[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.

                          ____________________