[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 39 (Thursday, March 11, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2542-S2556]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 280, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 280) to provide for education flexibility
partnerships.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
Jeffords amendment No. 31, in the nature of a substitute.
Jeffords (for Lott) modified amendment No. 60 (to amendment
No. 31), to express the
[[Page S2543]]
sense of the Senate regarding flexibility to use certain
Federal education funds to carry out part B of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and to provide
all local educational agencies with the option to use the
funds received under section 307 of the Department of
Education Appropriations Act, 1999, for activities under part
B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Feinstein/Dorgan/Bingaman amendment No. 61 (to amendment
No. 31), to assist local educational agencies to help all
students achieve State achievement standards, and to end the
practice of social promotion.
Wellstone amendment No. 62 (to amendment No. 31), to
provide for local and state plans, use of funds, and
accountability, under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and
Technical Education Act of 1998, except to permit the
formation of secondary and post-secondary consortia.
Bingaman amendment No. 63 (to amendment No. 31), to provide
for a national school dropout prevention program.
Bingaman (for Murray/Kennedy) amendment No. 64 (to
amendment No. 31), authorizing funds for fiscal years 2000
through 2005 to provide for class-size reduction in the early
grades and to provide for the hiring of additional qualified
teachers.
Bingaman (for Boxer) amendment No. 65 (to amendment No.
31), to improve academic and social outcomes for students and
reduce both juvenile crime and the risk that youth will
become victims of crime by providing productive activities
during after school hours.
Jeffords (for Lott) amendment No. 66 (to amendment No. 31),
to provide all local educational agencies with the option to
use the funds received under section 307 of the Department of
Education Appropriations Act, 1999, for activities under part
B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Jeffords (for Lott) amendment No. 67 (to amendment No. 31),
to provide all local educational agencies with the option to
use the funds received under section 307 of the Department of
Education Appropriations Act, 1999, for activities under part
B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Jeffords (for Lott) amendment No. 68 (to amendment No. 31),
to provide all local educational agencies with the option to
use the funds received under section 307 of the Department of
Education Appropriations Act, 1999, for activities under part
B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and to
amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act with
respect to alternative educational settings.
Mr. TORRICELLI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, under the previous order, I yield
myself 10 minutes on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, there is understandably much
discussion in our country about the ways and means to continue the
rather extraordinary economic prosperity that has been visited upon our
generation. Theories abound about how to maintain this economic growth
that is providing employment, a growing Federal surplus, and a rising
quality of life in America.
It is one thing upon which I suspect we can all agree, as we think
about continuing the current economic expansion, that this prosperity
is built upon a foundation of quality education. Indeed, I would argue
that it is the investment of our parents' generation in quality
schools, rising standards of excellence, attraction of good teachers,
30 and 40 years ago, that we are now reaping in dividends of
prosperity. There is no question that in those years our parents
understood that the security of our Nation and our prosperity would be
no stronger than the investment we made in education.
I believe that as our parents recognized the opportunity and made the
investment and that investment yielded these dividends, the problems of
American education now stand like a dagger at the heart of our economy.
Too many of our children are now attending schools that would be a
source of embarrassment for any Member of this institution. I have
visited schools across New Jersey where children meet in hallways, in
gymnasiums, because there are no longer classes available. The very
schools that our parents provided for us that helped build this
prosperity are crumbling around our feet.
The GAO has reported that one-third of all schools in America,
serving 14 million students, are in serious need of repair. Teachers,
no matter how hard they try, no matter their level of effort, can only
do so much with old textbooks and with the dearth of modern technology.
All the inventions and services on the Internet in the world won't make
any difference in American education when only 27 percent of public
schools are even connected to the Internet. Far too few communities can
any longer afford the extra curricular activities, the extra hours of
instruction that we enjoyed as students ourselves.
Across America, school districts are canceling sports activities. The
club activities, the tutoring activities, the activities where students
excelled a generation ago are being lost, leaving between 5 and 15
million students left alone at home after school. The reality of the
two-wage-earner family means that millions of these students not only
do not have supervision in school or activities but are left alone.
Even if they did not need the instruction, even if they did not need
the socialization or activities, these students are going home, where
we are laying the groundwork for drug abuse, teenage pregnancy,
truancy, with a direct correlation between students who do not have
activities after school and failing grades and dropouts.
Local schools are so overwhelmed with these social problems, the
overcrowding, the crumbling schools, sometimes they have no choice but
social promotion, take a student who is failing and send them through
the system and on to the streets. The reality of this education debate
is, there are a lot of good answers, and they are represented by many
Senators on this floor--efforts to help local communities deal with the
cost of reconstructing our schools, dealing with the problems of social
promotion, the problems of rising standards, the problems of getting
better teachers, retaining good teachers.
What is unique about this education debate is--everybody is right--
there is no one good idea. There are no two good ideas. This is a
problem of such complexity that is so central to quality of life and
economic opportunity in America that succeeding requires everybody's
best efforts. What is most important is that it is a debate that
requires a competition of the best ideas between Democrats and
Republicans and liberals and conservatives.
There is no monopoly on creative thinking in dealing with the
problems of education in America. Indeed, the underlying legislation,
the Education Flexibility Partnership Act, is a good idea, it is a
sound idea, but it is one idea that in and of itself does nothing about
overcrowding or rising standards or new technology. It is one idea. I
will vote for it, and this Senate should enact it. But at the end of
the day it leaves us with this question: What do we do about these
varieties of other problems?
Indeed, can this Senate say at the conclusion of the 106th Congress
that we have dealt with educational flexibility, but that is all we
have done, and seriously argue that we have dealt with the issue of
education in America?
Last year, in this Senate, I joined with Senator Coverdell in the
belief that we should establish savings accounts to help fund private
and public education. I believed it was a good idea. But even then, I
argued, in answer to my own legislation, that if that is all that we
have done, we haven't begun to address the problems of education in
America. I return to that argument today.
Consider the dimensions of the problem, if you are to disagree and
argue that educational flexibility alone will deal with this national
dilemma. Forty percent of fourth grade students are failing to obtain
basic levels of reading; 40 percent of eighth graders fail to obtain a
basic level of mathematics. High school seniors across the Nation are
ranked 19th out of 21 industrialized nations in math and science. Of
course, I support legislation for educational flexibility, but I am
also here to support the Murray amendment to hire more teachers and
reduce class size, because we know, according to the Department of
Education in their 1998 May report, that one element most directly
relating to improved student performance is a reduction of class size
in the early grades. The Murray amendment is the one answer we know
will improve student performance in early grades. The Murray amendment
would finish the process we began last year of adding 100,000 new
teachers in America to reduce class size.
Indeed, I would have liked to have today added to the efforts of
Senator Murray with an amendment of my own, and that would have been to
give
[[Page S2544]]
signing bonuses to people who will become teachers. Where our best
college graduates will go to schools most in need, I would have offered
them a signing bonus to get them into the classroom immediately.
It confronts the reality of the fact that a starting teacher in
America today could hope to earn, in a public school, $25,000. For a
software engineer, our leading high-tech companies are offering $50,000
to the same person, with a signing bonus. Teachers are prepared to make
sacrifices because they are dedicated, but how much of a sacrifice? We
know they are our most important asset in dealing with the issue of
educational quality.
So, my colleagues, I urge that we all come together to support
educational flexibility. But I would have liked to have offered my
amendment, which will not be allowed today. I urge my colleagues to
consider Senator Murray's amendment, and also Senator Feinstein's to
end social promotion in our schools--the passing of the problem along
to the streets because we will not deal with it in the classroom--and
Senator Bingaman's amendment to help stem the tide of dropouts.
Unfortunately, one of the most important problems of all--deteriorating
schools--we won't be able to vote on.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank you for yielding me the time.
I support the underlying legislation but also the amendments being
offered.
Mr. VOINOVICH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I stand before you today in strong
support of Senator Frist's Educational Flexibility Partnership Act. But
then again, most of the Senate, and all 50 Governors, Secretary Riley,
and even the President want this wonderful piece of legislation to pass
today.
It is a big day personally for me. Some people are not aware of the
fact that this effort for flexibility started in Ohio in 1981, when I
commissioned a private-sector audit of the department of education to
make it more friendly to our school districts. At the same time, it was
command and control. The private-sector management audit came back and
said it was riddled with paperwork, and the shocking thing was that
half the paperwork the department had to do and the schools had to do
was as a result of Federal regulations, and we were only getting 6
percent of our money from the Federal Government.
I recall going to Washington at that time and sitting down with
Secretary Lamar Alexander and asking him if he could do something about
it. Unfortunately, he could not. Later on when President Clinton became
President and Dick Riley, a former Governor, became Secretary of
Education, in the Goals 2000 legislation he provided for States to take
advantage of some flexibility.
I want to underscore that a State cannot take advantage of this
program unless they agree themselves to waive their regulations, and in
some instances--for example, in Ohio--even waive statutes. This
provided an opportunity for school districts to get waivers that, prior
to Ed-Flex, had to go directly to Washington in order to get a waiver.
It allows them to go to their superintendents of public instruction in
their respective States.
I am proud that we have had an opportunity to take advantage of this.
In Ohio we have 186 schools using a title I waiver, with over half of
these schools increasing their proficiency test scores in math and
science. Those school districts have taken advantage of waivers in the
Eisenhower grants. As you know, in the Eisenhower grants, 85 percent of
the money is supposed to be used for math and science. But in the
elementary schools, how can a kid learn math or science if they cannot
read? So as a result of the waiver program, we were able to get waivers
to allow the money to be spent on reading, and today in those schools
we have seen a dramatic increase in the math and science scores as a
result of the fact that those schools were able to take advantage of
the waiver.
There are some people who would argue that we need more
accountability. I argue that we have accountability in most States. In
Ohio, for example, we have our report cards, not only by districts but
by individual buildings. With Ed-Flex, a building or a classroom that
takes advantage of a waiver has to agree that within a year they will
report back on how they are taking advantage of that waiver and whether
it is making a difference in the classroom.
I would say that if I could get every title I school in the United
States of America to become an Ed-Flex waiver school, we would have a
lot more accountability with that title I money that is going into
those districts--for those that are concerned about title I.
I think this idea is so overwhelming that last year, as chairman of
the National Governors' Association, I made Ed-Flex one of my top
priorities. I recall going to the White House and talking to President
Clinton about it and his indicating that he thought it was a good idea.
Last year, we almost got it done with the help of Tom Carper, the
Democratic Governor of the State of Delaware. Again, we are bringing it
back to Congress for their consideration.
To my Democratic colleagues I say this: There are a lot of ideas that
have been proposed here on the floor. My attitude is that they all
involve money. This is not a money bill. Ed-Flex does not require one
additional dime from the Federal Government. What it does do is that it
allows school districts to save the paperwork and the redtape so their
administrators can spend time on education, and the teachers can, and
they can take more of the money that is coming in from the Federal
Government and put it in the classroom to improve the education of our
children.
And if you want to talk about priorities: Rather than 100,000 new
teachers, I would rather put the money in funding the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Assistance Act or, in the alternative, my
favorite: If I had the choice, instead of 100,000 teachers, I would put
the money into 0 to 3, or conception to 3, a time in a child's life
that is being, quite frankly, neglected in this country, not only by
the Federal Government but by the local governments. We can prove that
if you put money in during that period of time, when it is most
important to the development of a child's ability to learn, you can get
the best return on your investment.
So let's debate how we want to spend this Federal money and where we
ought to be spending it, but let's not make that part of the debate on
Ed-Flex. We will get to that. We will have that debate. We will look at
what is available and decide how it is to be spent.
So today I ask the Members of the Senate to support Ed-Flex. Let's
have a clean Ed-Flex bill. Let's get it done. It has made a great
difference for the people of Ohio and those States that have taken
advantage of it. I think it is long overdue to give the other 38 States
of this Nation the same opportunities that we have.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.
I first thank the Senator from Massachusetts for yielding me time
but, more importantly, thank him for his tremendous efforts on the
floor of this Senate for the last several days. Hour upon hour, he has
been battling to ensure that this education flexibility bill is not
simply a blank check to the States but it also has the kind of
accountability that will be necessary to ensure that this flexibility
will result in improved student performance. In fact, it is a battle
the Governors urged us to take up because they are as concerned as
anyone else to ensure that this flexibility is accompanied by
accountability.
He has also taken up the fight on two important issues of unfinished
business. Last year, we appropriated significant amounts of money over
the next several years to ensure that we could reduce class size by
hiring additional teachers. It is now imperative that we authorize that
appropriation, that we give a sense of continuity, stability, and
assurance to the local communities that this money, this program, will
be in place over time. Second, last year we also went a long way
[[Page S2545]]
toward developing programs to prevent students from dropping out of our
schools. Senator Bingaman has been the champion of this program and
that is unfinished business that we want to take up.
What has happened in the course of this debate is we have moved
beyond both Ed-Flex and accountability and some unfinished business to
embrace other issues. The positive value of that is any debate about
education, I believe, is inherently healthy, and I am pleased to do
that, but we have taken some steps away from the main topic.
There is one issue I particularly want to concentrate on and focus
on. That is an amendment I introduced that would go directly to the
issue of educational flexibility, directly to the issue of
accountability. I had hoped to have the opportunity to offer the
amendment as a stand-alone, that I could debate it and engage in a
principled discussion, but because of the parliamentary condition of
the floor, because of the unanimous consent, the only opportunity I had
to have the amendment offered was to do so in conjunction with one of
Senator Lott's amendment.
I am in the awkward position of supporting my amendment and grateful
that Senator Lott included it in his amendment, but respectfully
differing with Senator Lott on his proposal with respect to IDEA. What
Senator Lott is essentially providing to the school districts of
America is a Hobson's choice, a choice between decreasing class size or
additional resources for IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. I don't think we should present that choice to school
districts. I think we should do all we can to ensure that we properly
fund IDEA and at the same time we are able to reduce class sizes
throughout the country.
In fact, I argue that a reduction in class size will materially
benefit the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act programs
throughout the country because the reality of many schoolrooms is that
there are IDEA students in large classrooms. They are not getting the
attention they need and deserve. At the same time, the other students
aren't getting that type of attention. By reducing class size--and this
is an amendment that Senator Murray has championed and I salute her--we
will help both programs, but ultimately we should be able to find the
resources to fund both reduced class sizes and also keep up our
commitment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act program.
Let me speak specifically about my amendment that goes to the heart
of Ed-Flex. It goes to the heart of accountability. What it would do is
involve parents, which I think is a topic we have not paid enough
attention to. I hope in this oncoming reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act, we would put a special emphasis on
innovative ways of involving parents in the educational process. We
know it works. We know it is important. We know that good schools are
schools not only with robust and intellectually curious children and
good teachers, they are those schools that have strong parental
involvement.
My amendment would simply require the States to have a comment period
with respect to their proposals for educational flexibility.
Specifically, ask that parents and other interested parties be allowed
to comment. These comments would be taken pursuant to State laws. We
are not trying to create a special unique procedure. We don't want to
add to the burden of States, but we want States to listen to the
parents in their communities when they talk about educational
flexibility.
More than that, we want these comments to be incorporated in the
application to the Secretary of Education so that the Secretary
understands not just the perspective of the Governor, but just as
importantly--in fact, one might argue more importantly--the perspective
of parents in the communities of that State.
I am pleased to say after spending a great deal of discussion with
Senator Frist, particularly, we have reached an accommodation
acceptable to both sides. In fact, it represents a movement on my part
from the amendment I suggested last year which would have required a
formal 30-day period of comments that would require an evaluation of
the comments by the States in terms of their goals for educational
flexibility and incorporating that in the application. We have decided
to move closer together in terms of a more streamlined process.
I point out that just a few days ago the Committee on Education and
the Workforce in the other body, by an overwhelming vote of 30-9,
passed my amendment of last year requiring a much more rigorous
parental involvement, a more heavily regulated, if you will, approach
to the issue.
In order to have a position in conference that will give us the
opportunity to discuss this and discuss this with a principle proposal
already on the table, I am extremely pleased that this amendment, the
Reed amendment, has been incorporated into Senator Lott's proposal.
This Reed amendment is going forward.
It also, I might add, follows precedents we established last year
with respect to parental involvement, in particular with respect to the
Workforce Investment Act and the Reading Excellence Act. I hope this is
the beginning of a trend to involve parents directly with the issue of
educational reform at the local level.
I hope it also represents an opportunity that we will follow up in
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to think about ways we can
get parents more involved in the education of their youngsters. I also
add that the Parent Teachers Association of America supports my
amendment, the Education Trust supports it, the American Federation of
Teachers and the Center for Law and Education supports this. Also, this
was one of the provisions that was pointed out specifically in the
statement of administration policy dated March 3 as part of their
review of the underlying Ed-Flex legislation.
I say with some regret I cannot support Senator Lott's proposal
because I do think it is presenting a Hobson's choice. I think we can
do better. I don't think we have to choose between some children versus
others. I think we have to recognize that class size will help all
children. It may, in fact, be additionally beneficial to children with
special needs.
Again, I think as we all recognize that we have a special
responsibility to put our money where our noble words are when it comes
to the issue of individuals with disabilities and their education in
the United States, that requires looking for additional resources
rather than simply trying to play one off the other in terms of some
children versus other children.
I thank, again, Senator Kennedy's leadership and certainly Senator
Frist and Senator Wyden who have been doing a remarkable job on the
floor. I hope at the end of the day we will have a bill we can all
support. There are some provisions, as I outlined, that I opposed, but
I conclude by strongly supporting my amendment which would give parents
a real say in the educational flexibility plans that emanate from the
States.
With that, I yield back any time I have to Senator Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will be managing the time on our side
until Senator Jeffords arrives. I yield myself 6 minutes and then I
will yield to the distinguished Senator.
Mr. President, first, I rise in strong support of the Education
Flexibility Partnership Act. I begin with a brief quote:
An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest.
Benjamin Franklin stated that in the early years of our Republic.
Building upon this statement, I say it is a simple fact--which the
occupant of the Chair, as a distinguished Governor in a State that has
seen great economic growth and prosperity and better jobs and more
opportunity--it is a simple fact that the future is prejudiced in favor
of those who can read, write, and do math.
A good education is a ticket to a secure future in this United
States. And obviously, the opposite is equally true. As the earning gap
between brains and brawn grows even larger, almost no one doubts that
there is a link between education and the individual's prospects, even
in this great land of opportunity.
Today, the Senate is taking a first step to improve our Nation's
educational system, because everyone acknowledges that our children are
the
[[Page S2546]]
future of this country and we must make every effort to provide them
with the tools to succeed. Our action provides States with increased
flexibility to ensure that our students have an even better opportunity
to succeed. I submit that because we have so many programs at the
national level, small and large--and I will allude to the number
shortly--that if you are looking for a place to reform, maybe you ought
to start right here.
Maybe we ought to look at the whole package of targeted educational
programs at the national level and see how far off the mark they really
are when it comes to helping children in the United States. This takes
some of our programs and says that one size doesn't fit all, and
Washington bureaucrats and interpreters of these various laws don't
always know best, so we are going to give local teachers and
administrators who know the problems the opportunity to create
flexibility in terms of how these various programs are used in the
field for our children.
I want to move ahead to a summary that was given to us by the GAO
that, in conjunction with the Budget Committee staff and under the
leadership of Senator Frist, looked at a whole myriad of U.S. Federal
programs to see just what we were doing and what we were not doing. And
so, Mr. President, I want to inform you that your concern when you were
Governor of Ohio of all the bureaucracy and paperwork and missing the
target by Federal programs, if you wondered why, this is why. Our
National Government has funded over 86 teacher training programs in 9
agencies and offices; 127 at-risk and delinquent youth programs in 15
agencies and offices; and over 90 childhood programs in 11 Federal
agencies and 20 offices.
Now, it is quite obvious that the U.S. Government, our committees,
and our Secretary, are not the know-all and end-all of good education
occurring in Ohio, New Mexico, Arizona or Massachusetts. How could we
be the end-all and the know-all when, essentially, we contribute less
than 7 percent of the funding? Now, it almost makes us, standing on the
floor speaking so eloquently about what the Federal Government is doing
with its money on education, to some extent, borderline unreasonable in
terms of credibility, because how can you change this big education
system--and I am going to estimate that we are spending $427 billion a
year on kindergarten through 12 in all our sovereign States and all the
school districts. You tell me how that $200 million or $300 million
targeted in some way--Mr. President, a former Governor, tell me how
that $200 million or so spread across this land can have a real impact
on a system that is as diverse as America and into which we are
spending $417 billion and we can't get the job done. It can't be that
the million dollars is going to help. It is only that we make it appear
as if it is going to help. We invent the amendments and the bills, and
sometimes we even take a poll before we invent them to see what it is
the people want.
Who can be against more teachers? But if you fund the States with
more money for IDEA, the disabled children, which we are already
obligated to do, it relieves an equal number of dollars for them to use
for teachers if they would like. Some are frightened, however, that the
States and the schools might not use it for more teachers. They might
use just a little piece of it for that because they already might have
sufficient teachers.
It is not a new thing in education that we dreamt up here in
Washington that we need more teachers in our schools, although it is
still not unequivocal as to whether reducing the size to the level we
contemplate nationally is what every school system thinks would do the
job best for their children. That is not decided yet. That is still out
there feverishly being tossed around with many other concepts in terms
of education.
So, Mr. President, this is just the beginning--this flexibility--of
what I hope is a real effort by the U.S. Government to reform its own
education commitment to our States. We are all saying we want the
States to reform, we want them to be more accountable. Well, when the
bill comes up this year on primary and secondary education, it is my
hope that we will not do more of the same. It is my hope that we will
seriously consider a total reform of those programs, because if we are
asking the States to do better, it is pretty obvious that we can do
better also. As a matter of fact, I believe it is borderline these days
as to just how much the Federal Government's assistance is really
raising the education level of our children.
I repeat, if I had my way, and we could focus it into the right
channels, I would be for more Federal aid to education, not less. But I
guarantee you, with the myriad of programs, as I have described them,
spread throughout Government with no accountability, one program to
another, I would not be for spending more money to feed that kind of
educational assistance when I have very serious doubts as to whether it
has contributed significantly to helping our young people.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JOHNSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator from South Dakota was here
before I was. Does he wish to have time on the Democratic side?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we were rotating. I will take the
privilege of saying that Senator Kennedy would yield to Senator
Johnson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I will be brief.
I ask unanimous consent that Susan Hansen of my staff be permitted to
be on the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues, Republican and
Democrat, in expressing support for the underlying Ed-Flex legislation
that we are taking up today. This legislation recognizes that the final
thought in how to prioritize educational needs in our school districts
and our States does not reside exclusively here in Washington. It will
commit to a level of innovation that I think is needed in the 50
States, and with the proper accountability, provide for many different
strategies designed to improve student achievement all across this
country.
However, I think Congress would be remiss if it stopped there. I
think there are a number of very constructive amendments being offered
relative to this legislation, not least of which is the afterschool
program amendment being offered by the Senator from California, Senator
Boxer, to provide for what I believe is a commonsense kind of Federal,
State and local partnership, to provide for an enhanced ability to deal
with afterschool programs for children K through 12.
This is not a new idea and it is not the province of either
particular political party. There has been a tremendous amount of
effort through the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program
across some 46 States today that have afterschool programs of one kind
or another, in 800 different schools, involving some 190,000 students.
This amendment would create the kind of partnership that would not
involve Federal bureaucracy or Federal micromanagement, but would
provide some additional resources for our States and our schools to
expand afterschool efforts to 1.1 million additional students in the
United States.
Our school budgets are strapped. Property taxes that fund school
districts in many of our States are already too high.
It is apparent to anyone who has had any discussions with school
leaders and community leaders and child advocacy leaders that they
simply cannot go it alone, that this kind of effort requires a new form
of partnership.
Not least of all, one of the great gains that we have already seen
demonstrated by effective afterschool programs in this country has been
a significant reduction in juvenile crime. At a time when we see crime
rates going down nationally but yet crime rates among children, among
young juveniles, in too many instances going up, there is a need for an
additional strategy, an additional partnership to address that crisis.
Every study we have presented to the Senate indicates that most
juvenile crime occurs between 3 o'clock in the afternoon and
dinnertime. That is when experimentation with drugs, with alcohol, with
sexual activity, and with gang participation most often occur, it is
when it is initiated, and it is the
[[Page S2547]]
time when we most need this kind of partnership not just with our
schools but with other community organizations and civic organizations
to provide alternative kinds of activities for young people.
The studies have already shown that to the degree we have these
effective programs in place, they have cut juvenile crime by anywhere
from 40 to 70 percent. That is why we have such broad-based support
from national law enforcement and police groups across this country.
And it is why we can make a contrast between the modest expenditure
required to significantly increase these afterschool programs and the
alternative cost of incarceration. The cost of keeping a young person
in a juvenile facility and ultimately in a prison equates roughly to
the cost of sending them to Harvard for a year. For a much more modest
expenditure, we can keep whole communities intact, have the kind of
responsible adult supervision, and have the kind of focus in these
young people's lives that they so badly need.
I have been holding meetings all across my home State of South
Dakota, meeting with parents, with teachers, with law enforcement
officials, with child care providers, and the need for expanding after
school programs is obvious. More and more families are working. Both
spouses are in the workplace, neither of them at home, because of the
economic necessity of having a two income household. South Dakota has
one of the highest ratios of two-spouse incomes in the Nation. More and
more single-parent households as well find themselves confronting the
latchkey option with their young people in the family.
As a consequence of this very apparent reality, South Dakota. Has
struck a bipartisan level of cooperation and understanding about the
need for these programs. My Governor, Republican Governor William
Janklow, has been one of the more forceful advocates of an expanded
State-local partnership on afterschool programs. I applaud his
leadership on the issue. He has secured the services of Loila Hunking,
the state coordinator for child care services and a long-time Democrat
activist, to head up his afterschool program. It has been a model in
many ways and reflects what States in other parts of the country have
been doing to bring both sides together to set aside political
polarization and, instead, to focus on what in fact is in the best
interest of our kids and our communities.
But it is all too apparent--even though we have been building
facilities and afterschool program facilities that can be used for
afterschool programs, and day-care centers, even though we are scraping
to find private funds to match local school funds and State funds--that
the resources simply are not there, and all too often the communities
where the need is the greatest are the communities that have the least
financial capability of providing for these kinds of programs.
So, again, if we can come up with this amendment to authorize
adequate funding for an afterschool program, we will, make a long
stride forward not only to anticrime strategy but a pro-education
strategy and one that both political parties can rally around. I think
it compliments our Ed-Flex legislation. It compliments everything else
that we are doing here on the floor today.
I want to again applaud Senator Boxer, Senator Kennedy, and others
who have worked hard to promote this afterschool amendment and the
underlying Ed-Flex legislation as well.
Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six and one-half minutes on your side.
Mr. JOHNSON. I retain my time and yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first I will yield 10 minutes to the
Senator from New Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont. I want to
congratulate the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Tennessee,
Senator Frist, for having brought this bill finally to a vote after
what was considerable resistance from the other side and what amounted
to essentially a blocking of this bill as initiative after initiative
after initiative was brought forward from the other side.
I think you have to look at the context of this bill in the context
of those amendments from the other side that were offered. The concept
of this bill is to give local communities, local teachers, local
principals, and local school boards the ability to apply the Federal
funds and to be released from the burden, the cost, and the
interference of Federal regulations. That is what Ed-Flex is all about.
Thus, it is with some irony and significant inconsistency of the
proposals that we have seen thrown at this bill from the other side do
just the opposite. They create new program initiatives, almost all of
which have been subject to no hearings, no disclosure in the sense of
the congressional process, almost all of which create brand new,
federally mandated, programmatic initiatives which tell the local
communities, you must do this in order to get these Federal dollars:
You must do this in order to get these Federal dollars. And the
directive comes from here in Washington. It says that some group of
bureaucrats sitting in the Department of Education, or at the White
House, or maybe just the leadership on the other side of the aisle, is
going to tell some school district in New Hampshire, or Vermont, or
Missouri, or wherever, how to manage their day-to-day activity of
managing the education of children.
Those proposals, which are being put forward--whether it is the
100,000 teachers, the afterschool program, the school building
program--are all fundamentally inconsistent with the underlying purpose
of this bill, which is to free up the local communities from the burden
of Federal regulation.
More significantly than that, every one of those proposals suggests
as its funding mechanism taking money from the special education
accounts, money that is due the special education children of this
Nation under the law that was already passed by this Congress--taking
that money and using it for a brand new Federal program instead of
putting it where it is supposed to be, which is with the special
education child through 94-142.
Let's review that issue for a second, because it is so critical to
this whole debate.
We have put forward an amendment on our side that says: Before you
start a new program, before you create a new panoply of Federal
regulations, let's do the job that we said we were going to do for the
special education kids in this country; let's pay, or begin to pay, a
higher percentage of the cost of special-education education.
When the special education bill was originally passed, the Federal
Government said it was going to pay 40 percent of the cost. It dropped
down to where the Federal Government was only paying 6 percent of the
cost 3 years ago. And that difference, that 34 percent, was having to
be picked up by the local taxpayers. The Federal share was having to be
paid for by the local taxpayer. So that skewed education at the local
community.
So, if the local teacher needed some assistance in their classroom,
maybe a teaching assistant, or, if a principal needed an addition onto
the school, or needed some new computers, they couldn't buy those kinds
of things, they couldn't hire that new teacher. Why? Because the
Federal Government wasn't paying its fair share, its obligated share,
of the cost of special education. And the local community was having to
take local dollars to support the Federal obligation for special
education.
So what did the other side come forward and suggest? We are not going
to pay any more money to special education. We are not going to
increase that money at all. This administration set up a Federal
budget. Instead of new money for special education, it essentially
flat-funded that program and took the money that was supposed to go to
special education and put it in all these new programs they created.
What does the local school district do now? They get hit twice:
First, they get hit by the Federal Government, which refuses to pay for
the special education children to the tune of the 40 percent they are
supposed to. Then, they get told, if you want to get the dollars from
the Federal Government, which is supposed to be coming to you
[[Page S2548]]
for special education, you have to follow one of these brand new, great
ideas that the President has held a press conference on. You have to
follow one of these press conference initiatives, whether it happens to
be more teachers, more classroom size, or more afterschool programs.
So the local school district, in order to get this money, first loses
it, and then it is told, ``Oh, but we will give you the money that we
just took from you, but you are going to have to follow what we want
you to do here in Washington.''
How arrogant can we get? At what point does the arrogance of this
administration stop in the area of education?
I do not believe that there is one person in this administration who
can name more than maybe one child at Epping Elementary. I do not
believe they have any idea what the child in the Epping Elementary
School needs for education. When that teacher in the Epping Elementary
School walks into that classroom and that teacher knows every child at
every desk and knows what the child needs for education and knows that
they need more books or more computers or maybe they need another
teaching assistant, it should be that teacher who makes the decision as
to what is used to help that child's education. It should not be here
in Washington that that decision is made. And yet, that is exactly what
these proposals suggest: Don't give the local school districts the
flexibility to spend their own money on special ed, to spend their own
money on general education activities. Instead, force the local school
districts to take up the Federal share of special education costs and
then tell the local school districts that because we want you to have
more teachers in order for you to get the money which was supposed to
go to special ed, you have to apply and take on this new Federal
program.
It is total hypocrisy. It is total arrogance. And yet, it is these
proposals that are coming forward. Fortunately, the people in this
Congress, at least in the Senate, are going to have a chance to make a
choice. They are going to have a chance today, because we are going to
give them the option. We are saying that the money last year which was
appropriated for the teachers' program, $1.2 billion, let's free that
money up so that local school districts can make the choice: Do they
want a new teacher or do they want the money to come to the special
education accounts?
That is the simple choice that comes on the Lott amendment which was
drafted by the Senator from Vermont and myself and the Senator from
Tennessee, and it is really an excellent idea. We will find out what
the local school districts need more. Do they want the dollars for
special ed, or do they want the dollars for teachers? It is a perfectly
reasonable proposal, and it is flexibility in the tradition of Ed-Flex.
So this amendment, this underlying amendment, about which I have
heard people on the other side get up and say, oh, I can't support that
because it pits one group of students against another group of
students, well, ladies and gentlemen, the people who are pitting one
group of students against the other group of students is the
administration and the people who support these administration
initiatives, because what they have done is to say we are going to pit
the special ed students, who we are supposed to be funding, against our
programs coming from Washington because we are going to take their
money and use it.
That is where the real conflict comes. So we are going to give you an
opportunity. We are going to give you an opportunity to live up to the
obligations which the Federal Government put on the books back in 1976
and has refused to live up to. And we are going to give the communities
the option of choosing whether they want a teacher, a program directed
from Washington, designed by Washington, told to them how to operate by
Washington, or whether they want to free up their local dollars by
getting more special ed dollars that the Federal Government was
obligated to pay in the first place and use those local dollars to
either, one, hire a teacher; two, buy books, add new computers, add a
new classroom, whatever they want to do with it. That is the ultimate
flexibility.
The choice is going to be pretty clear here today as to how you want
to manage education in this country. You can vote for all these
directives from Washington, all these programs which are made for the
creation of press conferences but give the local communities no
flexibility and no opportunity to make their choices as to how they
spend the money, or you can vote to give the local communities true
flexibility by funding an obligation that has been on the books since
1976 and thus freeing up the dollars for the local community to either
hire teachers, buy books, add classrooms, or create afterschool
programs. I opt for the side of giving local communities, teachers who
know their kids, principals who know their schools, parents who know
their children, the opportunity to make decisions on dollars rather
than the Federal bureaucracy or even an American President.
Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time back to the floor
manager.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 9 minutes.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
I appreciate the work Senator Jeffords has done.
Mr. President, I would like to share just a few thoughts. I have been
involved in education with my children. I have taught, my wife has
taught in public school. We care about education. We have school boards
all over America that care about education. I know one of the school
board members in my hometown of Mobile, AL, exceedingly well. His
abilities and talents will match any Member of this body. He knows a
lot more about the education going on in his area than we know in this
body. Who is to say what is the best way to expend money to improve our
children's education? The thing that counts is that magic moment in a
classroom when learning occurs and children are motivated and inspired
to do better.
I do not believe this Congress has the ability or has a proven track
record of improvement. We now have a host of amendments. We have 788
Federal programs--788. We had an amendment offered yesterday that would
mean the 789th; it would create a dropout czar for America.
I have been involved in local programs to deal with dropouts.
Programs like that are happening all over America. It is not going to
be solved by some Federal dropout czar.
This legislation is precisely what we need. It needs to go out of
here clean, not as an appropriation, big Government spending bill, but
a bill that gives flexibility to the schools.
The Presiding Officer was Governor. He knows how much benefit was
gained when welfare reform was accomplished and we gave flexibility to
Governors. I think it is time we give flexibility to our State and
local school systems to improve education.
I thank the chairman, the Senator from Vermont, for his leadership.
This is good legislation. It is time for us to pass it, and we can
debate these issues about how further to help education when the
elementary and secondary education bill comes up, which the Senator
will be leading later this month.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today the Senate debates an important bill
designed to facilitate education administration and free more resources
for our students. The ``Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999''
would extend the ``Education Flexibility Partnership Demonstration
Program,'' otherwise known as ``Ed-Flex.'' Ed-Flex allows eligible
local school districts to forgo Federal red tape that consumes precious
education resources. In return, States must have sufficient
accountability measures in place and continue to make progress toward
improving student education. States must also comply with certain core
Federal principles, such as civil rights. The concept of Ed-Flex is
simple, yet the benefits would be significant. In other words, let's
put more money into educating our kids in the classroom rather than
lining the pockets of bureaucrats.
The Ed-Flex demonstration program is currently in place in 12 States.
The ``Ed-Flex Act of 1999'' would allow all 50 States the option to
participate in
[[Page S2549]]
the program. With good reason, the program has been very popular.
Unnecessary, time-and-money-consuming Federal regulations are rightly
despised by school administrators. Did you know that the Federal
Government provides only seven percent of local school funding, but
requires 50 percent of all school paperwork? That is ridiculous. Again,
let's put money into the classroom instead of bureaucracy.
Ed-Flex is a step toward allowing more localized decisionmaking
authority--the power to decide when the Federal regulations are more
troublesome and expensive than they are worth. Today, there are simply
too many regulations which are despised by school administrators.
Giving more decisionmaking authority to States and local school
districts is good common sense. Naturally, those who are closest to our
students are in the best position to make the most appropriate and
effective decisions concerning their education. One-size-fits-all
legislation may work well in other areas, but not in education. Some of
the most successful classrooms across our Nation vary tremendously in
their structure, functioning, and appearance.
In my home State of Minnesota, for instance, we have very rural
communities, urban communities, and everything in between. We have got
farm kids, suburban kids, and city kids. And all of these kids are
students. And I know this sort of rural-to-urban community-mix is
typical for most States. How much sense does it make then, to require
local school districts and classrooms--all with their own particular
strengths and weaknesses--to follow, in lock-step, the homogenized,
uniform routine of Federal bureaucracy? Not much.
We have some opportunities before us to do something meaningful for
our children's education. A complementary possible amendment to Ed-Flex
which promotes local decisionmaking power is Senator Gorton's block
grant amendment, as well as Senator Hutchinson's Dollars to the
Classroom Act. Under these proposals, many federally funded K-12
programs would be consolidated and the dollars sent directly to states
or local school districts--free from the usual Washington red tape.
This helps to ensure that our education dollars go to students, as
opposed to bureaucrats.
Similarly, Senator Coverdell's Education Savings Accounts and School
Excellence Act is an important step forward in restoring decisionmaking
authority to parents and families--where it is needed. The bill simply
allows families to save for their children's education, without tax
penalty. It would expand the college education savings accounts
established in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 to include primary and
secondary students. It would also increase the annual contribution
limit from $500 to $2,000 per child. The money could be used without
tax penalty to pay for a variety of education-related expenses for
students in K-12, as well as college expenses.
This is a simple, straight-forward initiative for families and
students. Common sense would have had us pass the Education Savings
Accounts bill long ago. Unfortunately, tired, groundless attacks
continue. The charge I hear most frequently is that ``education savings
accounts and tax breaks for parents would shift tax dollars away from
public schools.'' That is simply not the case.
More education dollars under parental control would promote education
by encouraging parents to save, invest in, and support programs and
materials that facilitate and provide the right option for a child's
education.
We all want the best education available for our children, and to
improve the state of American education and schools for all children.
It would be nice to think that we could solve the problems of education
by spending more and more money. Unfortunately, that doesn't work. The
United States is the world leader in national spending per student. Yet
our test scores show that our system is failing our children.
Test results released last year show that American high school
seniors score far below their peers from other countries in math and
science. We are at rock bottom. It is going to take more time and
effort to solve these problems--and the most important work will be
done by those in the best position to do so: parents, teachers, and
local administrators. We must give them the freedom they need to
accomplish the job. This freedom comes with the authority to make
decisions based on a variety of specific needs. I will continue to
support measures like the Ed-Flex legislation that return money and
control--from Washington--to parents, teachers, and local school
districts. After all, they know best how to spend education dollars.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S.
280, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, which would
free all fifty states from many of the costly and burdensome federal
regulations which are imposed on them by the federal government. These
unnecessary regulations prevent their schools from providing innovative
and effective academic opportunities for millions of young Americans. I
am proud to be an original cosponsor of this measure which would expand
the current Ed-Flex program to all fifty states.
One of the most important issues facing our nation is the education
of our children. Providing a solid, quality education for each and
every child in our nation is a critical component in their quest for
personal success and fulfillment. A solid education for our children
also plays a pivotal role in the success of our nation; economically,
intellectually, civically and morally. We must strive to develop and
implement initiatives which strengthen and improve our education
system, thereby ensuring that our children are provided with the
essential academic tools for succeeding professionally, economically
and personally.
The most exciting aspect of this bill is that it brings teaching back
to our classrooms and frees our schools from excessive filing,
correlating, faxing and shuffling of paper. It would allow schools like
Barbara Bush Elementary School in Mesa, Arizona to focus on helping
children learn essentials like reading and using a computer. It would
allow Barbara Bush Elementary School to focus on teaching its students
rather than wasting its valuable educational resources for filing,
typing, refiling, and faxing paper to the bureaucrats in Washington,
DC.
It is important to note that all states which obtain an Ed-Flex
waiver must adhere to basic Federal principles, including the
protection of civil rights, educational equity and academic
accountability.
Like many Americans, I have grave concerns about the current
condition of our nation's education system. If a report card on our
educational system were sent home today, it would be full of
unsatisfactory and incomplete marks. In fact, it would be full of
``D's'' and ``F's.'' These abominable grades demonstrate our failure to
meet the needs of our nation's students in kindergarten through twelfth
grade.
Our failure is clearly visible throughout the educational system. One
prominent display of our nation's failure is seen in the results of the
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Over forty
countries participated in the 1996 study which tested science and
mathematical abilities of students in the fourth, eighth and twelfth
grades. Tragically, our students scored lower than students in other
countries. According to this study, our twelfth graders scored near the
bottom, placing 19th out of 21 nations in math and 16th in science,
while scoring at the absolute bottom in physics.
Meanwhile, students in countries which are struggling economically,
socially and politically, such as Russia, outscored U.S. children in
math and scored far above them in advanced math and physics. Clearly,
we must make significant changes in our children's academic performance
in order to remain a viable force in the world economy.
We can also see our failure when we look at the Federal Government's
efforts to combat illiteracy. We spend over $8 billion a year on
programs to eradicate illiteracy across the country. Yet, we have not
seen any significant improvement in literacy in any segment of our
population. Today, more than 40 million Americans cannot read a menu,
instructions, medicine labels or a newspaper. And, tragically, four out
of ten children in third grade cannot read.
[[Page S2550]]
Another clear sign of our failure is displayed by the inadequate
preparation of many students when they exit the system. The number of
college freshmen who require remedial courses in reading, writing and
mathematics when they begin their higher education is unacceptably
high. In fact, presently, more than 30 percent of entering freshman
need to enroll in one or more remedial courses when they start college.
Equally dismal is a Wall Street Journal report that two-thirds of job
applicants for a division of the Ford Motor Company ``fail a test in
which they are asked to add fractions.'' It does not bode well for our
future economy if the majority of workers are not prepared with the
basic skills to engage in a competitive global marketplace.
I am also disturbed by the disproportionate amount of federal
education dollars which actually reach our students and schools. It is
deplorable that the vast majority of federal education funds do not
reach our school districts, schools and children. In 1995, the
Department of Education spent $33 billion for education and only 13.1
percent of that reached the local education agencies. It is
unacceptable that less than 13 percent of the funds directly reached
the individuals schools and their students.
My home state of Arizona receives approximately $420 million each
year in federal education funding. These funds account for seven
percent of Arizona's education budget, yet it takes almost half of the
staff at the State Department of Education to administer the numerous
rules and regulations which accompany the federal dollars. This means
that half of the Arizona Department of Education staff is busy working
on Federal paperwork rather than developing improved curriculum,
helping teachers with professional development skills and working to
improve the quality of education for Arizona children. This is a sad
commentary on the current structure of our educational system.
Much of the Federal Government's involvement in education is
highly bureaucratic, overly regulatory, and actually impedes our
children's learning. Clearly, we need to be more innovative in our
approach to educating our children. We need to focus on providing
parents, teachers, and local communities with the flexibility, freedom,
and, yes, the financial support to address the unique educational needs
of their children and the children in their communities. This is
precisely what the Ed-Flex program does. It removes the obstacles for
innovative, productive and successful educational initiatives in our
classrooms and frees our schools from the choking grip of federal
bureaucrats.
Mr. President, it is absolutely crucial, as we debate this and other
proposals to reform our educational system, that we not lose sight of
the fact that our paramount goal must be to increase the academic
knowledge and skills of our nation's students. Our children are our
future, and if we neglect their educational needs, we threaten that
future.
I am gravely concerned that goal is sometimes lost in the very
spirited and often emotional debate on education policies and
responsibilities. Instead, this should be a debate about how best to
ensure that young Americans will be able to compete globally in the
future. I believe the key to academic excellence is broadening
educational opportunities and providing families and communities both
the responsibility and the resources to choose the best course for
their students.
Ed-Flex is an important step in our journey to improve our nation's
education system and better prepare our children so that each of them
has much more than their individual dreams of becoming an astronaut,
fire fighter or pilot. The bill is an important step towards ensuring
that our children not only dream but have the capacity to make their
dreams a reality. This is what education is all about--providing an
endless realm of possibilities through knowledge. But it is just the
first of many steps which we need to make to ensure that the best
interests of our children, our future are being realized. I look
forward to working with my colleagues as we continue this journey
towards a strong and successful educational system.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have long been concerned about our
nation's education system and the many problems that individual classes
across the country grapple with every day. When I reflect on my days in
a two-room schoolhouse, I have fond memories of my teachers and
classmates, and, most importantly, my learning experience. The students
were disciplined, my teachers were serious about their work, classes
were small and well-kept, and students thrived on learning for
learning's own sake. We did not have the kinds of problems so common in
schools today.
I do, however, recognize that with each passing year, educating our
nation's children becomes an even more formidable challenge. I am
pleased that we were able to address a few of the many concerns facing
parents, students, and educators as part of the Senate's debate on this
bill, S. 280, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. With
classrooms bursting at their seams with students, there is a definite
need for smaller class size. Students do better when they have the
individual attention of a teacher. Moreover, I believe that this kind
of environment provides teachers and students with a setting truly
conducive to quality instruction. We, as a nation, need to do more in
this regard.
But, Mr. President, there are also other pressing education
priorities for states, including funding for the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which remains underfunded to date.
Disabled children deserve the same opportunity to receive a good
education as those without a disability. I am hopeful that we in
Congress will continue to build toward the forty-percent funding
commitment that was established as part of the IDEA legislation. I
believe, however, that reducing class size and providing for the needs
of disabled children are both worthy goals that are not mutually
exclusive, and I am troubled that efforts to provide sufficient
resources to achieve one of those goals may have the effect of
undercutting the other. The notion of pitting these two worthy goals
against one another to score partisan political points is embarrassing.
Certainly, both can, and should, be accomplished.
While many important education programs and new initiatives have been
discussed during the Senate's debate of S. 280, I believe that the
underlying legislation offers some benefits in the form of flexibility.
I do have concerns that there is little substantive performance data on
the impact of Ed-Flex in the states now operating with it. I would have
preferred to see some positive results on student achievement levels
prior to making this type of expansion. But I am hopeful that the
education accountability built into this legislation will hold states
to a higher standard and serve as an incentive to all states seeking
Ed-Flex status. I am also somewhat comforted by the fact that the bill
contains a sunset provision, which will force the Congress to revisit
this issue, and, I hope, live up to its oversight responsibilities.
Mr. President, it disturbs me greatly to witness the political divide
in this body on such an important issue which affects us all, whether
it be our own child's education, that of a grandchild, or a neighbor's
child. We are all for education--it is the country's number one
priority, and with many problems to solve, it is time for us to work
together to make every child's educational experience a rewarding one.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, during the consideration of S. 280, the
Education Flexibility (Ed-Flex) Partnership Act of 1999, several new
education proposals have been advanced by my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle. In particular, an issue that has received prominent
attention is an amendment that would authorize federal monies for the
hiring of 100,000 new teachers.
Like my colleagues, I am strongly committed to improving K-12
education and ensuring that the unique needs of our nation's schools
are addressed. While the federal government provides only a fraction of
our nation's total K-12 education spending, the amount that it does
provide is critical to ensuring that our nation's children receive the
quality education that they need and deserve.
Mr. President, as I look at the various challenges and issues facing
our nation's schools, it is clear that every state and every community
has different needs, even if some of these
[[Page S2551]]
needs are fairly pervasive. While one community may feel that its
greatest need is the hiring of more teachers, another may feel that
buying new textbooks or purchasing computers for the classroom may be
the most pressing need.
Over the years, various federal education programs have been created
to assist state and local governments in addressing their disparate
needs, including programs that are designed to address issues that
demand national oversight. For instance, more than 20 years ago, the
federal government appropriately demanded that individuals with
disabilities receive a quality education, and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was enacted accordingly.
Unfortunately, even as the federal government appropriately mandated
that disabled children be educated at the local level, it has continued
to fall woefully short in fulfilling its promised commitment to cover
40 percent of the associated cost. In fact, as several of my colleagues
have emphasized, the federal government only funds approximately 10
percent of the cost today--and that paltry percent has only been
achieved through Republican-led efforts over the past three years to
increase funding for IDEA by 85 percent!
As a result of the ongoing federal shortfall, state and local
governments are not only forced to cover the 60 percent share that was
agreed to--but they also pick-up the missing 30 percent federal share.
Mr. President, this broken promise on the part of the federal
government must not continue. Not only does it represent a failure on
the part of the federal government to meet an important obligation to
our nation's disabled children, but it also forces states and
communities to divert their scarce resources for this unfunded
mandate--resources that could otherwise be used to address a wide
variety of local needs, including the hiring of new teachers.
To demonstrate the impact of this unfunded mandate, consider that in
my home state of Maine, the federal government currently provides
approximately $20 million for the education of the disabled, while the
state and local governments are forced to shoulder more than $200
million of the cost. Therefore, if the federal government were to
fulfill its 40 percent commitment, an additional $60 million would flow
to the state.
That's $60 million now spent by Maine's state and local governments
to cover a federal commitment--$60 million that would otherwise be
freed-up to address distinct and pressing local needs. Sixty million
dollars.
Needless to say, this shortfall has not been overlooked by officials
at the state or local level. During a recent meeting with
representatives of the Maine Municipal Association, local officials
emphasized to me the need for the federal government to fulfill its
commitment to fund 40 percent of the cost of educating the disabled
because of the substantial budgetary impact it is having on their
communities.
And during the recent gathering of the National Governors Association
(NGA), the Governor of Maine, Angus King, interrupted President Clinton
during his presentation on education issues to hammer home the need for
special education funding. As quoted in a March 1, 1999, article in the
Portland Press Herald, Governor King ``raised his hand and
interrupted'' the President saying:
Mr. President, I'm bringing you a report from Franklin,
Maine, and a lot of other places in Maine. What I'm telling
you is that if you want to do something for schools in Maine,
then fund special education and we can hire our own teachers
and build our own schools.
Mr. President, I don't believe the thoughts and comments by the
Governor of Maine are unique to our state. This is a national problem
that requires federal action. Paying ``lip-service'' to this funding
commitment is no longer enough. We cannot simply brush off the comments
of governors and local leaders by expressing support for the full-
funding of education for the disabled and not achieving it--rather,
it's time to actually deliver on the promise made more than 20 years
ago.
For this reason, I believe Congress should ensure that the federal
share of education for the disabled is fully-funded before new programs
are created. Not only will this ensure that a long-standing federal
promise will finally be met, but it will also ensure that distinct
local needs--which may include the hiring of new teachers--can be
readily addressed.
During the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education (ESEA) Act, there will be countless opportunities to reform
and improve federal education programs that are intended to address
distinct needs. But the time to create truly new federal education
programs--and to devote federal resources to these new proposals--
should not occur until we have met our outstanding federal obligation
to disabled children and to the states and communities that educate
them.
Mr. President, the time to fully-fund the federal share of education
for the disabled is now. I urge that my colleagues vote to ensure that
any new K-12 education monies be used to meet this commitment, and to
finally fulfill a federal promise made to state and local governments
more than 20 years ago.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my intention to vote
for final passage of the Education Flexibility Act. Although this bill
is far from perfect, I support the underlying principle of flexibility
in education, and believe we should move this bill forward.
Despite my support for giving local school districts more flexibility
in improving education, I have serious concerns about this bill. Last
year, we passed a new initiative to hire 100,000 teachers to reduce
class size in the early grades. We approved this program on a
bipartisan basis, recognizing that research has shown that smaller
classes give teachers more time to spend with individual students and
improves student achievement.
School districts in Wisconsin are already putting together their
budgets and planning to use this Federal money to hire teachers. They
are looking to Congress to send them assurances that the teachers they
hire today will receive Federal support over the next six years. I am
extremely disappointed that the Senate failed to adopt Senator Murray's
class size amendment, which would authorized the program for six years
and given our school districts that assurance. I am hopeful that we can
still address this important issue later this year.
In addition to the Senate's failure to authorize the class size
initiative, I am also concerned that the bill, as amended, pits
students with special needs against other students in fighting for
education funding. This is inexcusable--and unnecessary.
I agree that the Federal government must live up to its obligation to
pay for 40% of the costs of special education. It is a responsibility
we have failed to meet for far too long, and I will continue to fight
for full funding of special education. However, I believe it is time
that we make education of all our children--including those with
special needs--our top priority. There is no reason why we cannot fully
fund all of our educational needs in this country. We should fully fund
special education, and we should fully fund class size, and after-
school programs, and school construction. We can do all of these
things--and we should not pit any of these vital programs against one
another as some have tried to do here today.
I am extremely concerned about the amendments that were added to this
bill today. Although I recognize that school districts need additional
resources for special education, I believe these amendments wrongly
force them to choose between special education and hiring teachers--
another essential need they face. We should not force them to make this
choice--we should provide enough funding to fill both needs.
Although I am deeply troubled about these amendments, I will vote for
final passage of the bill because I believe in the original intent of
providing more flexibility to States and local school districts. I am
voting for it now because I think we need to move this bill forward.
However, I strongly believe these amendments should be dropped in
conference. If this bill comes back from the Conference Committee with
these amendments still included, I will be forced to oppose the bill.
Mr. President, I still hold out hope that these problems can be
worked out in conference, and that we can move
[[Page S2552]]
this bill, which was originally a bipartisan bill, forward
expeditiously.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 280,
the Education Flexibility Act. This legislation will give greater
responsibility, flexibility, and control to local schools. That's where
the students, parents, and teachers are. That's where the education
happens.
That's where the control ought to be. I have been fighting for our
teachers and local school administrators for many years, and I think
one of the most important things we can do for them is liberate them
from Federal red tape--so they can do what they do best: Teach our
kids.
In offering this bill, our distinguished colleague from Tennessee,
Senator Frist, is striking a blow for freedom in American education.
This bill would expand an existing pilot program to all eligible
states. It is a good deal for the states--in this bill we offer to free
the states from the burden of unnecessary, time-consuming Federal
regulations. In return, all states have to do is comply with certain
core principles, such as civil rights, and establish a system of
accountability. The bill also would require states to have a system of
waiving their own regulations.
My own home state of Ohio has been one of the pilot programs and has
provided over 200 waivers for local schools. For example, the
Eisenhower teacher training program only supported math and science
training. Using ed-flex, Ohio waived this requirement--and today
schools can use this program for training teachers in other subjects
such as reading and social studies.
The Ohio Department of Education, in its annual report to the
Secretary of Education, reached the following conclusion, and I quote:
``The greatest benefit to having Ed-Flex authority is that it, combined
with the ability to waive State rules and statutes, establishes a
school-planning environment unencumbered by real or perceived
regulatory barriers. This environment encourages creativity, thoughtful
planning, and innovation.''
Mr. President, that's as true everywhere else in America as it is in
Ohio. And that's why this Ed-Flex bill has such strong bipartisan
support.
But I should note that while Ed-Flex is an important step forward, it
is just a single step. We need to do more. Over the next year, the
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, on which I serve,
will be working on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1999--
which will deal with almost all of the federal programs that impact K-
12 grade education. When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was
passed in 1965, it was 30 pages long, today it is more than 300 pages
long. As a member of that committee, I will be looking to empower
parents, support local control, promote effective teacher training
programs, recognize and reward excellent teachers, and send more money
back to the states and local schools with no strings attached.
Remember: The Federal Government provides only 6 percent of local
school funding, but demands 50 percent of the paperwork that burdens
local teachers and administrators. That burden demands nearly 49
million hours each year--or the equivalent of 25,000 school employees
working full time--on paperwork, not kids. There are over 700 separate
federal education programs spread across 40 separate federal
bureaucracies.
Mr. President, I am concerned about the quality of our children's
education. The Third International Math and Science Study recently
reported that out of 21 countries, the U.S. ranked 19th in math and
16th in science, barely ahead of South Africa. Verbal and combined SAT
scores are lower today than they were in 1970. Businesses spend more
than $30 billion annually in retraining employees who cannot read
proficiently. Nearly 30 percent of college freshmen need remedial
classes.
Mr. President, these are disturbing statistics. As we move forward to
improve our children's education, I urge my colleagues to remember that
the most important education tool in any classroom is a qualified,
highly trained teacher. After parents and families, America's teachers
play the most important role in helping our children realize their
potential. Our current teachers are doing a good job--indeed, a great
job--given the resources they have to work with. Clearly, it's time to
change the way we allocate resources. It's time that today's teachers
get more support and training and less paperwork from the federal
government.
I want to thank the sponsor of the Ed-Flex legislation, Senator
Frist, for his work with all members to improve this bill. The
manager's amendment that we accepted last week addresses many of the
concerns that have been raised about this legislation. Without going
into the details of the amendment, I would simply point out that it
will strengthen accountability measures currently in the bill, require
states to coordinate their Ed-Flex applications with state
comprehensive plans, emphasize school and student performance as an
objective of Ed-Flex and add additional provisions for public notice
and comment regarding Ed-Flex proposals.
Ultimately, our children's success in education depends on the
support they receive at home and in the classroom. Our focus in
Washington should be to take every opportunity to empower parents and
then free local schools from regulations that prevent improvements and
innovations in local schools.
Mr. President, that's why I strongly support this bill.
prevention of truancy act
Mr. DODD. In the 105th Congress, I offered my legislation, the
Prevention of Truancy Act, as an amendment to the Ed-Flex bill during
the Labor and Human Resources Committee's consideration, where it
failed on a tie vote. It was my intention to offer it on the floor on
this bill. However, I am pleased instead to be on the floor with my
colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions, to discuss our common
interest in assisting communities address this real and serious problem
and express our intent to offer legislation similar to the bill I
offered last year soon. We will also be working with Senator Bingaman
who offered similar legislation last Congress and Senator Collins who
supported my amendment in Committee last year.
Senator Sessions, a new member to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee's
Subcommittee on Youth Violence, believes as I do that truancy is a
gateway offense, and that this legislation would present us with an
opportunity to catch good kids before it is too late. The Senator from
Alabama has worked hard for the duration of his career on finding
solutions to difficult issues such as truancy. I believe this
legislation will truly make a difference in the lives of many children
and, at the same time, prevent juvenile crime. I also believe that our
working together will produce strong, solid legislation that we should
all be able to support.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be working with the
Senator from Connecticut on truancy legislation. I am struck by the
alignment of our interests here. I believe this is a national problem
and one that deserves federal attention. I am pleased that Senator Dodd
and I have been able to work out an agreement here that avoids an
amendment to the Ed Flex bill on this subject, which would be a concern
for me and a number of my colleagues who very much want to be
supportive in this effort to address truancy. I look forward to working
with the Senator to bring forward a strong bill from my committee to
support efforts to assist local governments in their efforts to reduce
truancy.
afterschool care
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I'd like to thank my colleague from Vermont
for his cooperation in working out an agreement to address the need for
afterschool programs as part of the Health and Education Committee's
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act later
this year.
As my colleagues know, I was planning to offer an amendment to the
Education Flexibility Act, that I offered when this bill was in
committee, to increase funding for programs serving children during
out-of-school hours through the Child Care and Development Block Grant
and the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program.
I know that my colleague from Vermont shares my strong interest in
ensuring that children have safe alternatives during the hours they are
not
[[Page S2553]]
in school. He has been a leader for years on this specific issue as
well as a tireless advocate for many other critical concerns of
American families.
Mr. JEFFORDS. This is a very important issue for me, but not nearly
as important as it is to the parents of the nearly 24 million school-
age children who need care while their parents work. The issue of how
best to meet the needs of school-aged children and youth will be
addressed--not just in the context of one program, like the 21st
Century Community Learning Centers Act, but within the framework of a
comprehensive, cohesive review of Federal public education policy.
Mr. DODD. Out of consideration for the Senator's interest in moving
this bill forward expeditiously, I have agreed to withdraw my
amendment. I am pleased that Senator Jeffords has agreed instead to
take up this issue as part of ESEA and to hold comprehensive hearings
on the issue of afterschool care this year.
I am particularly pleased that Senator Frist shares our concern about
the documented rise in juvenile crime that we see in the hours
immediately after school. I also appreciate his pledge to work with us
to increase support for afterschool programs.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I want to thank Senator Dodd for helping us move the
educational flexibility legislation along. I want to assure him and my
Senate colleagues that the withdrawal of Senator Dodd's amendment does
not signal the end of the Senate debate on school-aged child care, but
the beginning of our work.
Senator Dodd has been a leader on child care and other youth issues
for his entire congressional career. He has continually worked to craft
effective legislation that will help children and their families, and I
appreciate his tireless efforts.
By working together, I have little doubt that we can greatly improve
the Federal Government's response to the needs of school-aged children
and their families.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the
Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. I am pleased to join
with a bipartisan group that includes thirty-three of my colleagues and
almost all of the nation's governors, to ensure that all states have
the flexibility to encourage education reforms of the highest standards
in our schools. This legislation enjoys the support of the National
Education Association, the National School Board Association, the
National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Governors'
Association.
As many of my colleagues know, the Ed-Flex Program was established in
1994 under the Goals 2000 Program. It originally authorized 6 states to
participate in a demonstration program that would allow States the
ability to waive certain Federal regulations and statutes for local
school districts and schools in return for high standards and
accountability. In 1996, Congress expanded the Ed-Flex Program in the
Omnibus Appropriations Act to include six more states. While this
waiver authority may seem broad, Ed-Flex States may only grant waivers
for selected Federal programs. Most importantly, these states may not
waive Federal requirements relating to health, safety, civil rights,
parental involvement, allocation of funds, participation by pupils
attending private schools, and fiscal accountability.
With over 14,000 school districts in this nation, there cannot be one
education reform plan that fits every community. Ed-Flex allows states
and local education agencies to commit to common goals and purposes and
yet allows them to choose the best path to achieve these results. Ed-
Flex is not a cure-all for education reform. It is just a common-sense,
practical tool that allows local school districts and schools to get
back to the business of educating our youth and away from the business
of filling out forms.
Most waivers granted under Ed-Flex have dealt primarily with the use
of Title I funds on a school-wide basis and the allocation of
Eisenhower Professional Development Funds for teaching disciplines
other than math and science. These are common sense changes that have
allowed local school districts and schools to use Federal dollars in a
smart and efficient manner. Ed-Flex has also encouraged several states
to streamline their own regulations and statutes, thus providing their
schools with better guidance and clarity on state requirements.
Some of the requirements of Federal programs have produced
nonsensical results. For instance, in my home state of Indiana, the
town of Elwood operates two separate elementary schools. One of these
schools meets the 50 percent threshold for Title I so it can implement
Title I programs school-wide. However, the other school just misses
this threshold and must restrict Title I resources to only Title I
students. That particular elementary school in Elwood, Indiana would be
cited by the State Board of Accounts if they were to allow non-Title I
students the use of their computer lab which was paid for with Title I
funding. These Federal requirements have not only produced two systems
of elementary education for this town, but has created confusion over
what sort of educational programs can be implemented. This kind of
strict regulation is not only absurd, but counterproductive to school
reform. As long as Title I students are being targeted for additional
assistance, there is no reason a school should be prohibited from
sharing its resources with all of its students. In twelve states, Ed-
Flex has allowed local education agencies and schools to operate Title
I programs on a school-wide basis thus equalizing the standard of
learning for all students.
Some have raised the issue that Ed-Flex does not address the major
concerns of our nation's school districts. While Ed-Flex will not on
its own solve our education problems, it can spur our States and
schools to creatively approach old problems in a new way. As a former
Governor, I know first-hand how easing strict Federal requirements can
help states achieve positive results. Any school teacher will tell you
that there is no one lesson plan from which to educate all of our
nation's students. Just as each child is unique in his or her capacity
to learn and grow, so too our are nation's school districts unique. No
matter how well-intentioned, the Federal Government cannot continue
down the path of a one-size fits all educational system for our
nation's children. Education is now and will continue to be the primary
responsibility of local communities and states. Educators, community
leaders, and parents are the best judges of what is good education
policy for their schools. Each community has different needs and by
expanding the Ed-Flex Program, we can allow them to partner with the
Federal Government to achieve some truly outstanding results.
For example, a Maryland school district was able to identify a trend
in math and science performance of middle school students who came from
two elementary schools. After looking at the assessment results and the
demographic make-up of the student population, they were able to use
the waiver authority to implement comprehensive planning and greater
resource coordination. The result has been improved reading and math
instruction for this school district's elementary and middle school
students.
Our nation's schools will face many challenges in the next century.
Dilapidated school buildings, overcrowding in the classrooms, and a
shortage of qualified teachers will place great demands on our
country's educational systems. While Ed-Flex alone will not solve all
of these problems it can ease the burdens placed on our educators so
they can rise to meet the challenges of the future. I am pleased to
vote in favor of final passage of the Education Flexibility Partnership
Act which expands this successful program so that all states, not just
twelve, have the opportunity to waive Federal requirements that present
an obstacle to innovation in their schools.
I thank Senators Frist and Wyden for re-introducing this effective
tool of reform. I believe this bipartisan approach is a step in the
right direction towards helping our nation's schools achieve positive
results.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for
the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, better known as Ed-
Flex. This bill will help to restore the proper respect for the ability
of states and local communities to educate our children. I applaud the
work done by my colleagues, Bill Frist and Ron Wyden,
[[Page S2554]]
and I am pleased to join them as a cosponsor of this bill. Ed-Flex is a
common sense, bipartisan, cost-effective approach that empowers states
and local communities to put their focus where it belongs--on educating
our children, not on complying with federal mandates.
The principle of federalism is vital to our democracy. This principle
holds that the Federal Governmental has limited powers and that
government closest to the people--states and local communities--is best
positioned to serve the people. Our Founding Fathers had serious
concerns about the tendency of our government to centralize power and
to encroach on a state's ability to improve the lives of its citizens.
This federal encroachment has been particularly pronounced in the
area of education. The U.S. Constitution assigns Washington no
responsibility at all for education. Indeed, for its first two
centuries, America's Federal Government understood that the 10th
amendment left responsibility for education to the states. America's
education system works best when parents, teachers, and local school
officials, who know our students best, make the decisions about where a
school spends its money. But as federal involvement in education
increased since the 1960's, Washington began to regulate how our
schools spend their funds. Even after all these new regulations,
America's dropout rates are near 40 percent in many urban areas, three-
fourths of all 4th graders in high-poverty communities cannot read at a
basic level, and our most disadvantaged communities remain in need of
real education reform.
Americans understand that Washington can't possibly know what is best
for a particular student in Memphis or in Los Angeles or in Miami.
Patrick Jacob of Germantown, TN, wrote to me earlier this month to
remind me that when the Federal Government tells our schools how to
spend their money, it reduces the community's ability to take
responsibility for educating our children.
There are real solutions in education and they are coming from states
from Texas to North Carolina and Arizona and from cities from Milwaukee
to New York. However, federal regulations often prohibit states from
expanding these reforms. Ed-Flex will give state and local school
officials greater freedom from burdensome requirements of federal
education statutes or regulations that impede local efforts to improve
education. For example, if the parents, teachers and leaders of a
particular school district decide that additional money is needed for
reading instruction, that school district should not be precluded from
shifting its resources to achieve that goal. Ed-Flex will free our
schools to make more of these critical choices for themselves. Ed-Flex
costs American taxpayers nothing. And instead of sending another
unfunded mandate down from Washington, it provides our states with what
governors from both parties asked us for when they came to Washington
last week--flexibility.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
legislation.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of final passage of S.
280, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 and would like
to take a brief moment to describe my reasons for supporting this
legislation. Despite serious concerns about the amendments that will be
offered here on the floor today, I am voting for this legislation as a
strong supporter of both increased federal flexibility and additional
federal funding for special education.
First and foremost, I am in favor of making federal education
programs as flexible as possible. Over the years, requirements and
regulations in many areas have crossed the line from responsible
monitoring to redundant paperwork. Much has been done in recent years
to lessen administrative burdens and eliminate federal regulation.
However, I strongly believe that federal education programs need to go
farther in to set clear goals and then provide as much flexibility as
possible to local policymakers, as well as principals and classroom
teachers.
To that end, this bill will allow schools in all 50 states to apply
for waivers from a set of state and federal education laws. I voted for
expanding Ed-Flex in 1998, and I am proud to have supported creation of
the demonstration program that gave New Mexico this flexibility three
years ago.
I am also supporting this bill because I am a strong advocate of
increased funding for special education. Special education provides
specialized services to students that can require significant
additional costs to schools and local school districts. These services
are essential to these students, and the federal government should do
its part to support these efforts.
During the past 3 years, I have worked with my colleagues in the
Senate to help increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act by billions of dollars. My goal, as stated in the IDEA
statute, is that the federal government meet its commitment to IDEA
funding by providing 40 percent of the costs of educating special
education students. And this bill sends a strong signal that additional
funding in FY2000 and beyond is required for IDEA grants to states.
For these reasons, I am voting in favor of final passage. However, I
will carefully watch the final legislation that is produced by the
conference committee on S. 280 before deciding how to cast my final
vote before this bill is sent to the President.
For example, in my view it is unfortunate that the final version of
this legislation could have the unintended and unnecessary effect of
diverting funding from the new class size reduction program started
last year. Under this program, New Mexico is slated to receive $9.6
million in FY99, which would allow schools around the state to hire
more than 250 teachers.
There is no reason that the Senate cannot support this program as
well as increased funding for IDEA. In fact it would have been
preferable to have extended the authorization for the class size
reduction program so that these efforts could continue into the future.
I am concerned that, by merging two viable streams of funding into what
is in effect just one source, the overall amount of funds awarded for
education may not increase as much as is needed.
Because of these concerns I voted against several amendments to S.
280 that would make schools decide between the special needs of
disabled students and the clear imperative to lower class size in the
early grades. Ideally, there would be two strong programs that would
both receive the funding they deserve.
I am also concerned that the Senate version of this legislation may
not have sufficient accountability measures to go along with the
expanded flexibility that is in the Ed-Flex bill. The taxpayers expect
us to account for the roughly $15 billion per year that is sent to
local schools, and in my view there should be stronger measures of
performance and review in the final conference report.
Finally, it is extremely unfortunate that this version of the bill
does not create the national dropout prevention program that I had
offered as an amendment. This amendment, which passed last year by 74
to 26, would address the fact that 500,000 students drop out of school
each year. There is no funded program to help lower dropout rates. And
yet students in too many schools have just a 50-50 chance of
graduating. Those that don't will earn less, be more likely to need
public support, and more likely to get involved in crime. That affects
all of us, not just the individual students.
It is my hope that some of these concerns can be addressed during the
conference between the House and Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes 24 seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 6 minutes, Mr. President.
Mr. President, in the last 3 or 4 weeks, we have heard our majority
leader on three different occasions indicate that the most important
issue we are going to address in the early part of this session was
education. Over the period of the last 6 days, we have tried to debate
a number of the ideas that we have on this side of the aisle, and
certainly there ought to be the opportunity to debate amendments from
the other side of the aisle as well.
We have tried to do that, but have been effectively closed out from
that opportunity.
[[Page S2555]]
I would like at this time, to read a statement by Senator Patty
Murray, who, because of a death in the family, will be unable to be
here to make this representation in the final few minutes of
consideration before we go into a series of votes--the most important
being the time-sensitive issue of smaller classes for grades K through
3. This is what Senator Murray says:
Mr. President, I want to express how deeply disappointed I
am. The Senate had a tremendous opportunity to work together
to make a tangible difference in our children's lives and
their futures. But instead, Republicans have chosen the path
of partisanship and division.
Last October, the Senate reached a bipartisan agreement to
reduce class size and improve teacher quality. Republicans
and Democrats worked together to reach a compromise that is
sending funds to local school districts this July. We did it
because we knew it was the right thing to do. That simple
fact has not changed in the last 5 months.
So I am absolutely baffled about why we could not reach
this agreement again. The Senate's failure to pass this
amendment was irresponsible and inexcusable.
The Senate Republicans have broken their promise to
teachers, to parents, and worst of all, to children in the
first, second, and third grades across the country.
The Senate Republicans are hoping that this issue will just
fade away, but the education of our children is far too
important for me to allow that to happen. I will be back for
as long as it takes to get them to recognize they cannot
continue to stall. Until they take real steps to reduce the
class size, Mr. President, the Republicans owe the children
of this country an explanation.
This is what we heard last fall. At that time, leading Republicans in
Congress hailed the class size agreement. House Majority Leader Dick
Armey said, ``We were very pleased to receive the President's request
for more teachers, especially since he offered a way to pay for them,''
effectively supporting the first year of getting smaller class sizes.
Republican Congressman Bill Goodling, Chairman of House Education
Committee, declared that the Class Size Reduction Act was ``. . .a real
victory for the Republican Congress but, more importantly, a huge win
for local educators.'' Senator Slade Gorton said the same thing about
the Class Size Reduction Act, representing the Republicans in
negotiation on education, ``On education, there s been a genuine
meeting of the minds involving the President and the Democrats and
Republicans here in Congress. . . .''
Now before the Senate we have the amendment of the Senator from
Washington, to fulfill that commitment--which Republicans were taking
credit for 5 months ago--and we are being denied this opportunity.
We will have a chance this afternoon to vote on it. This is the time,
today is the day, where the U.S. Senate can go on record for smaller
class sizes in grades K-3. Today--today is the day to do it.
I say to my good friend from New Hampshire, all of us are very
concerned about our nation's children. We, on this side, do not yield
that there is anyone who is more concerned about those needy children
in our local communities. The fact of the matter is that his battle is
not with us--it is with the Republican leadership that supported this
program 5 months ago.
Special ed educators all over this country are supporting the Murray
amendment. Why? Because they think you can serve special needs children
in many different ways, not just in targeting money for a particular
funding program, but in smaller classes. We put that in the record. So
we reject this idea that we are pitting one group of children against
another, which effectively is what the Republican amendments are doing.
Mr. President, today in just 8 minutes we will start a series of
votes. They are on amendments that can make a major difference in
student achievement. They are supported by parents, local school
boards, principals, and teachers all across this Nation for smaller
class size, expanding after-school programs, reducing drop out rates,
and ending social promotion. We have a chance on the floor of the U.S.
Senate, to take votes and declare that we want action in those areas.
That is what we are trying to do. We have been trying to do it for 6
days and have been denied that through parliamentary mechanisms of our
Republican friends.
I hope those Americans who care so deeply about those issues know how
important it is to the children of this country. It is intuitive. Every
parent knows if you have a child in a smaller class the child is going
to do better. We have an opportunity to do something about that and I
hope this afternoon we will have a strong vote in support of the Murray
amendment--the children in this country deserve it.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Tennessee, the sponsor of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, it is an exciting day because education in
the United States is off to a fresh start. The underlying bill, which I
am hopeful and confident will be passed later today, does something
that previous bills out of this body did not do, and that is cut
redtape. It combines flexibility and allows local innovation, local
creativity to emerge, with strong accountability built in to give our
students--and that is the purpose--to give our students the best chance
to receive a solid and a strong education to prepare them for the
millennium which is just around the corner.
Ed-Flex is not a panacea. We have been very careful, as sponsors of
this bill, to point out it is not a panacea to our Nation's educational
systems' woes, but it is a strong bipartisan, bicameral first step. It
is a first step to unshackle the hands of our teachers, to unshackle
the hands of our administrators, of our principals--all who are working
hard every day to educate our children. You look around at the success
of Ed-Flex, whether it is just around the corner in Phelps Luck School
in Maryland where waiver authority was granted to reduce class size, or
in Kansas where Ed-Flex has made it possible to implement all-day
kindergarten, or in many of the States that have access to Ed-Flex now
to reduce paperwork. After today, coupled with the passage in the House
of Representatives just a few hours ago, and ultimately to be signed by
the President, we can give these opportunities to all States, to all
children, to all schools in this country.
I am proud to have been an original author and original sponsor of
this particular bill. I am very appreciative of the manager and his
conduct of the floor proceedings over the last several days, and I
especially want to thank the Governors with whom I have worked very
closely over the last several weeks to accomplish passage of this bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Maine 2
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and again commend
Senator Frist, chief sponsor of this legislation, and the chairman of
the committee. I am pleased to join with them in this effort.
Mr. President, the question before us is simple. This is not a
question of who is for better schools; this is not a question of who is
for putting more Federal resources in education; because both Democrats
and Republicans alike share those two goals. The question before us is
whom do you trust to make education decisions? Should education
decisions be decided in Washington? Should every Federal dollar be
attached to a string? Or should we trust the people at the local
level--our school board members, our teachers, our parents, to make the
best decisions for the students in local schools? To me, the answer is
clear. We should increase the Federal commitment to education, but
empower local school boards, teachers and parents to make the best
decisions in keeping with the needs of their communities. That is the
question before us.
The second question before us is, Is the Government, is Congress,
going to keep its promise with regard to funding special education? I
say the answer to that should be yes. Let's keep the promise that was
made more than 20 years ago when Congress passed the legislation
mandating special ed. Let's keep our promise. Let's fully fund that
important program before creating a whole lot of new categorical grant
programs with strings attached. That is the debate.
Everyone here is for better schools, better teachers, but that is not
the issue.
[[Page S2556]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 50 seconds.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the remainder of my time to myself.
I have noticed over the years with my good friend from Massachusetts,
that the weaker his arguments, the louder the volume. He exceeded all
my expectations today.
My Democratic friends have a number of amendments that will be coming
up for votes shortly. As I have pointed out this week, we will be
considering the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act this Congress. The Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions has already held several hearings on the ESEA, and many
more are in the works. I will oppose all amendments that are relevant
to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I will do this, not
because I am callous to these issues, in fact, I ve championed them,
but because these amendments should be discussed in the normal
committee process. I will, however, support amendments that are
designed to let local educators direct more money to special education.
The reauthorization of special ed occurred last year, and it is open to
have more money. The amendment I introduced on behalf of Senator Lott
and others will provide local communities with a choice regarding how
much they will use their share of the $1.2 billion included in last
year's omnibus appropriations bill for education.
Under our amendments, a school system may use the funds either to
hire teachers or to support activities under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. What fairer system can you have under the
circumstances? That is all we are doing. We are saying give them an
option, give the locals an option: More teachers or more money for
special ed. Our amendment will permit local school officials themselves
to decide whether they need more money to educate children with
disabilities or whether they need funds to hire more teachers.
In Vermont, I am betting the funds will be used for IDEA. Time and
again, Vermonters have made clear to me that special education funding
is far and away the most pressing need of our communities. And time and
again, Vermonters have pressed me to find out whether the Federal
Government will honor its promise to pay 40 percent of the costs of
special education. We are fortunate in Vermont to have already achieved
the small class sizes which the President is trying to promote with his
teacher hiring program. We do not need more. We need more money for
special ed.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 24 seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
concurrent resolution.
Mr. KENNEDY. Is it appropriate or is it in order to ask for the yeas
and nays on all of the amendments this afternoon? I ask unanimous
consent that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the Senator's
request? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the amendments
en bloc?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered en bloc.
____________________