[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 39 (Thursday, March 11, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E421]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JOSEPH CROWLEY

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 10, 1999

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 800) to 
     provide for education flexibility partnerships:

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I take this time to state for the record 
my reasons for voting against H.R. 800 the Ed-Flex bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the idea of flexibility in 
education. I laud my colleagues for their desire to work on the 
education issues facing our country. Ed-Flex has the potential to be a 
workable program that provides states and local school districts with 
the flexibility to improve academic achievements and the quality of 
education for their students.
  However, I believe that we need to protect those students who come 
from families in need. The intent of Congress, through Title I of the 
Elementary and Secondary School Act, was to target funds toward low-
income students, in order to help them have a chance at success in 
life. I could not vote for Ed-Flex unless I was sure that students from 
low-income families are not going to lose their funds through waivers. 
This is why I supported the Scott-Payne amendment, which would have 
required that only schools in which at least 35% of the students come 
from low-income families may seek a waiver to use their Title I funds 
to operate a school-wide program. For my New York City District, this 
provision is especially important. We have many students coming from 
low-income families in the Bronx and Queens, and I cannot support a 
program that does not have provision to prohibit funds being taken away 
from those needy students.
  I am also concerned about the timing of this legislation. In the 
coming year, we need to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. It does not make sense to me that we pass legislation to 
waive the requirements that we have not even written yet! The best 
solution would have been to consider Ed-Flex and ESEA together. Then, 
we could have worked to alleviate my concerns, and those of my 
colleagues, regarding the targeting of ESEA funds under the provisions 
of the Ed-Flex program.
  Finally, I would like to express my dismay that the majority did not 
allow class-size reduction and school construction initiatives to be 
attached to H.R. 800. Public schools are working hard to raise academic 
standards and improve student achievement, but in many schools their 
efforts are hampered by overcrowded classes and inadequate and 
deteriorating facilities. Smaller class sizes improve student learning 
and are effective in improving student achievement. But we cannot 
reduce class size without considering the condition and lack of space 
in school facilities. These issues go hand-in-hand. This is why I feel 
Ed-Flex should not have been considered now, but rather considered 
along with ESEA and school construction.
  I strongly support bipartisan efforts to strengthen our school 
systems and help our students. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues on school construction legislation and on reauthorizing the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It is with regret that I had to 
vote against the first education bill on the floor of the House in the 
106th Congress and I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to 
outline my reasons for my opposition to H.R. 800.

                          ____________________