[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 39 (Thursday, March 11, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2573-S2574]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on 
the important education bill which we passed on its substantive merits, 
and also to speak briefly on the politics, where the bill might have 
appeared at some points to be partisan, with three votes on amendments 
being cast along party lines. I am convinced that we had a very strong 
bipartisan vote on final passage. At the same time that the Senate will 
pass this Education Flexibility Partnership Act, the House of 
Representatives is working on similar legislation, so it will be 
presented to the President for his signature, which we are optimistic 
of obtaining.
  I think it is important to note that there were important provisions 
in amendments offered by Members on the other side of the aisle, where 
there were good programs which can be taken up in due course. The 
program for new teachers I think is a good idea. The program for 
dropout prevention is another good idea. The program for afterschool 
provisions I think, again, is sound and can be taken up at a later 
time. But had they been pressed on this bill, we would have had 
gridlock and this bill would not have been enacted.
  Last year, the President proposed $1.2 billion as a starter for 
100,000 new teachers. That was accepted by the Congress. Before the 
President came forward with that proposal, in the subcommittee of 
Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education which I have the privilege 
to chair, we had put provisions in for some $300 million which would 
have provided for as many new teachers as could have been hired during 
fiscal year 1999. The President came in with a bigger figure at a later 
date. That was ultimately accepted by the Congress.
  But I do think the idea for new teachers is a good idea. The question 
of how to fund it is always the tough issue. Similarly, the proposals 
for dropout prevention and afterschool programs again are sound and it 
is a question of finding the adequate funding for these kinds of 
important programs.
  I believe the Senate spoke very loudly and very emphatically on the 
question of giving local school districts the choice as to whether to 
use the money for special education, or whether to use the money for 
new teachers, or what to use the money for. The local education 
agencies were given that discretion on a vote of 61 to 38, where 6 
Democrats voted with 55 Republicans on that choice issue. Funding 
special education is a very major problem in America today. The Federal 
Government has imposed a mandate on the States, and the Supreme Court 
in a recent decision has broadened the terms of that mandate.
  In the subcommittee that I chair, which funds education, we have 
provided very substantial increases for special education, but the 
Federal Government has made a commitment for 40 percent funding and we 
are nowhere near that. So when you talk about the priorities of more 
new teachers or money for special education, that matter was put to the 
Senate for a vote and, not strictly along party lines, the Senate voted 
to have the option with

[[Page S2574]]

the local education agencies; with the vote being 61 to 38, some 6 
Democrats joined the 55 Republicans.
  When the choice issue was articulated along a slightly different 
line, the vote was 78 to 21, with some 23 Democrats joining 55 
Republicans. That amendment also had provisions to keep the guns out of 
schools, which was doubtless an incentive to make that a stronger 
bipartisan vote than on some of the others.
  Two of the other amendments were 59 to 40, with 4 Democrats joining 
the Republicans and, 57 to 42, 2 Democrats joining--and although we did 
have 3 votes along party lines, 55 to 44, there was a very definite 
bipartisan flavor to the votes on this matter.
  It is always difficult when we have votes which are 55 to 44, 
strictly along party lines, with the question being raised: Isn't there 
any independence among 55 Republicans or the 44 Democrats? But the 
party line was adhered to in order to get the bill passed, even though, 
as I say, in voting against new teachers, against dropout prevention 
programs, and against afterschool programs--those are good ideas, and 
on another day we will be able to take them up. But if we were to 
maintain these programs, I think this bill could not have been passed; 
if we had not drawn the line to focus on Ed-Flex in this bill.
  The flexibility I think is a very good idea. The Federal Government 
funds some 7 to 8 percent of the total funding. Last year, again in the 
subcommittee, we increased the funding by about $3.5 billion, about 10 
percent, bringing the total Federal share to about $34.5 billion. But 
the principle of federalism continues to be sound, and that is that we 
ought to leave as much to the States as we can and we ought to leave as 
much to the local education agencies as we can, with the people at the 
local level knowing best what their needs are. So if there is a limited 
amount of funding, let them make the choice among special education or 
new teachers or dropout prevention programs or afterschool programs; 
leave it to the people who are closest to the problems.
  So, all in all, there was a bit of partisanship here but I think it 
was justified to get the bill passed--not too much, with only three 
votes being along party lines--and deferring to another day the 
important programs which were not enacted today, but maintaining a very 
important point of flexibility to allow local education agencies to 
have the dominant voice in meeting their needs as they see them, being 
closest to them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

                          ____________________