
     need.
       The Direct Check concept would allow the decisions about 
     utilizing education funds to rest in the hands of our 
     constituents without losing some of the funds in state 
     administrative procedures. I feel confident that our Board of 
     Education indeed represents the wishes of our constituents 
     and frequently engages in dialogue with parents and students 
     to determine educational needs.
       Thank you for your efforts. Please don't hesitate to 
     contact me for additional support.
                                               Nicholas J. Thiele,
                                                   Superintendent.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the direct check for education doesn't block 
grant education funds; it doesn't affect title I or include vocational 
education, special education, or Eisenhower Professional Development; 
it just says send the money directly back to the school districts, 
eliminating the time spent reviewing grant applications and the 
paperwork burden. It replaces a cumbersome and costly process with a 
resource of flexible funding.
  Do we need 100,000 new teachers? In many small school districts, they 
figure it comes out to about .16 students for their entire district, or 
.1. How do you hire .16 teachers? Some districts may need to use that 
money to pay more so they can keep good teachers. This would allow them 
to do it. Some of my colleagues say you will take power away from the 
States and the States ought to be running it. I say the State 
regulations can still stay in effect, but the accountability is going 
to be at the local level.
  We have school boards that we elect to take care of our educational 
needs and to make sure that our children get a quality education. I 
have a really radical proposal: Let's go back to the old system where 
school boards are responsible through the superintendents and 
principals and teachers and allow them to use the good ideas. We have 
lots of good ideas up here, and we ought to offer those voluntarily and 
say: Here is a good idea; do you want to try it?
  The President just came up with a whole new series of standard things 
he wants to do for every school district in the Nation. They may well 
be good ideas. If you were a school superintendent, they might be just 
the thing to do. Let's suggest to them that these are things they might 
want to require. They may have a different way of going about it. I am 
willing to take the chance on putting that money in the hands of the 
people, the local educators who know our kids, know kids' names, and 
know their problems.
  I believe Ed-Flex is a tremendous step in the right direction. I urge 
that we pass it without amendment. If we do start amending it, I am 
going to give my colleagues an opportunity to vote on sending the money 
directly back to the schools. Let's be radical, and let's do something 
that can make a difference.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Idaho is 
recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Missouri and 
others who have spoken on the floor in relation to the legislation that 
we will begin to debate next Tuesday, I believe, Senate bill 280. We 
are calling it the Ed-Flex bill because of a demonstration project that 
has now gone on in 12 other States in our country where school 
districts have demonstrated that, given the flexibility to move dollars 
around, they can accomplish great things for the young people they are 
responsible for educating.
  So for the rest of our country, I think the Senator from Missouri and 
I want to see a similar kind of flexibility.
  What does it mean? It is very clear what it means. It means that when 
it comes to educating the young people of our country, we basically 
trust parents a great deal more than we trust bureaucrats.
  For a long time, we felt that the promotion of education in our 
country would come only if you could have a national department of 
education, and from that would flow all good things to the rest of the 
country, and they would serve as the leaders to project our States and 
our school districts into the dynamics of improving our public 
education system. We found out that while there is a department of 
education necessary on occasion, that the real energy comes from a 
local school district, or a State, or a group of parents who do not 
like what they see, or the direction their children's education is 
heading in, and they want to make changes.
  I am not at all opposed to public education. How could I be? I, my 
wife, and all of our children are the products of the public education 
system. And we are very proud of it. In Idaho we have a very good 
public education system that could be a great deal better. The Governor 
of the State of Idaho, former Senator here in this body, just elected, 
has recognized in our State that one of the greatest needs is in the 
area of reading. Should he be allowed, along with local school 
districts, to shift to more concentration on reading from the first 
grade through to the fourth or fifth grade? If that is what Idaho 
needs, that is what he should be allowed to do. Even within that 
context, in some school districts in our State reading has already been 
a higher priority, and those students are doing better.
  In the State of Texas, which has been able to operate under this 
demonstration project that we now want to send nationwide, the students 
there are outperforming others, because once again school districts are 
allowed to focus, to target, and on their standardized test scores they 
are moving up faster than they are in other States.
  In Maryland, students are receiving a one-on-one tutoring--again, a 
demonstration on the part of the school districts that in Maryland they 
needed to focus on reading. That one-on-one relationship might 
otherwise be denied under the concept that a one-size education program 
fits all which would not have allowed the students to do so.
  There are a good many stories out there. It is from those stories, 
those clear examples of understanding, that we bring S. 280 to the 
floor. I think it has the kind of dynamics we ought to be involved in. 
For some time we Republicans have recognized that bureaucracies just 
don't educate. They burn up a lot of money. They direct a lot of very 
well-meaning people sometimes in the wrong directions.

  Where it works is when the money gets to the local levels where 
parents, along with their educators, can determine what the needs are 
in a given area. That, of course, has always historically produced one 
of the most dynamic public systems in the Nation, in the world, and 
that is our public education system, stalled out in a good number of 
years simply because it did not have the flexibility to respond.
  At this level we are going to put more dollars into education. We 
believe that is a high national priority. Unlike those of the past 
where money should have come from the State and local units, we are 
committed in our opportunity of surplus years to put some of those 
dollars into education, and in so doing, we don't want them to get hung 
up here where 25 or 30 percent will be spun over into bureaucratic 
inertia. We want them to flow directly to our units of education at the 
local level.
  Ed-Flex, Senate bill 280, offers us that opportunity. We begin to 
debate it next week. I hope we can have strong bipartisan support in 
what is an extremely valuable initiative.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. VOINOVICH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Ohio is 
recognized.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senate 280, 
a bill to extend educational flexibility to all of the 50 States.
  One of the nice things about becoming a Member of the U.S. Senate is 
that I am going to have an opportunity as a Member of Congress to 
promote some of the programs I lobbied for while I was mayor of the 
city of Cleveland and

[[Page S1987]]

president of the National League of Cities, and programs that I 
promoted as Governor and chairman of the National Governors' 
Association.
  Way back in 1991, we did a study in the State of Ohio in regard to 
our department of education to find out if there were ways we could 
change its direction. One of the things we discovered was that there 
were all kinds of reports that needed to be filed. What was astounding 
is that half the reports that were being filed by school districts were 
to the Federal Government and the Federal Government was only 
participating to the extent of about 6 percent of the money that was 
being spent in those school districts.
  So at that time I came to Washington and I met with Lamar Alexander, 
who was at that time the Secretary of Education, and said to him that 
something had to be done about this. At that time he started to put 
some things together. I think he may have coined the word ``Ed-Flex.'' 
Also, Secretary Riley, an enlightened former Governor, realized that 
the Department of Education could be of help to the States. They 
extended the right to local State secretaries to grant waivers to local 
school districts where they wanted to use certain Federal programs for 
different purposes.
  Prior to--we have to put this in perspective--Ed-Flex, if a local 
school district had a Federal program and they wanted to use it 
differently, they had to go to their respective State capital, kiss the 
ring of the superintendent of education, and then that superintendent 
of education would have to go to Washington and do the same thing.
  So Ed-Flex basically says to those States that want to participate, 
if you put together an overall plan of how you are going to in your own 
State eliminate a lot of excess regulations, if you will put together 
an overall plan on how you intend to take these Federal dollars and use 
them better to really make a difference for the kids in the classroom, 
we will allow you the authority that we have in Washington to grant 
those waivers to the local school districts--in Ohio, 611 of them.
  One of the really unique things that came about as a result of Ed-
Flex in our State was that every school district had to prepare eight 
reports to the State department of education for Federal money, and 
then they would submit eight to the Federal Government. Today, they 
only provide one report to the State, and the State provides one to the 
Department of Education.
  I think it is important also to point out that Ed-Flex is just the 
beginning of education reform in the 106th Congress. I would like to 
congratulate my colleagues on the Republican side and on the Democratic 
side for their willingness to allow Ed-Flex to be the first step in 
education reform in this session of Congress.
  We all know that there are different ideas on how we need to reform 
education. The President has his ideas and some of us have a little 
different idea. You have heard from Senator Bond of Missouri about his 
program.
  Many of us believe that the first thing we ought to do before we 
reauthorize elementary and secondary education is to inventory the 550 
education programs that the GAO says we have or the 760 that the 
Congressional Research Service says we have and figure out what we are 
doing there, get rid of the ones that are not working, consolidate the 
money or save it, put it into a block grant, and send it back to the 
States and local governments so they can do a better job with the money 
we are making available to them. In other words, be a better partner 
with State and local government because they have the major 
responsibility for education in this country.
  I am looking forward to working with my colleagues to see if we can't 
come up with a program that is really going to make a difference for 
our boys and girls throughout the United States of America.
  In Ohio, this program has only really been in existence for 2 or 3 
years, and there are some who say, why aren't you doing a lot more with 
it?
  One of the things that needs to be emphasized is that school 
districts are interested in moving forward and taking advantage of Ed-
Flex, but they are being very careful about when they ask for a change 
in the waivers and use the money differently because they want to make 
sure, if they ask for a change in the waiver, in fact they are really 
going to make a difference for the kids. They don't want to do this 
just to go through the motions.
  In our State, we have testing in the fourth, sixth, and ninth grades, 
and we have a tough high school proficiency test. One of the things we 
are trying to do is to bring up the test scores in those first two 
tests, fourth and sixth grade. Through the use of Ed-Flex, we have been 
able to allow a local school district to use the Eisenhower 
professional grant money in a different way than is required under the 
Federal statute, and they are taking that money and putting it into 
emphasizing reading and social studies. We have seen, as a result of 
reallocating those resources, a marked improvement in the students' 
performance on their fourth- and sixth-grade proficiency tests.
  I would love to see the rest of this country take advantage of this 
Ed-Flex Program so that they can do the same thing for their boys and 
girls. So I strongly urge that we pass this Ed-Flex legislation, as I 
say, the first phase of our education reform program.
  I would like to underscore one other thing. One of the most important 
things the Congress of the United States did was to reform the welfare 
program in the United States of America. Prior to that reform, it was 
an entitlement program. We came and we lobbied Congress and said change 
it to a block grant, give us the flexibility so we can make a 
difference for our customers, the recipients of the welfare program.
  We have seen a dramatic change in what is happening in our welfare 
program. For example, in my State we have 560,000 fewer people on 
welfare--a 60-percent reduction since 1992--because we have given the 
people closest to the customer the power and the authority to make a 
difference in their lives.
  We never would have had welfare reform in the United States if it had 
not been for the fact that waivers were granted to the States prior to 
welfare reform and, as a result of that, Governors were able to show 
that with flexibility we can really make a difference in people's 
lives.
  Ed-Flex will give Governors and local school district people that 
authority to change some of these Federal programs, these one-size-
fits-all programs, change them and make a difference for our 
youngsters, and it will be a way we can show America that if you give 
people closest to the kids, the parents, the teachers in the classroom, 
give them the power and the authority to take those dollars and utilize 
them in a way that is really going to make a difference in the lives of 
our children, we will see the most revolutionary change and measured 
improvement we have seen in this country in terms of our public 
education system.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Arkansas is 
recognized.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair.
  I want to applaud my colleagues who have been in the Chamber speaking 
of education reform, and my colleagues on the Republican side I think 
have come forward with a very progressive and innovative reform program 
for education. I know Senator Voinovich from Ohio led the way in 
education reform in that State.
  But Ed-Flex, providing those waivers for State educational 
establishments to be able to avoid the kind of heavy-handed 
bureaucratic mandates that are imposed upon them; the Dollars to the 
Classroom Bill, which I am sponsoring, which would consolidate 31 of 
those hundreds of education programs and allow new flexibility to State 
governments in ensuring that 95 cents of every dollar get to the 
classroom as opposed to the 65 cents that currently get there; and the 
proposal to increase funding for disabilities programs, mandates that 
we placed on local schools but have not funded, I think are all very 
important ingredients to our education reform package which will truly 
lead to improvement in education in this country.

  (The remarks of Mr. Hutchinson pertaining to the introduction of the 
legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

[[Page S1988]]

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I observe the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Voinovich pertaining to the introduction of S. 
468 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to proceed for not to exceed 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to add my voice to those who 
are sponsoring the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 which 
would afford states important exemptions from burdensome federal 
regulations. Indeed, the bill would expand a 12-state demonstration 
program to all 50 states, and would allow for the waiver of statutes 
and regulations that hinder State and local educational improvement 
plans. I thank my colleagues, Senator Frist and Senator Wyden, for 
their leadership on this innovative legislation. It is, indeed, a 
landmark bill that I am confident will improve the performance of our 
Nation's public schools by placing the control back where it belongs--
in the hands of teachers, parents, school board members and the 
administrators of local school districts.
  I am delighted to join my colleagues as an original cosponsor of this 
legislation, because I am confident that it will improve the academic 
performance of students in my home State of Maine and in States across 
the Nation. Our Nation's public school system is the foundation upon 
which the American dream is built. Time and time again, we see that 
education is the difference between poverty and prosperity, ignorance 
and understanding.
  There is no doubt that America's public schools are in need of a 
boost, but not one that is dictated by the Federal Government in a 
``one size fits all'' approach. Rather, we need a boost for our 
Nation's schools; a boost conceived of and built from the bottom up by 
the people who know best what our students need; namely, educators and 
administrators at the State and local levels.
  The Ed-Flex plan does just that by cutting the bureaucratic strings 
that now entangle Federal education dollars. It would allow local 
communities to spend Federal dollars as they think best, as long as 
their programs accomplish the objectives of Federal guidelines.
  In short, the Ed-Flex bill will help our public schools attain and, 
indeed, in many cases exceed Federal standards without resorting to a 
``Washington knows best'' approach.
  I note, Mr. President, that this approach is totally contrary to that 
proposed by the Clinton administration. The President wants to be the 
Nation's principal. He wants to decide everything from promotion 
policies to curriculum standards. That is not the approach that this 
bill takes. Rather, this bill reflects our philosophy that those who 
are most committed and best able to improve education are found at the 
State and local level--our parents, our school board leaders, our 
principals, and our teachers.
  In Maine, our students rank near the top in many national tests. The 
State Department of Education, the State's elementary and secondary 
schools and the University of Maine have worked diligently to design 
and use challenging statewide learning standards.
  National test results show that these efforts have been successful. 
Even more important, they demonstrate that a strong K-12 education 
system designed and supported by State and local officials, school 
board members, teachers, and parents can produce first-rate students.
  And, indeed, I am very proud of the accomplishments of Maine schools.
  Dozens of schools across the country have participated in the current 
Ed-Flex Partnership Program. They have proven that test scores and 
learning increase most rapidly when guided by locally designed 
programs, not by Federal ones. We need to expand the Ed-Flex Program so 
that students in every State can reap these same benefits.
  Public schools in Maine and across the Nation have made a good-faith 
effort to repair the deteriorated foundation of our system of public 
education. There is, however, much more that needs to be done. Our 
States cannot do it alone. They need assistance but not the dictates of 
Washington.
  The Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 directly addresses 
the need for change within public schools by putting the power to plan, 
brainstorm, build, and implement back in the hands of State and local 
communities. Expanding the opportunity for the Ed-Flex Program will 
give every State the chance to experiment and innovate and to chart a 
path for better schools. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this very important initiative.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair and welcome the Presiding Officer in 
that very important position that he has undertaken. We all have had an 
opportunity to do it in our careers.
  I ask unanimous consent to proceed for up to 5 minutes. I take it we 
are in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  (The remarks of Mr. Breaux pertaining to the introduction of S. 469 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BREAUX. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business. 
Are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business, and there 
is a grant of 5 minutes per Senator.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank you.
  Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Ed-Flex bill we are 
going to take up next week, which has been brought to the floor by 
Senators Frist and Wyden and which is an excellent piece of 
legislation, a commonsense idea. The Ed-Flex bill simply gives freedom 
to the States to assist local school districts in meeting the 
particular needs of their particular students.
  As a former Governor, I was very frustrated when I would receive 
Federal funds that were chock full of strings and Federal directions--
strings that limited the ability of local school districts to address 
the educational needs of their students.
  Had Ed-Flex been an option when I was Governor, schools could have 
chosen whether they would use Federal funds to hire more math teachers 
or instead if they wanted to use them to hire more reading teachers. 
Those choices should have been dependent upon the particular needs of 
each school.
  They should have been dependent upon the particular needs of the 
students. Instead, those choices were being made by the Federal 
Government.
  Under the current system, 38 States are prohibited from issuing the 
type of waivers the Department of Education can issue under the Ed-Flex 
Program. New Hampshire is one of those States. This means that someone 
at the Department of Education who doesn't even know the name of one 
student at, for example, the Rumford Elementary School in Concord, NH, 
has more authority over whether the Rumford Elementary School principal 
and the Rumford schoolteachers can decide

[[Page S1989]]

whether they need math help or reading help for that student than the 
principals and the teachers have. It is difficult to fathom that some 
of my colleagues believe that the Federal bureaucrat, however well-
intentioned, rather than a Concord school district principal or a 
Concord elementary district schoolteacher or a parent is a better judge 
of what a child needs in the Rumford Elementary School than they are.
  It is hard for me to understand how we can turn to a Federal 
bureaucracy to make decisions about local schools rather than have the 
local schools make decisions about how the education should proceed.
  This philosophy of Federal control over local education is insulting 
to the principals, to the teachers, to the superintendents, to the 
school board, to the parents. And more importantly, it is 
counterproductive because it doesn't put the resources where we need 
them. It doesn't help the student with the needs that that student has 
been identified as needing by the local school district, but rather 
with a set stringent regulated framework which has been determined by a 
Federal bureaucracy.
  Furthermore, this philosophy of Federal control is unjustified. 
Twelve Ed-Flex States, in the words of Secretary Riley, have used their 
authority to grant waivers ``judiciously and carefully.'' There is no 
compelling reason to delay expansion of Ed-Flex authority to all the 
States. In fact, Secretary Riley, President Clinton--both of whom are 
former Governors--and the National Governors' Association support 
expanding Ed-Flex to all 50 States. I congratulate the President and I 
congratulate Secretary Riley for his support of this initiative.
  With that said, Ed-Flex is a modest but important first step to 
driving more flexibility and control to the locals, thereby giving them 
the schools to improve education. However, it still leaves the bulk of 
decisionmaking and control regarding Federal education programs in the 
hands of the Department of Education rather than with the States and 
local communities. I hope that later on in this year we will address 
those additional regulations.
  At this time, we are taking up Ed-Flex. That, at least, is a first 
step and a positive step. Ed-Flex is a bipartisan, widely supported 
bill with proven effectiveness. We should take this opportunity to 
provide much needed flexibility to the States.
  Finally, I take this opportunity to commend Senator Frist and Senator 
Wyden for their diligent, bipartisan effort to expand Ed-Flex to all 50 
States. They led the fight last year to ensure that all States benefit 
from the increased flexibility and innovation that Ed-Flex provides. I 
thank them for their efforts to bring Ed-Flex again to the floor of the 
Senate.
  I believe the very fact that Ed-Flex will be considered on the Senate 
floor next week sends a clear signal to the American public that the 
top priority of this Senate is education and educational programs that 
are sensitive to the needs of the parents, the students, and the local 
schools. Ed-Flex is proof positive that the Senate is prepared to hit 
the ground running and promote proven educational reform measures such 
as the expansion of the Ed-Flex Program. I hope that in a strong, 
bipartisan manner we can work together to pass Ed-Flex and give the 
Governors, the local schools, the parents, teachers, and the principals 
this much needed tool which will free them from much unneeded Federal 
regulation.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, may I make a parliamentary inquiry? How are 
we operating at the moment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business and the 
general grant is each Senator speaking has 5 minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. I see the distinguished Senator from Maine is on the 
floor, ready to speak. The statement may take me as long as 10 minutes. 
I ask unanimous consent I be able to proceed for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________