[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 37 (Tuesday, March 9, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2448-S2453]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, over the next 60 minutes we will be
addressing our children's education, which is a continuation of the
debate that we brought to the floor last week. Although the debate has
ranged from the initial presentation of the bill to various amendments,
it is the underlying bill that I would like to spend a few moments
discussing.
The Ed-Flex bill is a simple bill, a straightforward bill, and a
bipartisan bill. It was brought to the Senate floor last week in order
to pass it through the Senate, have it pass through the House of
Representatives, have it sent to the President of the United States,
and signed so that all 50 States would be able to take advantage of a
program on which we have a 5-year history, that has been demonstrated
to work, that was initially applied in six States, and then another six
States. There are 38 States such as Tennessee that do not have access
to an Ed-Flex program.
Ed-Flex is a program which basically says that individual schools and
school districts and communities would be able to obtain waivers to be
able to meet very specific education goals to educate their children,
but they can do it in a way that is free of the Washington bureaucratic
regulations, the excessive redtape which we hear again and again is
shackling the hands of our schools and our teachers who are working so
hard to educate our children, to prepare them for a future full of
opportunities, to prepare them for that next millennium which we all
talk about in such glowing terms. Yet we recognize that in spite of
giving the system a lot of money, in spite of progress in structure, we
are failing our children. We are not preparing them for that next
millennium.
So now is the time to pay attention to what people are telling us, to
what parents are telling us, what principals are telling us, what
teachers are telling us. We need to respect the needs of the local
communities, because each community is different, rather than thinking
in this body that we can decide if you put more teachers there, you are
going to do better without telling them what the quality of that
teacher might be or telling them that you need just another computer,
and if we put that computer in your classroom, your students will do
better.
No, we should listen to the schools that say let us take those same
resources--we know what it takes to educate our children--let us carry
out our type of program free of the bureaucracy, free of this
administrative burden. And that is what Ed-Flex is all about. This
particular bill costs nothing.
We have heard of a number of well-intended programs talked about this
morning and introduced as amendments, really loading down our bill, but
they cost $200 million here, $500 million here, $1 billion here, $6
billion here, $12 billion over 6 years.
We should have that debate at some point because we know that we are
not educating our children nearly as well as we should, and we need to
debate resources. And we most appropriately are doing that in the
committee structure right now where we are looking at all of the
elementary and secondary education programs through the reauthorization
process. We have heard repeatedly that we should not just add one more
program to the already more than 250 programs with which we have been
trying to educate our children. We hear too often: Let's add this
program and that will take care of our problems today.
Well, it sounds good and it makes good sound bites and it may even
poll well, but it is absurd to think that one program is going to solve
our education problems. So let's start with the basics. The Ed-Flex
bill includes flexibility at the local level, gets rid of Washington
redtape, provides strong accountability provisions built in at the
local level, at the State level, and at the Federal level. For
instance, performance standards and content standards are built into
our Ed-Flex bill, as well as issues at the State level such as
corrective action and technical assistance, and accountability is built
in at the State level and at the Federal level. In fact, the Secretary
of the Department of Education can at any time terminate a waiver.
Ed-Flex means greater local control for education decisions, has no
cost to taxpayers, and is supported by all 50 Governors. Just 20
minutes ago I was talking to a Governor, and I basically said here we
are, in Washington. We have a bill that is supported by every Governor
in the United States of America. If we are allowed--and we are going to
try again with the cloture vote today--to bring this bill to the floor
for a vote, I bet you it will pass 99 to 1. That is how good the bill
is. Yet, because of political posturing, because of polls, because of
an agenda that someone else has, some have come to the floor of the
Senate and are holding the bill hostage.
When I mentioned the Ed-Flex bill while traveling across Tennessee
Saturday and Sunday talking to parents--I was in three high schools--
parents basically said, what is going on in Washington, DC? I thought
now was the time for nonpartisanship, for coming together, for
bipartisanship. I thought you had finished the gridlock that we have
seen in Washington. ``We expect more out of you, Senator Frist.'' And I
said, ``Yes, I will go back, and I will do my very best.'' Yet, I come
back and again its gridlock.
Our bill very simply means education flexibility. It costs nothing,
it has bipartisan support, and provides flexibility and accountability.
Everything else you have heard about over the last few years is a new
program, costing billions of dollars--silver bullets. People say,
``That's what we need because it sounds good. I go home and I talk to
parents. They don't know what education flexibility is all about. But I
tell them about adding quantity, adding numbers of teachers, and they
listen. Well, that is the whole point. We need to do what is right. We
don't need to do just what sounds good because what sounds good doesn't
work. For the last 30 years we have done what sounds good, but without
any improvement whatsoever.
We need Ed-Flex. We have to forget this gridlock. In the next 45
minutes or so, that will be our discussion.
I see that my distinguished colleague from the great State of Florida
has arrived, and I would like to yield 10 minutes to my colleague.
Mr. MACK. I thank the Senator for yielding. I will not use that much
time. I thank the Senator for the leadership he has provided on this
legislation.
It was really not my intention to speak on this bill because I was
under the impression that this bill had great bipartisan support, that
we would bring this to the floor after coming out of committee, and it
would breeze through the Senate. This is a piece of legislation that is
supposedly--supposedly--supported by everybody.
I am pleased to speak in favor of the Ed-Flex bill. Our children will
thrive when State and local communities are given the freedom to craft
their education plans according to the unique education needs of their
children. Local schools do more when Washington bureaucracies do less.
That is what this bill does.
We are beginning the second week of consideration of this bill. We
have been forced to file three cloture motions on what may be the most
popular, most bipartisan legislation we will consider this Congress. I
fear this may set the tone for the remainder of the 106th Congress,
where consideration of any bill will be filibustered by the Democrats
and drive partisanship to new heights.
As I implied a moment ago, I am in some ways confused by what is
happening. I do not understand how a bill that supposedly is supported
by an overwhelming number of Members on both sides of the aisle has
been caught up in this constant and continuous effort to amend the
bill.
I think the actions we have seen during this past week, and what we
are anticipating through the balance of this week, raise the question
about those who have cosponsored the bill and who say they are in
support of it. I question whether they truly support the idea of Ed-
Flex, which is to allow State and local communities to have more
control over how dollars are spent. I think there is a ruse underway
here. I think our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to
claim that they support the idea of giving local communities
[[Page S2449]]
and States more authority and more flexibility in how to spend their
dollars, yet they come out here and offer amendment after amendment on
this bill, knowing full well--and I ask the Senator from Tennessee if
this is not the case--knowing full well the majority leader has said to
them there will be other opportunities to offer these amendments on
other education bills when they come forward. Is that an accurate
statement?
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I would love the opportunity to respond to
that, because that is exactly right. It is crystal clear that these are
important issues in all of these amendments, all of which are so well
intended, all of which sound so good. The point is, as we speak, right
now in the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, the
large bill in which all resources going into kindergarten through 12th
grade is being addressed, the committee is looking at how effective
they are, how they interrelate to each other--because right now we have
180 or 190 or 200 programs, all in K-12 education, all with their own
little bureaucracies, all well-intended, but with huge overlap, huge
duplication, huge waste. Again the goals are very good, but we have a
process to look at all of those.
That is ongoing as we speak. Hearings are going on right now in that
particular committee on every one of these issues. That is the
appropriate forum, not to bring them to the floor, especially when they
cost $12 and $15 billion. And now is our opportunity, now, to pass that
single, straightforward, education flexibility, no-cost, demonstrated-
that-it-works, bipartisan-supported bill, and that is where the
gridlock is.
Mr. MACK. As I said a minute ago, I really am serious now in raising
questions about the sincerity of our colleagues on the other side of
the aisle who purport that they are in favor of Ed-Flex but, yet, want
to bog this piece of legislation down with a whole series of amendments
they know are controversial.
There is nothing wrong with us dealing with controversial amendments
and controversial issues. We do that throughout our entire political
careers. The question is the timing of it. The question is the
approach. I am, again, dismayed by the attitude that is being projected
here. I, again, question sincerity.
Recently, we went through a 5- or 6-week period at the beginning of
this new Congress with a very contentious issue dealing with the
impeachment trial. But each side made a sincere effort to work with the
other, and as a result I think we did a credible job. I think most
people in the country think we did a credible job. Yet, on this the
second piece of legislation we are considering, we are being forced to
offer cloture motion after cloture motion after cloture motion--three
so far. There should be no question in anyone's mind that the intention
here, I believe, is now to kill this piece of legislation because it
goes against their political interests. It goes against their
philosophy.
In all honesty, the differences in the approach about education in
America is clear. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
convinced the only way to improve education in America is to have a
larger group of wiser bureaucrats in Washington make a determination
about how resources ought to be allocated and what regulations ought to
come down from Washington in order to solve this problem.
We have a totally different view. We think if we give this money to
the States and the local communities, they can make better decisions
about what their top spending priority is. In some local school
districts that is school buildings. In other school districts that is
school books. In others, that is teachers. We ought to allow them to
make those decisions. We should not stand in their way.
Again, I came here to raise these points with respect to the process,
as much as anything else. I remind everyone that, in the last Congress,
there were 69 cloture motions that were filed--69 cloture motions. And
here we are again battling along party lines about a bill that we were
told might pass with 100 votes. I have serious reservations now whether
that is going to happen. I think the actions of our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle are very clear. They are now trying to kill the
idea of allowing States and local communities to have more flexibility.
Again, I appreciate the work and the effort of the Senator from
Tennessee on this issue. He has provided great leadership and I
appreciate the opportunity and the time he has given me.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Florida because
he really has hit the nail right on the head. We have a bill, Ed-Flex,
with flexibility, with accountability, with broad support among the
American people. That bill will help the American children, No. 1.
No. 2, we have Members on the opposite side of the aisle who
recognize they can kill this bill. They can kill this bill. They cannot
vote for cloture and therefore effectively filibuster this bill, but at
the same time, hide the fact that is actually hurting our children. We
hear, again, of all these well-intentioned programs. ``Oh, if we can
pass those, we can help our children.'' Let's recognize the facts. By
killing this bill, by filibustering this bill, they are preventing
something which is demonstrated to work for our children from being
delivered to our children right now.
Delaying tactics will put it off for a couple of years. Yes, it will
eventually pass, but why not give our children something today? Why
deny them that? Because of gridlock? Because they want to define an
agenda or they want to take the President's agenda and bring it to the
floor? It is hurting the children. We need Ed-Flex. We cannot tolerate
gridlock.
I see my distinguished colleague from Georgia is on the floor. I
would like to turn to him. Let me just briefly quote from a letter from
the Democratic Governors' Association from 2 weeks ago, February 22,
1999, just to demonstrate the broad support and how what is happening
on the other side, the obstruction, doesn't represent what the
Democratic Governors tell us. They say:
Democratic Governors strongly support this effort to vest
state officials with more control over the coordination of
federal and state regulatory and statutory authority in
exchange for requiring more local school accountability.
* * * * *
Most importantly, S. 280 [which is our bill, the underlying
bill here] maintains the careful balance needed between
flexibility and accountability.
They end by saying:
S. 280 [that's the Ed-Flex bill] is common-sense
legislation that we believe deserves immediate consideration.
We hope, therefore, that you will join in supporting its
prompt enactment.
This is a letter to the U.S. Senate from the Democratic Governors'
Association supporting ``prompt enactment,'' yet we see this
obstructionist filibustering going on.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator from Georgia is
recognized.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, first I acknowledge the Senator from
Tennessee, the Senator from Vermont, the Senator from Oregon, Senators
Frist, Jeffords and Wyden, for the extensive work they have been about
trying to address this enormous issue in America. The data that we are
receiving is striking to me, particularly in grades kindergarten
through high school, about failed reading skills, last in math, last in
science among the industrialized nations. America knows this. You can
ask any community what is the No. 1 issue in the country today, and
they will tell you we have trouble in our school systems. We are not
effectively equipping all of our citizens with the ability to
participate in this society. If that is allowed to continue, it will
have the effect of crippling the United States in the new century.
I have often said, to the extent that any citizen is denied
fundamental educational skills, we have abrogated their ability to be
full citizens and to enjoy the benefits of American citizenship. An
uneducated people will not be a free people. By allowing so many of our
students to come through the system and to have missed the mark, we are
in danger of creating for the first time in America a cast system. This
never existed in America.
There is vast mobility in our population--people coming up the
economic
[[Page S2450]]
ladder; people coming down. It is not static. We will change that, if
we turn our heads away from allowing hundreds of thousands of our
citizens to come through the educational system without being equipped
to be a full participating citizen. That is why I was proud to be a
cosponsor of this piece of legislation, the Education Flexibility Act,
which has already proven itself in 12 States. This legislation expands
what is working. We need those things that are working out there.
I do not believe I have ever in my career in the U.S. Senate seen a
piece of legislation that has the approval of every Governor in the
United States. I do not believe I have ever seen that happen before.
Every Democrat Governor has signed a letter of endorsement for this
piece of legislation; every Republican Governor has signed. How many
times? It has never happened.
In the face of that, we are on day 7, holding reform legislation that
has been proven to work, supported by every Governor, we are holding it
hostage. We are holding all those students who can benefit from this
hostage. They are last on the list. We have to serve some other agenda,
some bureaucracy, some status quo. They come first. Just let those
students sit out there with those miserable scores. Go ahead and let 30
and 40 percent of our students come to college unable to effectively
read; go ahead and let the States spend millions upon millions of
dollars to retrain them to see if they cannot somehow salvage a college
education and career. So what? Just put the old fist down, dig your
heels in and leave everything the way it is.
This reminds me of the struggle for welfare reform. You didn't have
to be a rocket scientist to understand that program was in deep
trouble. It was costing America trillions of dollars, and it was
producing dependent, not independent, citizens. It was stunting the
future of millions of Americans. Yet, it took a massive struggle, year
after year, same crowd, I might point out. Just leave things the way
they are; go ahead and let those folks lose their opportunity and their
lives. Do not give them a chance to be full participatory citizens.
It finally got done, and millions of Americans have learned the
American way. They have jobs. They are getting off welfare rolls by the
thousands in every State.
So here we have another picture. We have an education system that is
producing very troubling results. The Senator who is now presiding and
his colleague come forward with a very clean, simple idea to try to
help the States, which manage education, set better priorities, make
the money be more effective, get in there and try to turn this around.
What does turning around mean? It means you are saving the future for
some child. You are giving them their chance. This kind of resistance
is saying, OK go ahead and let them be strangled and choked down. That
is OK. How can anybody in this Capital City accept the status quo? It
is beyond me.
As you have said over and over, Mr. President, this bill, simple,
clean, is about removing handcuffs and shackles and letting Governors
and State legislatures and school boards get in there and get those
resources to what the priorities are--in other words, reducing the
overhead. You have said many times, and I agree completely, the Federal
Government makes about 6 to 7 percent of the funding available for
elementary education, but 50 percent of the overhead and administrative
regulations are directly tied to that. Twenty-five thousand employees
across America are required to administer that slim piece of the
puzzle. Your bill gets at that, begins reducing that overhead and that
waste, and diverting the attention of those teachers away from the kids
to some regulatory system.
The amendments being talked about, bandied around town, miss the
whole point. This is about reducing the overhead and putting more of
the resources in the classroom.
Let me read from the genesis of one of these amendments desired to
change your bill. It is called ``Applications.'' It is a section about
how to apply under one of these amendments.
Applications Required: If any State chooses not to
participate in the program under this Act, or fails to submit
an approvable application . . .
Applications Required: The State educational agency of each
State desiring to receive an allotment under this Act shall
submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such
form, and containing such information as the Secretary may
require.
That is the Secretary in Washington, not in Wyoming, not in Georgia,
not in Tennessee. It is the person in Washington.
Contents: Each application shall include (1) the State's
goals for using funds under this Act to reduce average class
sizes in regular classrooms in grades 1 through 3,
including--(A) a description of current class sizes in
regular classrooms in the local educational agencies of the
State; (B) a description of the State's plan for using funds
under this Act to reduce the average class size in regular
classrooms in those grades; and (C) the class-size goals in
regular classrooms the State intends to reach and a
justification of the goals; (2) a description of the State's
educational agency's plan for allocating program funds within
the State, including--(A) an estimate of the impact of these
allocations on class sizes in the individual local. . . .
You get the point, Mr. President. This is going in the opposite
direction. This misses the point. This is saying that the 50-percent
burden, the 25,000 employees we have out there to try to regulate the
color of the classroom, how tall it will be and the size of a chair,
they want to do more of that. They want more administrative burdens.
They want more strings.
This is a classic division. This is a group of people who are
conducting an obstructionist filibuster to block what every Governor
and a vast majority of the American people have concluded is needed:
That there is too much regulatory burden; it locks down the system and
does not allow the system to set proper priorities. And it infers, Mr.
President, that that Governor, those legislators, that community,
aren't smart enough to figure out what they need to do and it requires
a Washington wizard wonk in the bowels of one of these buildings over
here to tell them what they need to do. That is what this division is
all about.
This legislation envisions that these local communities, the
Governors of our States, have a sense of the problems there and they
need to be given the room to go about solving them. We have done this
on a pilot basis in 12 States, and it is working. It is working. This
legislation opens it up so that all the States --and you come back to
the point, it is absolutely unprecedented, Mr. President, that every
Governor, of both parties, would document and send to the Congress a
letter that says: ``Do this. We all agree.''
In the face of that bipartisan support, and in the face of that
magnificent requirement and urgency, what are we facing here in the
U.S. Senate on something that is totally agreed to? A filibuster, of
all things. A filibuster. And you can only conclude--as we fought our
way through welfare reform and as we fought our way through education
reform last year, the commitment to the status quo, the inconceivable
ability to turn away from the absolutely proven facts about what is
happening in kindergarten through high school, with all that data--the
fact that those kids are not getting the mark does not matter, it is
just too bad, tough luck, because we are going to defend the
establishment, the bureaucracy, the status quo. They are first; the
kids are last.
Those Governors did not sign this letter at some willy-nilly picnic.
They are on the ground, and they know what is happening. It is a
frightening thing because if we leave this unchecked, we are going to
have a very, very large population that cannot work in our system. And
that is going to create havoc for our country, not to mention their
condition or what you have done to that person. You have left them
without the tools to take care of themselves and their new families and
their communities. Mr. President, that is unconscionable policy, to
turn and walk away from that. It is hard for me to believe.
So I have to say, I have not been here all that long, but I have to
tell you that this particular filibuster is onerous because of who the
beneficiaries are of your work. They are children, they are American
children. They need help, and they need it now. And this is not the way
they should be treated.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Mr. President.
[[Page S2451]]
I particularly thank the Presiding Officer and congratulate him for
bringing this education flexibility bill to the floor of the U.S.
Senate, where it should have been passed rapidly. It came out of
committee 17-1. That is bipartisan. The Presiding Officer worked hard
and found the common ground for education.
All during the trial, we talked about the need to get on with the
country's business; and we did. We met mornings, up to the time of the
trial, in committee meetings; and we passed bills out of committee. In
fact, we passed more bills out of committee than passed the Senate in
the entire first year I was here. We did the work of the country. We
found common ground. We had a promise that common ground would be the
way of the Senate for these next 2 years. Where did the common ground
go? Seventeen to one; that is common ground.
I hear expressions that we want to do things for education. Well, at
this moment I know that for the Democrats education is merely a
smokescreen, flash-in-the-pan politics. The Republicans are insisting
on a politics of performance; the Democrats are utilizing a politics of
the polls. The Republicans insist on promises kept; the Democrats
insist on promises made, politics as usual. That is what gives politics
a bad name: Promising things you do not intend to deliver on.
We have been talking about paying for the promises we have already
made. That is what IDEA is about. That is what we had extensive
discussion about in the U.S. Senate last year when we figured out how
special ed could be handled for this Nation. And we did find common
ground. We also had this same sort of thing on the floor where, after
the common ground, there were all kinds of wedge issues that were
thrown in that did not have the detail done, that did not have the
committee meetings held, that did not have the substance to follow
through. Those were added and added and added, not successfully, but
taking up the time of the Senate.
We finally got IDEA passed, funding of special education. In that,
though, we did not follow all the promises that were made. We provided
7 percent of the funding, not 40 percent of the funding for special
education. But that does not mean we did not tell the States what to
do. We did. We said: ``States, you've got to put up the rest of that.
We are just making promises.'' But we said that every time there was an
opportunity for additional funding, that additional funding would go to
special education until we got it funded. Right now we are following up
on those promises.
People here are saying there is a lot of money that can be spent on
education. And we are saying, OK, if there is a lot of money--and we
are not agreeing that there is a lot of money--if there is a lot of
money, fund what we promised first. School funding is one of the most
important issues facing Wyoming and every other State. We are debating
education flexibility, the Ed-Flex bill. This gives States more
flexibility to use Federal money where the States and local districts
need it most. State governments, local school boards, teachers and,
yes, even the parents and kids need to be involved in setting the
agenda for education. It should not be the Federal Government
designating where every dollar is spent.
You get the impression, from the discussion we are having here, that
the Federal Government is the answer to education. Let me tell you what
the Federal Government does. The Federal Government provides 7 percent
of local school funding. You would think we were the answer. We are a
piddling little 7 percent, because we have said: ``States, we've given
you the mechanism to fund education. We want you to fund education. We
insist that you fund education to provide education for every single
kid, and there's a court system you can put that in if you don't think
your kids are getting an equal break.'' And it is being utilized.
The Federal Government only provides 7 percent of local funding, but
we provide 50 percent of the paperwork. In order to get that 7 percent
money, you are going to do 50 percent of your paperwork for the Federal
Government. That paperwork burden requires the equivalent of 25,000
full-time people who work on paper, not on students. It takes six times
as many employees to administer a Federal dollar as it does a State
dollar. I want to tell you, paperwork won't teach kids.
I have a daughter who is a seventh grade English teacher. She is a
dedicated teacher. She earned her master's degree while she was
teaching by going to classes evenings and weekends so she could do a
better job with her kids. She understands class size. It fluctuates
from year to year and from how many people move into her part of the
city. She also understands IDEA funding and the way it will affect her
job and the way it will affect kids in her classrooms. She understands
that is something that has been debated and the details have been
filled in.
It is not like this idea of 100,000 new teachers, which sounds good.
It is that flash-in-the-pan politics, the politics of promises. It
doesn't have the details behind it. I suspect that every teacher out
there in the classroom--including my daughter--when they find out that
bill prohibits that money from being used for an increase in wages for
them or even an increase in benefits, they would be livid. We have an
obligation to the teachers who are already teaching out there, the ones
who are doing a good job, the ones who in some instances have too big a
class size. But their amendment prohibits them from getting a break.
That is because we haven't had committee hearings on it. We just went
right to the politics of the polls. We just went out there and said to
the American people, we have studied the polls, we know you would like
more teachers in the classroom, we know you would like to have your
kids in smaller classes, and we will promise that. Now, we won't
deliver it, but we will promise it.
That is not how the Republicans here work. It was my understanding
that we were going to have some common ground. And we found the common
ground. I was encouraged. But I am not encouraged anymore. I watched
the President crisscross the United States while we were having this
trial. He crisscrossed the United States promising money: a billion
here--nothing as small as a million--a billion here, a billion there,
$4 billion there. I listened to his State of the Union Message while
the trial was going on. My daughter called me the next day. She said,
``I had a kid show up to class today who had a couple of questions
about the President's State of the Union Message. He brought the
figures on the percentages that were used in the speech and he wanted
to know if those didn't add up to 128 percent of the surplus?'' I tell
you, the kid is good in math. The kid is good in listening.
Yes, promises were made crisscrossing this country, promises that
can't be kept, promises that the American people have said take care of
Social Security, balance the budget, pay down the debt if you can, and
if there is anything left over at all, give it back to us. But it is
much fancier to put in the press that we are going to give away more
money. It sounds great to have 100,000 new teachers in the classroom.
One of the Members on the other side of the aisle recognized this
morning that they have a second issue--that is more classrooms. He even
pointed out why that was an issue. It is because if you put 100,000
teachers in there, you no longer have classroom space for the kids. It
takes years of planning to be able to provide what they are talking
about doing in a flash-in-the-pan moment for the press.
That is not good business. That is not good legislation. That is not
how we ought to be operating.
At the beginning I gave the Senator from Tennessee the credit for
this bill. Now, there are some Democrat cosponsors on this. There are a
lot of them. But at the moment I am not giving them any credit. They
are the ones who voted against cloture as though cloture stopped
everything. Cloture ends our debate in 30 hours, 30 hours of talking
about this important bill. That is a lot of time. Now it isn't time to
demagog everything in the papers. It isn't time to do the flash-in-the-
pan, promises-made politics about which we have been hearing. And it
would wind up with a vote at the end where we would see if we were
really in favor of education flexibility, less paperwork, so that
teachers can spend more time in the classroom.
[[Page S2452]]
I now think that they do not want that kind of a vote. They would
rather make promises.
The bill that we have before the Senate is extremely important. There
are a lot of things in it that will actually improve the capability of
the present teachers in the classroom. It won't restrict their pay. It
won't keep them from getting additional benefits. But it will be funded
because it doesn't require any funding. That is why we object to some
of these measures being put on this bill at this moment.
Yes, it is an opportunity to make the press. No, it is not the
appropriate place to make the press. The more appropriate place is to
have the hearings, fill in the details, get the agreement on the common
ground. The more appropriate place might be appropriations. But just in
case appropriations doesn't come up--oh, yeah, that is a requirement;
we have to cover appropriations--at any rate, even if it weren't to
come up, there is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. That is
about funding. That is about elementary schools and secondary schools
and how many teachers there are. Sounds like a more appropriate place
to me. Sounds like the place where we ought to work for common ground
instead of bringing it up without a hearing, bringing it up without the
details pasted in.
There is a lot of demagoging going on here about amendments. There
have been some 15 amendments. I have heard that we may have to debate
all of them. Of the 15, 10 require new money, 2 or more will force new
mandates on the States--more paperwork for that piddling little 7
percent money that the States get, something that guts flexibility,
which is the intent of this bill.
The others are amendments to elementary and secondary education that
are not appropriate on this bill. This bill isn't part of elementary
and secondary education. It never was. We passed this bill last year
with the President's support without all of those extraneous programs.
Let me repeat: We had the President's support on the exact bill last
year. Now the President says, If you don't add a bunch of these flash-
in-the-pan politics for me, this additional spending, I will have to
veto your bill.
I am a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee. I am glad to debate those new authorizations in that
committee. I will not support authorizing these very expensive mandates
on this bill. It doesn't make any sense to me, for example, to put a
$1.4 billion mandate onto States and locals to hire new teachers
without the details. One of those details is what happens when the
Federal Government doesn't provide continuing funding. That is what we
do with these flash-in-the-pan politics. We fund them for a while. We
get the benefit of the press on them, and then we dump them like a hot
potato because we can't afford them. Where does that leave the school
district that hired that teacher, reduced the class size, promised
those parents they would have a smaller class size? It puts them behind
again with another mandate to fund the project that had some temptation
for them when it was money being offered.
Let me ask another question. The way we work Federal legislation and
regulations and paperwork, when it is recognized that we cannot afford
that teacher who they have been given, who gets laid off, the Federal
hire or the local hire? This bill is about local folks. This amendment
is about Federal rules and regulations.
That is why the underlying bill is such good medicine. It is a good
dose of common sense for a system beleaguered by Washington fever. It
doesn't offer any new programs. It doesn't offer billions of dollars to
hire a bunch of consultants. It offers a new format for innovation.
That is it. The format is flexibility so States and locals can improve
their schools.
Every Member of this body should support this bill. If it ever comes
to a vote, I am sure they will support this bill. Or at least I was
sure. But when you have cosponsors who don't even vote for cloture that
would allow another 30 hours to debate the bill, I am not sure. I know
our States will thank us for this bill, our schools will thank us for
it, most importantly, our kids will thank us for doing it. It is time
to put away the promises made--the politics of the poll, the politics
as usual--and do some promises kept.
This bill is a promise made. It is a promise that can be done. It is
the common ground that was talked about during the trial. It is time to
find that common ground.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the
time.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to come back to
the floor to talk about Ed-Flex and the importance of that measure for
the good education of our kids, and that is what we ought to be talking
about.
We heard a lot of posturing. Everybody thinks the ideas that come out
of Washington are great. Frankly, listening to some of the ideas, I
think those are good ideas. If we were a great big United States school
board, if we were making the decisions, if we had the responsibility
and the authority of making decisions for educating our kids, these
might be ideas we would adopt. In any event, they are good ideas to be
talking about.
There is a real disconnect, and that is what the Ed-Flex measure
begins to address. I sincerely hope that our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle will let us have a vote on this very, very important
bill. We need to move on. There are a lot more things we need to do in
education beyond this.
I am going to have a very radical proposal to get the Federal
Government strings off local education all the way. But I think Ed-Flex
is a good bipartisan start, and it builds on a successful example that
has been tried in 12 States. It is working. It is working because it
gives the flexibility to local school districts to decide how they wish
to use the money.
The people in the local schools--the school board members, the
teachers, the administrators, the parents--know the names of the kids.
They know Joe and Sally and Harry and Willie and Thelma and the kids
who are being educated in that school district. They know what their
challenges are. Some of the good ideas we have in Washington may not
work in a particular school district. It may not be the right recipe.
Who better to make the decision than the people who know the children,
who know their potential, who know their problems?
I have found in meetings with educators and parents in every section
of this State--in the metropolitan areas, in the urban schools, in the
suburban schools, in the rural schools, in the big school districts and
the small school districts--that there is one theme that has become a
recurring and a growing crescendo. It is: The Federal camel's nose is
under the education tent, and it is not doing good things. It is taking
time away from the task of educating the kids. When a teacher has to
spend hours writing a grant or a principal has to spend time to figure
out if they are doing things the way the bureaucrats in Washington want
them, he or she is not worrying about what is good for educating Sally
or Tommy or Ralph or Cheryl or the kids who are actually getting
educated.
I am very fortunate, my son is finishing up high school. We watched
during his education; we wanted to know what was going on in the
classroom, how was he working with his teacher. We as parents knew
that. The people who run the local schools know that, but those coming
up with great ideas in Washington have no idea of the names of the kids
or what their problems are.
I thought maybe it would help my colleagues if I shared a few of the
stories we are getting from schools in our State. These are smaller
schools. It does not matter what the size of the school is, the child
who is in that school is just as important whether she or he is in a
major metropolitan school district or in a small rural district.
Here is a letter from the superintendent of the Bismarck R-V School
District. In part it says:
. . . In our small school of 700 students, we receive less
than $15,000 in the combination of Title II, Title IV and
Title VI funds. The restrictions on these funds make them
very difficult to deal with for such a small amount of
dollars. Some years we consider not using them, simply
because the time and effort are not worth the small amount we
receive. Removal of some or all of the restrictions would
allow us to use the funding to better meet the needs of our
school instead of spending the funds in the very restrictive
designated areas of Federal funding.
[[Page S2453]]
Signed, Donald E. Francis, Superintendent, Bismarck R-V Schools.
North Mercer District R-3 Public Schools:
. . . As the system now works we are overwhelmed by federal
and state forms and regulations. We also sacrifice many
dollars to support federal and state bureaucracies that
compound the forms, rules and regulations.
We encountered one program this school year with in excess
of 150 pages of instructions. We would like to bring dollar,
services and equipment directly to children for their
educational benefit.
And one more. The Webb City School District R-7:
. . . 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.
Signed, Ronald Lankford, Superintendent of Schools, Webb City School
District R-7.
Mr. President, that is just a very small sample of the kind of
response we are getting from our schools. I challenge any one of you
here, any one of our colleagues, to go home and ask the educators who
have the job--it is a wonderful opportunity, it is the most important
job that we have in this country--of educating our students: Are the
763 different Federal education programs we have right now improving
education? I get an overwhelming no. We have to worry about the
Washington bureaucracy rather than the needs of the kids in our
classrooms.
This reality has been recognized. The Nation's Governors--Democrat,
Republican, and Independent--50 to 0, said, ``We want to expand Ed-
Flex; we want the opportunity in all of the schools in this country to
get rid of and cut away some of the bureaucracy and some of the redtape
and put that money directly back to education.''
There is bipartisan support for this bill. The bill has been
supported by the President, by the Secretary of Education, both of whom
were former Governors. I am a former Governor. I served with both of
them, and we know the importance of education. But the decisions on how
we spend the last dollar of Federal aid are not best made here, they
are best made at the local school district level.
I really hope we can move forward and get this money directly to the
schools, giving them the flexibility to use those funds where they are
most needed. I urge our colleagues to allow us to do so and pass this
bill and go on to the many other important issues involving education
that we will be facing later this year.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the
time.
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Chair recognizes the Senator
from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of the
senior Senator from Missouri. He speaks so clearly about the
frustration that exists at local levels today of decisionmaking for
education, in that sometimes what might work in New York City just does
not seem to fit down on the farm or near the farm in Missouri or in a
rural school district of Idaho, and that is the reason for a
demonstration program of 12 States. That is why we have determined that
a greater amount of flexibility is necessary in the area of education.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why Democrats want to block
this bipartisan bill in the name of education. There is adequate time
to debate other issues in education. I hope they will work with us.
Coming out of the impeachment process I thought we were going to get a
bipartisan environment from which to move the Nation's business
forward. The Nation, I hope, is listening today. The Nation's business
is education. And it isn't moving forward. It isn't moving forward not
because of Republicans but because of some folks on the other side of
the aisle who think their agenda of larger Federal involvement and
greater Federal control is an approach to educate our young people. Let
the parents, the educators and the school boards decide.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for
the Kennedy/Murray class size amendment. As we know, Mr. President,
education is serious concern for people across the country, and I am
pleased to see an education bill as one of the first priorities in this
Congress.
Mr. President, last year Congress provided a one-time appropriation
in the omnibus budget bill to hire approximately 30,000 new teachers
across the country. The Kennedy/Murray amendment we are considering
today authorizes a continuation of this effort for the next 6 years.
This sends the signal to local school districts that Congress
understands the importance of smaller classes and is committed to
funding for class size reduction. This amendment takes a positive step
toward helping school districts reduce class size as part of an overall
effort to improve education and ensure that our children have the best
chance to excel and reach their full potential.
As my own state of Wisconsin can attest--smaller classes make a
difference in student's lives. Wisconsin's Student Achievement
Guarantee in Education or SAGE program, now in its third year,
continues to be a model for the nation in how to implement successfull
education reforms in our public schools by reducting public school
class size in the earliest grades. I am very proud that Wisconsin's
SAGE program is leading the charge to reduce public school class size
across the nation, and pleased that this amendment will help keep SAGE
thriving in Wisconsin.
The recently released second year SAGE evaluation again empirically
demonstrates what we instinctively know; students in smaller classes
get more attention from teachers and teachers with fewer students have
more time and energy to devote to each child. Specifically, the first
and second year evaluations confirm the achievements of SAGE students
in all tested areas: mathematics, reading and language arts. The report
shows total scores for SAGE students were significantly higher than
those students at comparison schools.
The evidence shows that teachers in small classes can provide
students with more individualized attention, spend more time on
instruction and less on other tasks and cover more material more
effectively. Again, Mr. President, SAGE has shown conclusively that the
significance of small class size should not be underestimated and
cannot be ignored.
Class size should be at the forefront of the education agenda because
there is a great national purpose in helping local schools reduce class
size for children in the earliest grades. I would like to state Mr.
President my strong belief that education should remain solidly a state
and local function. However, I believe the federal government can have
a constructive role supporting local efforts. Kennedy/Murray class size
proposal is a perfect example.
Finally, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reach across the
aisle to ensure that education is a top priority in the 160th Congress.
I look forward to working in a bipartisan manner to reach consensus on
these important issues to ensure that our children receive the highest
quality education possible.
____________________