[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 38 (Wednesday, March 10, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H1089-H1115]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to House Resolution 
100 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 800.

                              {time}  1240


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 800) to provide for education flexibility partnerships, with Mr. 
Pease in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.

[[Page H1090]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in the Committee on Rules 
yesterday, the most painful part about sitting for 20 years in the 
minority on the committee was the fact that I could not get members of 
the committee to think in terms of quality and unfunded mandates. The 
emphasis was always on quantity and, therefore, an awful lot of 
youngsters did not get what we had intended them to get in relationship 
to a head start as far as education is concerned.
  For instance, in Head Start, the first two studies on Head Start, 
made it very evident that we should be taking corrective action in 
order to make sure that every Head Start program is a quality one. We 
waited more than 15 years to ever mention quality in Head Start.
  Finally, in the reauthorization in 1994, we did that. In the 
reauthorization again last year we put special emphasis on quality so 
every child has a quality program. We have done the same in Title I. We 
have paid no attention to quality.
  Then it became a jobs program. As I also mentioned yesterday, one 
cannot help an alcoholic unless they first admit they have a problem. 
One cannot improve education unless one first admits there are 
problems, and even though the studies have indicated there are problems 
in all of these programs, we have failed to do anything about it.
  Secondly, I want to point out, because we are going to hear this, we 
ought to do this with ESEA. This is not ESEA legislation. This came 
about, this legislation, through Goals 2000. Goals 2000, they said, if 
we are going to improve schools, we need to have flexibility. So 12 
States were given that opportunity, and one of my dearest friends will 
say that, yes, and I offered that amendment and I will say, yes, and it 
took me 15 or 16 years to get that word ``flexibility'' into the 
vocabulary.
  So we have lost a lot of time. We cannot afford to lose any more 
time. Why is it important not to go beyond where we have gone in 
relationship to standards and assessment? When Goals 2000 was passed, 
and when they indicated in Goals 2000 that these 12 States would have 
an opportunity to get waivers so that they would have flexibility to 
improve their opportunities to offer an ideal education to all 
students, we said we will give you until the year 2000-2001, the school 
year 2000-2001, in order to have your assessments in line, in order to 
have your standards in line. We knew it would take time.

                                   1245

  Now, it is interesting, there is not a State of the 12 that would 
have been eligible had the amendment that some people are talking about 
been in place at that time. None of the States would have been eligible 
of the 12, because they did not have all of those 5 steps in order. One 
of them at the present time still has 4 of the 5, and she said over and 
over and over again, we need this flexibility, we need this 
flexibility. She would not even be eligible the next time to reapply.
  So we cannot go back on the word that we gave them when we gave Goals 
2000 with the idea that we will give until the school year 2000/2001 to 
have all the standards and assessments in place.
  Now, it is working, folks. It is working. We will hear many, many 
times how well it is working. So my suggestion is, if it is working in 
Texas, if it is working in Maryland, why not give all 50 States the 
same opportunity to provide a better education for all children in that 
State.
  We are going to hear an awful lot of totally inaccurate statements 
about what the bill does or does not do. So I am going to take a little 
time to read what the bill does so that even though we are going to 
hear the statements no matter how many times I read this, I think it is 
important for the audience who may be out there watching their 
televisions to know what the bill actually does.
  The extension of Ed-Flex authorizes the Secretary of Education to 
delegate to States the authority to waive certain Federal mandates, 
certain statutory or regulatory requirements that interfere with States 
and districts implementing effective education reform plans. The 
program was originally created because Congress recognized that States 
are in a better position to judge waiver requests from local school 
districts. To be eligible, and this is very important, because we are 
going to hear otherwise; to be eligible, a State must have an approved 
Title I plan. The Title I plan includes approved content standards, 
performance measures and assessments. If a State does not have an 
approved Title I plan, but is making substantial progress, they can be 
eligible to participate. This is why in the Title I language it was put 
in that it take effect in the year 2000-2001. If they are making 
substantial progress toward developing and implementing standards and 
assessments, they will be eligible for participation. As I said before, 
none of the 12 would have been eligible had we had the amendment that 
may be offered later in place.
  Of course, it also then says, under this bill, there are certain 
types of requirements that States cannot waive for local school 
districts. Requirements relating to maintenance of effort, 
comparability of services, equitable participation by private pupils 
and teachers, parental involvement, allocations of funds to States and 
LEAs, the selection of schools to participate in Title I, Part A, the 
use of Federal funds to supplement, not supplant.
  It is important to note that some of these requirements are not even 
in present legislation. We are adding requirements to some of the 
legislation that we are dealing with as far as waivers are concerned.
  States, when they apply to the Secretary to be an Ed-Flex State, must 
list specific measurable objectives they intend to meet as part of 
their State reform plan. Their application will be considered in light 
of the waiver approval and accountability system they intend to have in 
place, and how they will measure the performance of school districts, 
schools or groups of students affected by the waivers. Local education 
agencies, the school district waiver application, must describe 
specific measurable goals for schools or groups of students affected by 
the waiver, and must be part of a local reform plan.
  Monitoring. Every year, States must monitor the activities of LEAs 
and schools receiving waivers, must submit an annual report to the 
Secretary in Washington. Two years after being designated an Ed-Flex 
State, States must submit performance data as part of this report.
  After 3 years of being an Ed-Flex State, the Secretary of the United 
States Department of Education will review the performance of SEAs and 
can terminate its Ed-Flex status after notice and opportunity for a 
hearing.
  Accountability for performance. States can receive the authority to 
be an Ed-Flex State for up to 5 years. When they reapply for Ed-Flex 
status, the Secretary must review their progress toward meeting the 
objectives described in their application.
  The question will be, why now. Well, why would we want to lose 2 
years to try to help children? Why would we try to wait until we are 
finished with the elementary, secondary education reauthorization? That 
may be 2 years down the road. We will lose 2 more years for the most 
educationally disadvantaged children, to get quality in their education 
programs.
  It is important that I point out what the governors are saying, ``As 
you prepare your budget resolution for the coming fiscal year, the 
Nation's governors urge Congress to live up to an agreement made early, 
which is to meet funding commitments to States before funding new 
education initiatives.'' And of course they go into great length about 
the 40 percent of excess costs for special ed. But the President, when 
he was talking to the governors said, ``It is time for the Federal 
Government to invest in those things which governors and school 
districts

[[Page H1091]]

and principals and teachers and students and parents have proved are 
critical for raising student achievement.'' I want to repeat that. This 
is the President of the United States speaking to the governors. ``It 
is time,'' I quote, ``for the Federal Government to invest in those 
things which governors, school districts, principals, and teachers and 
students and parents have proved are critical for raising student 
achievement.'' That is the President. I agree wholeheartedly with that 
statement.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask as we finish this hour and the next 5 
hours, that at the end of all that, that we do not think about sound 
bites, that we do not think about polls, that we do not think about 
special self-interest groups; but that we think only about children. 
And that would be my plea, that at the end of this day that our 
consideration is how do we help the most educationally disadvantaged 
students in this country get a far better education than they have had 
in the last 30 years. Part of that has been answered by Texas where the 
Hispanic scores have gone up, the African-American scores have gone up, 
poor white scores have gone up. Everybody's scores have gone up. 
Everybody wins.
  So I would hope when we are all finished, we will support the Castle-
Roemer effort to give the flexibility to all 50 States.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill authorizes States to arbitrarily and 
capriciously waive provisions of important Federal education programs 
under the guise of granting flexibility to local school systems. I 
support flexibility in the administration of Federal education 
programs, but only if it is coupled with strong accountability 
provisions and preserves the emphasis on serving the poorest children.
  This bill fails on both accounts. First, it provides no 
accountability for ensuring reliable reporting and increased student 
achievement. Second, it allows States to significantly diminish the 
mission of Title I, which is to serve the poorest schools and the 
poorest children before the more advantaged.
  Mr. Chairman, it is legislative folly to let States waive elementary 
and secondary programs before beginning authorizing and drafting the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  There is no urgency for this bill. Current law authorizes and 
Secretary Riley has waived hundreds of Federal education laws to grant 
flexibility to States and school districts. The Secretary testified 
that he believes this measure should be considered with the overall 
ESEA authorization, and the GAO reported that there is insufficient 
information to assess the Ed-Flex pilot that allowed waivers in 12 
States.
  Mr. Chairman, data from the National Assessment of Education Progress 
showed that 9-year-olds in the poorest schools improved their reading 
scores by 8 points, or almost one grade level between 1992 and 1998. It 
also pointed out that 10 out of 13 urban districts showed dramatic 
increases in math and reading for elementary students in the highest 
poverty schools. These results are directly attributable to Title I 
assistance. Measurable success in these areas should serve to broaden 
our commitment to increasing investment in public schools, to continue 
our targeting to the poorest children, and to insist on greater 
accountability for results.
  Presently, the Title I statute allows schools with at least 50 
percent of their children from low-income families to operate a 
schoolwide program. These programs allow schools with high 
concentrations of poverty to combine Federal funding to reach certain 
funding goals. This provision has been a vital reform in Title I 
schools because it allows schools to coordinate efforts among Federal 
programs targeted at the most needy children. That will not happen 
without such authority.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) will offer an amendment to 
prohibit schools with less than 35 percent poverty from operating a 
schoolwide program. The Republican majority and Democrats who support 
this bill claim that H.R. 800 will not reduce funding for poor 
children. However, an initial report from the Department of Education 
found that waivers reduced funds for poor children by 18 percent in 
1995 to 1996. And if this trend is extended nationwide, it would have a 
devastating effect on most disadvantaged schoolchildren.
  The Republican majority claims that this legislation provides the 
proper balance between accountability and flexibility. I disagree. The 
accountability provisions in this legislation must be strengthened if 
the majority's claim is to be more than political rhetoric.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) will offer an amendment to improve 
the accountability provisions in this legislation. The amendment would 
require States to have their content and performance standards and 
aligned assessments required under the Title I statute in place. In 
addition, this amendment would reinforce the sound education principle 
that assessment should measure change in student performance from year-
to-year and separate out data based on categories of at-risk children.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, the amendment would require States to hold LEAs 
accountable for educational objectives and goals as required by the act 
and to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and 
their peers.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill will provide most States with new, sweeping 
authority to waive Federal law. Given that the Federal Government will 
invest an additional $50 billion in education funding over the next 
several years, these accountability provisions are more than 
appropriate. They are compulsory.
  I believe that H.R. 800 in its present form lacks sufficient 
accountability and targeting and will jeopardize the long-standing 
mission of Title I to assist in the education of our disadvantaged 
children. While the majority has sought to capitalize on the simplicity 
of the call for more flexibility, we do not believe that should be at 
the expense of educating needy children.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the subcommittee chairman and 
coauthor of the bill.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the full committee, 
who has been so helpful with this legislation. Obviously, I am rising 
today in strong support of H.R. 800, which is known as the Education 
Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, which I did cosponsor along with 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). I cannot say enough positive 
things about his efforts as this wound its way through the committees 
and the amendment process and everything else. Hopefully, we can grasp 
hands at the end of it in celebration that we have gotten it done.
  As we all know, there is nothing more important to the future of our 
country than to ensure that our students receive a challenging and 
enriching education. Over the years, a top-heavy system of educating 
our youth has emerged from Washington. Regulations put in at the 
Federal level have addressed mainstream problems only, overlooking the 
fact that each and every district in this Nation is different.

                              {time}  1300

  The only policies that can truly assist the diversities in schools 
across the country are flexible policies that allow States and schools 
to mold Federal assistance to meet their individual needs. H.R. 800 
will provide this flexibility, while ensuring that States and schools 
are held accountable for achieving positive results and improved 
student performance.
  This has been demonstrated by the 12 States that have Ed-Flex 
authority in current law. The State of Texas has issued 4,000 
programmatic and administrative waivers to get Federal assistance in 
the form they most need it. Students in districts with waivers have 
outperformed students in districts without waivers. In addition, the 
scores of educationally disadvantaged students have improved 
dramatically.
  Ed-Flex permits local school districts to think outside the box in 
order to design a system that is truly focused on improving student 
performance. Instead of having to plan a specific

[[Page H1092]]

project around a set of separate and conflicting program requirements, 
districts can develop a vision of how to use local, State, and Federal 
resources to more effectively improve student performance, and then 
make that vision a reality through the Ed-Flex waiver process.
  All States deserve the flexibility that has enabled current Ed-Flex 
States to achieve greater rates of success. That is why the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and I have introduced H.R. 800, a bill which 
takes the cap off the Ed-Flex project in current law, making all States 
eligible to apply for Ed-Flex.
  To address concerns raised by the General Accounting Office and some 
of my colleagues, we have strengthened the accountability requirement 
to ensure that States integrate Ed-Flex with comprehensive State reform 
efforts designed to measurably improve student performance. We have 
also added the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund to the list of 
programs eligible for waiver. This program did not exist at the time, 
and therefore was not included in the Ed-Flex legislation authorized in 
1994.
  Finally, in response to concerns that Ed-Flex may dilute funds to 
high poverty and Title I schools, we placed a limitation on schools 
that can qualify for title funds with a waiver.
  While Ed-Flex is an important first step towards giving States the 
flexibility they need, I should point out that it is a relatively 
limited program. It only applies to 10 programs, and they cannot be 
combined with one another. States must continue to meet the underlying 
purposes of the programs, and it does not allow special education 
regulations to be waived, either.
  I am confident that this bill can bring about positive education 
reform, and by enacting Ed-Flex now, the immediate experiences of the 
States can help Congress identify the areas of Federal regulatory 
burden for school districts. We then could address these problems 
during the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act.
  The chart which I have here I think is indicative of how significant 
this legislation is across the United States of America by the people 
who count; that is, the people who have to educate our young people. 
The chart says, look who supports Ed-Flex.
  Here is who supports it: The Democratic Governors Association 
unanimously support it, the National Education Association supports it, 
the Republican Governors Association also unanimously supports it, the 
National Governors Association obviously also unanimously supports it, 
the American Association of School Administrators. The National School 
Boards Association, the National Association of State Boards of 
Education, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Association of 
American Educators are all supporters of our legislation.
  We are going to have 23 amendments today. Hopefully we can work out a 
handful of these amendments. The rest we probably cannot. But I think 
we have to remember that as good as some of these amendments may sound 
as they come before us, they largely detract from the issue of 
flexibility. That is all this bill is.
  Indeed, there are going to be opportunities both on appropriation 
bills and in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to take up 
these issues. I do not expect to deter anybody from presenting their 
amendments by saying that, but I think they need to understand exactly 
where it is we are coming from.
  The people who are from Ed-Flex are for Ed-Flex as it was originally 
written. That is the way we should pass it. I look forward to the 
debate. Hopefully by the end of the day we will have passed a very good 
bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, or as I call 
him, the chairman in exile, for yielding this time, with all due 
respect to the chairman. I am particularly pleased that he yielded to 
me in light of the fact that I am supportive of this bill. Indeed, I am 
a cosponsor of this bill.
  Just a few days ago we passed the Hoyer-Portman bill on Federal 
financial assistance improvements, which gave to communities greater 
flexibility to access Federal monies. I say to my friend, he and I are 
absolutely in lockstep on wanting to assure that disadvantaged children 
are helped by Federal programs.
  As the gentleman knows, my wife, Judy, was supervisor of early 
childhood education in Prince Georges County. It is a 70 percent 
African American school system, as the gentleman knows. While it is 
obviously not a poor school system, it has pockets of poverty within 
Prince Georges County. It is faced with the problems of ensuring that 
we give opportunity and uplift to children who have been disadvantaged, 
from a lot of different angles.
  It was Judy's lament that one of the problems was that she had a 
child named Sally or a child named Joe, and she could not marshal all 
of the resources that we at the Federal level want for educational 
programs, nutritional programs, health programs, whatever they might 
be, marshal those programs in a way that would maximize their impact on 
those children.
  Really, it is that education from my wife, who was involved in and 
was principal of a school that was 90 percent, as the gentleman knows, 
African American, 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds, to try to make sure that 
we do in fact maximize and provide for every resource possible to help 
those children, because that is in the best interests of every 
American.
  I rise in support of this bill after talking to the Governors, who 
are doing a lot of things, and my own Governor, Governor Glendening.
  Mr. Chairman, Governor Glendening has used this Ed-Flex to, in one 
instance, bring a classroom from 25 to 1 down to 12 to 1 in a school 
that had 43 percent poverty, as opposed to 50 percent poverty, and use 
those Chapter 1 funds very effectively, and it has resulted in the 
substantial upgrading of the performance of those children on our State 
performance tests.
  I will vote for the Miller amendment, I want to say to my friend, 
because I share the view that we ought to have accountability. If we 
are going to give flexibility, what the taxpayer does expect of all of 
us is to ensure accountability with that flexibility.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan bill. I recently 
came back from visiting Russell Elementary School in Lexington, 
Kentucky. It is a school of low-income students. Many of them are 
minorities. It is type of students that we are talking about really 
wanting to help in this bill.
  Over the years Washington has spent billions of dollars on numerous 
programs to help, and yet when I visited this school we saw kids that 
were taking some tests that could not even identify parts of their body 
like their nose or ear, things that my granddaughter at 1 year old 
could do. We have seen billions of dollars spent that really has not 
improved the skills of our students.
  I think, as we have looked at what this bill proposes to do and the 
results that we have already seen in some other States, I think it is a 
very great initiative to really start giving the flexibilities back. As 
we look at Texas and Maryland and some of the things that have happened 
there and the results that they have had, they have seen increased 
performance by students, and I think that we really need to support 
this bill without amendments that are going to add more Washington 
mandates and strings.
  What this bill really is about is about hope. It is about allowing 
our States to really help the students, and help without a lot of 
Washington mandates and strings. We have all seen what happens when we 
add more mandates and reports. We have not really had any indication 
that there has been substantial increase, with all the programs that we 
have now initiated.
  I think, as we look at Ed-Flex, I am even reminded of Bourbon County, 
Kentucky. There is more than one school district even in that county, 
because there are different needs for different children. We cannot 
expect mandates to meet all of the different needs of different 
children in different areas of the country.
  Instead of passing legislation that keeps decision-making in 
Washington

[[Page H1093]]

and targets the needs of only some schools, I think it is important 
that we focus on bills that give all students the ability to work 
toward making it easier for students to learn, and Ed-Flex does just 
that. It has done it in Texas, it has done it in Maryland, and in 10 
other States.
  This is an important task that will only be achieved, improving 
education, by local moms and dads, teachers and administrators at the 
local level. I am glad to support this resolution.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, today's debate on the Ed-Flex bill will focus on 
whether we should require accountability for the Federal dollars which 
we send to the States and how those dollars should be targeted. Not 
top-down Federal-knows-best accountability, but State-developed systems 
focusing on results that target the resources on the most disadvantaged 
children.
  H.R. 800 expands the existing Ed-Flex program, which the General 
Accounting Office said in a November report has a questionable 
accountability structure. The GAO said that Ed-Flex implementation is 
so uneven that many Ed-Flex States have not established goals for 
increased academic achievement, and are unable to report on the 
educational impact of waivers. In short, the GAO report casts serious 
doubts on whether the Ed-Flex is something worthy of expanding to all 
50 States.
  Mr. Chairman, due to these serious questions, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) and I will offer an amendment to require 
increased accountability in this legislation, so we are not simply 
giving flexibility without requiring increased academic achievement.
  Under the amendment, States, as a condition of participation in Ed-
Flex, must have in place a standards and assessment system that 
measures the performance of all children. It disaggregates achievement 
results of at-risk children by categories, and it is designed to close 
the gap between low-performing disadvantaged children and their peers.
  The bill as presently drafted does none of these things. I urge all 
Members to support this strengthening amendment. We hear two States are 
doing well, Texas and Maryland. Two out of 12 is not a great record.
  I also want to express my support for the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Payne) to prevent low poverty schools below 35 percent poverty 
from operating school-wide programs.
  School-wide programs have become an essential component of school 
reform in high poverty schools. However, this bill would allow waivers 
for schools with practically zero poor children to implement school-
wide programs, and neglect the needs of disadvantaged children. This 
critical amendment deserves the support of all Members.
  While two of my amendments were accepted during committee 
consideration of this bill, sunsetting this legislation and terminating 
ineffective waivers after 2 years, the bill still needs to be 
strengthened. The bill as presently drafted, Mr. Chairman, does not 
address the shortcomings found in the GAO report, or ensure that poor 
children will receive educational services.
  Without the accountability provisions in the Miller-Kildee amendment, 
States cannot truly measure the academic impact of Ed-Flex, or examine 
the achievement of at-risk children. The questions Members will ask 
themselves today is, should we endorse the status quo, or demand better 
accountability for our educational dollars.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McKeon), the subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, for bringing this bill to the floor at this time, and for his 
strong leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Education Flexibility 
Partnership Act of 1999. I am a proud cosponsor of this bill. The so-
called Ed-Flex legislation, or H.R. 800, will provide our local school 
districts with the lattitude they demand to ensure our children go to 
the best and safest schools.
  Before coming to Congress, I served for 9 years on my local school 
board, so I am well aware of the burdens placed on our local educators 
by the Federal Government. Even as Republicans work to return more 
dollars directly to the classroom, I hear constantly from witnesses 
testifying before the Committee on Education and the Workforce that 
they feel besieged by the Federal bureaucrats, rules, and requirements.
  Furthermore, the committee recently heard from State and local 
education leaders about the reform efforts in their school districts. I 
was pleased to hear about the success that they have experienced, but I 
believe they could do more if their States and all States had the 
opportunity to participate in this Ed-Flex program.
  Additionally, I have received many letters endorsing the bill, from 
the Democrat and Republican Governors Associations to the National 
School Board Association and to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

                              {time}  1315

  So today we have an opportunity to do something those witnesses and 
others throughout the country have asked for, to provide more 
flexibility and less red tape so they can implement the effective 
programs and reform efforts that are being asked for by parents at home 
but are being held back by Federal requirements and regulations.
  I support Ed-Flex because it is a good first step of giving more 
freedom back to the local school districts. Through this program, we 
can place our children's education in the hands of those who know our 
young people best, our local schoolteachers.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 800, and I reject any 
amendment that places additional burdens on States looking for maximum 
flexibility.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri, our 
ranking member, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this Ed-Flex bill. Again, I 
commend the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who I have worked so 
closely with over the last 8 months. He is a pleasure to work with and 
a class act.
  We have worked on this, not to embrace the status quo, not to make 
this a block grant, but to come up with a third way, a new way, 
emphasizing old values and new ideas, old values of the local schools 
and parents being in control of education, the new idea of flexibility.
  Who supports this? Well, we have heard across the board from the 50 
governors. This is the statement of administration policy from the 
President. They support it. We also have the National Association of 
Education supporting it and the Chamber of Commerce supporting it. I am 
not sure we get those two groups together very often. We also had a 33 
to 9 vote in our full committee. Many Democrats on a 10 to 9 vote 
within our caucus supported this bill.
  Why do they support it? They support it because it is working. In a 
place like Maryland, in Kent County, we heard testimony from Dr. 
Lorraine Costella, who is the superintendent of Kent County Schools. 
They applied for a waiver with a 45 percent poverty rate when they 
needed a 50 percent. They got the waiver. By the time they started 
implementing and getting the program for schoolwide reform in place, 
their poverty rate had risen to 55 percent.
  They were already moving forward to improve scores. Specifically 
African-American scores improved in this Maryland school, Garnett 
Elementary School. That is why Democrats and Republicans are supporting 
it.
  Also, we have tougher eligibility requirements in this bill, the 
Castle-Roemer bill, than current law. We shift the eligibility from a 
simple letter that could be written under Goals 2000 to Title I 
requirements.
  Second, on assessment tools, tougher than existing law. I encourage 
my colleagues to read pages 5 and 6 of the bill

[[Page H1094]]

to see how specific we are on assessment tools and application of those 
tools to test the students.
  Third, termination. On page 13, we have a tough termination clause 
that, if scores go down for two successive years, one is terminated 
under this program.
  So I encourage bipartisan support for the Castle-Roemer bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) where they have used the waivers quite well.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, educating our children is one 
of the most important issues facing this Nation today. It is vitally 
important for our children to receive the best education from the most 
qualified teachers in the safest schools.
  We can only provide this when our local governments, parents, and 
teachers are given the necessary tools and flexibility to design a 
learning environment that inspires and captures their attention.
  I know Congress can help our children succeed by continuing a program 
that has freed our schools from needless regulations and giving our 
teachers, not bureaucracies, the ability to design an education program 
that works, a program that allows our children to be number one in 
math, science, and reading. What we call it is Ed-Flex. It gives the 
States the flexibility to improve education through local control.
  Washington cannot and should not dictate how our children are taught. 
Our parents and teachers are the reason for our children's successes.
  Ed-Flex does work. As has been stated, my home State of Texas is the 
leader of new and innovative ways to give our children the tools they 
need to excel. Under the proven leadership of George W. Bush, our 
Governor, Texans have made a commitment to turn around our school 
system, believe it or not his wife pushed him into doing this, and 
demand the results from our children, from our teachers, and from our 
school administrators.
  Our Governor has used this program to rid our schools of needless 
bureaucracy and provide the greatest amount of flexibility to the State 
school systems. But in return, he has demanded increased accountability 
and improved academic performance.
  The results have been remarkable. It has already been stated, since 
1996, Texas has granted over 4,000 Ed-Flex waivers to local schools. 
Since then, in just three short years, reading and math scores have 
gone up. Reading scores have risen nearly 7 percent. Math scores have 
risen nearly 10 percent.
  National accountability is in the results. We do not need a Federal 
mandate for accountability. In fact, all our schools are doing better. 
The performance gap between high-performing and low-performing schools 
has narrowed.
  The great success of this program has shown me the difference between 
a child who succeeds and one who fails is the people who are there 
every day, helping them, giving them support, and encouraging and 
picking them up if they fail. These are the people who make a 
difference, not a regulation written by a person 1,000 miles away. It 
is simple. Local control works. Accountability is in the result.
  True education reform can happen in every State if we just give every 
Governor the flexibility to help improve their own schools. We must 
make sure that no child is left behind. The time has come to share this 
opportunity with every school district, every teacher, and every child 
in our great Nation. Americans deserve no less. This bill helps our 
kids.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill without amendment.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez).
  (Ms. SANCHEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of improving 
educational opportunities for our children, children that must grow up 
in and learn about a world which is expanding with information 
technologies.
  First, let me say that I have visited our Silicon Valley in the State 
of California and have also seen firsthand the growing information 
industry companies that are springing up in my Congressional District.
  I have seen the exponential growth in high-tech jobs and the shocking 
lack of a trained work force to fill the positions within that 
industry.
  It is a shame that our children are not adequately prepared to fill 
these jobs and that the high-tech industry has to go outside the United 
States to satisfy the need for a trained and skilled work force. We 
must make sure that our children are adequately prepared to face the 
future. They need to have a safe space in which to learn and sufficient 
resources that will enable them to learn.
  That is why I am supporting building more classrooms. I am supporting 
providing local school districts with increased flexibility, the 
flexibility to help increase student achievement and to promote 
innovative school reform as long as there is adequate accountability.
  I am supporting Ed-Flex and the Miller amendment which strengthens 
the accountability provisions of Ed-Flex. By enacting smart legislation 
for our schools, we can improve educational outcomes for our children.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join with me in supporting Ed-Flex and 
the amendments offered by my colleague, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has 5\1/
2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) has 15 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, today with this 
debate, we arrive at a crucial point after a number of efforts over the 
past several years to increase the flexibility by local educational 
agencies to use Federal dollars.
  Today we arrive at a point that, if we are now going to provide 
additional flexibilities to the States to grant waivers to local school 
districts, we then have to make a decision about accountability. We 
have to know that we can hold the States publicly accountable for the 
results.
  Many have said over the past years that the education debate is not 
about dollars, it is not about how much money we put into it. Let me 
tell my colleagues what it is about. It is about results. It is about 
what happens to the children at the end of the schoolyear. Can they or 
can they not compute and read at grade level? Can they critically 
think? Can they master the skills so they can participate in our 
American economic system?
  Last night, we retreated to the fact that six young children from the 
same school in Maryland won the equivalent of the Nobel prize for high 
school students, the Intel competition. That same State has worked very 
hard on flexibility, but it has also worked very hard on 
accountability.
  The superintendent of that State's system encourages Members to vote 
for the Miller-Kildee amendment to increase accountability because, as 
she said, ``This bill, in its current provisions, does not ensure that 
those States receiving Ed-Flex will be held publicly accountable.''
  The Governor of Texas, when he came and applied for Ed-Flex for 
flexibility in running his school system in Texas, he said, ``Here is 
what I am prepared to do as a result. Five years from now, I am telling 
you that our goal, what we hope to achieve, is to have 90 percent of 
our children pass the State Texas exams, 90 percent of our children.''
  He also said something else. He said, ``I am prepared to have 90 
percent of our Hispanic children, 90 percent of our African-American 
children, and 90 percent of our poor children pass that exam.''
  That is public accountability. That is the kind of accountability we 
would have if we have the Miller-Kildee amendment. I think it is 
terribly important. Because what did we get from the other States that 
applied for Ed-Flex? We got educational babble out of them. They did 
not set any goals. We saw the GAO report. They have very

[[Page H1095]]

vague goals, very vague references to achievement. Some of them could 
not even provide the data. We cannot continue that process.
  This is now going to become a permanent part of our law. This is now 
going to govern the investment of $50 billion later this year. We ought 
to be able to look our constituents and taxpayers in the eye and tell 
them that we are going to hold people publicly accountable for the 
results.
  I am not telling them what results to achieve. I am not telling them 
how to do it. But I think they ought to tell us where they are going to 
be 5 years from now, because the last 5-year plan has not worked out 
very well. In fact, about 85 percent of the school districts did not do 
very well on accountability. I appreciate they have got flexibility, 
but they cannot tell us how their children are doing. That is what 
parents want to know: How is my child doing? Are they receiving the 
education that they deserve?
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri, our 
distinguished ranking member, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of a good idea that makes 
common sense, and I commend its authors, the gentleman from Delaware 
(Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for their 
excellent effort in this regard.
  I do believe there is a growing national consensus that it makes 
sense to give local educational decision makers more flexibility to do 
what they think works in their community with Federal money. That is 
the essential principle of this idea, and it is why we should pass the 
bill.
  I will later today support the amendment of the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) for the kind of high standards that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) just spoke about.
  But I am pleased to be part of a growing national consensus in favor 
of public education. I do not want us, though, today in our justifiable 
pride in enacting this bill to overlook other aspects of a growing 
national consensus for public education as well.

                              {time}  1330

  There are 2 million 3 and 4-year-old children in our country who do 
not have adequate access to prekindergarten education, and I believe 
there is a growing national consensus that this Congress has a role to 
step up to the plate and to help those children and those families.
  In my State of New Jersey there are 50 schools in operation today 
that are more than 100 years old, and there are 1,000 schools in 
operation today that are more than 50 years old. I believe there is a 
growing national consensus that we should step up to the plate in this 
Congress and address that problem of inadequate public school 
facilities.
  President Clinton, last year, I believe, reflected a growing national 
consensus when he called for the recruitment of 100,000 new teachers to 
reduce class sizes in the primary grades. Last year we made a 
downpayment on that, but I believe there is a growing national 
consensus that we finish the job in the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act this year.
  This is a good idea, but let us understand the limitations of this 
idea today. It will permit many school districts to have more 
flexibility with the 3 or 4 or 5 percent of their budget that comes 
from Washington. It will not build any new schools; it will not open up 
any large scope of prekindergarten programs; and it will not take the 
steps to reducing class sizes that I believe our consensus reflects.
  Ed-Flex is a powerful but limited good idea. It should be improved on 
the floor today, and I believe it should be enacted, but it should not 
be used by this majority as an excuse to ignore the other more powerful 
ideas that are needed in public education; better prekindergarten 
options, better facilities and smaller class sizes. Let us get to work 
on those.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), and the chairman of the committee, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  This is a solid bill. I rise in support of the Roemer-Castle Ed-Flex 
bill. I think the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Tim Roemer) and the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) have done a great job in pulling 
together members on this committee as well as Members throughout this 
House in support of an effort that empowers local school districts to 
really make the education reforms that we here in the Congress believe 
need to be made, and certainly those at the local level, who are closer 
to these issues and closest to the children and the problem, know need 
to be made at the local level.
  But I also rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), 
which really calls upon States to really produce some sort of concrete 
and tangible and meaningful assessment plan for parents and for local 
educators and for those of us at the Federal level to assess what our 
States are doing and how close they are coming to closing some of the 
achievement gaps that exist between certain bodies of students.
  I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
complain about a national role or a Federal role in education. I would 
remind my colleagues, and particularly those on the Republican side, 
that less than 7 percent of all the dollars and really no policy-making 
authority with regard to what is taught, when it is taught or how it is 
taught in our local school districts are made here at the Federal 
level. We should all leave the rhetorical bombs and inflammatory 
language we use about the Federal role in education at home and really 
deal with the facts.
  The reality is that we need to build new classrooms. We can debate 
about how it is to be funded, but the reality is we need to build new 
classrooms. The other reality is that we need more teachers in our 
classroom. We can debate how it is going to be funded, but the reality 
is we have this problem. Children, parents and educators certainly are 
amused by and fascinated by this wonderful debate we have here at this 
Federal level about who ought to pay for it, but the real losers are 
children.
  As one of the youngest Members of this House, Mr. Chairman, and one 
who will have to live with these and their children, I hope that we can 
come to some agreement on what the President has called for in building 
new schools and hiring new teachers. Whether we want to call it giving 
all the authority to the States or local school districts or making 
decisions here at the Federal level, I say to my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, if we can find the courage to use Federal 
dollars to build prisons, to build roads, and to build highways, we 
ought to be able to find the courage and the resources and the capacity 
to build new schools and hire new teachers and give the States and the 
local school districts to do just that.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member on the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Ed-Flex bill, and I 
commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) for the fine work they have put into it. I 
believe this is a step in the right direction.
  As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I was 
proud to support the bill as we reported it out of committee last week. 
But I, like many of the members of the committee who supported the bill 
last week, have some additional concerns, concerns on how we can 
improve the bill before it ultimately passes this Congress and gets 
signed into law, one of which is the distribution in the allocation 
formula of title I funding.
  I think there is legitimate concern that some of the funds for the 
more

[[Page H1096]]

disadvantaged students in our country may be diverted for other 
programs, and we have to be careful that that historical role that the 
Federal Government has performed is not diluted in such a way where the 
most disadvantaged students are shortchanged. That is why I will 
support the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) later 
today.
  I also have some concerns regarding the accountability language in 
the bill. I think the Miller-Kildee amendment goes a long ways to 
ensuring that there is going to be some accountability measures that we 
can sink our teeth into and find out whether these newer, innovative, 
creative programs are, in fact, working. We in this body have a 
responsibility to the taxpayers as well that money will not just be 
thrown into programs without any type of feedback or accountability 
that it is working.
  I think overall the concept of this legislation is commendable. I 
represent western Wisconsin, which has some larger cities in it and a 
lot of rural areas, and the educational needs in the district will vary 
from community to community. I think the concept behind this bill will 
allow that type of flexibility to take place where local solutions with 
parents and teachers and administrators and community leaders, working 
together in order to figure out programs that actually work at the 
local level, have that opportunity without them having to jump through 
a lot of hoops and a lot of bureaucratic waiver provisions out here in 
Washington before it can be implemented.
  Now, in my State of Wisconsin we have a proud tradition of supporting 
public education. Just a few years ago we had the SAGE program to 
reduce class size that passed. That is a classic example of both 
flexibility and accountability working in the State of Wisconsin, and I 
would encourage my colleagues to support the legislation.
  Education is consistently ranked by Americans as a top priority 
Congress should address. That is why, as a returning member of the 
Education and Workforce Committee, I am very encouraged by the 
attention education issues are now getting by elected officials here in 
Washington and everywhere around our Nation. And that is why I was very 
encouraged to see my good friend from Indiana, Mr. Roemer, and my 
friend from Delaware, Mr. Castle, work together across the aisle to 
draft and introduce this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, members of our committee looked hard at this bill and 
we had a very healthy and meaningful debate on it. I was impressed by 
the depth of conviction from which members spoke when offering and 
addressing amendments, and the committee came to agreement on most. At 
the end of the day, we approved a bill to give States and school 
districts flexibility in meeting Federal requirements for education 
programming, while requiring accountability to prove they are 
addressing the needs of their disadvantaged students.
  Some of my colleagues express concern that the bill before us may 
weaken title I protections for our most disadvantaged children. In 
fact, at committee mark-up, I supported amendments that would have 
tightened the accountability and oversight requirements of the bill and 
would have limited waivers for what are known as school-wide programs 
to those schools serving the most disadvantaged populations. I still 
have some concern about the title I allocation formula and that's why I 
will support Mr. Scott's amendment requiring 35 percent of title I 
students to be eligible, even though I acknowledge and share these 
concerns, I support the underlying bill and urge my colleagues in the 
House to do the same. Ed-Flex will help schools use funds available 
from the Department of Education in ways that are best for their 
students.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent a district that is very large 
geographically, and that is comprised of many small schools and truly 
community-based school districts. As I regularly talk with the parents, 
the teachers, and the administrators of my district, I have come to 
realize that if a problem exists or arises in one of their schools, the 
best solution to that problem will be found right there in that 
community, and in that school. This bill will give them quota 
flexibility to do so.
  I firmly believe the U.S. Department of Education serves a vital 
function by ensuring that poor or otherwise disadvantaged students are 
not denied educational opportunities. But if a community pulls together 
to tackle a problem, and a school district taps that energy to develop 
reforms to address the problem, we here in Congress should give that 
community and that school district every opportunity to pursue their 
reforms and advance their goals. Ed-Flex will provide that opportunity, 
without sacrificing protection for our most vulnerable children.
  Under this bill, before a State is given Ed-Flex authority to grant 
waivers to schools, the State must have an approved plan for standards 
and assessments that will be used to measure performance levels. In 
order to maintain its Ed-Flex authority, the State must monitor the 
progress of the schools for which it provides waivers and report that 
progress back to the Secretary of Education. Furthermore, the Education 
and Workforce Committee agreed to a very wise provision that will 
require an Ed-Flex State to terminate the waivers of schools which 
experience 2 years of decreased educational performance. In other 
words, if a State proves that it is willing and able to take 
responsibility and work with its schools to achieve better performance 
results, that State may hold the authority to grant waivers for reform 
measures its schools would otherwise have to obtain from the Department 
of Education. This arrangement keeps the Federal Government in a 
partnership and oversight role with States and schools, while 
innovations and solutions will be developed at home.
  In my State of Wisconsin, we are proud of our tradition of supporting 
public education. We are also proud of our tradition of community 
involvement and innovative reform. A few years ago, Wisconsin started a 
program called Student Achievement Guarantee in Education, or S.A.G.E. 
The S.A.G.E. Program targets grades one through three and allows 
participating schools to reduce class size, develop rigorous academic 
curriculums, provide professional development for teachers, and stay 
open longer to play a larger role in the community. The S.A.G.E. 
Program has proven effective by raising performance levels in the most 
disadvantaged schools in Wisconsin.
  If schools in Wisconsin wish to expand on the success of the S.A.G.E. 
Program or any other, but must obtain waivers to implement a concept, I 
want my State Department of Public Instruction to have the authority to 
assess the proposed reform and determine its merit. Under this bill 
such a scenario is possible, but only if my State agency proves that it 
has its programs in order and will be able to effectively monitor its 
schools.
  That combination of flexibility and accountability are the key 
components to Ed-Flex. I believe the necessary elements are there, and 
I support this bill.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  (Mr. HOEFFEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Education Flexibility 
Partnership Act of 1999. This would allow all 50 States to take 
advantage of statutory and regulatory flexibility for their educational 
programs in exchange for greater accountability. I am proud to be a 
cosponsor, and I have spoken with a number of educators and 
administrators in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and have learned of 
their support for this bill.
  If allowed to participate in Ed-Flex, in the Abington School District 
in Montgomery County, they would have the option of using Title I money 
to hire more reading consultants for a ``reading recovery'' remedial 
education program. Rather than being forced to create a new program 
with redundant administrative overhead, the school district could use 
Title I money to add to an existing program. This would be more 
efficient and better for the kids.
  In the Norristown Area School District in Montgomery County they 
could use Eisenhower Professional Development funds to complete more 
teacher training in reading and writing competence. Now they use those 
funds for mathematics skills, but they could now use it to flex into 
reading and writing support as well.
  I rise in support of H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility Partnership 
Act of 1999.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from 
Delaware and the gentleman from Indiana, for their leadership on this 
issue. It is due to their bipartisan commitment to improving our 
nation's educational system that we can take up this important issue 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 800 would allow all 50 states and U.S. territories 
to apply for statutory and regulatory flexibility for their education 
programs in exchange for increased accountability. This bill will 
provide the regulatory room to allow those who are closest to the 
problem--states and school districts--to exercise their educational 
judgement about the best use of scarce resources.
  In the states which have already participated in Ed-Flex, this 
innovation has yielded promising results:

[[Page H1097]]

  Oregon schools were able to pool resources to create a technical 
education consortium that graduated more students than the schools had 
individually;
  Maryland schools cut in half the number of students-per-teacher in 
math and science classes, and provided additional instruction time for 
each student;
  In Texas, school districts with waivers increased student scores on 
statewide aptitude tests by several percentage points in both reading 
and math. African-American students made even bigger gains.
  I am aware that some of my colleagues are critical of H.R. 800 and 
would like more rigorous standards for state accountability. I also 
understand there is concern this legislation may provide too much 
leeway for spending of Title I program funds.
  Both of these concerns are legitimate, and both of these concerns are 
addressed by amendments that will be offered here today. We should work 
through these issues and do all that we can to strengthen the 
educational opportunities we offer the nearly 1.8 million children in 
Pennsylvania public schools today, and the 56 million children in 
public schools nationwide. I welcome this discussion and look forward 
to hearing my colleagues' comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I am glad we are starting off the 106th Congress with 
this bill because education is one of my top priorities this Congress, 
and is a top priority of many families in my District.
  I am also glad we are addressing this issue in such a constructive 
manner. I urge my colleagues to take note of the bipartisan teamwork of 
Representatives Castle and Roemer that brought this bill to the floor 
today. The Parties can work together; Congress can find common ground; 
and we can apply new and innovative solutions to solve problems which 
are of great concern to the public. I hope we set the direction and the 
tempo for this Congress with our actions here today.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the bill.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder), a member of the committee.

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the bipartisan group, and 
Members, including myself, that have brought this bill forward. I think 
it is an important first step, and I hope that those who come to the 
floor and say they are for Ed-Flex do not support the efforts to, in 
fact, repeal Ed-Flex through the amendment process.
  We do not want to have a process where we say, oh, this is a great 
idea; we are going to, at least in this limited way, give people more 
flexibility, and then spend the rest of the day trying to figure out 
how not to give them flexibility. We need to talk straight to the 
American people.
  This is a bipartisan bill. The President has already said he is going 
to sign it. There are people in both parties. We should be able to do 
something like this in a bipartisan way, in a limited way, to give 
people local flexibility without then trying to tie their hands and 
say, on the one hand, we believe in flexibility but, on the other hand, 
we do not really trust them.
  So I think the important thing to watch this afternoon is who really 
believes in flexibility and who really trusts their local efforts and 
will trust their local administrators to do this, and who, in fact, 
starts to think that the Federal Government knows best.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  (Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today offers States the 
ability to waive certain regulatory and statutory requirements for 
educational programs. I certainly understand the constraints that many 
States are faced with when they accept Federal funds. However, many of 
these requirements are in place so that we can be sure that school 
districts are meeting the needs of students that these programs are 
supposed to target.
  I am particularly concerned about what will happen to Title I when 
the Ed-Flex is expanded to all 50 States. It seems to me that some 
parts of Ed-Flex will take away the main purpose of Title I. When Title 
I was created, it was a mechanism to reach out to poor-performing, low-
poverty schools. That is the reason funding formulas that target high-
poverty schools were put in place in the first place. These formulas 
enabled us to reach out to those poor students and poor schools and 
give them the funding in those areas that they lack.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and I will offer an amendment 
today, that I hope will get the support of the Congress, that will 
simply require schools that ask for a waiver for schoolwide programs to 
have a poverty level of at least 35 percent or higher. When the 
legislation went in initially, it was 75 percent. It was moved down to 
50. Now we want to eliminate it, and I think that is going in the wrong 
direction. This gives States considerably more flexibility in issuing 
schoolwide program funds than they currently have now.
  Schoolwide programs are under the regular Title I program, and they 
must have a student population of at least 50 percent, as I mentioned. 
So our amendment will allow more schools to be eligible for the 
schoolwide program while maintaining the emphasis on schools that have 
high or moderate levels of poverty.
  Now, I know many Members today will argue that Title I has not 
effectively bridged the gap between low- and high-poverty schools, so 
they would like to take away the priority that these schools and 
students get in the funding formula. Some States with waivers have done 
just that and have been successful. But they can prove that only 
because they have desegregated information. The choice of these States 
will definitely be undermined.
  I support the Miller-Kildee amendment and ask for Members to support 
the Scott-Payne amendment.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  (Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan 
effort to provide greater local flexibility in education programs. I 
hope passage of this legislation represents a symbolic reversal in the 
increasing tension between state and federal education administrators, 
both of whom would like to improve education standards, but sometimes 
struggle for greater control over resources.
  I have been in both positions. As mayor of Alexandria, I experienced 
first-hand the sometimes cumbersome yet well-intentioned federal 
strings attached to funding. As a Representative to this body, I also 
see the importance of a national perspective on these issues. I applaud 
the drafters of this legislation for their attempt to create a 
framework under which local and federal education initiatives can work 
in concert instead of acrimony.
  Education flexibility has already proven successful. In the 12 states 
in which it has been tested thousands of waivers have been used to 
enhance education programs and reduce paperwork for the local 
educational agencies. The best part of Ed-Flex is that the state or 
local education agency is immediately accountable for improved student 
performance in response to its administration of waivered programs. In 
other words, if the programs are not producing results by improving 
test scores or showing some other form of measurable gains, the state 
will lose its permission to participate in Ed-Flex.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a win-win proposal to improve local education 
authority while cutting back on federal regulations that local 
educators feel are unduly cumbersome. It will encourage states and 
local education agencies to be creative in working to improve student 
performance with the understanding that without improvement they will 
lose this authority. Finally, Ed-Flex will help us back on the path of 
working together to provide the best public education for all children 
in the United States putting an end to the local-federal power struggle 
that has been too common in education policy. I urge my colleagues to 
support this important measure.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green).

  (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 800, the 
Education Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Program, which is a 
pretty good mouthful.
  This program is a great example of how States and localities, when 
given freedom to manage their own affairs, can achieve better results. 
So far, only 12 States have participated in the Ed-Flex program, and 
Texas is one of

[[Page H1098]]

them. In exchange for increased accountability, these States have been 
granted flexibility in using the Federal education dollars to support 
locally-designed school improvement programs.
  It has worked in Texas. We have seen a notable difference in the 
program. In fact, paperwork has been reduced and, most of all, the 
results have been positive. Test scores and graduation rates are on the 
way up, and class sizes are on the way down.
  Even though I support and plan to vote for the bill, the Ed-Flex bill 
is not enough. We have other things we should do. One, we need to make 
sure we have smaller class sizes. We need to make sure our schools are 
wired for the new millennium.
  There is a story that my wife tells, who is a high school algebra 
teacher, which says, ``Do you know how long it took to get overhead 
projectors into the classrooms and out of the bowling alleys?'' We do 
not need to wait again for the next generation of students until we 
have our schools wired.
  We need to have access to the internet for these students. We need to 
focus on school modernization. All over our country we have problems 
with the infrastructure of our schools and we need to provide 
assistance for that.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. Chairman, no amount of flexibility will improve our educational 
system without these provisions. Furthermore, we may need to make sure 
that the flexibility and accountability go hand in hand so no student 
is left behind. We need to make sure that this funding is not taken 
away from those most needy children that were the original reason we 
provided Federal funding for education in 1965.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) has 
expired. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that everybody understands a few 
things that may have been misstated, not on the part intentionally but, 
for instance, we heard a rosy picture that the Department paints on 
what happened since 1994 when changes to Title I were made. Well, the 
tragedy with that rosy picture is the fact that there is actually no, I 
repeat, no linkage between 1994 changes to Title I and NAEP scores. 
None whatsoever. And we will not know whether there has been any 
improvement until the Department releases its study on the Longitudinal 
Evaluation of School Change and Performance. That is looking at 71 
Title I schools in seven States: Kentucky, Maryland, Oregon, Kansas, 
Florida, Pennsylvania and Texas, to see how student achievement has 
increased, if at all, as a result of the Title I changes in 1994. So it 
is important to understand that rosy picture has nothing to do with 
reality.
  Now, I want to make sure that everybody understands how the money 
goes down and then what it is supposed to be used for, because there 
seems to be confusion about that. The formula sends the money down to 
the State based on poverty; however, when it gets to the school 
building, the money is to be used for the educationally disadvantaged. 
Make sure you understand the difference.
  Now, it is kind of interesting that the gentlewoman from Maryland, 
their Superintendent of Ed is all of a sudden saying that there should 
be different rules and regulations for everybody else, yet she would 
not have qualified for flexibility had we had a Miller-Kildee amendment 
when she applied. She would not have qualified. She does not have the 
five criteria, even now as she tries to get a reauthorization, she 
still does not have all five in place. So it is kind of disingenuous, I 
think, for her to say, for all the rest of you, we expect you to do 
something different than I had to do.
  Let me also point out, a lot of people have been saying, well, two 
States have done well but the rest have not done it. Let me make sure 
that everybody understands, two States have done well because they have 
asked for a lot of waivers and they have been granted a lot of waivers. 
Two States have asked for a few waivers and they are doing fairly well 
and that is all they asked for. The other States, the other eight 
States have asked for very few waivers and the States have granted them 
very few waivers. Why? Because we promised them when we did Title I 
that their accountability business had to be in place, all five, in the 
school year 2000 and 2001. They know that they were not there so they 
did not ask for the State and the State did not grant them to them. So 
let us not go back now on what we promised in Goals 2000. Because we 
said we will allow you to go ahead as long as you and the Secretary 
here says you are doing a good job of getting your standards and your 
assessments on line. So do not go back on what we promised, or 
otherwise no one can participate in flexibility and none of the States 
presently participating would have been able to participate. It was 
based on the fact that if you showed tremendous movement toward taking 
care of the assessments and the standards and so on, we will give you 
those waivers.
  Again, let me make sure my colleagues understand. Only two States 
have granted very many waivers. Only two other States have granted some 
waivers. And most of the other States have granted no waivers, because 
they are waiting to make sure that the Goals 2000 promise that we gave 
them, they will have things in place.
  So let us not deal with all the other issues that we heard. It has 
nothing to do with flexibility legislation. We are talking about 
flexibility right now, so we can improve education programs for the 
most disadvantaged youngsters. We are not talking about any of the 
other mandates that the President has talked about. That is not part of 
this legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule for 5 hours and 
shall be considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                                H.R. 800

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Education Flexibility 
     Partnership Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) States differ substantially in demographics, in school 
     governance, and in school finance and funding. The 
     administrative and funding mechanisms that help schools in 1 
     State improve may not prove successful in other States.
       (2) Although the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 and other Federal education statutes afford flexibility 
     to State and local educational agencies in implementing 
     Federal programs, certain requirements of Federal education 
     statutes or regulations may impede local efforts to reform 
     and improve education.
       (3) By granting waivers of certain statutory and regulatory 
     requirements, the Federal Government can remove impediments 
     for local educational agencies in implementing education 
     reforms and raising the achievement levels of all children.
       (4) State educational agencies are closer to local school 
     systems, implement statewide education reforms with both 
     Federal and State funds, and are responsible for maintaining 
     accountability for local activities consistent with State 
     standards and assessment systems. Therefore, State 
     educational agencies are often in the best position to align 
     waivers of Federal and State requirements with State and 
     local initiatives.
       (5) The Education Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Act 
     allows State educational agencies the flexibility to waive 
     certain Federal requirements, along with related State 
     requirements, but allows only 12 States to qualify for such 
     waivers.
       (6) Expansion of waiver authority will allow for the waiver 
     of statutory and regulatory requirements that impede 
     implementation of State and local educational improvement 
     plans, or that unnecessarily burden program administration, 
     while maintaining the intent and purposes of affected 
     programs, such as the important focus on improving math and 
     science performance under title II of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965, (Dwight D. Eisenhower 
     Professional Development Program), and maintaining such 
     fundamental requirements as those relating to civil rights, 
     educational equity, and accountability.
       (7) To achieve the State goals for the education of 
     children in the State, the focus must be on results in 
     raising the achievement of all students, not process.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Attendance area.--The term ``attendance area'' has the 
     meaning given the term ``school attendance area'' in section 
     1113(a)(2)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965.

[[Page H1099]]

       (2) Ed-flex partnership state.--The term ``Ed-Flex 
     Partnership State'' means an eligible State designated by the 
     Secretary under section 4(a)(1)(B).
       (3) Local educational agency; state educational agency.--
     The terms ``local educational agency'' and ``State 
     educational agency'' have the meaning given such terms in 
     section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States, 
     the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
     and each of the outlying areas.

     SEC. 4. EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP.

       (a) Education Flexibility Program.--
       (1) Program authorized.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary may carry out an education 
     flexibility program under which the Secretary authorizes a 
     State educational agency that serves an eligible State to 
     waive statutory or regulatory requirements applicable to 1 or 
     more programs or Acts described in subsection (b), other than 
     requirements described in subsection (c), for the State 
     educational agency or any local educational agency or school 
     within the State.
       (B) Designation.--The Secretary shall designate each 
     eligible State participating in the program described in 
     subparagraph (A) to be an Ed-Flex Partnership State.
       (2) Eligible state.--For the purpose of this subsection the 
     term ``eligible State'' means a State that--
       (A)(i) has--
       (I) developed and implemented the challenging State content 
     standards, challenging State student performance standards, 
     and aligned assessments described in section 1111(b) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and for which 
     local educational agencies in the State are producing the 
     individual school performance profiles required by section 
     1116(a) of such Act; or
       (II) developed and implemented content standards and 
     interim assessments and made substantial progress, as 
     determined by the Secretary, toward developing and 
     implementing performance standards and final aligned 
     assessments, and toward having local educational agencies in 
     the State produce the profiles, described in subclause (I); 
     and
       (ii) holds local educational agencies and schools 
     accountable for meeting the educational goals described in 
     the local applications submitted under paragraph (4); and
       (B) waives State statutory or regulatory requirements 
     relating to education while holding local educational 
     agencies or schools within the State that are affected by 
     such waivers accountable for the performance of the students 
     who are affected by such waivers.
       (3) State application.--
       (A) In general.--Each State educational agency desiring to 
     participate in the education flexibility program under this 
     section shall submit an application to the Secretary at such 
     time, in such manner, and containing such information as the 
     Secretary may reasonably require. Each such application shall 
     demonstrate that the eligible State has adopted an education 
     flexibility plan for the State that includes--
       (i) a description of the process the State educational 
     agency will use to evaluate applications from local 
     educational agencies or schools requesting waivers of--

       (I) Federal statutory or regulatory requirements as 
     described in paragraph (1)(A); and
       (II) State statutory or regulatory requirements relating to 
     education; and

       (ii) a detailed description of the State statutory and 
     regulatory requirements relating to education that the State 
     educational agency will waive;
       (iii) a description of specific educational objectives the 
     State intends to meet under such a plan;
       (iv) a description of the process by which the State will 
     measure the progress of local educational agencies in meeting 
     specific goals described in subsection (a)(4)(A)(iii); and
       (v) an assurance that, not less than 30 days prior to 
     waiving any Federal statutory or regulatory requirement, or 
     in accordance with State law, the State educational agency 
     shall give public notice in widely-read publications, such as 
     large circulation newspapers and community newspapers, of its 
     intent to grant such a waiver, a description of the Federal 
     statutory or regulatory requirements that the State 
     educational agency proposes to waive, any improved 
     performance of students that is expected to result from the 
     waiver, and the State official--

       (I) to whom comments on the proposed waiver may be sent by 
     interested individuals and organizations; and
       (II) who will make all the comments received available for 
     review by any member of the public.

       (B) Approval and considerations.--The Secretary may approve 
     an application described in subparagraph (A) only if the 
     Secretary determines that such application demonstrates 
     substantial promise of assisting the State educational agency 
     and affected local educational agencies and schools within 
     such State in carrying out comprehensive education reform, 
     after considering--
       (i) the comprehensiveness and quality of the education 
     flexibility plan described in subparagraph (A);
       (ii) the ability of such plan to ensure accountability for 
     the activities and goals described in such plan;
       (iii) the degree to which the State's objectives described 
     in subparagraph (A)(iii)--

       (I) are specific and measurable; and
       (II) measure the performance of local educational agencies 
     or schools and specific groups of students affected by 
     waivers;

       (iv) the significance of the State statutory or regulatory 
     requirements relating to education that will be waived; and
       (v) the quality of the State educational agency's process 
     for approving applications for waivers of Federal statutory 
     or regulatory requirements described in paragraph (1)(A) and 
     for monitoring and evaluating the results of such waivers.
       (4) Local application.--
       (A) In general.--Each local educational agency or school 
     requesting a waiver of a Federal statutory or regulatory 
     requirement described in paragraph (1)(A) and any relevant 
     State statutory or regulatory requirement from a State 
     educational agency shall submit an application to the State 
     educational agency at such time, in such manner, and 
     containing such information as the State educational agency 
     may reasonably require. Each such application shall--
       (i) indicate each Federal program affected and the 
     statutory or regulatory requirement that will be waived;
       (ii) describe the purposes and overall expected results of 
     waiving each such requirement;
       (iii) describe, for each school year, specific, measurable, 
     educational goals for each local educational agency, school, 
     or group of students affected by the proposed waiver;
       (iv) explain why the waiver will assist the local 
     educational agency or school in meeting such goals; and
       (v) provide an assurance that, not less than 30 days prior 
     to submitting the application to the State educational agency 
     for a waiver under this section, or in accordance with State 
     law, the local educational agency or school shall give public 
     notice in widely-read publications, such as large circulation 
     newspapers and community newspapers, of its intent to request 
     the waiver, a description of the Federal statutory or 
     regulatory requirements that will be waived, any improved 
     performance of students that is expected to result from the 
     waiver, and the name and address of the local educational 
     agency official--

       (I) to whom comments on the proposed waiver may be sent by 
     interested individuals and organizations; and
       (II) who will make all the comments received available for 
     review by any member of the public.

       (B) Evaluation of applications.--A State educational agency 
     shall evaluate an application submitted under subparagraph 
     (A) in accordance with the State's education flexibility plan 
     described in paragraph (3)(A).
       (C) Approval.--A State educational agency shall not approve 
     an application for a waiver under this paragraph unless--
       (i) the local educational agency or school requesting such 
     waiver has developed a local reform plan that is applicable 
     to such agency or school, respectively; and
       (ii) the waiver of Federal statutory or regulatory 
     requirements described in paragraph (1)(A) will assist the 
     local educational agency or school in meeting its educational 
     goals.
       (D) Termination.--If a local educational agency or school 
     that receives a waiver under this section experiences a 
     statistically significant decrease in the level of 
     performance in achieving the objectives described in 
     paragraph (3)(A)(iii) or goals in paragraph (4)(A)(iii) for 2 
     consecutive years, the State educational agency shall, after 
     notice and an opportunity for a hearing to explain such 
     decrease, terminate the waiver authority granted to such 
     local educational agency or school. If, after notice and an 
     opportunity for a hearing, the State educational agency 
     determines that the decrease in performance was justified due 
     to exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances such as a 
     natural disaster or a precipitous and unforeseen decline in 
     the financial resources of the local educational agency or 
     school, the waiver shall not be terminated.
       (5) Monitoring.--
       (A) In general.--Each State educational agency 
     participating in the program under this section shall 
     annually monitor the activities of local educational agencies 
     and schools receiving waivers under this section and shall 
     submit an annual report regarding such monitoring to the 
     Secretary.
       (B) Performance data.--Not later than 2 years after a State 
     is designated as an Ed-Flex Partnership State, each such 
     State shall include performance data demonstrating the degree 
     to which progress has been made toward meeting the objectives 
     outlined in paragraph (3)(A)(iii).
       (6) Duration of federal waivers.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall not approve the 
     application of a State educational agency under paragraph (3) 
     for a period exceeding 5 years, except that the Secretary may 
     extend such period if the Secretary determines that such 
     agency's authority to grant waivers has been effective in 
     enabling such State or affected local educational agencies or 
     schools to carry out their local reform plans.
       (B) Performance review.--Three years after a State is 
     designated an Ed-Flex Partnership State, the Secretary 
     shall--
       (i) review the performance of any State educational agency 
     in such State that grants waivers of Federal statutory or 
     regulatory requirements described in paragraph (1)(A); and
       (ii) terminate such agency's authority to grant such 
     waivers if the Secretary determines, after notice and 
     opportunity for a hearing, that such agency has failed to 
     make measurable progress in meeting the objectives outlined 
     in paragraph (3)(A)(iii) to justify continuation of such 
     authority.
       (7) Authority to issue waivers.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary is authorized to carry out 
     the education flexibility program under this subsection for 
     each of the fiscal years 1999 through 2004.
       (b) Included Programs.--The statutory or regulatory 
     requirements referred to in subsection (a)(1)(A) are any such 
     requirements under the following programs or Acts:

[[Page H1100]]

       (1) Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965.
       (2) Part B of title II of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.
       (3) Subpart 2 of part A of title III of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (other than section 3136 of 
     such Act).
       (4) Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965.
       (5) Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965.
       (6) Part C of title VII of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.
       (7) The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education 
     Act of 1998.
       (c) Waivers Not Authorized.--The Secretary may not waive 
     any statutory or regulatory requirement of the programs or 
     Acts authorized to be waived under subsection (a)(1)(A)--
       (1) relating to--
       (A) maintenance of effort;
       (B) comparability of services;
       (C) the equitable participation of students and 
     professional staff in private schools;
       (D) parental participation and involvement;
       (E) the distribution of funds to States or to local 
     educational agencies;
       (F) the selection of schools to participate in part A of 
     title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965, except that a State educational agency may grant 
     waivers to allow schools to participate in part A of title I 
     of such Act if the percentage of children from low-income 
     families in the attendance area of such school or who 
     actually attend such school is within 5 percentage points of 
     the lowest percentage of such children for any school in the 
     local educational agency that meets the requirements of 
     section 1113 of the Act;
       (G) use of Federal funds to supplement, not supplant, non-
     Federal funds; and
       (H) applicable civil rights requirements; and
       (2) unless the underlying purposes of the statutory 
     requirements of each program or Act for which a waiver is 
     granted continue to be met to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary.
       (d) Application.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and 
     (3), this Act shall not apply to a State educational agency 
     that has been granted waiver authority under the following 
     provisions of law:
       (A) Section 311(e) of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
       (B) The proviso referring to such section 311(e) under the 
     heading ``education reform'' in the Department of Education 
     Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat. 1321-
     229).
       (2) Exception.--If a State educational agency that has been 
     granted waiver authority, pursuant to paragraph (1)(A) or 
     (B), applies to the Secretary to extend such authority, the 
     provisions of this Act, except subsection (e)(1), shall apply 
     to such agency.
       (3) Effective date for existing ed-flex programs.--This Act 
     shall apply to a State educational agency described in 
     paragraph (2) beginning on the date that such an extension is 
     granted.
       (e) Accountability.--
       (1) Evaluation for ed-flex partnership states.--In deciding 
     whether to extend a request for a State educational agency's 
     authority to issue waivers under this section, the Secretary 
     shall review the progress of the State educational agency to 
     determine if such agency--
       (A) makes measurable progress toward achieving the 
     objectives described in the application submitted pursuant to 
     subsection (a)(3)(A)(iii); and
       (B) demonstrates that local educational agencies or schools 
     affected by such waiver or authority have made measurable 
     progress toward achieving the desired results described in 
     the application submitted pursuant to subsection 
     (a)(4)(A)(iii).
       (2) Evaluation for existing ed-flex programs.--In deciding 
     whether to extend a request for a State educational agency 
     described in subsection (d)(2) to issue waivers under this 
     section, the Secretary shall review the progress of the 
     agency in achieving the objectives set forth in the 
     application submitted pursuant to subsection (a)(2)(B)(iii) 
     of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act.
       (f) Publication.--A notice of the Secretary's decision to 
     authorize State educational agencies to issue waivers under 
     this section shall be published in the Federal Register and 
     the Secretary shall provide for the dissemination of such 
     notice to State educational agencies, interested parties, 
     including educators, parents, students, advocacy and civil 
     rights organizations, other interested parties, and the 
     public.
       (g) Effective Date.--This Act shall be effective during the 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and 
     ending on the date of the enactment of an Act (enacted after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act) that reauthorizes the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 in its 
     entirety.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the portion 
of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose and pro forma 
amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment may be offered 
only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee and 
shall be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Are there any amendments?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if the 
rule provides for it or maybe we can find out from the Chair, is there 
going to be an order for the amendments or is it just going to be based 
upon recognition? Is the whole bill open for amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the entire bill is open for amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. So it is just based upon recognition 
by the Chair?
  The CHAIRMAN. Yes. And the Chair will alternate between the sides.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the Chair.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Ehlers

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

  Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Ehlers:
       In section 4(a)(4)(C)(i) (of H.R. 800, as reported), strike 
     ``and'' after the semicolon.
       In section 4(a)(4)(C)(ii) (of H.R. 800, as reported), 
     strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       After section 4(a)(4)(C)(ii) (of H.R. 800, as reported), 
     insert the following:
       (iii) the State educational agency is satisfied that the 
     underlying purposes of the statutory requirements of each 
     program or Act for which a waiver is granted continue to be 
     met.

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I am extremely concerned about improving 
math-science education in the United States and I am very pleased that 
we have one good program which has done that for a number of years; 
that is the Eisenhower program. In fact, I would like to see that 
program strengthened and expanded. In regard to that program's 
inclusion in this bill, my concern from the beginning was to make sure 
that we still achieve our objectives in improving math and science 
education as we provide the increased flexibility included in this 
bill. At the same time, I am extremely reluctant to alter the basic 
intent of the bill, which is to provide maximum flexibility to state 
and local education agencies.
  As the committee considered this matter, I offered two amendments 
which were adopted. One of those amendments was in the findings, and 
provided that:

       Expansion of waiver authority will allow for the waiver of 
     statutory and regulatory requirements that impede 
     implementation of State and local educational improvement 
     plans, or that unnecessarily burden program administration, 
     while maintaining the intent and purposes of affected 
     programs, such as the important focus on improving math and 
     science performance under Title II of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Dwight D. Eisenhower 
     Professional Development Program) . . .

  In addition to that, we also put in a restriction in the bill, 
another amendment of mine, requiring that the Secretary of Education do 
as follows:

       The Secretary may not waive any statutory or regulatory 
     requirement of the programs or Acts authorized to be waived 
     under subsection, (a)(1)(A)-- . . . unless the underlying 
     purposes of the statutory requirements of each program or Act 
     for which a waiver is granted continue to be met to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary.

  I believe that those amendments which were adopted in committee are 
excellent amendments which emphasize the importance of the Eisenhower 
program, emphasize the importance of continuing high quality math and 
science education, and improvement of math and science education, and 
yet maintain the flexibility which the bill is intended to provide.
  It has been brought to my attention since then that we could 
strengthen it even more by offering the amendment that we have before 
us at the moment. That amendment would, in addition, provide that the 
State educational agency which provides waivers for the local school 
districts would have the following responsibility, that ``the State 
educational agency is satisfied that the underlying purposes of the 
statutory requirements of each program or Act for which a waiver is 
granted continue to be met.''

[[Page H1101]]

  In addition to that, we have also included language in the committee 
report which states very clearly the intent of the committee and, 
therefore, the intent of the Congress, is to continue to insist that 
the intent of the Eisenhower program be met as we go through this 
process of providing flexibility in granting waivers. In other words, I 
think we have the best of both worlds. We will continue to try and 
improve math and science education and at the same time provide the 
needed flexibility that we need in that area and other areas so that 
local schools and State departments of education can provide additional 
flexibility and make them into more workable programs.
  This amendment will strengthen what I have done before. I urge that 
the body adopt this amendment. I do want to say that I will continue in 
these efforts in the future. Once the bill is passed, I intend to send 
a letter, perhaps over the signatures of other Members of Congress as 
well, to the Secretary of Education indicating precisely why these 
amendments were offered, stating that we intend to watch the results of 
this very closely, and encouraging the Secretary to follow the strict 
intent of what we offered here. I think it is also important in the 
future as we consider Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
reauthorization that we completely review the Eisenhower program. I 
believe we can strengthen it, I believe we should expand it, and I 
believe by doing that in conjunction with what we are doing here today, 
we can actually come up with a much better system of offering 
mathematics and science education within these United States.


 Amendment Offered by Mr. Holt to Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Ehlers

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Holt to amendment No. 6 offered by 
     Mr. Ehlers:
       In the matter proposed to be inserted by Mr. Ehlers' 
     amendment to section 4(a)(4)(C)(ii) of the bill, strike the 
     period and insert the following: ``, including, with respect 
     to the statutory requirements of section 2206 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, such 
     application includes a description of how the professional 
     development needs of its teachers, in the areas of 
     mathematics and science, will be, or are being, met.''.

  Mr. HOLT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment to the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania reserves a point of 
order.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, we have not seen the amendment.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, we have a copy going to the gentleman now.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering today is a 
simple one and one that I think will add accountability for science and 
math teacher training that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) is 
trying to put in the bill. I applaud his effort. As I try to look at 
this from the point of view of a local school seeking flexibility to 
accomplish their aims, I think my amendment will offer improvement. As 
we discuss ways to give schools the flexibility they need, we should 
not lose the successful priority given to math and science teacher 
training under the Eisenhower Professional Development Act. As my 
colleagues well know, the Eisenhower act is the only readily available 
Federal program that helps teachers become trained and remain trained 
in math and science. Previous Congresses have ensured, both through law 
and through allocation of money, that math and science should be given 
a priority in teacher training. Congress placed a priority on math and 
science training in allocation of these funds because math and science 
are two areas where teachers have traditionally needed the most help. 
The statistics bear that out.
  The study released just last week by the Chief State School Officers 
points out that in my own State, New Jersey, only 69 percent of 
secondary school math teachers have a degree in their main teaching 
assignment. In other States, the percentage is even lower. And when 
teachers are not up to speed on academic areas, particularly math and 
science, students do not achieve all they can. The Third International 
Math and Science Study results showed that U.S. 12th graders lag behind 
the international average in science and math.
  The amendment I am offering is a simple one. It says that when local 
education agencies, local schools, are applying for a waiver of the 
math and science priority under the Eisenhower act, they need to 
explain in their application how the professional development needs of 
their teachers in math and science will be, or already are being, met. 
The amendment preserves the importance of math and science professional 
development while still allowing schools to waive the math-science 
priority if they need help in other areas. I believe this is a simple 
change in keeping with the goals of the bill and maintains a needed 
focus on math and science education. The amendment of the gentleman 
from Michigan says that the underlying purpose of the statute should be 
met. My improving amendment only asks each school to state how they 
will meet that underlying purpose. It protects flexibility. It does not 
tell the schools how to meet that purpose. It does not tell the schools 
how to provide the training. It only asks them in their application to 
state that they are thinking about it and have thought about it. My 
amendment is supported by nonpartisan education advocates like the 
National Association of Science Teachers and by Dr. Bruce Alberts, the 
President of the National Academy of Sciences.

                              {time}  1400

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) 
insist on his point of order?
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt), who is proposing to amend my amendment. I rise to oppose the 
amendment to the amendment, although with some reluctance because I am 
certainly in agreement with the objective of the gentleman from New 
Jersey in offering this amendment. However, his amendment violates 
precisely what I tried to avoid in the wording of my amendments both in 
committee and here. I wanted to avoid adding to the complexity of the 
application process and avoid creating additional paperwork for those 
submitting the applications, and I am afraid that his amendment to my 
amendment ruins that by requiring that every application which involves 
anything having to do with section 226 of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965 includes a description of how professional 
development needs of its teachers in the area of mathematics and 
science will be or are being met. As I say, I am in agreement with the 
intent of that, but once again that destroys some of the flexibility 
that this bill is trying to achieve, and that destroys trying to 
simplify the application process and make it operate as smoothly as 
possible.
  I would have to add, too, that in the States that have had the ed 
flex capability for a few years, they by and large to the best of my 
knowledge have maintained their math and science programs; their scores 
in math and science have improved even as they have integrated other 
programs with math and science such as reading programs, and I do not 
perceive that as a tremendous problem. Even without the restrictive 
language that was placed in this bill, the States are eager to improve 
math and science education and are proceeding to do so. The language I 
got in the bill is a safeguard to ensure that they are required to 
continue their effort, subject to the approval of the secretary of 
education and now to the state department of education dealing with 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the amendment to my amendment 
adds a great deal, but it does increase the complexity of the 
application process and reduces the flexibility, so I urge that we not 
approve that amendment to the amendment.

[[Page H1102]]

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my friend 
and colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). I agree with my friend, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), that there is a shared intent 
here to protect and foster math and science education. I believe 
respectfully, however, that Mr. Holt's approach is the right way and 
better way to do that. Mr. Holt acknowledges, as I believe we all do, 
that the only major Federal initiative for math and science education 
teaching is the Eisenhower program. Its requirements have never been 
more needed than they are today, and those requirements should be 
waived only under extraordinary circumstances. I have sat in my 
district office and listened to dozens of employers talk about their 
grave need for students who are properly trained in math and science. 
If there ever was a time when we needed to reassert that national need, 
it is now.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that the author of the underlying amendment, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) understands that probably 
better than anyone in this body and certainly better than I do. I would 
just respectfully say this on behalf of the Holt amendment:
  The Holt amendment does not say that we cannot do things with 
Eisenhower money that are different than what have been done under the 
regular statutory formula. The Holt amendment says that before we do, 
we have to explain very clearly what other steps the local education 
authority is taking to assure high quality math and science education.
  Now the second point about the Holt amendment that I think is the 
critical one is who gets to evaluate whether or not the local education 
agency is doing what needs to be done for math and science education. 
The underlying amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) 
would leave that judgment to the state educational policymakers, and in 
the case of New Jersey, to the New Jersey Department of Education. I 
have great respect and admiration for people in those state 
departments, but frankly they are the ones who are applying for the 
waiver in the first place, and if we are asking the people who are 
applying for the waiver whether they are doing enough to support math 
and science education, I would be shocked if their answer were ever 
anything but ``Of course we are.''
  There needs to be an independent review, in this case a review by the 
Federal Secretary of Education, to make an independent determination 
that the local education agency is doing what it ought to be doing for 
science and math education. So I believe we have agreement.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, the author of 
the amendment.
  Mr. HOLT. What I want to make clear, Mr. Chairman, is that from the 
point of view of the local school, the local school, the people who are 
preparing the application for the waiver, are not aware of the 
legislative intent. They just know that they are preparing an 
application to the state to be excused from some requirements so that 
they can have the flexibility to achieve their ends, and we want to 
make sure that they demonstrate that they have thought about how they 
will achieve the math and science training for their teachers.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just conclude 
by saying that I feel like a lay person among professionals, that the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Holt) are professional teachers of math and science. I know they 
share the same goal. I would just respectfully say that I think Mr. 
Holt's means of achieving that goal is the preferred one, and I would 
urge colleagues on both sides to support his amendment.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) I believe that my good friend's amendment, Mr. 
Holt, if I am not mistaken, does give control of how the funds are used 
completely to the States and local schools. It does not pull the 
Eisenhower program out of Ed-Flex, it does not prevent local schools 
from using Eisenhower funds for teacher training and other subjects, 
and it does not add burdensome paperwork requirements to the waiver 
process.
  I have great respect for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) but 
even if it did cause a little extra paperwork to ensure that our math 
and science teachers are trained to ensure that our kids are being 
trained for the global marketplace that awaits, and I would hope that 
my friends on the other side would be sensitive to the children in this 
debate and not to perhaps the ideology that all of us are espousing 
here.
  Mr. FOSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise respectfully to oppose the Holt amendment of the 
gentleman from New Jersey and in support of the Ehlers amendment of the 
gentleman from Michigan. Before I speak, let me just compliment the 
gentlemen who put this legislation together: the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle), and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and, 
of course, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) our good 
chairman of the committee.
  I think fundamentally what we want to do, accomplish, is to ensure 
that, yes, education is a national issue. However, we agree that it 
should be a local responsibility as much as it can be, and if I go into 
a school on Staten Island or in Brooklyn, and I ask the parents of the 
students who would they rather have making the decisions for their 
children, the teachers and the administrators in this school district 
or someone in Washington that they will never ever see, someone who 
never ever will come to Staten Island or Brooklyn, and I think that is 
the same across the country, and without hesitation those parents, and 
the teachers, and the principals, and the assistant principals said:
  Let us make those decisions; we see these children every day. We know 
what is best for them as opposed to someone in Washington. We know 
where our student strengths and weaknesses are, whether it is in math 
and science or reading. Let us have the flexibility to make the changes 
that will only serve to improve our performance and, as a result, the 
students' performance.
  Right now that flexibility does not exist. Right now these 
administrators or teachers have straightjackets around them. We spend 
an awful lot of money on our children's educations, and by all means we 
should, but is it not appropriate to have that decision-making made at 
the local level than here in Washington? I just do not get that 
argument.
  Some folks say, well, let us start, see what we can do here in 
Washington, and whatever is left we will send to the classroom. See, I 
do not take that approach, and I think I am with most Americans and 
most parents. Let us see what we can do with the school, let us see 
what we can do in the classroom, and then whatever is left over, let us 
see how we can waste it on too much bureaucracy.
  Mr. Chairman, I will just give my colleagues an example of how New 
York State would benefit from the underlying legislation. New York, for 
example, could use the Ed-Flex waiver to strengthen teacher development 
in reading. For instance, New York currently gets funds for teacher 
development through the Eisenhower Professional Development Program. 
Most of these funds go toward development in math and science. New York 
could request a waiver so that in areas with strong math and science 
programs some funds could alternatively be used for reading 
development.
  Now does that not that make sense?
  What am I missing here?
  Ultimately I think where we should be going is to offer parents the 
freedom and the opportunity to use any school for their children, but 
this, I think, is at least a reasonable complies to unbridle the 
straitjacket that too many teachers and administrators share in Staten 
Island, or Indiana, or Ohio, or Delaware, or Pennsylvania, and let them 
make decisions. One size does not fit all, and if a superintendent of a

[[Page H1103]]

local school district thinks that he can better address the needs of 
those students, better enhance academic standards, let reading 
scores increase, math scores, science scores by reducing class size, 
then by all means we should allow him the flexibility to do so. If a 
teacher thinks that she is in a better position to perhaps rearrange 
her curriculum to address the needs of the child that she sees every 
single day of the school year, then should we not give her as much 
flexibility as possible? How can it be argued that somebody here in 
Washington knows what child in PS 41 in Staten Island is thinking on a 
daily basis? I cannot say what is best for that child. I think the 
teacher and the principal is in a better position, let alone what is 
happening in California or reforms in Texas.

  I compliment really what the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and 
the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) are doing here. We are moving 
in the right direction. We are spending taxpayer money on our child's 
education, as we should be, but getting the control out of Washington 
and back home where it belongs, providing the people we trust with our 
kids every single day, the flexibility, the desire, the opportunity to 
do what they think is best. I think, if anybody in this Chamber goes 
into a school in their district, goes before a PTA and asks the parents 
in that room, or cafeteria, or wherever it is what they think is best, 
I think they will support my position as well.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am standing to support the amendment of the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) to the amendment because it is consistent 
with Ed-Flex. Often schools waivers from Federal regulation and 
returning in return for increased accountability. We cannot have 
waivers if we do not have accountability because then we have an open 
ended shoot that we could end up undoing and redoing our entire 
Eisenhower program.
  We must protect the emphasis on math and science education, and we 
have to ask schools to explain how they will meet their training needs 
for their math and science teachers. That is all there is to it. We do 
not want math and science teachers that are not prepared to teach the 
subject they are teaching. We must give control on how these funds are 
used to the States and the local schools absolutely, but in return they 
must be accountable for the fund they receive from the Federal 
Government.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) 
does not pull the Eisenhower program out of Ed-Flex, does not prevent 
local schools from using Eisenhower funding for teacher training and 
other subjects, does not add burdensome paperwork requirements to the 
waiver process. What it does is adds accountability for the waiver from 
Federal regulation.

                              {time}  1415

  Nearly every school in this Nation relies on Eisenhower programs for 
their training and for math and science, and we need to be expanding it 
to technology.
  The Eisenhower Act is the only universally available Federal program 
that helps teachers become better trained in math and science, and if 
you support math and science and technical education for the children 
of this country, if you support the Eisenhower Professional Development 
Program, you will support the Holt amendment to the amendment.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to talk about the Holt amendment to the 
Ehlers amendment, and I have to say that I have sympathy with his 
intent but I will have to oppose his secondary amendment because I am 
not sure that it achieves anything different from what the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) has proposed, but it does impose a greater 
paperwork burden on those who are applying for waivers.
  The whole point here is to relieve local education authorities from 
some of the burdensome paperwork that the Federal Government imposes. 
If we look at most State departments of education, they will say that 
only 7 cents on the dollar comes from the Federal Government but that 
50 percent of their employees spend their time dealing with Federal 
paperwork.
  It is not so much different in local school districts. We should not 
be levying greater paperwork requirements, which is exactly what the 
Holt secondary amendment does. It says very specifically, such 
application includes a description of how the professional development 
needs of its teachers in the areas of math and science will be or are 
being met. It requires them to put that in their application process, 
an application process that should be as streamlined as possible.
  I think the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) has been creative in 
giving us the best of both worlds. He focuses on making sure that the 
intent of the Federal law is upheld and the State must review all of 
those applications, but it does not require longer paperwork by the 
local schools.
  I rise today because I like this underlying bill, I like Ed-Flex and 
the whole concept of it, and I say that being a representative of one 
of the 12 States that currently has the program in place as a pilot 
project.
  We are not a State, New Mexico, that has taken advantage of it in 
terms of having large numbers of waivers under Ed-Flex. We have tended 
to be conservative, with a small C, and that is good, but the things 
that we have taken advantage of, I think, are important and also the 
way that we have gone about taking advantage of them.
  Let me give you a couple of examples. The first is a little school 
district in New Mexico that found its enrollment declining but it had a 
great research based program that it wanted to put in place. It cost 
$60,000 to do, but because of lower than expected enrollment and a 
Federal allocation formula, they were only going to be authorized 
$50,000. It was one of those things if you do not have the $60,000, you 
cannot do the program.
  They asked for a waiver and worked with the State, and the State 
adjusted the allocation formula so that the school district could get 
$60,000 rather than $50,000. It is a small example, but it mattered a 
lot to that school district as an example of what local flexibility can 
do.
  Perhaps more importantly is a waiver that is now pending on our State 
school superintendent's desk that has to do with the requirement under 
Title I that all schools who have 75 percent or more students in 
poverty must get title I funds.
  In New Mexico, we have a statewide waiver pending that will allow 
schools to focus those monies at the elementary level, and I think 
there is a lot of sense in that kind of proposal.
  We want to reach these kids early and intensively. Rather than the 
requirement to spend money at the high school level and the middle 
school level, let us focus on where it matters for the long-term with 
our Title I funds, in those early grades and early years. That is the 
kind of flexibility that Ed-Flex can give all 50 States, so that other 
States, in addition to New Mexico, can benefit from this kind of local 
control.
  I want to commend those on both sides of the aisle who have brought 
this to the floor of the House today, and I think it is a very 
creative, very innovative approach to improving education. We have much 
more to do, but I believe that this is a very good first step.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Holt amendment to the Ehlers 
amendment. I must say that I am somewhat surprised that this amendment 
would not be accepted by the majority to the legislation, because, one, 
I think it is quite consistent with the legislation. It is also quite 
consistent with the priority that this Congress has spoken to with 
respect to math and science, education and professional development.
  If you read the underlying statute in the Eisenhower program, the 
first monies appropriated go to math and science because we have 
obviously recognized and continue to recognize that this Nation has a 
problem with respect to math and science education and also to the 
development of qualified teachers to teach math and science.
  If I remember right, when Governor Ridge was before our committee 
testifying on this legislation, and many of the changes he has made in 
the State of Pennsylvania, many leading the Nation with respect to 
teacher development, he suggested that with respect

[[Page H1104]]

to math and science, if I remember his testimony correctly, that he 
essentially felt that Pennsylvania has basically done a very good job 
in preparing math and science teachers and now he would like to move on 
to other areas of professional development within that area.
  There is nothing in this amendment that would prevent the governor 
from so doing. When he prepares the plan or the superintendent of 
schools, public instruction, prepares a plan for submission, they would 
simply recite how they are doing with respect to this, how they have 
met it or are meeting the professional development. If he feels he has 
accomplished this for the time being and he wants to use the resources 
otherwise, he is fully free to do that under the Holt amendment.
  I think that is the important thing about the Holt amendment; it 
merges with the intent of this legislation. It does not contradict 
that.
  Let us understand something else about this. Some day we will have a 
hearing about professional development, and I suspect if we go into 
schools and talk to schoolteachers and others we will find out there 
are a lot of interesting courses being given that are federally funded 
about professional development that have very little to do with the 
real development of teachers. They are there because somebody needs 
so many units or so many hours of whatever.

  We find some people taking language courses before they are going off 
for the summer on a trip, and all other kinds of problems.
  We ought to make sure that the resources for math and science 
professional development, to make these teachers qualified, to help 
them become qualified, that it is not a casualty of flexibility. I 
think that is the goal of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). I 
think it is clearly a goal that is properly reinforced. It is a simple 
recitation. This is not a long, drawn out process. It simply, once 
again, takes the responsible public officials, puts them on the public 
record with respect to how they are doing and what we can expect from 
that State organization, from those local organizations, over the next 
5 years of this legislation.
  This is a program that is authorized at some $500 million. We have 
decided this is important; this is what is necessary. I would hope the 
majority could accept this amendment because I think it is important 
that we keep this priority and that math and science education does not 
become a casualty of flexibility.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Texas.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support 
of the Holt amendment. I think what we are trying to say is that we do 
need accountability with this flexibility. As we look at what is going 
on now in our schools, in 1991, the secondary schools in this country, 
students were less likely to have a qualified teacher in math than in 
any core subject. Twenty-seven percent of the students had a teacher 
without at least a minor in math, and for science 32 percent of the 
students in the seventh grade had a teacher without at least a minor in 
science.
  Large variations in teacher skills exist among especially low poverty 
versus high poverty schools. Seventeen percent of the secondary 
students in low poverty schools were taught by math teachers without at 
least a minor in math, versus 26 percent in the high poverty schools.
  For physics, 57 percent of the students in low poverty schools, 
versus 71 percent in the high poverty schools, have poorly trained 
teachers.
  What we are asking for is for every student to be included. For 
chemistry, 23 percent of the students in low poverty schools, versus 37 
percent in high poverty schools, have poorly trained teachers.
  We must ensure that all of our students have an opportunity for a 
quality education, especially in the area that I represent. We must 
have people that can fill these jobs. We are one of the locations that 
had to lift the caps to bring people from other countries to take the 
jobs we have available.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. George Miller of California was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to 
what the gentlewoman says because she makes a very important point. 
Again, going back to accountability, going back to public 
accountability, most parents would be shocked at the qualifications of 
the people who are teaching their children science and math. As just 
was found here, in good school districts there is a less than one in 
four chance that that math and science teacher is properly qualified to 
teach that subject. In poor schools within those districts, the odds 
get much worse.
  Most parents believe that the teacher that is standing in front of 
their child is, in fact, qualified. Unfortunately, especially in this 
field, that is simply not the case. That is why I think it is important 
that when we provide for this waiver, that the person responsible for 
preparing the waiver is prepared to publicly state how it is they are 
doing and what they are doing to meet the requirements for teacher 
professionalism in math and science, because the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) makes a very important point, and it would 
be shocking to most parents but it is simply a dirty little secret 
about the qualifications of people teaching math and science in the 
United States.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Members have probably observed the Chair has been 
rather strict in its observation of time requirements. The reason for 
that is the large number of amendments to be considered and the limited 
amount of time and the Chair's desire to consider as many amendments as 
possible. So the Members are admonished that the Chair expects to 
enforce the time limits.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, in the last 2\1/2\ years, we have had the opportunity 
in the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations to travel around 
the country having 17 hearings in 17 different states, trying to 
understand what is going on in education at the local and at the State 
level.
  It is because of that background that I rise in support of the 
amendment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) that he is 
bringing forward. We have heard from the local level, from parents, 
from administrators, from government officials, that what they need is 
they need more flexibility to better serve their students.
  We also took a look at how Washington today is establishing 
priorities. We have 760 programs spread over 39 different agencies. 
What do we have in math and science? Is that a priority that we have 
clearly established?
  We have 63 different math and science programs, that is according to 
GAO, math and science programs. They are not all within the Department 
of Education. The National Science Foundation has multiple programs. 
NASA has three programs. EPA has three programs. The Department of 
Energy has three programs.

                              {time}  1430

  I think we have come far enough in mandating to school boards and 
mandating to officials at the local level what they need to do in their 
classrooms.
  What this program does is it begins to step back and say that real 
accountability and real responsibility needs to be focused at the local 
level.
  We have a chart here that talks about what Washington says America's 
schools need, and over the last number of years, that is exactly what 
we have been doing here in Washington. We say, we have identified this 
need, we are going to have a program, and we are going to mandate that 
you do these types of things, whether it is teachers, and we hear a lot 
of talk about 100,000 teachers; whether it is math and science 
programs. Whatever the issue, in the last number of years, the response 
has been, Washington will develop a program, we will give you the 
answer, you will implement what we tell you to do, and then you will 
report back to us and tell us exactly what you have done.
  Mr. Chairman, what we lose in that whole dialogue is we lose the 
focus of

[[Page H1105]]

the child and the education that they are getting.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the gentleman would confine 
his remarks to the amendment at hand and not be going all over the 
place. He is not speaking to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind all Members that discussion 
should be confined to the pending amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the Chairman.
  When we are talking about this amendment, we are talking about 
whether philosophically we believe that Washington ought to be 
mandating to the local school level what needs to go on in the 
classroom and how those dollars are spent, or whether there will be a 
degree of flexibility at the local level to meet the needs of the 
children.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a point of order that 
there are no mandates in my bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman have a point of order?
  Mr. HOLT. Yes, Mr. Chairman; that the gentleman is not addressing the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind all Members, once again, to 
confine themselves to the amendment before the committee.
  The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the Chairman.
  If this amendment and the other amendments do not deal about 
flexibility, do not deal about the degree of latitude that a local 
school district has, I am not sure what the debate is about. But what 
we have done in Washington is said, you will do these types of things 
and you will not have the flexibility to do the other types of things. 
We have 63 math and science programs today. We can, in this one 
instance, perhaps allow the local level a little bit more flexibility 
in how they are going to spend their dollars to meet the needs of their 
children.
  We have 63 math and science programs. Those go along with a whole 
range of other programs designed to meet the needs of the children. Let 
us move flexibility back into the local level, rather than sticking 
with mandates.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the gentleman has already 
interrupted me 2 times, and due to that lack of courtesy, no, I do not 
think that I will yield.
  I would like to continue, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman controls the time.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, what we have found is that as we go to 
the local school districts, we find that they have lots of needs. Some 
have needs for professional development in the area of science and 
training; some have needs for special education dollars; some need 
computers.
  What we need to do is we need to follow the Ehlers amendment.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Holt amendment. I would 
like to say first of all that our committee has been really enriched by 
the membership of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) on the 
committee.
  The amendment which he offers is extremely simple. It asks school 
districts to describe what professional development opportunities they 
are providing for math and science teachers if they waive the math and 
science priority under the Eisenhower program. This is certainly not a 
burdensome amendment, and this amendment does not restrict any 
flexibility provided in the bill.
  As Members know, the results of U.S. children in the third 
International Math and Science Study were dismal when compared to 
children in other countries around the world. Pulling back on our 
commitment to improving the professional development qualifications of 
our math and science teachers at a time when our children are being 
out-performed by so many internationally seems to be misguided. I would 
urge all Members to support the Holt amendment.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
  I just want to reiterate what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers) has called for, which is no restriction on the schools' 
flexibility in accomplishing their ends, and my amendment to his does 
not add to that, either.
  I frankly am surprised that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), 
and the others have not accepted my amendment. It seems to be very much 
in the spirit of his, just trying to look at this matter from the point 
of view of a local school and how that local school will recognize the 
intent of the Eisenhower funds, the intent of the legislation.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan. 
Mr. Chairman, Mark Twain observed that the greatness of our Nation 
comes from the soundness of our schools.
  Today more than ever we need to rededicate ourselves to improving the 
lives of our children, and that is by enhancing the quality of their 
education. One way to do this, I believe, is Ed-Flex. This program 
allows States and local school districts to spend their share of 
Federal education dollars in the way that serves their needs.
  Texas is one of the 12 States with waivers today, so let me give an 
example of how this works in my hometown of Fort Worth, Texas. A few 
years ago the Briscoe Elementary School was the home of students who 
were not living up to their potential and teachers who were not meeting 
expectations. Thanks to Ed-Flex, this school was able to take Title I 
money and spend it in specific ways to specifically address their 
problems. A new principal was brought in, new teachers, set new 
standards for the children. The results: Well, test scores are up 
significantly. What was once considered a poor performance school by 
the State is now well on its way to becoming one of the best.
  I personally visited Briscoe Elementary and principal Dr. Jennifer 
Brooks, and I know that flexibility gives this excellent principal and 
her teachers the tools they need.
  Mr. Chairman, let us pass Ed-Flex legislation so that the schools all 
across America have the chance to do what the schools in my district in 
Texas are doing, and that is fixing their problems, finding solutions 
and fighting academic indifference. What a great investment in our 
future. Children may only represent 20 percent of America today, but 
they represent 100 percent of our future.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, if I were the author of the 
amendment and the amendment to the amendment, I think I would be 
deliriously happy that so many people are recognizing the importance of 
math and science education and doing so much to try and perfect the 
processes by which we are improving it through the Eisenhower Program 
in this particular case. I am delighted at this situation, and I have 
been involved in this effort for quite a few years.
  As we got into this, I recalled that I was a member of the 89th 
Congress and the 88th, which originated this basic legislation and we 
have kept trying to improve it ever since. It still has not reached 
perfection. I doubt if we will reach perfection. Education is too 
complex a subject, too many variables, and we are unlikely to reach 
some magic solution.
  I took this time in part to point out that there are other approaches 
to improving science and math education in addition to the very 
important one of improving the professional training and capability of 
the math and science teachers. This is vital, but it is not the whole 
key to success. We can have some very dumb teachers doing a lousy

[[Page H1106]]

job who have all the professional requirements to teach math and 
science in the very best possible way.
  I am acquainted with 2 programs which are both privately funded doing 
an excellent job. One is the Challenger Program, which arose out of the 
Challenger space accident, which had a science teacher on board, and 
this Challenger Program is a tribute to science teaching, and it gives 
middle school students a hands-on opportunity to actually practice the 
techniques of science in a simulated space-controlled setting. It works 
well. We have seen these programs in operation, and they motivate the 
students.
  Now, in addition to motivated teachers and good teachers, we do need 
motivated, excited children. They learn best this way.
  We have another program called the Jason Program developed by Dr. 
Robert Ballard, the discoverer or the scientist who explored a lot of 
under-sea situations, and I participated out in California earlier this 
week in his current exciting science experiment. He has an experiment 
going on down in the rain forests of Brazil in which students 
participate and the activity down there is beamed to dozens of schools 
all over the United States. In my own district, where we have a so-
called down-link site, there will be literally thousands of students 
participating and learning and improving their knowledge of science and 
technology. This again is privately funded to a very large extent.
  Mr. Chairman, I am suggesting to my colleagues that we are wasting a 
lot of time here on 2 amendments which in my opinion are not 
antithetical to each other. They probably, in an ideal world, should 
have been combined to begin with so that we can get whatever benefits 
come from merging 2 good ideas. I fail to see, and I hate to differ 
with my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), how the 
amendment of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) puts this much of 
a burden on school districts, and it is certainly not for putting a 
Federal mandate on it. They are invited to tell the Federal Government 
what it is they are doing that makes it unnecessary for them to 
continue doing what the Eisenhower Program says that they must do. I am 
sure that ingenious local districts can make an adequate explanation to 
the Federal Government of why they can have a better program than the 
Federal Government has laid on them through the Eisenhower provisions.
  Now, this is not to belittle the Eisenhower Program in the slightest, 
because it is necessary that we have this kind of enactment into law.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of 
the Committee on Science for his remarks and his astuteness on the need 
to support the Holt amendment, which is really a perfecting amendment. 
As the gentleman has noted, they should be combined.
  Frankly, I think that with the crises, I call them the crises that we 
have in math and science development, professional development of our 
teachers, as evidenced by the statistics that show the performance of 
our students, this is the way to go. Which is, it provides flexibility, 
but it also ensures accountability. So that none of our schools can 
borrow from Peter to pay Paul, meaning leaving out math and science 
national development to the chagrin of our parents, and not realizing 
that we must make sure these teachers can teach math and science so 
that our children can be prepared for the next millennium.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
her contribution.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, with due respect to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Brown), and I do agree with much of what he just said, this debate, and 
I will try to confine my remarks to this amendment, but I think we 
cannot talk about these amendments without talking about the underlying 
bill.
  In some respects I am reminded of the story that during the dark 
ages, there was a debate that raged through Europe in terms of how many 
teeth a mule had. Finally, one bright young man said, well, why don't 
we count them?
  I would suggest that as we debate these amendments and ultimately the 
underlying bill, we ought to talk to the administrators, the school 
people in our districts, and find out what they think. Why do we not 
ask them? So we did exactly that in my office. I would like to read for 
my colleagues some quotes from some faxes and e-mails that we have 
gotten in my office from school administrators in my district.
  The first one is a school administrator in a very small school in my 
district; in fact, it is one of those schools where they still play 9-
man football. Let me read what he says. He says, ``Federal mandates 
cost money, and the money is never offset by increased aids. While we 
appreciate the Federal funding we do receive, it is never and will 
never even begin to cover the costs incurred by the federally mandated 
programs we have been forced to set up. Besides, rarely is national 
education policy aimed at any school district smaller than Chicago, and 
never is there any policy aimed at helping rural schools.''

                              {time}  1445

  Let me read another quote more directly to the issue we are debating 
now about the Eisenhower program. This is a superintendent from a 
slightly smaller school, but still a small school.
  He said,

       We receive Eisenhower funds and block grant funds. We find 
     the regulations on the Eisenhower funds to be somewhat 
     rerestrictive, as they can only be spent for math and/or 
     science teacher training. The guidelines are so narrow that 
     each year dollars go unspent when there are needs that relate 
     to science and math but do not meet the guidelines.
       However, if there is a seminar 150 miles away, which may be 
     of questionable value, we can spend the money traveling to 
     that site, spend it for meals and lodging, and then sit and 
     listen to a dry and (of dubious value) lecture.
       New methods of teaching teachers are not encouraged with 
     the present guidelines. If we could buy software and some 
     hardware with that money, we could have teachers teach 
     themselves here in Gopherville, rather than by an expert in 
     Minneapolis.

  Mr. Chairman, I suggest that is what this debate is about, who knows 
best. Let me just close by quoting our new Governor, because a lot of 
people ask, what does Jesse, the Governor, have to say about some of 
these issues?
  We had lunch with the Governor about 1\1/2\ weeks ago. He was very 
simple and direct. He said, listen, we do not need new fiscal Federal 
programs. We do not need you to subsidize 100,000 new teachers. We do 
not need you to help us build new schools in Minnesota. What we need 
for you to do is fund the programs that you have already set up. If you 
guys would simply fund the special education program the way you 
promised to maybe years ago, we could take care of the rest.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a relatively simple debate. It really comes 
down to who knows best. I think we ought to listen to the people who 
are actually out there teaching our children, working in the schools as 
school administrators, and if we do, we will come to the clear 
conclusion that it is time to say that Washington does not know best.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly support the motion offered by my colleague, 
the gentleman from Michigan. That motion is intended to simply clarify, 
as I understand it. The secondary motion, as I view it, adds additional 
bureaucracy and mandates that we are trying to narrow.
  Ed-Flex is about restoring local control over education, and in 
Michigan we have had Ed-Flex since 1994 with what I think are 
impressive results. Ed-Flex empowers local school districts to make 
school-specific improvements, bypass cumbersome Federal regulation, and 
expand accountability at the same time.
  Four years ago, if anybody had been asked, what is the more difficult 
problem, correcting the welfare system in this country or fixing 
education so that we maximize the potential of every student, I think 
most people would say, well, probably reforming welfare is a little 
tougher.
  Well, look, we have done that. We have said that we can reform 
welfare

[[Page H1107]]

by taking some of these decisions out of Washington and giving more 
flexibility to States and local governments. Again, that is what we are 
trying to say with helping to fix education. Let us get the solution a 
little closer to the problem, so that there is a greater likelihood 
that the solutions meet and match those problems.
  The State of Michigan's success as a participant in the Ed-Flex 
program speaks directly to why this bill and the Ehlers amendment 
should pass without amendment. Ed-Flex has allowed Michigan to lower 
the poverty threshold at which schools are eligible to plan and 
implement Title I school-wide programs. Lowering the threshold has 
resulted in 500 additional schools qualifying for school-wide programs.
  In Michigan, schools with large concentrations of low-income students 
are now implementing programs which improve the entire school, rather 
than implementing several programs that are designed to concentrate 
only on small groups of students. These are the types of changes that 
we need to encourage if we are to improve our education system.
  Educational flexibility is what my local schools in the southern part 
of Michigan are asking for. Those schools that have already 
accomplished smaller classroom size do not want to be gypped, if you 
will, with proposals that say they can only have this Federal money if 
they are using it for smaller classroom size and more teachers.
  My schools that have already hooked up the Internet to their 
classrooms do not want to be short-changed out of Federal funds if they 
have already taken that kind of initiative to hook up their classrooms 
to the Internet.
  Let us allow greater flexibility, and give those local communities, 
those local teachers and school boards and those States more 
flexibility in deciding how they are going to be able to implement 
programs to assure that in the future every student can learn to their 
maximum potential.
  As chairman of the Science Subcommittee on Basic Research, I know it 
is very important that we dramatically improve math and science 
education. Ed-Flex can help us achieve those goals. Ed-Flex allows 
States to avoid many burdensome requirements and focus on improving 
student performance. It allows States to make better use of Federal 
education improvement programs to address local needs. Expanding Ed-
Flex will also assist Congress in identifying specific changes that 
should be highlighted when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
is reauthorized. Ed-Flex has succeeded in Michigan and we should make 
it available to the rest of the Nation.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, very briefly, there are two major problems with this 
amendment to the amendment. First, we are starting to pick away at the 
whole idea of flexibility, little by little by little. But this whole 
debate is a debate about somehow or other the local district is not 
going to be responsible.
  Who do we think has to answer when the NAEP tests in math are not 
very good, the math tests are not very good? Not the Members, not me, 
the local school board, the local teachers, the local administrators. 
They are the people who have to answer to the neighbors.
  Let me give one example. The most affluent school district in my 
district has a gentleman who attends every board meeting. There is a 
reason. I imagine his father left him a very nice estate. I imagine 
that the taxes are just tremendous on that estate.
  What was the last thing he asked for? He called me and he said, I 
need you to get me a copy of the TIMMS test. I said, why do you need a 
copy of the TIMMS test? He said, I am not satisfied with what we might 
be doing locally. I want to know how we are doing on the national, the 
international level. The superintendent said, if you get the test, I 
will give it.
  The TIMMS test is available, and many States take advantage of that 
to determine how their students are doing in math and science. Well, 
maybe the superintendent did not know that I could get him that test, 
but I got him that test. Now the superintendent is bound, because of 
public pressure, to give that test.
  So we have to get off of this idea that somehow or other the local 
level will not do what they have to do. The bill has important 
programs, such as the important focus on improving math and science 
performance under Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act of 1965, the Dwight D. Eisenhower Development Program. So we just 
now want to nip away at the whole idea of flexibility, and secondly, 
just tell the local government, you really do not have any interest in 
your students.
  It is a terrible, broad statement to say how little math teachers or 
science teachers know. Again, it depends very much on the school 
district. Yes, there are areas where I am sure they can get away with 
not having people who are really qualified to teach. In my State, if 
you do that you lose your State subsidy.
  So again, let us not pick away little by little at the whole idea of 
flexibility on something that is working.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), 
who authored the original amendment.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Just a few closing observations. The ranking member of the Committee 
on Science, the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown) commented that we 
should be deliriously happy to hear this much discussion about math and 
science on the Floor of the House. I have never been delirious, but I 
have to say I am extremely happy and share his joy at hearing this 
debate. I am very pleased at all this interest.
  Another comment regarding his statement. He is absolutely right, we 
need much more than just the Eisenhower Program. Developing good math 
and science programs is far more than just professional development. We 
need better curricula, better training of teachers in their higher 
educational institutions, we need better certification methods, et 
cetera. I am willing to engage in that battle and continue to work on 
that effort.
  The final point is, as I said at the start, I agree with the intent 
of the secondary amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Holt). My concern is the increased paperwork and the lack of 
flexibility which would arise from his amendment. I feel strongly about 
that simply because I have worked in local government. I have had local 
superintendents tell me about their problems.
  In fact, a number of them said that when a new Federal program comes 
out they evaluate how much it is going to cost them to write the 
application. If it is more than a certain amount, they just forget 
about it. It is not worth the money they receive from us.
  The intent of this bill overall is to try to increase flexibility, 
reduce the amount of paperwork needed, and therefore we have to honor 
that intent. Therefore, I oppose the Holt amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying, if a student 
cannot read at a fourth grade level, I guarantee that he or she is 
going to have a difficult time doing math and science. Yet, we find 
that fourth grade scores were flat from 1992 to 1998 in reading. We 
find that 38 percent scored below basic in fourth-grade reading. That 
is the same as it was in 1992. We know that 58 percent who have 
received free and reduced price lunches cannot read at fourth grade 
level.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) has been 
recognized on the amendment to the amendment. Does the gentleman wish 
to address the underlying amendment for 5 minutes?


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman must get someone 
else to get him the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey could be recognized to 
speak on the underlying amendment.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair is about to put the question to a 
vote.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of

[[Page H1108]]

words, and I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt) to address the underlying amendment which he has not been 
recognized to address.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that I think the points with 
regard to the amendment and the amendment to the amendment have been 
made thoroughly, and a local school, in satisfying what I call for in 
this amendment to the amendment, in other words, an explanation of how 
the training of teachers in science and education will be met, would 
take less time than we have spent already debating this this afternoon.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following letter for the Record:

                                                  National Science


                                         Teachers Association,

                                     Arlington, VA, March 9, 1999.
       Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of science teachers 
     nationwide, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) 
     urges you to support an amendment to be offered by 
     Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ) during debate on H.R. 800, 
     the Education Flexibility Partnership Act.
       One of the programs which can be waived under Ed-Flex is 
     Part B of title II, the Eisenhower Professional Development 
     state grants. Many science and math teachers rely on the 
     Eisenhower grants to pursue training; in fact for many 
     teachers, it is their only source of funds for professional 
     development opportunities.
       The NSTA is greatly concerned that the ability to waive 
     Eisenhower grants under Ed Flex undermines the federal focus 
     on science and math education. Rep. Holt's amendment does not 
     attempt to rescind the Local Education Agency's ability to 
     waive the Eisenhower program. We believe it introduces more 
     accountability to the bill, by requiring that LEAs which are 
     applying for a waiver of the science/math priority under the 
     Eisenhower Act (Part B of Title II) must first document how 
     the professional development needs of science and math 
     teachers in their district or school will be, or already are 
     being, met.
       As a physicist, Representative Holt understands the 
     critical need to keep our science teachers abreast of 
     cutting-edge science content. Eisenhower funds do this; they 
     also help our teachers to teach to state standards, to 
     develop hands-on teaching techniques, and to foster a love of 
     science in young children.
       Eisenhower Professional Development state grants will be 
     greatly weakened under H.R. 800 as reported out of the 
     Education and Workforce Committee. We ask that you support 
     science and math education by supporting Rep. Holts 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Gerald Wheeler,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been here wanting to speak on this amendment. 
While the other side would like to impugn the motives of many of us, 
which I do not appreciate, the fact is that this is the start of a 
process this afternoon that I believe undergirds the whole problem with 
the amendment process with this bill. That is that the purpose of this 
is an Ed-Flex bill. The purpose of this is to give flexibility to the 
local level.
  I remember one time when I was in court for a traffic ticket, I was 
talking to one man at the beginning, and he said to me, would you help 
me fill out my form? He could not write his name, nor could he write 
his address out. All he could do was put the x. I helped with that.
  I personally believe that one of the fundamental problems we have in 
this country is writing. If somebody cannot write, they are not going 
to be able to do the math and science. I remember in working, I was 
doing economic development with a number of people who were getting 
laid off from a company who had not done the basic reading. If people 
cannot read, they cannot do math and science.
  I do not know anybody in my district, any schoolchildren, any 
principal, any superintendent, who does not believe that math and 
science is not one of the critical, if not the most critical, depending 
upon the school, problems facing that school.
  In fact, in northeast Indiana or anywhere in the country, if we are 
going to compete not only within our country but within our State or 
internationally, we are going to have to improve the math and science 
programs.
  The question is, if the Member from New Jersey or anyone else feels 
that his district has a problem in math and science, then perhaps the 
amendment should be oriented towards micromanaging his district, rather 
than my district.
  Part of the whole underlying purpose of this bill is to say that we 
do not know what is best for each individual school, for each 
individual State, and how to do this.

                              {time}  1500

  I have a concern about the underlying amendment of the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). I do not really see the purpose of his amendment 
let alone the second-degree amendment to his. This is hardly a pure Ed-
Flex bill. The fact is, in clause after clause, we force them to submit 
all sorts of plans to the Federal Government.
  The Department of Education has to clear it. They are accountable for 
the performance of the students who are affected by such waivers. That 
is what the Department of Education has to do. Then the State has to 
show in print that they are accountable for the performance of the 
students who are affected by such waivers. Then the local education 
agency has to show that they have accounted for the students who are 
affected by such waivers.
  For crying out loud, we are micromanaging them to death. Then the 
second we get a bill that the President is going to sign, that all the 
governors back, we have amendment after amendment printed in the Record 
today to try to micromanage them.
  Math and science is wonderful. The people in Indiana can figure out 
how to do math and science without this Congress telling them, oh, in 
addition to giving them waivers, we are going to have this report and 
this report and this report because we do not trust them. We think we 
can figure out that math and science is important, but back in the 
local school, they who spend all the time teaching cannot figure out 
that math and science is one of the most important things.
  Maybe in some schools they have a literacy problem or computer 
problem or this type of thing in addition to math and science, because 
I think the people in education of this country know fully well the 
importance of math and science and do not need the United States 
Congress to micromanage their budgets.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Holt 
Amendment to H.R. 800, which requires that school systems that waive 
out of federal regulations demonstrate a commitment to science and math 
education for their students.
  This bill simply states that ``if applying for a waiver . . . the 
local education agency's application for [the waiver] must include a 
description of how the professional development needs of its teachers 
in the areas of mathematics and science will be, or are, being met.'' 
This is not a regulation that will stymie the change brought about by 
this bill. Rather, it merely means that those school systems who choose 
to escape the rigidity of applicable federal regulations must show, up-
front, their willingness to address certain issues that are important 
to all of America.
  This amendment specifically addresses the vacuum created by the 
waiver of the requirements of the Eisenhower Education program, which 
assists school districts in training their math and science teachers. 
This program is heavily relied upon around the country, and mirrors 
similar programs in other subject areas. Already, our country lags 
behind others in teaching basic science and math to our students, and 
we cannot allow this condition to deteriorate further.
  As a Member of the Science Committee, I believe that if we are to 
stay a global leader, we must continue to progress in the areas of 
science and technology. Already, the growth in the technology industry 
is outpacing other market segments--and we cannot afford to lose our 
momentum by neglecting math and science in our schools.
  I hope that you will all support this amendment, so that our children 
can continue our global dominance on issues of engineering, science, 
and technology.
  Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Goodling and my colleagues 
Mr. Castle and Mr. Roemer for their leadership on this important issue.
  Mr. Chairman, by and large the education system in my home State of 
Wisconsin is excellent. In fact, our State ranks as one of the best in 
the Nation. Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson and our State legislature 
have done a wonderful job of working with parents, teachers and school 
board members. Students are learning in Wisconsin. But more can be 
done; we can grant our teachers the opportunity and the freedom to use 
innovative approaches to raise student achievement.
  Expanding the Ed-Flex program is a great step for Wisconsin in its 
efforts to develop an

[[Page H1109]]

education system focused upon high standards for all students, 
flexibility, and strong accountability for results.
  Mr. Chairman, as I've talked with parents, school board members, 
teachers and superintendents back in my district, I've asked them what 
can Congress do to make their jobs easier. Time and time again they've 
told me, ``Cut the red tape. Give us the freedom to do what we know 
works best.''
  For example, I received a letter last month from a constituent of 
mine, John Bechler. John is a Kenosha Unified School District board 
member, and he wanted to share with me his concerns regarding the 
impact Federal education programs have had upon his local school 
district. In his letter, John asked me, ``Did the Federal Government 
ever ask school districts what they needed most or did they just assume 
one approach fits all?''
  The answer is no, they never asked. I am concerned that even today 
members from other States are attempting to dictate education policy 
for my district's public schools. Mr. Chairman, we can't have 
bureaucrats in Washington blindly deciding that programs that may work 
in Los Angeles or Detroit must also work in my district. This is simply 
not true. John, and his fellow school board members all across the 
country, should be asked, ``what works?'' We should let them make the 
decisions, and this very important piece of legislation begins the 
process of returning decision-making power to the local level.
  John concluded his letter to me by saying, ``I would hope the Federal 
Government would allocate the education funds to the local school 
districts and allow the local school boards to determine what is the 
best use of funds to achieve quality education.''
  I couldn't agree more. Mr. Chairman, this is what educators all 
throughout my district are saying. They're saying enough of the cookie-
cutter, public relations driven education policies. Enough Federal 
mandates. We're here every day and we know what works best for our 
schools. Sound bites and press conferences do not and should not 
educate our children.
  Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government has failed in its attempts to 
design a one-size-fits-all education system for our Nations' schools. I 
hope that the students back in Janesville, Beloit, Kenosha and Racine 
are paying attention to this debate today, because this legislation 
will greatly affect their education.
  I'd ask my colleagues to support H.R. 800, and allow local decision-
makers, not Washington, to determine what's best for our students.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation.
  In Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties issues such as 
overcrowded classrooms, quality instruction, and the need for 
technology in the classrooms have been raised again and again as I meet 
with constituents and local education leaders.
  Under the existing Ed-Flex program, the Department of Education gives 
twelve states the ability to grant local school districts waivers from 
certain federal requirements, if the state believes that the waiver 
would foster local school reform efforts. This legislation would extend 
that demonstration program to all fifty states.
  I am a strong supporter of local control for our schools. School 
superintendents, teachers and parents really know what is best for the 
children in their communities.
  And there are some excellent examples of how states currently 
employing Ed-Flex rules are engaging in creative educational programs. 
Oregon, for example, has allowed community colleges and high schools to 
work together in a consortium to improve their professional technical 
education program, rather than run separate high school community 
college programs. This has resulted in an increase in the number of 
students completing those programs and graduating from high school.
  The state of Kansas has used the waiver to provide all-day 
kindergarten, a pre-school program for four year old children and new 
reading strategies for all children.
  These are truly innovative education initiatives and we should 
encourage such innovation.
  I also believe that the key to successful Ed-Flex programs is to 
require that states have in place a viable plan for assessing student 
achievement and establishing concrete numerical goals. If we have no 
standards and goals with which to measure achievement, we will never 
really know if we are helping our children or failing them by relaxing 
long-time federal regulations.
  Certain challenges in our education system cry out for national 
solutions.
  For example, I see a clear need for a federal role in class size 
reduction. Last year the President signed into law the first 
installment of his seven year program to hire 100,000 well prepared 
teachers to reduce class sizes. My own district just received over $1.5 
million dollars of this funding. This is a great start. But our 
priority must be to continue to address the important issue of class-
size reduction in this Congress.
  Additionally, after I came to Congress a year ago, I immediately 
undertook a comprehensive survey on the state of Central Coast schools. 
I held meetings with local school officials in Santa Barbara, San Luis 
Obispo and Santa Maria to explain the survey and distributed them to 
every school district on the Central Coast. The results clearly 
indicated that overcrowded classrooms, overuse of portable classrooms, 
aging buildings and a lack of access to technology for students are 
serious problems in our communities.
  In response to these survey results I co-sponsored several school 
construction bills. This Congress must act now to address the critical 
issue of modernizing our schools.
  I have also introduced my own legislation, the Teacher Training 
Technology Act.
  My bill establishes a competitive grant program to award grants 
directly to local school districts that set up or have a plan to 
establish programs to train teachers in class-room related computer 
skills which can be effectively integrated into the curriculum. By the 
year 2005, more than a million new computer scientists and engineers, 
systems analysts, and computer programmers will be required in the U.S. 
We must ensure that our children are fully prepared to compete in our 
future economy and that our teachers are prepared teach them.
  In closing, I would like to again state my support for this Ed-Flex 
legislation and the need for high standards and accountability. I am 
committed to bringing Federal resources to bear to ensure that schools 
across the country are best prepared to educate our children.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on a 
matter of the utmost importance to our nation's future: the quality and 
performance of our nation's public schools.
  In the past 34 years, our nation has spent a staggering $181 billion 
dollars on our education system. What do we have to show for it? Our 
students are consistently outperformed in mathematics and sciences by 
their peers in 18 other countries and nearly half fall below basic 
reading levels. Sadly, my own home state of North Carolina ranks in the 
bottom third of American education system. In the context of a world 
classroom, our children are at the back of the class.
  Our country is accustomed to having the best: the best military, the 
best technology, the best athletes, and the best universities. Why 
then, are we satisfied with such low public school standards and 
performance?
  It is our duty, as a Congress, to change this pattern.
  I firmly believe H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act 
of 1999, is a solid step toward this goal. Currently, twelve states 
qualify to participate in the Ed-Flex program, which allows states the 
ability to grant local school districts temporary waivers from certain 
federal education statues, regulations, and related state requirements 
(that have proven ineffective)? H.R. 800 expands this program and 
permits every state to participate. Expanding this program will enable 
states and local school districts to pursue education reforms while 
holding them accountable for academic achievement. Local school systems 
must explain to the state how they will improve education in their 
area, and they must follow through--if not, a state can lose its Ed-
Flex eligibility.
  All fifty governors support H.R. 800, as does the Council of Chief 
State School Officers, the National School Boards Association, the 
American Association of School Administrators, and a host of other 
education groups.
  I ask my colleagues to join me today in supporting our children and 
our future. Support H.R. 800.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to say that I am a fervent 
supporter of the Ed-Flex program and H.R. 800. This bill, of which I am 
a cosponsor, has been put together thanks to the hard work and 
dedication of Mike Castle. What Mr. Castle did that was so effective 
was to listen to all sides in this debate.
  From the Governors and state administrators he listened and was able 
to deliver the flexibility that they so desire. Under Ed-Flex, the 
successes already shown in Maryland and Texas can now expand to other 
areas, such as my state of Tennessee. The added flexibility will mean 
the same thing it has meant in other states. Higher standards, higher 
scores, higher literacy rates, and a higher quality of life for our 
school-aged children.
  Mr. Castle also listened to the administration and delivered the 
accountability that they requested. He went to them with an original 
copy of H.R. 800, and in response they said ``let's have tougher 
accountability standards like Texas does.'' So what does Mr. Castle do? 
He rewrites the section modeling the accountability structure after 
Texas. I, for one, am very disappointed in the reaction of many after 
this rewrite. They wanted to go further and impose harsh criteria on 
the states that would have eliminated this program.

[[Page H1110]]

  The accountability standards in this bill are tough and require 
actual measurable standards that the state must meet. If they fail to 
make these standards for consecutive years, they are barred from using 
the Ed-Flex waiver. This removal is the ultimate accountability. It is 
impossible to be more forceful than the complete expulsion from this 
waiver.
  This Ex-Flex waiver hits at the very heart of what I have always 
believed. Our children deserve the best education and the highest 
priority in receiving the funds necessary for their education, and I 
believe that programs closed to the people generally work better. The 
State of Tennessee--not the federal government--will often be better at 
restructuring programs that do not work well into a format that does.
  Let's also not forget that while we representatives go home nearly 
every weekend to spend time in our districts, state senators, state 
representatives, and local school administration officials live in our 
states full time. People who are concerned about education can see 
these officials in church, in the grocery store check out line and at 
little league games. We should allow these hard working people to do 
the job that our constituents have given them.
  All of us want a better education for our kids; however, we must do 
what works and not hold onto past models that have been, in some cases, 
ineffective. Take the handcuffs off and allow our children to go 
forward.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of initiatives that 
provide flexibility and accountability in the administration of federal 
education programs. However, as we consider legislation such as the 
Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, we must proceed 
cautiously, looking beyond the symbolism to the substance. It is vital 
to ensure that we don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Current 
restrictions and guidance on the use of instructional resources, as 
well as the requirements to target students and schools with the 
greatest incidence of poverty, are intended to focus limited federal 
resources on those with the greatest need, compensatory in policy and 
direction. It is critical that such students' needs are not forgotten 
and left behind.
  In giving schools the flexibility and freedom to direct funds to the 
areas they see fit, we must ensure that the children who most need 
federal dollars continue to receive the programs and services they 
need. A fact that should not be ignored is that most of the waivers 
granted thus far under ED-FLEX have been for Title I school wide 
program eligibility requirements, or to postpone deadlines for adoption 
and implementation of curriculum standards. This disturbing trend must 
be addressed--and before expanding H.R. 800 to all fifty states, we 
ought to be certain as to the operation and impact in the pilot states.
  It is imperative that we ensure that schools have specific goals and 
objectives for the use of these dollars; accountability is key. Many 
ED-FLEX states have done little to assess whether waivers have led to 
higher student achievement. To be effective, there must be a viable, 
consistent plan in place which will accurately assess student 
achievement. It would be devastating to the well being of our students 
to extend waivers to states which have no means in place to evaluate 
the outcome of their programs. I support the efforts of my Democratic 
colleagues to expand the scope of this legislation to ensure that 
accountability provisions are strengthened. It's not surprising that 
states want more flexibility and more funding--but Congress must insist 
that accountability and the mission be embraced within such programs.
  This year we ought to be debating the very important goal to reduce 
class size, rather than changing the topic and sweeping under the rug 
the positive need for more teachers to help in our public education 
system. It is time for the full authorization of the Class Size 
Reduction initiative. Our schools have been given a down payment to 
begin hiring new teachers which will lower average class sizes. It is 
time for Congress to demonstrate that we are committed to this seven-
year Presidential initiative, as implied in the 1999 budget 
appropriation agreement, so that school districts can count on having 
the financial resources they need to carry out this plan.
  I support providing local schools some flexibility with federal 
funding so that they can best serve the needs of their students and 
foster local reform. It sounds good, but not at the cost of cutting 
resources from special needs populations of low income, disabled, or 
immigrant children. Flexibility must be done only with proper measures 
of accountability in place. We must ensure that federal elementary and 
secondary education funding will continue to be targeted to the 
students who need it most. And yes, with as little red tape and 
regulation as possible to achieve and ensure that the focus of federal 
law is fulfilled.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 800, the 
Education, Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, also known as the ``Ed-
Flex'' bill. This legislation would allow states to waive federal 
requirements for certain education programs and tailor federal dollars 
to local needs.
  Mr. Chairman, the Ed-Flex authority currently operating in twelve 
states allows them to waive sometimes cumbersome federal regulations 
and has created a climate of real innovation in education. Simply put, 
the Ed-Flex programs allows states to decide what is best for local 
schools. A recent GAO report has confirmed that Ed-Flex empowers states 
to use flexibility to achieve real results. The state of Texas, for 
example, has used Ed-Flex authority to improve student performance 
using clearly defined numerical goals. Maryland has used Ed-Flex to 
reduce student-teacher ratios for students with special needs in math 
and science from 25 to 1 to 12 to 1. The experience of Texas and 
Maryland conveys a powerful message: when schools take advantage of 
flexibility using clear standards and objectives, students benefit. My 
own state of North Dakota is home to some of the finest schools in the 
nation, and Ed-Flex will help those schools achieve even more.
  The Ed-Flex bill also contains critical safeguards that will prevent 
the dilution of federal program objectives. First, certain targeted 
education programs such as IDEA and the Bilingual Education Program are 
not affected by Ed-Flex. Furthermore, health, safety, and civil rights 
requirements cannot be waived with Ed-Flex authority. These provisions 
will grant flexibility while preserving the mission of federal aid to 
classrooms--to provide equal access to a quality education for all 
children.
  Mr. Chairman, the Ed-Flex program grants states the freedom to use 
innovative strategies to improve our public schools. I believe that 
this program should be expanded to include all fifty states, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 800.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
legislation before us today.


                             Local Control

  Decisions about our children's education should be made by teachers, 
not politicians. Ed-Flex gives decision-making authority and 
flexibility to the states in order to allow their schools and school 
districts to implement programs enabling them to reach their 
educational goals.


                    Previous Experience As A Teacher

  As a former teacher and school board member in my home community, I 
have always been active in the local school system. I believe that our 
schools are best prepared to meet the educational needs of our youth 
when decisions about the needs of our children are made by the local 
community.


                             Local Control

  Let the schools and school districts be the master of their own 
destiny. Lets hold the schools and states to the educational priorities 
that they have committed themselves.


                             Accountability

  This legislation allows for States, school districts and schools to 
make their own decisions about how they will meet their educational 
goals. In its application for Ed-Flex authority a state must describe 
specific and measurable educational objectives. A school applying for a 
waiver must justify how the waiver will enable it to meet its 
educational goals.


                              Flexibility

  This bill would allow schools and school districts to determine which 
waivers would give them the flexibility to meet their specifically 
defined goals.
  Ed-Flex gives greater authority to states to determine their 
particular educational goals and coordinate local efforts to meet those 
goals.
  The Ed-Flex application process requires States to describe their 
comprehensive educational goals while enabling schools and school 
districts to implement those goals through the waiver process.
  It will be the local school that decides whether to use the waiver to 
reduce administrative paperwork, decrease the pupil-teacher ratio, or 
improve student achievement in the areas of math and science.


                             Accountability

  The accountability provisions of this legislation will not allow the 
schools to abandon their commitment made to the students, teachers, and 
parents.
  First, under the monitoring provisions, states and local educational 
agencies must report their progress toward meeting their goals.
  Second, regulations relating to parental involvement cannot be 
waived.
  Third, by providing public notice and comment for applied waivers, 
Ed-Flex recognizes the importance of community input on a school's use 
of waivers.
  These provisions emphasize that parental and community support are 
essential elements to a successful student.


                           Bipartisan Support

  Ed-Flex has bipartisan support from the National Governor's 
Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and numerous other groups.

[[Page H1111]]

                           New Jersey Support

  My home state of New Jersey also supports the flexibility that Ed-
Flex provides. In fact, New Jersey is a state that has enacted state 
legislation which allows for the waiver of state regulations.
  New Jersey has used its flexibility by waiving nearly 300 state 
educational regulations.
  Lets take flexibility to the next level by giving states authority to 
waive federal regulations.


                               Conclusion

  This legislation gives authority over decisions concerning our 
children's education to principals, teachers, parents, and local 
communities--where it belongs!
  I believe that Ed-Flex will prove to be a valuable tool enabling 
states and localities to create an end product in which all communities 
can be proud of--a student who possesses the necessary skills to 
achieve success in the academic world.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
800, the Education Flexibility Act. As a former educator and current 
co-chair of the House Education Caucus, I have always made education 
one of my top priorities.
  A great opportunity is before us today. An opportunity we must seize 
on behalf of all teachers, students and parents. The bill before us 
today is a positive step in education reform. It is my firm belief that 
this bill will give every state in the country the opportunities they 
need and deserve to reach their fullest potential. Ed-Flex will give 
states and school districts the flexibility and freedom to do things 
differently. It will allow states and schools to meet the needs of its 
students.
  Education reform should work from the bottom-up rather than enforcing 
top-down mandates. The federal government should support such local 
initiatives. Ed-Flex allows and encourages our local school districts 
to implement programs that meet their specific needs. This is 
especially important in low-income schools and districts which need all 
the help we can give them to enable their students to reach their 
fullest potential.
  All too often, federal education programs intend to do good, but fail 
to meet the unique needs of each state, district, and school. In fact, 
federal regulations often become hurdles to real school reform rather 
than aides. What we should all realize is that federal education 
programs achieve the best results when local authorities are given the 
flexibility to adapt them to meet their specific needs.
  The 12 states which currently use Ed-Flex have achieved remarkable 
results. Maryland has used Ed-Flex to reduce student-teacher ratios for 
students with the greatest need in math and science from 25 to 1 to 12 
to 1. With Ed-Flex, Kansas has better coordinated its Title 1 and 
special education services. Vermont reports that its greatest gain with 
Ed-Flex has been the ability to cut through government red tape to 
obtain waivers faster. And in Texas, through the use of Ed-Flex waiver 
authority under Title 1, test scores of underprivileged students have 
increased faster than the state average. This is clear proof that Ed-
Flex has achieved significant positive results. And with this bill, I 
would like to add the state of Tennessee to this list of successes.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 800. 
Our schools in all 50 states deserve the opportunity that schools in 12 
states have enjoyed. These 12 states have proven that Ed-Flex works. 
Now let's expand it to every state in the country.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in staunch opposition to 
H.R. 800, the ``Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999.'' As a 
former teacher, forever parent of two children who graduated from the 
State of Michigan's public schools, and current grandmother of four 
beautiful boys, I am personally and professionally invested toward 
excellent public schools for all Americans. Like most of my colleagues, 
I support flexibility in the administration of Federal education 
programs. I do not support flexibility in the administration of these 
programs, if this flexibility results in inadequate accountability of 
taxpayer's dollars or an erosion of our fiscal commitment to our 
Nation's poorest students and school districts. H.R. 800, in its 
current form, provides inadequate accountability to ensure that there 
is accurate, valid and reliable reporting. It would also allow States 
to abandon the mission of title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act (ESEA), which is to serve our poorest schools and 
children first. This waste of taxpayer dollars and the abandonment of 
our poorest children is something that I, and most thinking Americans, 
should not tolerate.
  I oppose this bill for the following reasons:
  While H.R. 800 is being touted as a bipartisan education initiative, 
this bill lacks protections for how Title I funds are allocated within 
school districts. When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
(ESEA) was originally written in 1965, it was clear that the 
performance of students at high poverty schools was relatively low. 
Regrettably, this is still true. That is why title I was created, to 
help improve the gap between low and high income students. As evidenced 
by a recent assessment of the title I program, that gap still exists 
and students in high poverty schools continue to be in need of targeted 
assistance. This bill removes that targeted aid.
  This bill does not target funding for the poorest school districts or 
the poorest students. School wide programs under ESEA allow the use of 
title I funds to be used for services to schools with a 50% or higher 
poverty rate. In the past, these programs in ESEA have been used to 
institute reform initiatives and reduce the pupil to teacher ratio at 
high poverty schools. Under H.R. 800, Ed-Flex states are given the 
authority to allow all schools to participate in school wide programs 
under Title I regardless of their low-income child percentages. Giving 
school districts the authority to use title I funds for school wide 
programs at any school regardless of the number children who are low-
income dilutes the purpose of the title I.
  This legislation does not monitor how its funds are being used to 
improve education. As a Member of the House Appropriations Committee, I 
am directed to ensure and guard over the purse of the American people. 
If we, as elected officials, are going to make a financial investment 
of $50 billion or more in Federal education funds over the next several 
years for the programs included in this bill, it should not be too much 
to ask two simple requirements. One is that there is a viable plan in 
place to serve the students who are the intended beneficiaries of the 
programs. The second would be that States and school districts show 
progress in meeting their goals. This bill provides neither.
  The citizens of our Nation want and deserve a decent education for 
all of our children. We need 100,000 more qualified instructors in our 
schools. We need to repair, refurbish, or build our aging elementary 
schools. We need to provide before and after-school programs to help 
our students toward the next millennium. I urge the defeat of H.R. 800 
in its current form.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan education 
legislation we have before us today.
  Education is an issue of vital importance to our Nation. While our 
children are succeeding, we need to continue to strengthen our public 
schools and ensure that every student receives a quality education. A 
good first step is to expand the Ed-Flex program to all 50 States.
  The State of Michigan was lucky enough to be included in the Ed-Flex 
Pilot Program. This designation has allowed local school officials to 
stop spending money on Federal programs that don't work, and instead to 
spend the money on programs that do.
  One example is right in my district. The Montcalm Intermediate School 
District requested, and received, an Ed-Flex waiver.
  This waiver allowed them to spend Federal dollars to train their 
teachers in social studies and language arts. Without this waiver, they 
would only receive money if they focused on math and science. The 
district decided the children would be better served by focusing their 
efforts on social studies and language arts.
  I think that is what our Federal education efforts should be about. 
Giving local districts the flexibility to use Federal money to best 
educate the children, instead of forcing the children to meet strict 
Federal guidelines and rules.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation so that 
the children in their district will have the same opportunities.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss an issue of great 
importance to our Nation: education. Education has long been the key to 
a society's success or failure. America must always be proud of its 
strong tradition of public education, and we in Congress must act to 
ensure that our public schools have the necessary tools to provide a 
world-class education to all our children, regardless of race, gender, 
religion, or economic status.
  Mr. Chairman, over the last year I have heard my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle talk of the numerous problems faced by our schools. 
I share their concern over the soaring student enrollment and the 
shortage of qualifed teachers. I also am deeply troubled about the 
acute school construction needs, with far too many schools lacking 
enough classrooms, let alone adequate roofing, heating, and plumbing. 
Our students also must have greater access to higher education and be 
taught the latest technology if they are going to compete in the global 
economy.
  With our public schools--where 90% of our Nation's children are 
enrolled--facing these stiff but not insurmountable challenges, 
politicians have rushed to reform education. While reform certainly is 
needed, we must be careful not to hastily pass legislation that offers 
``reform'', but does not provide the necessary accountability or 
guarantee positive results. Some bold education reform measures 
offering vague objectives, spotty accountability,

[[Page H1112]]

and unclear goals may prove successful. But what we gamble with in 
implementing them is our Nation's future.
  Today, Mr. Chairman, we debate Ed-Flex. In an ideal world, the plan 
proposed by the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from Delaware 
would allow states and local schools to tailor valuable Federal 
programs to meet their particular needs. The flexibility afforded by 
this bill will allow education-friendly governors to work with 
educators to meet the challenges to today and tomorrow, and in doing so 
improve our schools.
  Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. Many governors, by 
their actions and rhetoric, are not friends of our public schools. They 
have used teachers and schools alike as punching bags to further their 
own political agenda. Worse than this, however, they have implemented 
education policies that abandon our public schools by subsidizing 
private schools with public tax dollars. I have very serious 
reservations about giving these governors more flexibility to further 
their agenda, and with less accountability. Given this climate are we 
guaranteed that flexibility will usher in positive results?
  In Michigan, a state with Ed-Flex currently in place, positive 
results have not been proven.
  None the less, I will reluctantly support the Ed-Flex bill before us 
today. I will also support the many strong, thoughtful, and meaningful 
amendments that my Democratic colleagues will introduce to guarantee a 
significant level of accountability.
  Contrary to what my Republican colleagues say, Ed-Flex--even if 
successful--will not solve the many problems in education that I have 
enumerated. These problems demand answers far and beyond granting 
waivers to rules in existing federal education programs. I am hopeful 
that we can all work throughout the 106th Congress to solve the very 
serious problems in education, and protect our Nation's future.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Ed-Flex proposal 
before us today and want to thank my colleagues Mr. Castle, Mr. Roemer, 
and Chairman Goodling for their work on this proposal and their 
continuing efforts to empower our local school districts.
  My mother was a school teacher, so I've always placed a high priority 
on our public schools. When I meet with my constituents, there is 
widespread support for proposals that give our teachers the tools and 
flexibility to better prepare our students for the challenges of the 
21st Century.
  Ed-Flex is an example of the type of positive solutions that 
Congress, the state Governors, and our local communities can work on 
together. This measure has the bipartism support of our nation's 
governors, main-street businesses, and education groups. Under this 
program, states can apply for waivers to burdensome Federal 
regulations. In exchange, the states then must remove requirements that 
interfere with our school's main purpose of improving academic 
achievement.
  My home state of Ohio is one of the 12 states that participated in 
the initial demonstration program on which the current proposal is 
based. During the 105th Congress, I worked closely on this program with 
Ohio's former governor George Voinovich, who was recently elected to 
the U.S. Senate. I remain a strong proponent of the program, which has 
allowed individual schools, freed from the burden of both state and 
Federal regulations, to focus on their core mission of teaching our 
children. Under Ed-Flex, communities have successfully reduced class 
size, expanded title I services, improved student achievement, and 
reduced paperwork.
  Too often, the approach Washington has taken is to solve all problems 
simply by throwing more money at them. In the past, it has been much 
easier for Congress to create new programs, with new layers of 
administrative bureaucracy to write pages of guidelines, rules, and 
regulations for local schools to follow.
  This program takes the opposite approach. Ed-Flex is a forward-
thinking program which recognizes the importance of local control of 
our schools. Instead of new program rules and regulations, we free our 
local school boards, administrators, teachers, and personnel to 
concentrate on what they do best--teaching our kids.
  I've worked with school boards, administrators, and teachers across 
Ohio's 7th district. I know firsthand that they are a capable, 
committed, and caring group of individuals who have dedicated their 
time and energies to our kids. Let's give these individuals and 
communities the flexibility they need to ensure our kids are prepared 
for the challenges of the next century.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, common-sense bill.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 800, The 
Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. Under this legislation, 
school districts will be allowed to spend federal dollars in ways that 
best fit the needs of their students.
  I strongly believe that local school boards and parents know what is 
best for their children, not Washington bureaucrats thousands of miles 
away. This legislation will get our education system back to the 
basics, send dollars back to the classroom, and encourage parental 
involvement.
  Getting back to the basic will allow our children to achieve academic 
success. The painful fact is, today forty percent of our Nation's 4th-
graders can't meet basic literacy standards. Our schools must raise 
student achievement so our children have the proper skills to succeed 
in the 21st century.
  As a former school board member, I have seen first hand how necessary 
it is for schools to focus funds on the areas they find important. H.R. 
800 will direct 95-cents out of every Federal education dollars to our 
public schools, not on wasteful Washington spending.
  As a parent to seven and a grandparent to 34, I know nothing is more 
essential to a child's education success than parental involvement. 
Under the Ed-Flex bill, each school district which receives assistance 
will be required to involve parents in planning for the use of funds at 
the local level. Involved parents can hold our schools accountable so 
our kids come first.
  Our children are this nation's most precious resource. The future of 
their education is essential to the future of our Nation. I encourage 
my colleague to support H.R. 800.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6(f) of rule XVIII, the Chair 
announces that he may reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for 
electronic voting without intervening business on the underlying 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 204, 
noes 218, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 37]

                               AYES--204

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

[[Page H1113]]



                               NOES--218

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Becerra
     Bilbray
     Capps
     Coble
     Frost
     Hall (OH)
     McCrery
     Minge
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Sherman

                              {time}  1520

  Mrs. NORTHUP and Messrs. YOUNG of Alaska, WALDEN of Oregon, GIBBONS, 
GILMAN, SAXTON, LEWIS of California and KOLBE changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. PASCRELL and Mrs. KELLY changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 37, on agreeing to 
the Holt amendment, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 406, 
noes 13, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 38]

                               AYES--406

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--13

     Abercrombie
     Chenoweth
     Collins
     Cubin
     Manzullo
     Mink
     Paul
     Schaffer
     Sessions
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stump
     Watts (OK)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Becerra
     Bilbray
     Capps
     Coble
     Conyers
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     McCrery
     Minge
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Sherman
     Skelton

                              {time}  1529

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 38, on agreeing to 
the Ehlers amendment, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


      amendment no. 12 offered by mr. george miller of california

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H1114]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. George Miller of 
     California:
       In section 4(a)(2)(A)(i) (of H.R. 800, as reported), strike 
     ``or'' after the semicolon.
       In section 4(a)(2)(A)(i) (of H.R. 800, as reported), strike 
     subclause (II) and insert the following:
       (II) developed a system to measure the degree of change 
     from one school year to the next in student performance on 
     such assessments;
       (III) developed a system under which assessment information 
     is disaggregated by race, ethnicity, sex, English proficiency 
     status, migrant status, and socioeconomic status for the 
     State, each local educational agency, and each school, except 
     that such disaggregation shall not be required in cases in 
     which the number of students in any such group is 
     insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or 
     would reveal the identity of an individual student; and
       (IV) established specific, measurable, numerical 
     performance objectives for student achievement, including--
       (aa) a definition of performance considered to be 
     satisfactory to the State on the assessment instruments 
     described under subclauses I, II, and III with performance 
     objectives established for all students and for specific 
     student groups, including groups for which data is 
     disaggregated under subclause III; and
       (bb) the objective of improving the performance of all 
     groups and narrowing gaps in performance between those 
     groups.
       In section 4(a)(2)(A)(ii) (of H.R. 800, as reported), after 
     ``under'' insert ``clause (i)(IV) and''.
       In section 4(a)(3)(A)(iii) (of H.R. 800, as reported), 
     after ``plan'' insert ``consistent with paragraph 
     (2)(A)(i)''.

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I 
am offering on behalf of myself and with the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee) I think is the most important education amendment that we 
will address this year, not because we are the authors but because it 
has come time for the Congress of the United States to fish or cut bait 
with respect to education.
  This amendment goes to the issue of what is the accountability by us, 
by governors, by superintendents of schools and local school districts 
for the education of our children. Why do we get a right to ask for 
accountability? Why do we get a right to ask how are our children 
doing? Because over more than a decade, we have spent $118 billion in 
the elementary and secondary education program, and with all due 
respect to those expenditures, it is not all that we would like it to 
be. By some accounts, the results are mixed, by some accounts there are 
some bright spots, but the bright spots do not warrant the expenditure 
of $118 billion.
  We have decided to head off in a new direction, dealing with 
flexibility. We made this decision a couple of years ago. We made it 
with the Goals 2000 where we told States we would put up a couple of 
billion dollars so they could generate high standards and good 
assessments of those standards to how those children are doing. We 
wanted them to do that so that every child could learn, not just some 
children. Then we had the Ed-Flex pilot program. We gave 10 districts 
the ability to go out and gain flexibility in putting their programs 
together at the State and local level. Then we had a GAO report. That 
GAO report came back and said we are doing fairly well on flexibility 
but we are not doing very well on accountability. Some of these 
districts just have not measured up in terms of being able to tell how 
are the children of America doing, how are the children of any State 
doing and how are the children of any school district and school doing.
  The GAO came back and told us that in fact most of the States that 
participate in Ed-Flex had very vague if any standards at all. They 
could not really answer the questions that were asked of them with 
respect to accountability. They had not established any goals. But they 
took the money. Except one State, the State of Texas that applied for 
Ed-Flex that asked for flexibility in the Texas programs, the Governor 
and the State Superintendent of Schools there said in trading you for 
flexibility in how we use the Federal money under ESEA, we will tell 
you that these are our goals for our students and we will put them down 
in a numerical fashion so you can measure us 5 years from now. At the 
end of 5 years, they said they expected that 90 percent of the 
schoolchildren in Texas would pass the State exams, State exams, mind 
you, that are getting very high marks nationally for what they measure. 
They said that not only will 90 percent of the children in Texas pass 
the exams, I am willing to tell you, the Governor of Texas said to us, 
that 90 percent of the African-American children, 90 percent of the 
Hispanic children, 90 percent of the poor children, will also pass that 
exam.
  Now, what have most States been telling us in exchange for Federal 
dollars? One of the Ed-Flex States said, rather than do what the 
Governor of Texas did, they said that they would have a commitment to 
the identification and the implementation of programs that will create 
an environment which all students actualize their academic potential. 
Absolute educational babble. Absolute educational babble. How do you 
hold anybody accountable and how do you ask how the students are doing? 
At the end of 5 years in the State of Texas, we will know whether 90 
percent of the children were able to achieve the goals that the State 
has for the schoolchildren of Texas, or whether 80 percent or 79 
percent or what have you. We also know that Texas is moving toward that 
goal in the interim assessments that we have of their program.
  We are about, later this year, to reinvest $50 billion in this 
program over the next 5 years. I ask my colleagues to think like the 
people ask us to think when we go to town hall meetings, because they 
stand up all the time and they say, ``Why can't you run the government 
like a business?''
  Well, if a businessperson was going to invest $50 billion in a 
venture, if a bank was going to invest $50 billion in a venture, if a 
venture capitalist was going to invest $50 billion in a venture, they 
would ask the recipients of that money, ``What can I expect in 
return?'' In this case, what can I expect in return of student 
achievement over the next 5 years?
  Unfortunately, the bill before us does not allow that question to be 
answered in the proper form. We will still get back questions about how 
the average students are doing. This is a program that was originally 
designed for poor children.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. George Miller of California was allowed to 
proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this was a program 
that was designed to focus on the educational problems of poor 
children, of educationally disadvantaged children, and we continue to 
get back scores about how average children are doing in school 
districts and in States. What have we found out? The poor children, the 
educationally disadvantaged children, continue to slide back.
  Apparently only in Maryland, only in North Carolina and in Texas will 
we know how all of the children are doing. This whole program is 
predicated that we are not going to go the old route of attracting 
certain children, pulling children out of classrooms, going through all 
the stuff we have gone through in the last decade but we are going to 
make a decision that all children can learn. When the Texas 
Superintendent of Education came before our committee, she said one of 
the things that having these targets, of having this kind of data that 
we call for in our amendment, what this has allowed them to do is to 
redeploy the resources based upon where the problem is, because under 
the flexibility side of this bill, they are able to do that. They can 
go after those schools where there is a problem, they can go after 
those students who are not reading to grade level. That is the 
advantage of this legislation as authored by the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). It 
provides the flexibility to do that. We do not touch that flexibility. 
We deal with the side of accountability. I think we have an obligation 
to parents, to students, to taxpayers to ask these tough questions, and 
I think we have got to get back the answers in a form that we can hold 
people accountable. This is sort of just old hardheaded accountability.
  Now, we do not have a whole lot of accountability in the political 
system and in our budget systems and all the rest of it, but apparently 
the Nation has told us that that is what they

[[Page H1115]]

want. Parents want to know how their children are doing, but in many 
school districts and even the Ed-Flex school districts in the pilot 
program, they have no data. They are not able to report how these 
children are doing. I think it is time, as I said, to fish or cut bait. 
We are going to invest $50 billion in this program later this year. We 
ought to be able to get back the answers about how it is doing.
  As the Superintendent of Maryland wrote to us, the underlying bill 
simply does not contain provisions to ensure the States receiving the 
Ed-Flex waivers are held publicly accountable for student achievement. 
Interestingly enough, the States that in many ways are doing the best, 
North Carolina testified that this is the way the questions ought to be 
asked and this is the way the data ought to be received, Texas that is 
living under this system said yes, they agreed with this amendment. The 
State of Maryland that is getting accolades under this program said 
yes, this is the way the data ought to be received.
  There is a lot of talk about how somehow this is going to delay it. 
Does anybody believe that this legislation and all the rest of it is 
going to be ready for the next school year? We told people at the end 
of 5 years after $2 billion, we wanted a system of testing and of 
assessments and many of the States are there. But we cannot any longer 
fudge with the timetables.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. George Miller of California was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if we continue to 
allow people to have interim assessments and then they can change the 
assessments, then we do not know how they are doing year to year, how 
they are doing test to test, we are right back in the same old muddle 
we were in before. I am all for the flexibility side. I think it is a 
place we ought to go. But I think we should be hardheaded about the 
accountability side. This is not an insignificant amount of money. It 
may be an insignificant amount of money or some people suggest it is 
with respect to all educational dollars. It is still $50 billion. Maybe 
it is only going to be 45 after the budget fights, but it is a lot of 
money in anybody's realm. I think these are the questions.
  Finally let me say this. This is our only chance to find out how all 
students in America are doing, be they poor, be they African American, 
be they Hispanic, be they Asian. This is our only opportunity to do 
that. That is what we said we wanted to do. We said we want results. 
You cannot get the results necessary with the underlying legislation 
without this amendment on accountability. I would urge my colleagues to 
support the Miller-Kildee amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, all that we heard sounds very, very good if, as a 
matter of fact, we had not taken care of every one of those issues that 
were mentioned. Keep in mind, now, that if the Miller-Kildee amendment 
had been in effect when we had the 12 States participating in 
flexibility, none of them, I repeat, none of them would have been 
eligible. Zero.

                              {time}  1545

  Why? Because none of them had the five necessary entities in place. 
In fact, one who was saying how good this amendment is does not have 
five in place now, our neighbor State. She would not be eligible except 
she is grandfathered. Well, the State would not be eligible because it 
is grandfathered; I think that sounds better probably.
  Now what has the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) done in order to make sure that we 
have taken care of all the GAO concerns? The GAO said that there are 
wide variations existing among Ed-Flex States regarding whether they 
have established clearly defined goals to measure the results of 
waivers received by districts and schools. So what did they do in the 
bill? They said:
  Unlike existing law, H.R. 800 requires that States set specific 
measurable objectives. That was not in line when the 12 who originally 
had an opportunity to participate. It is in this legislation.
  The GAO said States also differ in the degree to which they use 
specific and measurable objectives to assess whether they have achieved 
their goals. Under existing law, that is true. But in H.R. 800 they 
require the Secretary to approve State applications after considering 
the degree to which the States' objectives are specific and measurable 
and measure the performance of schools or local educational agencies 
and specific groups of students affected by waivers.
  The GAO said that Texas had the best accountability system for it set 
specific numerical criteria that are closely tied to both the schools 
or districts and the specific students affected by the waivers.
  What did the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) add? They said H.R. 800 now requires the 
tracking of students' performance as recommended by GAO like Texas. I 
mean everything GAO questioned they have taken care of.
  Now again, Mr. Chairman, let me remind my colleagues that very few 
States are participating in the 12, very few waivers have been granted 
by States. When we get beyond Texas and we get beyond Maryland, very 
few States have given waivers. Why? Because they were told when the 12 
were set up that they must either have in place their plan or they must 
be able to show that they are moving in that direction rapidly, and if 
the Secretary does not believe that, the Secretary does not even give 
the State the opportunity to do the waiving.
  So they know that they are not in place, and so they have not given 
them waivers. But they are taking us at face value because we told them 
they had to be in place by the school year 2000-2001, all of them 
working rapidly to make sure that they get them all in order, and then 
they, too, can request waivers.
  But let me again remind my colleagues that none of the 12 would have 
been eligible if this amendment was part of the Goals 2000 Ed-Flex of 
1994, I think it might have been 5, somewhere around there. So again, 
let us not go back on our word. Let us not try to see whether we can 
preclude anybody, any State, from applying for Ed-Flex and getting Ed-
Flex because that is what we are doing with the amendment. Make it very 
clear the amendment says that zero States will be eligible, zero States 
will be eligible for Ed-Flex.
  Mr. Chairman, it is just as plain as the nose on my colleagues' 
faces. That is exactly what the amendment says, and that is not what we 
want to do. We want to encourage those people to move rapidly with the 
standards, rapidly with the assessment so that they, too, can get in 
line to get flexibility to do what? To make sure that programs that 
have failed the children we wanted to help, programs that have failed 
and failed and failed the very students we wanted to help, the most 
educationally disadvantaged students, we want to try to correct that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Goodling was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, every year we try 
to zero in and make sure that the money goes to where it is most 
needed, and one of our friends in the other body and, I might say, in 
the other party always makes sure there is hold harmless. Not my party, 
not my side of the aisle, but in the other body, one of the friends 
from the other side always gets hold harmless so we cannot target to 
the very people that need it the most.
  But, my colleagues, let us target something that is beneficial to the 
most important students, the most disadvantaged educational students. 
Let us not give them any more pabulum as they have had in the past. Let 
us make sure that $50 billion or the $110 billion or $120 billion count 
for the most disadvantaged education students in this country.
  Reject this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally in order that the 
House may receive a message.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blunt) assumed the Chair.




                          ____________________