[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 55 (Wednesday, April 21, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3984-S4005]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of 
conference on the bill (H.R. 800) to provide for education flexibility 
partnerships and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
  The Legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     800), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
     respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of the 
     conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of April 20, 1999.)
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today, we are considering the conference 
report to the only outstanding education issue remaining from the last 
Congress--the Education Flexibility Partnership Act. Today, we will 
complete last year's unfinished business.
  Over a year ago, the President told the Nation's Governors that 
passage of this legislation ``would dramatically reduce the regulatory 
burden of the federal government on the states in the area of 
education.''
  The National Governors' Association has strongly urged the Congress 
to pass Ed-Flex this year and today we will act on their request.
  The Education Flexibility Partnership Act, H.R. 800, will give States 
the ability, if they so choose, to make limited resources go further 
toward the goal of improving school and student performance. It offers 
a deal no one can refuse--results rather than red tape.
  Under Ed-Flex, the Department of Education gives a State authority to 
grant waivers within a State, affording each State the ability to make 
decisions about whether school districts may be granted waivers 
pertaining to certain Federal requirements.
  It is very important to note that States cannot waive any Federal 
regulatory or statutory requirements relating to health and safety, 
civil rights, maintenance of effort, comparability of services, 
equitable participation of students and professional staff in private 
schools, parental participation and involvement, and distribution of 
funds to state or local education agencies.
  Currently 12 States have Ed-Flex authority which was created through 
a Federal demonstration program, originally created in 1994.
  My home State of Vermont is one of the twelve using Ed-Flex 
authority. Vermont has used Ed-Flex to improve and maximize Title I 
services for those students participating in Title I programs in 
smaller rural school districts. In addition, my home state has also 
used their Ed-Flex authority to provide greater access to professional 
development, which is essential to educational reform and improvement.
  Two weeks ago, the Independent Review Panel, which was created under 
the 1994 Elementary and Secondary Education Act for the purpose of 
reviewing federally funded elementary and secondary education programs, 
issued its report.
  One of the sections of the report focuses on waivers including the 
use of waiver authority by the current 12 Ed-Flex States. The report 
states:

       Waivers also encourage innovation; they allow educators to 
     focus first on identifying the most promising strategies for 
     improving academic achievement and then on requesting waivers 
     to remove obstacles to their efforts.
  I believe H.R. 800 is structured to ensure that the primary function 
of

[[Page S3985]]

issuing waivers is to positively impact overall school and student 
performance.
  The bill before us today, H.R. 800, under the sponsorship of Senator 
Bill Frist and Senator Ron Wyden, has significantly improved the 
accountability aspects of the 1994 Ed-Flex demonstration program. This 
legislation emphasizes that flexibility is a tool in helping States and 
districts achieve education goals and standards. It also highlights the 
importance of States having, in place, first-rate accountability 
systems that will track the progress of schools and students impacted 
by the waivers granted under Ed-Flex.
  I believe passage of this legislation also gives us an excellent 
introduction to the debate we must have on the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, the law which contains most of the federal programs 
designed to assist students and teachers in our elementary and 
secondary schools. This law must be renewed in this Congress.
  Through the Ed-Flex debate, we have discussed the importance of 
accountability, the roles that the various levels of Government play in 
the elementary and secondary education system, professional development 
activities for teachers and other school personnel, and most 
importantly, student achievement. All of these issues are essential 
elements to the structure of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
reauthorization effort.
  As we embark on a new century, it is the perfect opportunity for us 
to examine the federal role in our education delivery system. At the 
beginning of this current century, the biggest education challenge 
facing this country centered around increasing the number of 
individuals graduating from high school. In the early 1900s, fewer than 
seven percent of seventeen year-olds graduated from high school. In 
1999, that percentage has risen to slightly over eighty percent.
  Although continuing our efforts on increasing high school graduation 
rates is still important, our biggest challenge at the close of the 
20th century is to ensure that our Nation's schools are all high 
quality academic institutions. The bill before us today gives states 
and towns greater flexibility in meeting that challenge.
  This legislation is not meant to serve as the sole solution for 
improving school and student performance.
  However, it does serve as a mechanism that will give states the 
ability to maximize various education initiatives through flexibility 
with real accountability. I urge my colleagues to support the passage 
of the conference report to H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility 
Partnership Act.
  I would like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Bill Frist for 
his leadership in this area. He has worked tirelessly over the last 
year on this legislation with Senator Wyden. I thank both of them for 
their dedication and efforts.
  I would also like to thank the ranking member of the committee, 
Senator Kennedy. He has been especially helpful in adding many of the 
accountability provisions contained in the conference bill before us. I 
thank him for his cooperation and leadership.
  I also thank all of the Senate conferees for their assistance and 
cooperation.
  I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of the chairman of the 
House Education and Workforce Committee, Congressman Bill Goodling and 
the House sponsors of this legislation, Representatives Mike Castle and 
Tim Roemer. They have worked very hard on this legislation.
  I would also like to thank Wayne Riddle with the Congressional 
Research Service and Mark Sigurski with the Senate Legislative Counsel 
Office. They have been very helpful with their technical advice and 
assistance.
  I also extend my appreciation to Gail Taylor and Bob McNamara with 
the Vermont Department of Education. They have been extraordinarily 
helpful with their technical assistance.
  Mr. President, we are now considering the Ed-Flex conference report 
which passed the House 368-57 about an hour and a half ago, so we are 
on our way, at this moment, to getting the bill down to the President, 
so that he can sign it. And, the President has agreed to sign this 
bill.
  This is the last unfinished business that we had on a number of 
education bills that we passed last year. This one passed the education 
committee, but did not go any further.
  The major changes that were made in conference dealt with the 
question of how much flexibility we should give the States in the 
utilization of funds for the purpose of the 100,000 teacher provisions 
that were attached to the bill.
  When the bill left here, the Senate gave the towns the flexibility to 
use the teacher hiring funds for IDEA if they felt it would be better 
utilized. That was objected to by the President, who felt it was more 
important to have the funds elsewhere other than to help with special 
education.
  We did reach an agreement, however, which was satisfactory, obviously 
from the vote in the House. This agreement is that those States which 
are already at the 1-teacher-to-18-students ratio would not have to 
utilize the funds to hire teachers. Rather, those States that have 
already reached the goal of 1 teacher per 18 students would be able to 
use the funds for professional development.
  We have, I think, a good compromise, though I am sure the Senate, as 
indicated by its previous vote, would prefer to help special education. 
Another very high priority is the question of improving teacher 
performance.
  Mr. President, I yield to Senator Frist such time as he may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as the sponsor of this critical education 
bill that we have before us, I would like to thank Senator Jeffords, 
who is Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee, for his hard work on this bill that began well over a year 
ago. He really undertook the initiative and expressed his willingness 
to take this bill, a bill that will benefit millions of children in 
public schools all across this country, through his committee, not once 
but actually two different times, and then to shepherd it through the 
process of floor consideration and, most recently, the debate and 
discussion in the conference committee.
  Last Congress, the chairman had a truly remarkable record of passing 
numerous education bills through Congress and having them signed into 
law. Most people in America are not aware of the significant number of 
bills, all of which get translated down to investing in the future by 
investing in our youth today.
  Ed-Flex was the only one of all of those bills that we did not 
complete last year. It was unfinished last year and fell over into this 
year. I am glad the chairman took the initiative of saying this is the 
final building block from the last Congress and shepherded it through 
the legislative process to where we are today. Today we will have 
several hours of debate and ultimately a vote that I am confident will 
result in adoption of this conference report. It will ultimately be 
signed by the President of the United States, again to be translated 
into an investment in our children.
  I think we all hope that the passage of Ed-Flex bodes well for 
another 2 years of positive education accomplishments in the Senate 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.
  Mr. President, I started working on this bill to expand Ed-Flex with 
Senator Ron Wyden, who will address this body in a few minutes, along 
with Governors Voinovich and Carper at the National Governors' 
Association a little over a year ago. That occurred just following 
completion of a task force which was set into motion by the chairman of 
the Senate Budget Committee who felt very strongly that an important 
role for us in the Senate Budget Committee is to provide oversight of 
existing programs.
  Senator Domenici basically said: What I would like to do in the 
Budget Committee is look at some of the programs that we have out there 
in education. That task force resulted in us looking at a number of 
programs, one of which was a demonstration project called Ed-Flex.
  Shortly after that oversight process, we began to ask more and more 
questions. We went to the Governors, and the Governors came to us. It 
became very clear that Governors--Democrat, Republican and 
Independent--felt very strongly that one of the most important things 
that we could do, if our

[[Page S3986]]

goal in this body is really to improve our public schools, is go back 
and look at some of the problems. And one of the obvious problems the 
Governors pointed out was the excessive regulations--not the intended 
goals but the excessive regulations. The Governors addressed this, at 
the level of the National Governors' Association, and they came out 
with numerous statements. This is one of their statements from February 
23 of this year in which they said:

       Congress should grant all states this important tool that 
     will accelerate the pace of school reform and move the nation 
     closer to meeting its goal of raising student achievement. 
     Congress should pass Ed-Flex now.

  I am delighted that now is the time, that we will all have the 
opportunity to cast that final vote in this body, so that not just 12 
States but all States in this country can have the opportunity to have 
increased flexibility, maintaining strong accountability with Ed-Flex.
  In the task force in the Budget Committee, as many of my colleagues 
know, what we learned is not necessarily good news as we look at 
education. We spend billions of dollars every year on a system that, 
unfortunately, if we look at the final product--and that is an educated 
student--is failing our students miserably. Achievement levels are 
staggering at almost every age group in almost every subject matter. 
And if we compare our students to students in other countries, it 
appears that the longer a child is in an American school, the worse off 
he or she is when compared to their international counterparts. That is 
in the United States of America today.
  At the same time, we see, as we look at this global comparison, that 
the world is getting smaller, barriers are falling down. Our students 
today are and will be competing internationally. New technologies and 
an increasingly global marketplace are fueling a growing need for well-
educated workers who are able to compete with their peers worldwide. 
Unfortunately, we are equipping too few American students with the 
ability to compete in those jobs.
  Ed-Flex is not a panacea; it is a first step. What this particular 
piece of legislation will do is take a demonstration project that is 
currently underway in the 12 States--which appear in yellow on this 
chart--and expand that opportunity of flexibility with accountability 
to all 50 States. We have a really clear-cut demonstration in States 
like Texas, where Ed-Flex programs have been implemented, that they 
have been successful in increasing student achievement. It is not a 
panacea though; again, in my mind, it is a first step. But it does 
shout certain things. It shouts that we can do better. It shouts the 
importance of elimination of unnecessary regulations. It shouts 
flexibility coupled with accountability. It shouts efficiency. And it 
shouts state and local control of education.
  As we look forward, I suspect that we will devote a large portion of 
our legislative session to considering other education issues, many of 
which were discussed on the floor in our debate of Ed-Flex. These 
education reform measures will be addressed in the reauthorization of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. But Ed-Flex, the bill 
today, is, I believe, the first step in that process.
  The success stories we have heard again and again come from 
innovation at the state and local level. I am sure all my colleagues in 
this body could share an example of one sort or another from their 
particular State of an innovative school, an innovative principal, 
innovative teachers.
  One such in my own State of Tennessee is the Cason Lane Academy in 
Murfreesboro. Another example we have all heard about again and again 
in this body is the Chicago Public School System which went from being 
the--I quote--``worst school system in America,'' as deemed by then-
Secretary of Education Bill Bennett, to a model for reform and 
innovation.
  Part of the reason that both Cason Lane back in Murfreesboro, TN, and 
Chicago have been successful is that they have been free from some of 
the heavyhanded or shackling Government recommendations at both the 
State and the Federal level. Once they are freed from these 
regulations, clearly having a well-defined plan, having strong 
accountability built in, they have been able to creatively address some 
of the problems they face and give their students that opportunity to 
achieve a better education.
  What our Ed-Flex bill does is give that same opportunity to States 
which do not have that opportunity today. It will give it to those 
states, and local schools and those local school districts so they will 
have the opportunity to meet the stated goals of Federal legislation, 
but how they meet those goals will be determined and based on local 
need. And that is what our Ed-Flex bill does.
  We have heard a lot from Texas about the success there. Test scores 
have been on the rise for all students, even for those categorized as 
``educationally disadvantaged'' who receive title I services. Paperwork 
demands on teachers and principals were dramatically reduced. The 
bureaucratic demands on their administrators were greatly reduced. 
Texas even claims that a whole new environment has been created that 
is--and I quote--``free of any real or perceived barriers to education 
reform.'' All States will be able to have that flexibility and that 
accountability.
  I am pleased that Congress came together in a truly bipartisan way 
for what really should be and is a nonpartisan effort to enact this 
education reform. I was disappointed, however, that the Administration 
was very threatened by the provision which offered states greater 
flexibility in using appropriated dollars to either reduce class size 
or for individuals with disabilities in our school systems. That 
particular amendment is not part of the legislation we are debating 
today.
  That Lott amendment would have given States yet another option how 
they would use that money. That was important, I believe, in the debate 
that came forward because Ed-Flex is about that fundamental principle 
of untying the hands of those people who are closest to our students, 
those people who are in the best position to identify what needs there 
might be--whether it is construction or class size or more computers or 
hooking up to the Internet.
  The Lott amendment was very much in this same vein. I am disappointed 
that the President came forward and threatened to veto this particular 
vision to give States more choice. The Administration's veto threat, 
which we dealt with last week in the Conference Committee, I believe 
underlies the President's rhetoric about increased flexibility--which 
he made in this building during the State of the Union Message--but 
that in truth is more limited than what we see in reality. 
Nevertheless, I am delighted with the outcome of this particular bill 
to cut redtape, to increase flexibility in education.
  I have enjoyed working with a number of Governors. Later in the 
afternoon I hope to be able to recognize some of them by name, a number 
of Members in the House of Representatives, and a number of Senators. I 
am pleased that the 106th Congress has started out on such a positive 
note in addressing one of America's most pressing issues, and that is 
the education of our children. I am proud to have been a coauthor of 
this bill and look forward to seeing millions of schoolchildren benefit 
from an expanded Ed-Flex program.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I know he is 
waiting to speak as well. I thank him for the chance to follow my 
colleague, Senator Frist.
  For too long the major political parties in this country have been at 
war on the education issue. Today, with this bipartisan legislation, we 
are beginning to make the peace and to do it in a way that is good for 
America's children.
  I especially thank my colleague, Senator Frist. He and I have worked 
together on this legislation for many months. The heart of this 
legislation is that now we will be able to take the dollars away from 
various bureaucratic Federal requirements and pour those dollars into 
our classrooms to help our kids.
  This legislation involves eight Federal programs and more than $12 
billion. What we have found in the course

[[Page S3987]]

of our hearings is that again and again across this country we are 
wasting a substantial portion of that money on various duplicative 
Federal rules that essentially put our local school districts through 
what one called to me ``bureaucratic water torture,'' when what they 
want to do is put those dollars into our classrooms.
  I happen to think both political parties have made an important 
contribution in this discussion about education. A number of my 
colleagues have said, before we spend additional money, we are going to 
have to spend billions and billions of dollars that the Federal 
Government allocates today in a more effective way.
  The Ed-Flex legislation does that. That is why Senator Frist and I 
have made it a priority, and that is why we have told our colleagues in 
the Senate we want that to be the first education bill to come to the 
floor of the Senate: Before you go to the American people and ask for 
additional funds, demonstrate clearly you are spending the dollars that 
are allocated today effectively. That is what this legislation does.
  I also think a number of our colleagues, led by the distinguished 
Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, are absolutely right in saying 
that additional money is going to be needed for education. It is going 
to be needed to ensure we have the technology we need for youngsters. 
It is going to be needed to reduce class size in America, and I think 
that is an important part of this debate as well. When this legislation 
is signed into law by the President of the United States, we are going 
to go on to consider that legislation. I submit to our colleagues, we 
are in a lot better shape going to the American people to ask for 
additional funds when we have proven with legislation like Ed-Flex that 
we can squeeze more value out of the existing dollars that are being 
allocated.
  Make no mistake about it, existing funds are going to be liberated 
with Ed-Flex and are going to help us achieve some objectives that 
Members of this body feel very strongly about.
  For example, Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle very 
much want to reduce class size in America. Existing dollars using the 
Ed-Flex program can do that. In fact, in a school a short distance from 
here, in Howard County, MD, the Phelps Luck Elementary School used the 
Ed-Flex program to reduce the average student/teacher ratio in math and 
reading from 25 to 1 to 12 to 1.
  Some of us believe we are going to need additional dollars to reduce 
class size in America, but make no mistake about it; under the 
legislation that Senator Frist and I have brought to the Senate today, 
we can use existing dollars to reduce class size in America. I think 
that is something of value to our colleagues.
  I will pass on one example from my home State of Oregon from The 
Dalles High School that I think sums it all up. We found at one of our 
high schools in rural Oregon that low-income students were unable to 
take advanced computer courses at a local community college because the 
high school lacked the necessary equipment and instructors. Yet there 
was a community college very close by, and we were not able to use the 
dollars that had to be spent at the high school at that nearby 
community college without going through all kinds of redtape and 
bureaucracy. With Ed-Flex, we were able to use those dollars earmarked 
for the high school at the local community college without any 
additional cost to the taxpayers. The students were able to go to the 
community college. They got the training they needed. Ed-Flex, again, 
showed that with just a modest change in Federal regulation, we could 
do a better job of educating young people in America.
  We have had this program, as my colleague from Tennessee has noted, 
in 12 States. We have debated this on the floor of the Senate for some 
time. And through that debate, there has not been offered one example, 
not one in any community or any State, of low-income students being 
exploited in any way. I cannot recall another Federal program where it 
has not been possible to show some problem somewhere, but in the course 
of this debate, which has gotten a bit contentious, as we know, over 
the last few months, not one example has been produced with respect to 
how this program in 12 States has been abused.
  The fact is, it has worked. It has worked everywhere. The scores are 
up in the State of Texas where they are using it. Class size is down in 
Howard County where they are using it. Students are getting access to 
advanced technologies in my home State of Oregon. It has worked 
virtually everywhere, but it is going to work even better when we pass 
this legislation.
  I will close this part of the debate by saying I am especially 
pleased, and I thank my colleague from Tennessee for his help on this, 
with the changes in this legislation to ensure that the role of Ed-Flex 
will be expanded in a variety of areas involving interactive computer 
technology in our schools. When this Ed-Flex legislation becomes law in 
my State, which was the very first in the country to pioneer this, it 
is going to start a new program using Ed-Flex authority so that every 
second grader in the State of Oregon will be able to use interactive 
computer technology to learn and improve their reading skills.
  I am especially pleased that we have been able to add this technology 
waiver program. This is a good day for the Senate.
  My colleague, Senator Frist, thanked so many people when we were on 
the floor before, but I especially thank Ms. Lindsay Rosenberg of my 
staff who is with us here today.
  Bipartisan legislation such as this does not happen by osmosis. It 
happens because a lot of our staff have spent a lot of weekends and 
evenings working on this legislation. Today the first bipartisan 
education bill is coming to the floor of the Senate. It offers a fresh, 
creative approach to Federal/State relations, one with enormous 
potential for improving education for all our citizens.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, again, I want to thank my cosponsor, 
Senator Wyden, as we have taken this bill forward, for all of his 
tremendous assistance on the task force last year, as well as today.
  Also, because I mentioned the National Governors' Association, I want 
to very briefly point out how important was their participation in this 
legislation. Again, it was bipartisan from the outset. I think much of 
what we do in the future will be with the Governors, as we work 
together, recognizing the local control of education being so vital and 
important. Governor Carper, chairman of the National Governors' 
Association; Governor Ridge, chairman of the Republican Governors 
Association; Governor O'Bannon, chairman of the Democrat Governors 
Association; former Governor and now Senator Voinovich, who has been so 
instrumental in this legislation; and Governor Leavitt, vice chair of 
the NGA, as well.
  At this juncture, I yield 15 minutes to my colleague from the great 
State of Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I look forward to the passage of the Ed-Flex 
Partnership Act, which I believe will liberate schools and teachers 
from the costly burden of Federal mandates and regulations. It is very 
important that we free our teachers to teach and that we free the 
resources of the educational system to meet the needs of students, 
rather than to satisfy directives of the bureaucracy.
  I believe this bill will give America's teachers more freedom to 
teach. It will release them from countless hours spent filling out 
forms from Washington, DC. The State of Missouri's 525 school districts 
will have more time to educate their children and a greater ability to 
decide how best to use the precious resource of taxpayer dollars, and 
how to use those to devote them to the best interests of students and 
student achievement, and not for a sort of edification of the 
bureaucracy in Washington.
  So I want to thank Senator Wyden, Senator Frist, and Senator 
Jeffords: Senator Jeffords as chairman of the relevant committee, and 
Senators Frist and Wyden, who are the lead cosponsors of this important 
legislation. They have done wonderful work here.
  This is work designed to find its way all the way to the student in 
the school system. So much of what is done in the name of education 
never finds its way

[[Page S3988]]

to the student. So often it edifies the bureaucracy, or builds it, or 
strengthens it. So often it applies to some hierarchical part of the 
State educational system. But Ed-Flex is designed to carry the benefit 
all the way to the student. There is one thing that we care about more 
than anything else, and that is the student in the school system. 
Sometimes we lose sight of that. I commend Senators Frist, Wyden, and 
Jeffords for their having kept the student in focus in this particular 
measure.
  I am also pleased to support this conference report because it 
contains an amendment that I proposed, which makes an important change 
to a discipline provision within the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act. Now, this provision, which the Senate approved by a vote 
of 78-21, gives school authorities the opportunity and the right to 
discipline any student who possesses a weapon on school premises. This 
provision allows a school to place a student--even a student with a 
disability--in an interim alternative educational setting if the 
student carries or possesses a gun on school premises. This action 
closes a loophole in the IDEA law that only permitted a school to take 
disciplinary action if the child carried the weapon to school, but not 
if he or she possessed the weapon at school.
  My intent in offering this provision over a month ago was to empower 
schools to maintain a safe and secure learning environment for 
students, teachers, and for other school personnel.
  America is saddened today, and we all grieve at yesterday's tragic 
situation in the Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. That situation 
underscores the need for us to continue to find ways to help teachers, 
parents, and school officials maintain safer schools. We need to be 
creating a learning environment that is free of undue disruption or 
violence. We should give local school officials the authority to 
enforce zero tolerance of weapons brought to school. That is a step in 
which this bill goes when it includes the ability to discipline 
students who bring guns to school or possess guns at school.
  I know all of us here offer our condolences, heartfelt sympathies, to 
all of the families, the loved ones, the teachers, and to the 
communities that surround or are involved in the tragedy in Colorado.
  We don't know all the facts of this incident. We don't know the 
complete background on the students who are allegedly involved in this 
situation. But this incident should prompt in us a desire to examine 
our current Federal laws and to make whatever necessary changes there 
are, if there can be changes made to prevent tragedies like this from 
occurring.
  Since I became a Member of the Senate in 1995, I have had concerns 
about school safety. I have already worked to make improvements in 
Federal law to create a safer learning environment for students and 
teachers. My involvement on this issue began with the 1995 killing of 
the 15-year-old in St. Louis named Christine Smetzer. She was killed in 
the restroom of a high school in St. Louis County.
  Now, the male special education student convicted of murdering 
Christine had a juvenile record and had been caught in women's 
restrooms at a previous school. However, the teachers and the 
administrators at McCluer High School where he was transferred say they 
were not informed of the student's record when he transferred to their 
school. So here you have a student who should have been identified, 
could have been identified as a student who had a special potential for 
the kind of violence and danger that transpired. The student was 
transferred, but the information that would have alerted school 
officials to make the school a safer environment, to help that student 
avoid the commission of the crime, and certainly to prevent the kind of 
tragic outcome, the killing of another student, our Federal laws were 
part of the problem that kept that from happening.
  So in response to that, I secured a provision in the law requiring 
that student disciplinary records transfer to a new school when the 
student transfers to a new school. That was just a small step taken in 
response to that 1995 problem with student discipline requirements that 
the Federal Government imposes.
  Now, the discipline provision in the bill that we are discussing here 
today was something that I, frankly, came to understand as a result of 
discussing concerns with Missouri schools. A suburban Missouri school 
district told me it found a disabled student to be in possession of a 
weapon at school, but the school could not be sure that the student had 
actually carried the weapon to the school premises. This school told me 
it needed this loophole closed to ensure that it could act swiftly and 
with confidence to an obviously dangerous situation.
  You can imagine the inability to discipline somebody because they 
said, ``I didn't carry the gun on to the premises, I just got it after 
I was here,'' or ``I found it in my locker or on the floor,'' or ``You 
can't prove that I brought it into the school. Therefore, you can't 
discipline me for having a gun at school.''
  What a terrible situation that is. So when I sought to offer this 
amendment--which was passed overwhelmingly by the Senate and remains in 
the conference committee report--it was in response to this need to 
make sure that the Federal Government doesn't have rules that make it 
impossible for local schools to be able to maintain a secure and safe 
school environment.
  Interestingly enough, 2 weeks ago, I was traveling in the State of 
Missouri, talking with teachers and parents and principals and 
administrators to get their input about education. Time after time, 
they talked to me about safety and about discipline. Very often, they 
even mentioned weapons at school. They mentioned that the Federal law 
was handcuffing their ability to take appropriate steps to keep their 
schools safe.

  In a specific school--I was told by the administrator of that school, 
this is not a hypothetical, but I choose not to name the school because 
the school would prefer not to be identified--I was told of a situation 
in a rural Missouri school where a disabled student had made numerous 
threats against both students and staff, had threatened on at least 
seven occasions to kill other students or staff. The school was aware 
of the threats, but was hindered by the Federal law from taking steps 
that they thought were most appropriate to deal with the student.
  Later, this high school student finally shot another student. The 
shooting happened off school grounds and the school was able to remove 
the student from the classroom once the shooting had taken place.
  But I wonder if we might think carefully as to whether or not the 
Federal requirements which tie the hands of State officials and school 
officials regarding school discipline, whether those Federal knots, 
Federal handcuffs--ought to be taken off our school principals, our 
teachers, our administrators, our school boards so that they have the 
ability at an early time when there is an early warning to take steps 
to avoid the tragedy that can otherwise exist. In this situation they 
weren't able to actually get done what they needed to do until another 
student had been shot. I don't believe that resulted in a fatality. But 
the difference between someone wounded and someone killed is frequently 
not something we can take a great deal of consolation in because that 
bullet could have been deadly.
  Another school superintendent reported to me that Federal law 
required him to return a disabled student to the classroom after the 
student threatened to shoot school employees.
  We have seen the tragic gruesome events in States close to Missouri, 
in schools in Jonesboro, AR, in Paducah, KY, and now in Littleton, CO. 
I don't want to see this happen in my home State of Missouri. I don't 
want to see these kinds of things happen anywhere.
  Again, I emphasize: We do not--I repeat ``do not''--know all of the 
facts of the Littleton incident. We do not know if they were special 
education students subject to the Federal IDEA laws or not. But we do 
know that this situation should prompt us to examine all of our Federal 
laws involving school safety.
  We have a massive tragedy waiting to happen if we have Federal rules 
and regulations which keep our school officials across America from 
being able to control schools, control students, and discipline 
students appropriately.

[[Page S3989]]

  We have a massive tragedy waiting to happen if we don't allow 
teachers and administrators to keep students who have guns from coming 
onto the campus and being on the campus.
  The provision that is in this measure, which I have had the privilege 
of sponsoring, ends one of these laws and helps protect our kids from 
gun violence in schools.
  The tragic events at schools across the nation in the last year or so 
say something very, very troubling about our culture.
  In Springfield, MO, which is my hometown--I grew up there, went 
through school grades 1 through 12 in Springfield--just hours after the 
shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado, the school board voted 
to approve arming its school district security guards with weapons. I 
am saddened that the board had to take this action. But it reflects the 
harsh reality of our culture today.
  I think all of us wonder why these incidents of violence happen. 
Children against children--what does it say about our culture?
  Have we developed a culture of violence which degrades the value of 
life?
  We wonder about the movies, movies and video games and music, the so-
called gangster rap--I am not even sure how to label it--which talk 
about this kind of killing and suicide, and the disrespect for fellow 
students and fellow human beings.

  I think we need in our society to reexamine what our culture is 
teaching our children.
  What are we saying? What are we promoting with the death, with the 
violence, with the glorification of drugs in so much of the literature, 
and as a matter of fact, in much of the music?
  Parents need to be concerned.
  These aren't all things that government can have much to do about, 
but I think our parents need to be concerned about the level of 
exposure that our children have to things which degrade the 
appreciation for life and desensitize our feelings toward death.
  The joystick on a video game may punch out an opponent on the screen, 
and one might be able to kill, kill, kill, kill just by punching the 
button on the computer.
  I think we have to be careful that we don't create in ourselves the 
mentality of disrespect of what ought to be an appreciation for life, 
and desensitize our feelings.
  Obviously, Congress can't solve all the problems.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Missouri has 
expired.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I ask unanimous consent that I have another 60 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, we can act to ensure that our 
legislative policies empower parents, teachers, principals and 
administrators with the ability to ensure that our children have a safe 
learning environment. I believe that is something we owe America.
  Current Federal education laws preclude schools from dealing with 
early warning signs of danger. It is time for us to end that. I am 
pleased that we have done it to a small degree in the Ed-Flex measure.
  I am grateful for the sponsors of this measure and for the excellent 
work they have done for America and education.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from New York will 
be speaking for about 5 minutes, after which I will have 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I would be glad to yield 5 minutes to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee and 
the Senator from Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
  Mr. President, this afternoon we are talking about education 
legislation.
  Today, all of our thoughts and prayers go to one school in Littleton, 
CO. Yesterday's massacre is all too familiar. It is America's recurring 
nightmare. It leaves us shocked and numb. It takes away our innocence. 
It makes children afraid to go to school.
  This morning I had breakfast with my daughters. I do that every day 
before they go off to the schoolbus. Usually, it is routine, but today 
the conversation was a little different, both for me and for my girls.
  Yesterday, as we sat transfixed to our television sets praying for 
those caught in the crossfire and hoping for an explanation of the 
carnage, we heard the same phrases that we heard in Pearl, in 
Springfield, in Jonesboro and Paducah.
  ``This is a quiet town.''
  ``Nothing like this happens here.''
  ``We do not have crime problems in this town.''
  ``It didn't seem real.''
  ``This is a good school.''
  ``Could it have been prevented?''
  ``How could someone be so distraught to murder, and, yet, no one in 
authority knew?''
  ``How did they get a gun?''
  ``What can we do?''
  The same words each time.
  Each time there is a new tragedy, we act as if this will be the last 
in a list of school shootings. But it is not the last.
  As sad and as horrible as it seems, this will definitely not be the 
last time we tune in to our television sets to see children fleeing 
from their schools.
  I have taken to the floor today to ask that we in Congress make a 
concerted and comprehensive attempt to address school shootings. I 
want, today, to list some ideas, many of which have already been 
discussed, some of which haven't, which I hope we can agree to work on 
and come up with some solutions that may make a difference. We have 
counselled teenagers since time began who have struggled with personal 
and psychological problems. The difference today is that through 
computers, fantasy worlds, lethal guns, and explosives, the damage that 
a disturbed boy can do today is 1,000 times worse than it was when we 
were kids. Some schools are very good at counseling. Most are not. We 
need to help schools get better at counseling.
  We need the Federal Government to help share information among 
schools so that good schools can teach those schools that do not do 
very well how to do it. There are too many young boys and girls with 
troubles and too few well-trained people to handle them.
  Second, the people who best knew that there were troubled kids in 
Columbine High were the students at the school.
  Students need to be encouraged to confidentially identify for the 
school psychologists and counselors those in the school who are 
exhibiting dangerous behavior and who need help. It is usually not the 
nature of a teenager to approach an authority figure to say someone in 
class is doing something strange. But it is not impossible to change 
that. If they know they are helping someone, kids will answer the call.
  Then there is the issue of hate groups. It is shocking that a large 
number of students in Littleton knew that yesterday was Hitler's 
birthday. That is because this group of so-called Goths idealize and 
proselytize about Hitler. But school authorities had no idea that there 
were those who worship Hitler in the school.
  We have to identify and we have to exchange information about hate 
groups and be far more vigilant in condemning these activities. 
Principals, teachers, and students must be encouraged to speak out. We 
have to get hate, white supremacy, and guns out of the schools. We 
don't know yet how these youths got their weapons. Did they take them 
from their parents? Did they steal them from a neighbor? Did they buy 
them off the Internet? Did they get them at a gun show or store?
  We must accept that any solution has to involve a change in gun laws. 
A teenager can only do so much damage with his fists. There have always 
been troubled teenagers. All of a sudden they seem to have the ability 
to do so much more damage. We can work on trying to change teenagers. 
We should also work on making sure that the instrumentalities of death 
and destruction cannot end up in their hands.
  We have to close off loopholes that allow kids to get a gun. We 
should ban unlicensed Internet sales. We should pass Senator Kennedy's 
child access prevention law. The House should pass Congresswoman 
McCarthy's comprehensive legislation. We need the

[[Page S3990]]

President to help us, to lead us in passing this type of legislation. 
We should also begin an effort in the public and private sectors to 
invest research money in ``smart'' guns that cannot be used by anyone 
other than the owner. This is an area where the military and the 
private sector can come together and do a lot of good. I will be 
talking more about that later in the week.

  Mr. President, it is not enough to wring our hands and pray it won't 
happen again. We need to act. Let's resolve to work together to do what 
is necessary to protect our children. Let us focus on better 
counseling, condemnation of hate groups within the school, encouraging 
students to come forward, and much better laws preventing kids from 
getting guns.
  We are all in mourning today. When the tears are dry, let's not 
pretend that this won't happen again.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I say at the outset, I salute the Senator 
on his remarks. I think he struck the right tone. There is a sense of 
mourning and sadness across America for what happened in Colorado.
  We have to address the needs of troubled children. I think the 
Senator from New York was correct in highlighting that. I think he also 
calls us to task, too, to do something sensible about gun control. A 
troubled child is a sad thing; a troubled child with a gun can be a 
tragedy not just for himself but for a lot of innocent youngsters.
  I ask the Senator if he can indicate to Members those legislative 
initiatives we should be considering that might slow down the violence 
we are seeing too often in America and too frequently in our schools?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague from Illinois for his comments. 
There are a lot of initiatives. The Senator from Illinois himself has 
been a leader in this area. There are many things we can do.
  In this specific instance, we don't know where the guns came from. 
They may have come from gun shows. Gun shows are open markets where 
virtually anyone can buy a gun. They may have even been bought off the 
Internet. There are almost no rules for controlling gun sales on the 
Internet.
  We also can proceed with trigger locks and much stronger legislation 
in terms of making schools gun free.
  These are things we can come together on. I think they are things 
that most experts agree would not eliminate the chance for this 
occurring but greatly reduce it.
  I look forward to working with the Senator and all Members of this 
body to do something about this. It is just awful when you see the 
pictures. Everyone is moved to try to do something to prevent it.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Angela 
Williams and David Goldberg, detailees in my Senate Judiciary 
Committee, be permitted floor privileges.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I see the good Senator from Ohio. I know he has been 
waiting. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Voinovich.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  I rise to support approval of the conference report on Ed-Flex. 
However, I would be remiss if I didn't respond to the remarks of 
Senator Schumer and Senator Ashcroft in terms of the tragedy that took 
place in Colorado and expressing the sympathy of the people of the 
State of Ohio to those families who are suffering today as a result of 
that tragedy. As one who has lost a child from a tragic automobile 
situation--instant death--I can understand the trauma those families 
are experiencing right now.
  I think it is a sad commentary on our society that this happened in 
Colorado, as well as other States, as mentioned by Senator Ashcroft and 
Senator Schumer. There is something wrong with our society and I am not 
sure we can solve it here on the floor of the Senate. I think it has to 
be solved in the hearts and the minds of the people who reside in our 
country. I think a lot has to do with turning back to our family and 
our moral values that are so important and which inculcate in us 
respect for our fellow man.
  I grew up in a family where I was taught to respect all individuals. 
It wasn't a man's color of skin, their religion, or their socioeconomic 
status that mattered; it was their character.
  I think there may be lots of responses to this tragedy, but I cannot 
help but think if they go back to the Boy Scout motto, the Girl Scout 
motto, and some of the basic fundamental organizations that build 
character, that this country will be far better off.
  In spite of everything we do, in my State I was ridiculed because we 
made a major capital improvement to put metal detector devices into our 
high schools. Many people said we shouldn't have to do that in our high 
schools, and that money went that quick. We wanted to guarantee that at 
least when kids were in school, they knew their classmates didn't have 
some kind of weapon. I am sure that perhaps in that school district, 
nobody even gave any thought that that kind of a situation could occur.
  The other area I think we need to recognize is that, unfortunately, 
youngsters today aren't getting the kind of moral and family and 
religious training at home and the responsibilities are falling more on 
our schools. In Ohio, we aggressively pursued a mediation and dispute 
resolution program in kindergarten and first grade to try to teach 
children that when they have differences of opinion with other 
individuals, they sit down and talk them out; they don't use physical 
force to resolve their problems. We have recognized in our State that 
social service agencies have to be connected. We are locating them now 
in our schools. If we identify a youngster with a problem, that student 
can get the help they need. More important than that, most of the time 
the family gets the help they need so that they don't participate in 
antisocial behavior.
  There are a number of things that need to be done. I hope we don't, 
as a response to this, think there is just one approach that will make 
a difference. It will require a multifaceted approach, and again, 
looking into our own heart and soul.
  Ed-Flex, which I have worked on as well as the Presiding Officer, 
Senator Frist, might also help because it will give school districts 
around this country the opportunity to take money which is available to 
them through the Federal Government, and if they feel there is a better 
way that money can be spent to make a difference in the lives of 
children, they are going to be able to do that.
  Many children who don't do well early on in school become frustrated; 
as a result of that frustration, they turn to antisocial behavior. One 
of the things that stands in the way is that they are unable to read.
  Because of Ed-Flex, school districts that are title I schools, school 
districts that can take advantage of the Eisenhower Professional Grant 
Program, are going to have the opportunity to change the use of those 
dollars and put them into reading. We found that in the State of Ohio, 
when we have taken the Eisenhower professional grant money that says 
you have to use it for science and math and it has allowed us to take 
that money and use it for reading. We did that because in the early 
grades, if a kid cannot read, he cannot do math, he cannot do science. 
If I had my way, every title I school, every Eisenhower grant in the 
primary and secondary grades that are eligible for those programs would 
take advantage of Ed-Flex, would come back to their State school 
organizations and say, we could use this money better so we can make a 
difference in the lives of these kids.
  Just think what a difference that will make in America today. We have 
in Ohio now what we have called a fourth grade guarantee. No child will 
go to the fifth grade unless they are able to read at that fourth grade 
level. That in itself, I think, would help a great deal with some of 
the problems we have in our schools today.
  I would like to finish my remarks by giving some people some credit 
for this work on Ed-Flex: The majority leader who helped make this a 
priority for this Senate; you, Senator Frist, for the terrific work 
that you have done; Senator Jeffords, Senator Wyden, and everyone who 
has come together; the National Governors' Association, on a

[[Page S3991]]

bipartisan basis, that supported this legislation.
  I just want it known, I do not know what is going to happen with 
elementary and secondary education. I do not know whether our 
Republican block grant is going to work or Senator Kennedy's various 
education programs are going to work. But one thing I do know is going 
to work: Ed-Flex is going to work. I think if we let it work for the 
next couple of years we will prove, just like we have with our welfare 
reform system, if you give people on the local level the flexibility to 
use the dollars and to use the brains that God has given them, they can 
really make a difference in the lives of people. That is the thing 
about which we really should feel very, very good. I am glad I had a 
little part of it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time now remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remain 43 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Following that time, or at least some time, the good 
Senator from Minnesota has an hour, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, the Senator from Minnesota 
has an hour.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join with others who rise today to 
express our great sense of sorrow to those families and all of those 
who have experienced the loss and suffering in Littleton, CO.
  Our hearts go out to the children and their families and all the 
victims of this latest senseless school tragedy. In the days and weeks 
to come, we will learn much more about how and why it could have 
happened--and why it happened again, after the fair warning we have had 
from similar tragedies that shocked the nation so deeply in recent 
years.
  This terrible tragedy has scarred the Nation and reminded us, once 
again, about the fragile nature of the young children in our country 
who are going off to school every day. It reminds all of us that we 
have an important responsibility to do everything we can to give 
children the support and love they need, to help them as they walk the 
path of adolescence into maturity.
  Obviously, the schools are an extremely important element in that 
development. But we know nothing replaces the home, nothing replaces a 
parent, nothing replaces those members of the family or friends who are 
loving, caring, and encouraging. Those who offer firmness in 
establishing guidelines and guideposts for children as they develop. So 
all of us are very mindful of those tragedies that are being 
experienced even while we meet here, of the tears that are being shed, 
and the struggle of many of those young children for their lives, even 
as we meet here today.
  There is a certain poignancy since we are meeting on education 
legislation. It is important legislation. It is worthwhile of passage. 
But I think all of us today are remembering Jonesboro, AR; Notus, ID; 
Springfield, OR; Fayetteville, TN; Edinboro, PA; West Paducah, KY; and 
Pearl, MS. Now we have Littleton, CO. All of those communities have 
been affected by violence in their community schools.
  Perhaps reviewing the kinds of acts of violence that take place in 
schools, they do not appear to be overwhelming in total numbers, as we 
might think of total numbers. I think all of us are enormously moved 
and touched by these human tragedies, because, of course, all of us 
believe young children have such hope and promise and opportunity to 
live in our communities and in our country. Children offer so much to 
their families and to their loved ones. To see the violence snuff out 
innocent lives is a factor, a force in all of our souls that rings 
heavily.
  So, all of us here in the Senate reach out to those families.
  Mr. President, in reading through the newspapers in my own city of 
Boston today, there were some rather interesting articles which I will 
just mention here on the floor of the Senate, and then I will take time 
to address the measure that is at hand.
  There was a conference taking place in Boston and there were 
excellent articles about that conference. I ask unanimous consent to 
have them printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the articles were order to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Boston Herald, Apr. 21, 1999]

               Experts: Gun Access, Social Anger to Blame

                            (By David Weber)

       Easy access to guns, an increasingly blurred line between 
     fantasy and reality, and anger sparked by social rejection 
     fueled the epidemic of school violence, according to experts.
       ``It's getting a little crazier and a little more frequent. 
     It seems to be the boundaries between reality and fantasy are 
     decreasing more and more,'' said Dr. Bernard Yudowitz, a 
     forensic psychiatrist.
       ``As young people project themselves in virtual reality at 
     movies and arcades and get their heads into that, life 
     becomes virtual reality, which is not reality,'' he said.
       Combine that with the age-old traits of teenagers--strong 
     urges, feelings of aggression and a sense of omnipotence--and 
     you have a dangerous mix, Yudowitz said. He said the feeling 
     of omnipotence allows teens to ignore consequences to 
     themselves and others.
       ``It (adolescence) can be a fun and creative time. But you 
     need a context to provide boundaries,'' he said.
       Citing his 30 years of working with young people, he said, 
     ``Adolescents are less and less grounded. If you don't have 
     the proper sense of reality, you can't attach your values to 
     anything of substance, and it all becomes a great big game.''
       For students rejected by their peers, that game is all the 
     more dangerous, said author Hara Estroff Marano, who 
     addresses the string of recent school shootings in the book, 
     ``Why Doesn't Anybody Like Me: A Guide to Raising Socially 
     Confident Kids.''
       ``I don't think the most important issues are gun control 
     or security in the school,'' said Marano, an editor-at-large 
     of Psychology Today.
       ``The real issue is what's causing this behavior, and the 
     fact is kids who pull the trigger have problems along with 
     their peers.''
       Working parents and school officials don't pay enough 
     attention to the social competence of children. And when 
     children become social outcasts, they're more susceptible to 
     dark media messages.
       ``A normal, adjusted child who watches violent programming 
     will come away with a different message than a child who 
     lacks the social skills to get along with his peers.'' ``They 
     feel violent programs are in fact endorsing revenge.''
       John Rosenthal, co-founder of Stop Handgun Violence, said a 
     proliferation of ever more lethal guns, along with 
     irresponsible storage of the weapons in homes, is a big part 
     of the deadly epidemic.
       ``I'm horrified but not surprised (by yesterday's 
     shootings) because there were eight schoolyard shootings last 
     year that killed 15 kids and wounded 44 others. All were 
     perpetrated by teenagers, most of whom had access to high-
     powered assault weapons.
       ``In many cases, they were stolen from their parents or 
     other relatives who left their weapons around loaded and 
     unlocked,'' Rosenthal said.
       ``Like those other schoolyard shootings, (yesterday's) 
     tragedy could have been prevented by reducing access to guns 
     by kids. We can blame TV, the media and any number of violent 
     movies, but access to guns is the real issue.''
                                 ______
                                 

                    [From the Globe, Apr. 21, 1999]

              Deadly Acts Put Focus on Need for Prevention

                           (By Ellen O'Brien)

       It has happened in Alaska, Arkansas, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 
     Mississippi, and Kentucky.
       All boys, all armed with guns and rifles, all creating a 
     deadly fantasy where one day they would strike back, and 
     often telling teachers and classmates their plans in advance.
       And now, the nation turns its attention to the youths in 
     Littleton, Colo., where the toll was the deadliest yet.
       Once again, the country will stop talking about 
     standardized testing and teacher's salaries and view children 
     in classrooms as potential targets and killers. People will 
     wonder how it could have been prevented and will worry about 
     where it will happen again.
       The incidence of juvenile crime in big cities, and of 
     school violence, has been decreasing in recent years.
       But these days, each angry act carries a far greater 
     threat.
       ``These are still rare crimes,'' said Jack Levin, director 
     of the Brudnick Center on Violence at Northeastern 
     University. ``But because of the easy access to handguns, we 
     are seeing larger and larger body counts.''
       ``All it takes,'' Levin said, ``is one alienated, 
     marginalized youngster who decides to get even.''
       In general, Levin and other specialists said, big cities 
     have tried to respond to the issue of school violence with 
     more preventive measures. Meanwhile, Levin said, the high-
     profile school massacres of the last decade occurred in 
     suburban or rural towns.
       ``I think small-town America has to realize they also are 
     in trouble, and need to supervise their children and take 
     guns out of their hands--the way big cities have tired to 
     do,'' Levin said.
       Metal detectors and police presence in schools, lawsuits 
     against gun manufacturers and media giants, and sentencing of 
     juvenile criminals as adults have all been suggested

[[Page S3992]]

     or tried. But none of these options, advocates agree, can 
     stop school violence.
       Academics, activities, politicians, and parents around the 
     nation say solutions are obvious, though less tangible than 
     an instrument that detects gun metal. They cite the British 
     Parliament's approval of one of the world's strictest gun 
     laws after 16 children and their teacher were gunned down in 
     Dunblane, Scotland, in 1997.
       They also point to overburdened schools, where the system 
     is faced with a growing number of angst-ridden students.
       ``There's a real connection between'' this violence ``and 
     the fact that counselors have huge case loads'' and ``an 
     enormous amount of kids who evidence worry,'' said Margaret 
     Welch, director of the Collaborative for Integrated School 
     Services at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.
       Still, deadly violence in schools is rare. June Arnette, 
     associate director of the National School Safety Center in 
     Westlake, Calif., which monitors school violence from news 
     accounts, said that before yesterday, they had identified 
     nine school-related violent deaths, including three suicides, 
     during the 1998-99 school year. She said there were 42 
     violent school deaths in 1997-98 and 25 violent deaths the 
     previous school year.
       In Boston and many surrounding cities and towns, Community 
     Based Justice has identified several boys who fantasized 
     about killing their classmates or teacher and bragged about 
     it or dedicated an English essay to it. The program, which 
     brings together teachers, students, prosecutors, and police, 
     updates reports on troubled children and suggests ways to 
     help.
       Few officials believe the students were going to carry out 
     their elaborate plans. However, the children who appeared 
     troubled were visited at home, and at least one, who was also 
     displaying a fascination with setting fires, was referred 
     this year to a program for violent youths.
       As for metal detectors, Boston Public School Superintendent 
     Thomas W. Payzant said they cannot prevent all students from 
     carrying guns and knives onto school property.
       Boston's Madison Park High School posted metal detectors at 
     doors, but other city high schools supply officials with 
     handheld detectors that are used sporadically.
       Because it is feared that expulsions can lead to violent 
     students returning with even more anger, troubled teens in 
     Boston are sometimes referred to counseling centers, and can 
     be readmitted after evaluation.
       But Boston's school system has heard countless complaints 
     from headmasters that there are not enough alternative 
     schools where students obviously in need of help can attend 
     classes.
       ``You can't do it with metal detectors,'' Welch said. 
     ``Support services need to be provided for all kids.''

  Mr. KENNEDY. Let me just mention a few quotations. This is one of the 
participants:

       ``It's getting a little crazier and a little more frequent. 
     It seems to be the boundaries between reality and fantasy are 
     decreasing more and more,'' said Dr. Bernard Yudowitz, a 
     forensic psychiatrist.
       ``As young people project themselves in virtual relative 
     movies and arcades and get their heads into that, life 
     becomes virtual reality, which is not reality,'' he said.
       Combine that with the age-old traits of teenagers--strong 
     urges, feelings of aggression and a sense of omnipotence--and 
     you have a dangerous mix Yudowitz said. He said the feeling 
     of omnipotence allows teens to ignore consequences to 
     themselves and others.
       ``It (adolescence) can be a fun and creative time. But you 
     need a context to provide boundaries,'' he said.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The real issue is what's causing this behavior, and the 
     fact is kids who pull the trigger have problems getting along 
     with their peers.''
       Working parents and school officials don't pay enough 
     attention to the social competence of children. And when 
     children become social outcasts, they're more susceptible to 
     dark media messages.
       ``A normal, adjusted child who watches violent programming 
     will come away with a different message than a child who 
     lacks the social skills to get along with his peers.'' ``They 
     feel violent programs are in fact endorsing revenge.''

  Mr. KENNEDY. Then it continues on with some very constructive 
suggestions, from Mr. Rosenthal, who is a co-founder of Stop Handgun 
Violence, talking about responsibility, responsibility with regard to 
the availability of weapons. He is talking about the responsibility of 
parents who own guns to make sure the guns are securely locked and kept 
separately from ammunition, so no weapon is left loaded and accessible 
to children in a house; the responsibility of both manufacturers and 
dealers to prevent the proliferation of guns that are sold to children 
directly and on the black market, and that too easily get into the 
hands of gangs and the criminal element. These are important 
responsibilities that adults must meet. They are not going to be a 
cure-all. They are not going to be an end-all.
  But they are a beginning. A beginning to provide a measurement of 
responsibility. We want responsibility from young people, from 
children, and we want responsibility from others as well who have the 
access and the ability to see that either weapons are available or not 
available to children.
  We have 14 children die every single day from gun violence. None of 
us this afternoon have come up with a silver bullet to resolve all of 
these kinds of problems, but we ought to be able to take some measured 
steps to make some difference. It is not going to be enough to just 
shed tears, because they are empty tears, unless we are prepared to 
take some actions on these measures.
  (Mr. HUTCHINSON assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I listened to my friend from Missouri 
speak about a particular provision about guns which he offered to the 
legislation and which was retained in the ED-Flex conference report. I 
am also reminded that there was a very close referendum in his home 
State, only decided 53-47, on whether a felon could purchase and carry 
a concealed weapon--even allowing a felon to carry that weapon onto 
school grounds. The National Rifle Association said yes, they should be 
able to do that. There is a similar measure in Colorado itself, right 
now it is ready to be voted on by the state legislature. We will soon 
enough see statements from the National Rifle Association supporting 
this law--urging that criminals ought to be able to have concealed 
weapons, even though they have committed felonies, that for their own 
self-protection they can carry those weapons anywhere, even into a 
school--come on now. Come on now. We cannot solve all the problems 
here, but we can reduce the access and the availability in these kinds 
of circumstances. We ought to at least ask ourselves, How hard is the 
National Rifle Association going to press on these measures? How many 
times do we have to be reminded about the tragic consequences these 
measures can have?
  The good citizens of Missouri rejected that law. It is the first time 
we have had a referendum, and it was rejected by the public.
  I am not here to describe what the position of the Senator was on 
that issue, but it does seem to me that to pass a law that says someone 
who has committed a felony--they could have been convicted of a felony 
like domestic violence--is permitted to go out and buy and carry a 
concealed weapon is not moving us in the right direction.
  I hope as my good friends and colleagues have mentioned--Senator 
Schumer, Senator Durbin and others who will speak on this--that we will 
be able to at least present to the Senate some recommendations which 
really demand responsibility from those who have access to keep those 
guns safely away from children.
  It is interesting to me that this body has voted to effectively 
prevent the Centers for Disease Control from accurately calculating the 
number of injuries from gun violence because of the power of the 
National Rifle Association on the floor of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives. They do not want to know how much gun violence is out 
there. We do not let the Centers for Disease Control, using all their 
capabilities, even tell us how big the problem is.
  Today, as we sit in the Senate, the Consumer Products Safety 
Commission has the ability to provide safety for toy guns for children 
so that the ends will not break off and a child will not gag or choke. 
But virtually all protections available to the Consumer Products Safety 
Commission for real guns that can be used against the citizens have 
been taken away. Isn't that extraordinary? The Consumer Products Safety 
Commission can issue regulations on toy guns for your children but not 
real guns that can kill you. Why? Because of the power of the National 
Rifle Association.
  Mr. President, I hope people around the country who are sharing the 
grief of those families understand that there are no magic bullets to 
resolve these issues, but we can take some steps and we should take 
some steps to do something about it. I believe in requiring responsible 
actions by manufacturers who produce guns to have safety locks so that 
they will not discharge and kill

[[Page S3993]]

children if they are dropped and cannot be fired by a child who takes 
the gun without parental supervision, and requiring other safety 
provisions so they can only be used by those who purchase the weapon.

  There are all kinds of technology available which add maybe a few 
dollars to the cost of those weapons, but can greatly improve the 
safety of the guns with just a little responsible action by the 
manufacturers, by the dealers, and by the gun owners. Hopefully, we can 
get their support for legislation that can at least reduce access and 
availability of weapons to children who are going to school. I hope we 
will be able to do that.
  I think we can give the assurance that we will have an opportunity to 
debate those issues in this Congress, hopefully very soon, with or 
without the hearings in the Judiciary Committee; preferably with, but, 
if necessary, without. I do not think those measures are so difficult 
and so complex that the Members of this body cannot grasp them. We can 
have some accountability in the Senate on those measures.
  Mr. President, on the underlying legislation, I urge my colleagues to 
support the ED-Flex conference report. We will have many opportunities 
over the course of this session to improve and expand the partnership 
with States and local communities to strengthen public schools across 
then nation.
  I commend Senator Frist and Senator Wyden for their leadership on the 
ED-Flex Partnership Act of 1999. And, I commend Chairman Jeffords, 
Congressman Goodling, and Congressman Clay for their leadership in 
making education a priority in this Congress.
  To date, the Federal Government has been a limited partner in 
supporting elementary and secondary education. However, we have made a 
substantial investment increasing the accessibility and affordability 
of college for all qualified students. For elementary and secondary 
education, the Federal Government provides 7 cents out of every dollar 
at the local level. The ED-Flex legislation is not going to provide an 
additional nickel or dollar to any school district.
  In 1994, when Senator Hatfield offered, and I supported, an amendment 
to provide that ED-Flex program for 6 pilot states. Then we expanded 
the program to 6 more states so that there are currently 12 ED-Flex 
pilot States. The conference report today is simply an expansion of 
that program.
  Mr. President, some may say, why don't we give complete flexibility 
to the local community? Communities need additional support. We know 
that the primary responsibility for the education of the nation's 
children remains within the local community, the local school boards, 
teachers, and parents, and with help and assistance from the States, 
and some help and assistance from the Federal Government.
  When we first passed title I--I was here when we did it--we did not 
provide the kind of statutory protections and accountability that we 
have today, many of which can be waived under ED-Flex. And what do you 
know? Five years later, they were using the title I programs to build 
swimming pools and buy shoulder pads for football players in local 
communities. It did not ensure that the neediest children who had the 
greatest needs were served and served well. So we amended the law to 
ensure that federal support for education was targeted on the neediest 
students and used on targeted purposes.
  There is an appropriate role for greater flexibility--with 
accountability--and we recognized that in the 1994 reauthorization of 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The ED-Flex Partnership Act 
is a worthwhile step towards improving public schools. By giving states 
the authority to waive certain statutory and regulatory requirements 
that apply to federal education programs, we hope to support and 
enhance state and local education reforms that will help all children 
reach high standards of achievement.
  Families across the nation want Uncle Sam to be a partner in 
improving education. Parents are impatient about results. They want 
their communities, states, and the federal government to work together 
to improve public schools. In fulfilling our federal responsibility, we 
must continue to ensure that greater flexibility is matched with strong 
accountability for results, so that every parent knows their children 
are getting the education they deserve.
  The ED-Flex conference report meets that goal by including strong 
accountability measures. Flexibility and accountability must go hand-
in-hand in order to ensure that we get better results for all students.
  If states are going to accept federal resources paid for by public 
tax dollars, we must ensure strong accountability. In the ED-Flex 
Conference Report, the House and the Senate maintained our commitment 
to serving the neediest and poorest children to help improve their 
academic achievement. Senator Wellstone worked hard to ensure that we 
retained these targeting provisions.
  We have retained the amendment of my friend and colleague from Rhode 
Island, Senator Reed, that insisted that we ensure that parents have a 
strong role in the waiver process and that they are going to be a 
strong partner in the educational decisions that affect their children. 
I commend Senator Reed.

  The conference report also helps see that increased flexibility leads 
to improved student achievement. Accountability in this context means 
that states must evaluate how waivers actually improve student 
achievement. Open-ended waivers make no sense. Results are what count. 
The Secretary of Education has the power to terminate a state's waiver 
authority if student achievement is not improving. States must be able 
to terminate any waivers granted to a school district or participating 
schools if student achievement is not improving. If the waivers are not 
leading to satisfactory progress, it makes no sense to continue them.
  I also commend Senator Murray for her work to ensure that our 
downpayment on hiring 100,000 new teachers to reduce class sizes in the 
early grades I retained. We will have an opportunity in this session to 
come back to the broader issue about whether it is going to be a matter 
of national priority that we continue our commitment to reducing class 
size. This commitment is one of President Clinton's most important 
initiatives on education. The Senate-passed bill would have undermined 
it, and the decision by the conferees to retain it is a significant 
victory for the nation's schools and students.
  But, these accomplishments are not enough. More--much more--needs to 
be done to make sure that every community has the support it needs to 
implement what works to improve their public schools. We must do more 
to meet the needs of schools, families, and children, so that all 
children can attend good schools and meet high standards of 
achievement.
  We should do more to help communities address the real problems of 
rising student enrollments, overcrowded classrooms, dilapidated 
schools, teacher shortages, underqualified teachers, high new teacher 
turnover rates, and lack of after-school programs. These are real 
problems that deserve real solutions.
  We should meet our commitment to reducing class size over seven 
years. We should help recruit more teachers. We should improve and 
expand professional development of teachers. We should expand after-
school programs. We should help ensure all children have access to 
technology in the classroom. And we should rebuild and modernize school 
buildings.
  ED-Flex is a good bipartisan start by Congress to meeting all of 
these challenges. My hope is that these other proposals to address 
critical issues will also receive the bipartisan support they deserve, 
so they can be in place for the beginning of the next academic year 
this fall. Improving education is clearly one of our highest national 
priorities. Investing in education is investing in a stronger America 
here at home and around the world, and I look forward to working with 
my colleagues on both sides to address the critical education issues 
facing communities across the country.
  Finally, Mr. President, I was visiting today with the leader in the 
House of Representatives, Congressman Gephardt, and we talked about 
education. He spoke very knowledgeably about a school he visited in 
Harlem, NY, that has had significant success in improving academic 
achievement of students. He pointed out that this school had been a 
school with 2,000 students. Overcrowding and discipline were a problem

[[Page S3994]]

that was impeding the academic success of its students. They decided to 
divide it into 10 schools of 200 students each.
  The point is that the head mistress at that particular school was 
asked--as everyone asks--What is really the secret? Of course, we all 
know that there is no one answer to improving education. But this one 
course of action was one that both Leader Gephardt and I found very 
persuasive. By reducing the size of the school and classrooms, every 
teacher in that school knew the name of every student in that school; 
and every student in that school knew the name of every teacher. And 
every teacher in every class knew the parents by name of every one of 
their students and had a relationship with every one of those parents. 
They were then able to effectively reach students and academic 
achievement and discipline improved. They were able to develop a spirit 
and a sense of family in an area where students feel many kinds of 
pressures. Students were given the support, love, attention, 
discipline, and firmness, they needed to get results.
  So, Mr. President, if we, as a society generally and as a people 
individually, offer our prayers for those families who have been 
affected and as a country begin to try to look at some of the issues 
that are presented by these tragedies in an important way, then perhaps 
even the extraordinary clouds that are over this, and particularly in 
Colorado, might part just briefly so some sunshine might come in and we 
may do better for our children in the future.
  I commend and thank all the staff members for their skillful 
assistance on this ED-Flex legislation: Susan Hattan, Sherry Kaiman, 
and Jenny Smulson of Senator Jeffords' staff; Townsend Lange and Denzel 
McGuire of Senator Gregg's staff; Lori Meyer and Meredith Medley of 
Senator Frist's staff; Suzanne Day of Senator Dodd's staff; Elyse Wasch 
of Senator Reed's staff; Greg Williamson of Senator Murray's staff; Bev 
Schroeder and Sharon Masling of Senator Harkin's staff; Lindsay 
Rosenberg of Senator Wyden's staff; and Connie Garner, Jane Oates, Dana 
Fiordaliso, and Danica Petroshius of my own staff.
  I also commend the skillful work of the House staff on the conference 
committee, including Vic Klatt, Sally Lovejoy, Christy Wolfe, and Kent 
Talbert of the House Committee's Republican staff; Melanie Merola of 
Representative Castle's staff; Mark Zuckerman, Sedric Hendricks, and 
Alex Nock of the House Committee's Democratic staff; Charlie Barone of 
Representative Miller's staff; and Page Tomlin of Representative 
Payne's staff.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I have been down here for about an hour and a half. I 
was under the impression that I would follow Senator Kennedy. I am in 
opposition to this bill. I was supposed to have an hour to speak. This 
is the only time, actually, I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you.
  I say to my colleague from Vermont, I will not take up all that time, 
but my colleague from Virginia asked to speak briefly. So I ask 
unanimous consent that he be allowed to speak for several minutes, and 
then I follow him.
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, I would just like to have a 
few short minutes to speak on the bill, on the Ed-Flex bill.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. These are good friends, but I know Senators' ``short 
minutes.'' I also have to leave to meet with a lot of students from 
Minnesota. I ask unanimous consent that my colleague from Virginia be 
allowed to speak for a few short minutes and then my colleague from 
Connecticut, who asked to speak, be allowed to speak for a few ``short 
minutes,'' after which I will be able to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I amend my unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous 
consent that Senator Kennedy not be allowed to speak, as he can't speak 
for a few ``short minutes.''
  Mr. KENNEDY. I object. (Laughter.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered, the 
unanimous consent request by the Senator from Minnesota is agreed to.
  The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I thank my colleague from Minnesota for his courtesy.
  Mr. President, I want to, first of all, say that I support the Ed-
Flex bill, so I particularly appreciate my friend and colleague from 
Minnesota yielding just a couple minutes to me.
  But like so many of our other colleagues today, I want to express my 
condolences to all of those in Littleton who have suffered such a 
tragic loss in such a traumatic event to the community. I think it was 
obvious last night when the President was asked after his statement if 
there was anything we could do to prevent tragic incidents like this 
from happening, he acknowledged that there aren't any easy answers. But 
we all know that recognizing the warning signs of stress and depression 
and substance abuse and violent behavior starts at home and extends 
well into our communities. Littleton, as other communities, is 
suffering in ways we can only imagine. My three daughters are now 
grown, but I cannot imagine the agony of waiting to find out what fate 
might have befallen them under similar circumstances.
  I grieve with the families, as all others do. I note to my colleagues 
that I had introduced legislation in 1993 which I believed would make a 
contribution to the effort to reduce and prevent school violence. I 
plan to reintroduce similar legislation sometime in the next week or 
two. I welcome the work of any colleagues who desire to help.
  I appreciate the fact that in 1997 we were able to divert money from 
the Community Oriented Policing Services funds to fund school safety 
initiatives, and we were able to increase those funds by tenfold in 
1998. We can do more, and I hope the legislation I plan to offer will 
advance that cause.
  But for right now, I simply join with all of our colleagues here in 
the Senate in expressing to those families grieving in Littleton, CO, 
and all over the country, that we understand the agony through which 
they are hopefully passing at this moment, and we will do our best to 
work with them.
  With that, I thank the Chair and particularly thank my colleague from 
Minnesota for yielding to me.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I join with my colleague from Virginia and 
others who I know have spoken this morning in the Chamber about the 
tragic and unbelievable events in Littleton, CO. I can't help but 
observe that the Presiding Officer has more than just a passing 
familiarity with this kind of tragedy, in that in his own State we saw 
a similar situation. It has occurred in other States around the country 
as well.
  Crime rates are coming down all across the Nation. So many positive 
things seem to be happening with new policing, community policing, 
efforts being made all across the board. That we still find what 
appears to be an increase in this kind of crime is confounding and sort 
of cries out for us to be thinking harder about how we can deal with 
these situations.
  I, too, want to add my voice in expression of sorrow to the families 
in the community of Littleton, CO. We have to do more than just grieve 
and talk about our kids, their education, the day after these 
tragedies. That is certainly appropriate. But we must talk about them 
and try to come up with some answers the day before and the day before 
that so that we minimize these kinds of incredible circumstances from 
occurring.
  If we are going to be responsive to the needs of our young people and 
the educational needs of Americans, then we have to invest our time and 
energy in healing whatever has gone so terribly wrong in the lives of 
these youth who allegedly were responsible for these events, even 
though we don't know in total what has occurred there, or we are going 
to be revisiting these kinds of stories all too frequently.
  With that, Mr. President, I am pleased to stand in the Chamber today 
and add my voice of support to this conference report on the Ed-Flex 
bill. The concerns of children and education are not going to be 
entirely solved by

[[Page S3995]]

this legislation, but I think it is a positive step forward.
  I am pleased to support the legislation, the education flexibility 
partnership bill, as it is called. I compliment Senators Frist of 
Tennessee and Wyden of Oregon who sponsored the legislation and have 
been involved as forceful advocates for it. I also thank the chairman 
of the committee, Senator Jeffords, and the ranking Democrat, Senator 
Kennedy, who played a very important role in trying to strengthen the 
legislation and have worked hard to improve the bill in this bipartisan 
effort.

  The conference report before us reauthorizes and expands the existing 
education flexibility demonstration program to all eligible States. We 
first enacted Ed-Flex in 1994 as part of the Goals 2000 legislation. 
Since that time, 12 States have been selected to participate. With the 
Ed-Flex authority, States can waive Federal statutory and regulatory 
requirements in several key elementary and secondary education programs 
where those requirements impede local efforts to improve schools. That 
was the idea, test this out.
  Although few States have used this authority broadly and results are 
still being compiled, reports from the States suggest that this 
authority is making a difference. State officials report Ed-Flex has 
changed the climate of school reform in their States. It has led to far 
more innovation. Texas, which has been the only State to use this 
authority broadly--and I commend them for it--and to gather achievement 
data has shown impressive student achievement increases among all 
groups of students.
  While each State is different, and certainly Texas would be the first 
to tell you how different they are, when it comes to education, 
particularly elementary and secondary education, the lessons learned in 
Texas, I think, could be very helpful to all of us regardless of which 
section of the country we are from.
  Clearly there is potential in Ed-Flex, and I am hopeful that the 
expansion we are enacting today will lead to more and better 
innovations in our States to improve schools. I am very pleased that 
the final legislation before us today includes several provisions which 
I believe will lead the States to use this authority more and to use it 
appropriately to improve the performance of our schools.
  I am particularly pleased that language Senator Kennedy and I 
offered, improving the link between flexibility and accountability for 
student performance, is retained. Senator Reed of Rhode Island's 
language on community and parental involvement in the process of 
applying for these waivers will, I believe, result in much stronger 
applications.
  In addition, I believe the provisions protecting the targeting 
Federal dollars to the neediest students, offered by our colleague from 
Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, who fought tirelessly on behalf of that 
provision to see to it that the neediest of our students would 
certainly be the principal beneficiaries of his program. He worked, I 
know, with Congressman George Miller of California on this, who has a 
deep interest in this subject matter and is very knowledgeable about 
these issues as well. I commend them for their efforts. This will 
ensure that States and local communities continue to serve, as I said, 
the neediest of our population.
  Finally, and most importantly, I am pleased that the conference 
committee preserved our commitment to lowering class size by removing 
the divisive language that pitted class size reduction against funding 
for special education. However, even with these changes, I believe the 
measure before us is a modest one--a good one but a modest one. I view 
it as a first step, if only a modest one, in the direction of stronger 
education policy.
  I am very hopeful that we can now move onto bigger education issues. 
Not to belittle the importance some have placed on education 
flexibility, but I have never had one parent, one teacher, or one 
student raise this issue with me. But I have had many, many parents, 
students, and teachers concerned about class size. I have had school 
districts looking for reassurance that the full promise of 100,000 
teachers will reach them. I have had many parents and teachers and 
students concerned about the overcrowding and the overall condition of 
schools in my State and across the country.
  I have had numerous inquiries about the safety of children in school, 
and obviously the events in Littleton, CO, punctuate that concern, but 
it is one that all of us hear every day, regardless of what State we 
are from.
  As well, Mr. President, parents and teachers and students raise 
concerns about how many children start school not ready to learn. Many 
students go home to empty houses without supervision or the enrichment 
of afterschool programs. That issue is raised by parents who have young 
children all the time. Lastly, they raise concerns that the needs in 
our schools outpace the Federal funding in this crucial area. We must 
move to these pressing issues as well.
  Ed-Flex can make a difference in some States, but it cannot 
substitute for real education policy, broad policy. I look forward to 
building on the success of this bill and looking for the kinds of 
bipartisanship that created this legislation, and to assist in coming 
up with some answers that will make a difference on class size, school 
safety, afterschool programs, and condition of school buildings, which 
also must be a critical part--each one--of improving the quality of 
education and preparing this new generation of Americans to be the kind 
of leaders we all want them to be in the coming century. I thank my 
colleague from Minnesota for allowing me to express my views.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I don't know that I have anything to 
add to what other Senators have said about the awfulness and terror of 
what happened in Colorado. I really don't know--as Senator Dodd and 
Senator Hutchinson have said--what this means in personal terms. I 
simply say to Senators Nighthorse Campbell and Allard and the people of 
Colorado, as the Senator from Minnesota, I send my prayers, my love and 
support. I wish to God that it was within my ability to snap my 
fingers, or to be able do something to have prevented this from ever 
happening. I wish I could understand how kids--children--could ever do 
this. I actually don't know the answer.
  I certainly agree with colleagues who have talked about measures that 
try to make it as difficult as possible for kids to get ahold of guns. 
I do a lot of work in the mental health area. I know it can't do any 
harm--it can only do good--to see whether we can do better by way of 
working with kids at a young age, and maybe we can head off kids that 
are heading in this direction. When such a God-awful act of violence is 
committed, it is very difficult to understand why. It is very difficult 
to understand why. I suppose that anything and everything that can be 
better in a family, should be better in families and better in 
communities and better in churches and synagogues and mosques, and in 
legislation that would pass. But for today, I just want to, as a 
Senator from Minnesota, express my sorrow. I wish yesterday had never 
happened.
  Mr. President, I find myself in the position of speaking against this 
conference report. My colleagues have talked about some things that 
happened in conference committee that they felt were positive, and I 
agree with them. I am going to divide my argument up into two parts. 
Part 1 is sort of to say, I think there is a distinction between 
flexibility, and I think--having been a community organizer for several 
decades, I think that the more people are able to make positive things 
happen at the local and community level, including the school district 
level, the better. So I think when it comes to the title I program, you 
really do want decisions about whether or not you put more of the money 
into teaching assistants, or into community outreach, or into other 
things--many of those decisions to be made at the local level.
  I will tell you why I think this Ed-Flex bill legislation is a 
profound mistake--however well-intentioned those who are proposing it 
and who have fought for it are, like Senator Wyden here on the floor; 
it is just an honest difference of opinion. If I am wrong, I will be 
glad to be wrong. My own feeling is that this piece of legislation will 
actually be a step backward. The reason I say that is that when we 
passed

[[Page S3996]]

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act back in 1965, a lot of sweat 
and tears went into that.
  Part of the idea then and over the years--we are talking about a 30-
year history here, 30 years plus--is that you wanted to have certain 
core requirements, certain core standards that had to be met. And in 
particular, we wanted to make sure that, as a national community, we 
made a commitment to poor children and that there were certain kinds of 
core standards that every school district in the land had to meet in 
this title I program.
  So I introduced an amendment to the Ed-Flex bill in which I took the 
basic core requirements and I said, look, under no circumstances are we 
going to enable a State to allow a school district to be exempt from 
the following requirements. Let me just read these. This is incredible, 
what happened on the floor of the Senate. That is why I am going to be 
the only vote against it, though I wish others would vote against it. 
What were these core standards that would not be waivable? They are: 
Provide opportunities for all children to meet changing achievement 
levels--I will list a few. Provide instruction by highly qualified 
professional staff. Provide professional development for teachers and 
aides to enable all children in the school to meet the State student 
performance standards. Review on an ongoing basis the progress of 
participating children, and revise the program, if necessary, to 
provide more assistance to children, to enable them to meet the State 
student performance standards.
  This amendment just said, when it comes to the basic core 
requirements and core protection of title I for all children in 
America, the heart and soul of what we did with title I, going back to 
1965, we weren't going to waive these. No, we weren't, because we were 
going to make sure that these title I children--even if they are low-
income children, we were going to make sure they were going to get good 
instruction and make sure that every title I program in every school 
district at least lived up to these standards. Now we have a piece of 
legislation, with all due respect to all of my colleagues, that allows 
a State to allow its school district to exempt itself from these 
requirements.

  I introduced this amendment which would have straightened out this 
legislation. It was basically a party vote; it was a straight party 
vote, really. I am sorry I didn't get more support from Republicans. I 
am really sorry more Democrats aren't voting against this bill. That is 
just my own honestly held view.
  Here is what is so troubling about this. I will try not to be 
technical. What would have been the harm in keeping these core 
requirements? Surely, I can tell you the school districts in Minnesota 
would say, fine, keep that core requirement because this is what we 
want to do and this is what we do.
  Why would this core requirement be considered overly bureaucratic or 
cumbersome or regulatory for any school district in America? The idea 
that you have highly qualified instruction and you hold children to 
high standards and you do everything you can to make sure children meet 
these standards, why would any school district want to be exempt from 
the core requirements of the title I program? My argument would be that 
they would not. This would not be a problem--unless you have the 
potential for abuse. And you do. That is what is going to happen. We 
have moved away from a kind of value which says that we, as a Nation, 
have certain kinds of core commitments and beliefs, and one of them is 
that we are going to make sure there is protection and some commitment 
to poor children in America when it comes to education.
  This piece of legislation called Ed-Flex does away with that basic 
commitment. That is why I will vote against this. That is why I will be 
proud to be one to vote against this.
  Mr. President, my second point is a little different. I am going to 
say this with not bitterness but with some anger. I just want people in 
the country to know as I get a chance to speak before the Senate, every 
time I get a chance to speak, I think I am really lucky. I am one of 
100 people who gets a chance to speak on the floor of the U.S. Senate. 
I get to say what I believe is right. I try to marshal evidence from my 
point of view.
  I want people in our country to know that not only is this piece of 
legislation, I think, not a step forward but a great leap backward; it 
also is a great leap sideways.
  When I am in schools and I meet with students and I meet with 
parents--I have been in a school about every 2 weeks for the last 8 
years since I was elected to the Senate. I have been in inner-city 
schools. I have been in rural schools. I have been in suburban schools. 
I don't meet parents and children or students who talk to me about Ed-
Flex. They do not even know what it is. They don't even know what it 
is. They talk about, ``Senator, this school is crumbling. This school 
is not an inviting place for us to be. Can't there be some Federal 
dollars that will enable us to rebuild our crumbling schools?'' Or, 
``Senator, you had better believe that with smaller classes teachers 
could spend more time with us. And the best teachers are teachers who 
spend time with us.''
  Where is the commitment to smaller classes?
  Or, ``Senator, you want to know the best single thing you could do. 
You could make sure that somehow we would address this learning gap,'' 
where so many kids come to school already way behind having never 
really had the opportunity to have been read to widely, to have really 
received that kind of intellectual stimulation with the absence of 
affordable child care, or so little of it is available and they come to 
school behind. Then they fall further behind. Then they drop out. And 
then they wind up in prison.
  Again, I hope I am right about this. I am trying to oversimplify it. 
But I believe--I read it, I think, in the New York Times, or 
somewhere--that in the State of California, I think between the ages of 
18 to 26, there are five times as many African American young men in 
prison than in college. That is stunning.
  Let's not hype this legislation. Let's not pretend like we have done 
something great which will lead to the dramatic or positive improvement 
in the lives of children.
  There is not one cent more for title I. Let me just tell you. In my 
State of Minnesota, we have schools there where 65 percent of the kids 
are low income, free or reduced lunch program participants. And they 
don't get any title I money. They have run out of the money.
  All over the country there are schools with a huge percentage of kids 
who could use the additional reading instruction, who could use the 
additional encouragement.
  The title I program does great things. There is a lot of good work 
being done.
  I assume my other colleagues did this. I met with title I teachers 
and title I parents. I met with kids around the State of Minnesota. 
There is a lot of good work being done.
  Does Ed-Flex add $1 to a program that is severely underfunded? No. Do 
you want to know what is worse? We are not going to, not with this 
budget that we have.
  Let's be clear about this. This program, according to Rand 
Corporation, is funded at about the 50-percent level. I think the 
Congressional Research Service said it is at about the 33-percent 
level.
  Given the budget resolution that we have and 10 years of tax cuts, we 
will see who gets the major benefit. And with the money put aside for 
Social Security and reducing the debt, do you think there is going to 
be any money that is going to go into increased funds for title I? No. 
Does this piece of legislation do anything by way of making child care 
more affordable? No. Does it do anything about the Head Start program? 
No. The Head Start Program has served--I can't even remember now. I had 
the figure. I spoke to a national gathering in Minnesota, a great group 
of people. I think the Head Start Program has served maybe 17 million 
children since 1965.
  Do you know that the Head Start Program, the goal of which is to give 
a head start to kids who come from impoverished backgrounds, isn't even 
funded at a 50-percent level? Do you know that with Early Head Start, 
Mr. President, which is ages under 3, 3 and under, the most important 
years for development, do you know how many of the 3 million children 
who are eligible for some Head Start help so they

[[Page S3997]]

get a head start and do better, do you know how much funding we have 
for them? One percent.
  I would love it if somebody would come out here on the floor of the 
Senate--I would actually give up the rest of my time--and say, ``You 
are wrong, Paul. Given the budget resolution that we passed, we are 
going to be committing more money to Early Head Start. We are going to 
be committing huge amounts of money to making sure there is good child 
care for children before kindergarten.''

  We are not going to do it at all. In fact, with this budget, we will 
probably end up cutting it before it is all over.
  Mr. President, here is where we can be a player. We can have Ed-Flex. 
I think it is a big step backward. I have explained why. I don't know 
why colleagues are not willing to make this standard. We shouldn't 
allow a State to allow a school district to waive it.
  There is a real danger here. We are taking away some protection for 
poor children. We are doing that. That is not a step forward.
  Frankly, if we want to be a player, when you talk to your people back 
in your States, especially when you are talking to the people who are 
involved in public education, they say you can be a player in 
prekindergarten. You, the Federal Government, could, out of your huge 
Government budget, be allocating some resources back to our communities 
for affordable child care, to fully fund Head Start. You could make a 
huge difference so that children come to kindergarten ready to learn 
and do better. We are not going to do it. We are going to pass 
something called Ed-Flex and pretend like this is some great step 
forward.
  This applies perhaps more to my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle than my colleague from Oregon, who is constantly committed to 
more funding. He has a strong commitment to more funding for these 
programs.
  I want to be real clear about what we are doing and not doing today. 
I don't want us to get away with a piece of legislation that we pass 
that is heralded as some great step forward when we don't really do 
what we should be doing.
  Mr. President, we talk about law enforcement. Talk to the community 
people, and they tell you everywhere that there are too many kids who 
come from families where both parents are working, or where a single 
parent is working. There are no after-school programs with positive 
things for them to do. There are not the community programs, the 
community-based programs. I hear it everywhere.
  In this budget, which is going to lead to these appropriations bills, 
are we going to make any kind of major investment of resources so we 
are going to have some of these afterschool programs, some of this 
afterschool care for kids for children? No. Are there first and second 
and third graders who go home and there is no one there after school, 
sometimes in very dangerous neighborhoods? Yes, there are. I have met 
with them. Are there kids who go home and don't play outside even when 
it is a beautiful day because their parents tell them, ``Go home, lock 
the door, don't take any phone calls?'' Yes. Are we doing anything in 
the Senate about making any kind of investment of resources? Is the 
majority party doing that? No.
  There was a woman named Fannie Lou Hamer. I wished I could have met 
her. She was a great civil rights activist from Mississippi. Fannie Lou 
Hamer said once, ``I am so sick and tired of being sick and tired.'' I 
am sick and tired of photo opportunity politics. I am sick and tired of 
the breed of political person who wants to have their picture taken 
next to children, and how we all say we are for education. We all say 
we are for children. I look at the White House budget. They are 
pathetic. I look at our budget; the majority party's is even worse. I, 
frankly, see very little commitment to making sure that we have equal 
opportunity for every child in America.

  This Ed-Flex bill doesn't do one thing to provide equal opportunity 
for every child in America. Worse, and let me repeat it, we could have 
had all the flexibility in the world, but for some reason when it came 
to the basic core protections and core requirements of the title I 
program--making sure there are highly qualified instructional staff, 
making sure kids are held to high standards, making sure we help the 
kids who are falling behind--my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle didn't want to have this basic core requirement. Without that 
core requirement, we don't have that core protection.
  I will finish my remarks in both a positive way and in a not-so-
positive way. I want to again say to the title I teachers and the title 
I education people in Minnesota--I spent more time with them--I deeply 
appreciate the work being done and I do not want a misinterpretation of 
my vote against this bill as not being in support of your work.
  Let me read some wonderful testimonials from students, parents and 
teachers at the Garfield Elementary School in Brainerd, MN.

       I love reading really much. When I grow up I'm gonna be a 
     teacher. When I'm a teacher, I'm gonna read a lot of books to 
     my children. When in college, I'm gonna read tons of books 
     and books. Right now I'm in second grade.
       This class has helped me with reading and writing. I like 
     this class because it's fun and I'm 10 going on 11.

  Some of the spelling is not perfect but the sentiment is wonderful.

       Reading and writing help you get a job. Make that a good 
     job. My favorite thing that we've done is when we're drawing 
     a picture and characters from our book. I like the 5 minute 
     word tests. My highest score was 28 and I'm smart.

  I love it when children believe they are something. That is good. 
That is the way it should be.
  Here is a statement from an educational assistant at Garfield School:

       To whom it may concern: Every fall at the start of the new 
     school year I get my list of title I children that need a 
     little extra help in the classroom. I know I can help them. 
     Every spring when the school year ends, I know I have helped 
     these children. I know title I works when the light bulb goes 
     on after that child gets that math problem we have been 
     working on. I know that title I works when that child is 
     reading and understands what he reads. They can write a story 
     that makes sense.
       Please keep the money for title I just for title I. Title I 
     money pays for my job, but it is also something very dear to 
     my heart. When I see a child get it, I know it works.

  Mr. President, all over the United States of America there are 
schools with 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 percent low-income children that don't 
get any title I money because we have so severely underfunded this 
program. This legislation does not increase one dime, and we are not 
going to increase one dime for title I--not given this budget that we 
have.
  In addition, when it comes to how we as a nation can renew and live 
up to our vow that there will be equal opportunity for every child in 
America, it is not here in this legislation. It is not here to make 
sure that the children come to kindergarten ready to learn. It is not 
hear to rebuild crumbling schools. It is not here for smaller class 
sizes. It is not here to make sure we have better teachers. It is not 
here to make sure that we do better on after school programs. It is not 
here to make sure there is affordable housing. It is not here for child 
nutrition programs. It is not here at all. And I want to say on the 
floor of the Senate, I don't believe it will be here in this Senate. I 
don't think the majority party will move on this agenda. Sometimes I 
worry a little bit about my party, as well.

  I will be the only vote against this legislation. If I am wrong, I am 
sure my colleagues--Senator Wyden and Senator Jeffords, both good 
Senators, real good Senators--will tell me a few years from now, You 
were mistaken. By not keeping that language in on the core 
requirement--that is what I am focused on. We didn't create any 
loophole. We didn't take a step backwards. This legislation didn't fail 
poor children.
  If they can tell me I'm wrong, I will be glad to be wrong. Today I 
shall vote no. Today I shall wonder why more colleagues aren't voting 
no. Today I sound the alarm that I believe this piece of legislation is 
profoundly mistaken.
  That is my honest view. I am sorry to be so critical of my 
colleagues' proposal because I respect their work, but I cannot support 
this legislation.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 28 minutes 45 seconds 
remaining.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Emilia

[[Page S3998]]

Beskind be allowed floor privileges during the duration of the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Minnesota for 10 
minutes to address some of the important issues the Senator raised.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield 10 minutes to my colleague.
  I have to meet with students from Minnesota. I will try to get a 
chance to respond, but I may have to respond at a later point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota.
  I think he has raised a number of important issues and several that I 
agree with. During my 3 years in the Senate, I have consistently 
stated, along with the Senator from Minnesota, that we must do more. It 
is a moral imperative that we do more in terms of the Head Start 
Program, child care programs, and the variety of domestic needs that 
the Senator from Minnesota is talking about. To build support in 
America for additional funding for those programs, we ought to go to 
taxpayers and show them that with programs such as Ed-Flex we are 
squeezing more value out of the existing $12 billion that we are 
spending.
  There is no quarrel between the Senator from Minnesota and I about 
the need for additional funding for these programs. It is absolutely 
essential. We also happen to agree about eliminating some of the tax 
boondoggles and get the money. But, if we are going to get support from 
the American people for additional funding, it seems to me we ought to 
pass the bipartisan Ed-Flex bill and show that we are squeezing 
existing value out of the current spending, get dollars out of 
bureaucracy and get them into the classroom.

  The one point I would differ with my friend from Minnesota on, and I 
am happy to discuss this with him, is that in the weeks and weeks that 
we have been debating on the floor of the Senate, there has not been 
one example given of how much this program has been abused in the past. 
This program is operating in 12 States in the country in countless 
communities, and we are told now we are taking a step backwards with 
respect to this program though there has not been one example put 
before the Senate of how this program is being abused.
  We have plenty of examples of how it works. The fact is, there is one 
very close to this Capitol Building. Just a few miles from here in 
Howard County, for example, they have reduced class size by one half. 
They did not do that by spending extra dollars. You already heard the 
Senator from Minnesota and I agree on that point. We ought to spend 
additional funds to reduce class size. But a few miles from here they 
have reduced class size with existing funds.
  So we have examples of how this program works. Yet we are told this 
is a big step backwards while there has not been one example, not one, 
of how this program has been abused though it has been in place since 
1994 in 12 States. It does not change any of the core requirements of 
title I--civil rights laws, labor laws, safety laws; all the things 
that are important for vulnerable children, that the Senator from 
Minnesota and I agree on, are kept in place. What this is going to do, 
as it did in my home State of Oregon, is make it possible for poor 
kids, who could not get advanced computing because of Federal redtape, 
to use Ed-Flex so they can get those skills and get the high-wage, 
high-skilled jobs the Senator from Minnesota and I want to see poor 
kids get.
  I am very hopeful we will see overwhelming support today for this 
legislation. I think by showing you can use existing dollars more 
effectively, this is going to lay the groundwork for the objective the 
Senator from Minnesota and I would like to see, which is additional 
support for Head Start, child care programs, domestic programs.
  I look forward, after we pass Ed-Flex and after it works, not talking 
about who is wrong between the Senator from Minnesota and I, but 
talking about how we can join together and get additional support for 
Head Start, child care programs, and these domestic needs, because we 
can go to the American taxpayer and show that, with Ed-Flex, we use 
existing dollars in a more efficient way so we build more credibility 
with them for domestic services.
  I look forward to working with my colleague towards those ends. I 
thank him for giving me the time. He feels strongly about it. I do as 
well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my 
colleague from Oregon. I just wanted for the record on this debate on 
examples--before, my colleague, Senator Kennedy, was speaking about 
past abuses, abuses of title I money. As to what has happened with 
those States, part of the Ed-Flex States, he was talking just about the 
abuse of title I money in the past, not talking about abuse of Ed-Flex 
States.
  What we are talking about now is, we do not know. When we look at 
what GAO has said, the results are inconclusive one way or the other, 
and for that reason we should have waited and done this during the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization. I will quote 
from the GAO report:

       While some States have put in specific goals (such as 
     improving student achievement in math and science) and 
     established clear and measurable objectives for evaluating 
     the impact of waivers (such as improving average test scores 
     by a certain number of points) many Ed-Flex states have not 
     established any goals or have defined only vague objectives.

  That is only one example. I can go on. This is a rather longer quote 
in this report as well.
  Actually I think Senator Wyden is probably the wrong Senator for me 
to be having this debate with. The point is, No. 1, GAO expresses some 
concern about what could happen. The results are not conclusive one way 
or the other. But more important, why not--you voted for the amendment. 
I would have voted for this bill if we had just erred on the side of 
these children. Why not keep in that core provision? If we do not have 
to worry about States abusing this, if we do not have to worry about 
States not having this commitment to children, then surely this 
language which talked about making sure they are good teachers, making 
sure kids are held to high standards, making sure if they are not, we 
are going to give them the instruction they need--why would any school 
district want to waive that? Why would we not have kept that?
  I would be willing to say that Arkansas and Minnesota and Oregon and 
Vermont and the State of Washington school districts would say, ``Keep 
it in, that is what we are about.'' Why was it taken out? And why, when 
I introduced this amendment--this goes to the heart, the core, of the 
standards of the protection--was this taken out? That is the problem.
  When we had the vote on this language, you voted for it, Senator 
Wyden. I am sure Senator Lincoln voted for it and Senator Murray voted 
for it. I don't know what Senator Jeffords did. But that is my point.
  So, in all due respect, it is not true that we do not have evidence 
of some problems. We have plenty from the past. As to the Ed-Flex 
States, I just read from the GAO report. And then I had an amendment. I 
say to my colleague over there, Senator Jeffords from Vermont, that 
would have kept in the basic core protection. I do not think it would 
have been a problem for Vermont or any other State. It should not have 
been taken out, because just by chance, Senator Wyden, just by chance, 
what if someplace, somewhere in the country, some of these kids fell 
between the cracks? Their parents did not have the most clout and there 
was some investment of title I money in areas where it did not really 
make a difference in these kids' lives. It should not have happened. We 
would not have the protection. Why would we not want to err on the side 
of these children? Why would we not want to err on the side of core 
requirements? That is my point.

  I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 20 minutes 
be added to the time, divided equally, 10 minutes a side, between 
Senator Kennedy and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S3999]]

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, on that time, no one could talk about 
education today without thinking of the tragedy yesterday in Colorado. 
As Members have expressed their sorrow over yesterday's events and the 
five earlier school tragedies, the same question comes to everyone's 
lips: What can we do to prevent this from happening again?
  The contribution of the Federal Government towards State schools has 
been defined in the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act. It has always been 
my intention, as a part of the hearings being held by the Health and 
Education Committee toward reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, that I would hold hearings especially examining the Safe 
and Drug-Free Schools Act.
  So, to those who have asked me today what is the Federal Government 
doing, or what can we do, I want to inform my colleagues that the 
Health and Education Committee will have hearings addressing the 
problem of drugs and violence in schools and I will hold the first 
hearing early next month.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes from the 
Democratic side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, today we have an opportunity to discuss 
passage of the first education legislation of the 106th Congress. My 
sincere hope is that this is only the first step in bipartisan 
agreement about the path we are traveling toward improving America's 
schools.
  The Education Flexibility Partnership Act itself is not an earth-
shaking proposal. Essentially, for a set of provisions under a list of 
Federal programs, school districts will be able to get waivers from 
their States instead of having to ask Secretary Riley. Since Secretary 
Riley grants these waivers fairly routinely, some might ask why we need 
this bill. There has been so much talk about the great things this bill 
contains that I just want to clarify what we are talking about.
  Within the bill, we are not reducing paperwork or bureaucracy or cost 
or time spent away from the classroom. You will hear from some of my 
colleagues that this bill does all those things and probably many other 
claims. To some people, Ed-Flex has become the great tonic that will 
fix all the ailments of our schools.
  I want you to notice something that Senator Frist has mentioned that 
I agree with. Ed-Flex is not a silver bullet or a panacea. It will not 
solve all the challenges our schools face.
  The important part of the message that does not always get through is 
that no effort in the Congress or in your local school is that silver 
bullet or that panacea. The problems that affect today's schools, as we 
saw yesterday in Colorado, are never easy to solve. They are always 
more complex than a sound bite. Always.
  Each part of the American school community, from classroom to 
committee room, must do its part. Every student, every family, every 
educator, every community leader, every local school board, every State 
government, and every national policymaker--all of us must do what we 
can.
  The language of the Ed-Flex bill does not really provide any direct 
relief to any of these problems. All it really does is say that in 
addition to asking Secretary Riley for a waiver from a provision of a 
Federal program, you can now ask your State officials.
  So why would someone like me, someone who is a parent, a preschool 
teacher, a former school board member, why would I come to the Senate 
Chamber and proclaim that we should pass the Ed-Flex bill? Because it 
can help change thinking, and that is a vital and important goal.
  Education flexibility is an important idea and concept. If, by 
passing this expansion of the education flexibility program, we can 
change the thinking in just one community about what steps they can 
take to improve their local public school, then that is a major 
victory.
  Too many local decisions, things that would directly improve the 
learning of hundreds of children, are stopped before they get started. 
The message this Congress needs to say to local communities is, if you 
have a proven, effective way to improve learning for your students and 
you have your community behind you and you are willing to be held 
accountable for the results, we should be doing everything we can to 
get the obstacles out of your way.
  Sometimes the obstacle is a Federal law or regulation. Sometimes the 
obstacle is a State law or a State regulation. Sometimes the obstacle 
is a local school board policy that needs to be changed. Sometimes the 
obstacle is the bus schedule or the school lunch schedule or the sports 
schedule. Sometimes, believe it or not, the obstacle to improvement 
does not have anything to do with education law or with government at 
all.
  Whatever the obstacles are, we all have a responsibility to do what 
is best for the students by holding the school accountable and helping 
them get the obstacles out of the way.
  My belief is that we should all be thanking Senator Wyden and Senator 
Frist, Senator Kennedy and Senator Jeffords for giving us an 
opportunity with this bill to help change thinking across this Nation, 
to remind communities that they have more power than they know to make 
improvements in their schools, and to say in a meaningful way that 
their Federal Government is their partner in making their best schools 
better or in helping their struggling schools to thrive.
  There are plenty of great schools and plenty of great thinking out 
there right now without any further action on our part. But this bill 
will encourage the discussion that is happening at every local school 
about how to improve student learning and how to get even our best 
schools performing at higher levels. Great thinking alone will not do 
it.

  That brings me back to my statement that although the Ed-Flex bill is 
the first education bill in this Congress, it cannot be the last, 
because what local school communities need more than flexibility are 
the resources and support to do something positive with it.
  The Ed-Flex bill alone will not give your students more individual 
attention in the classroom. The Ed-Flex bill alone will not stop up a 
leak in your school's roof, unless it is a very small one. The Ed-Flex 
bill alone will not improve teacher training or any number of other 
important issues that real people across this Nation have to deal with 
every day, which is why it is important for me and many of my 
colleagues to start the larger debate about education with this bill.
  We know we will not have many opportunities this year. This Congress 
must continue to address the very real needs of school communities. The 
public school is a powerful engine for social improvement and equity of 
opportunity. Millions of Americans have created lives that were 
measurably better in all ways than that of their parents because of 
something they learned in a public school.
  As communities continue to update and improve and redesign their own 
public schools to meet the changing needs of our economy and society, 
they will need a very real, measurable investment from the other 
members of this great community we call our Nation.
  We must continue our important national investment in reducing class 
size by helping communities to hire 100,000 well-trained, high-quality 
teachers. We must do everything we can to improve the professional 
development and ongoing education of our teachers to make sure they are 
ready for each challenge they face with each student each day they 
enter the classroom.
  We must use every tax bill this year as a vehicle to help school 
communities modernize their school buildings and technology 
capabilities.
  None of these, nor the many other important investments we should 
make, should be seen as a silver bullet or a panacea. But when you give 
local communities the freedom from regulation that we continue by 
expanding the education flexibility program today, and then combine 
that flexibility with the very real investment in the communities' 
ability to hire good people, to improve school buildings, to pay for 
improvements to the teaching process, and to choose the very best 
educational tools possible, then you are doing

[[Page S4000]]

something really big, then we are talking about a major investment in 
our Nation's future which will pay off for us in many ways--reduced 
crime, more economic opportunity for people, the improved well-being of 
our neediest citizens, better citizenship, stronger communities with an 
improved quality of life for all of us.
  That is why I and my colleagues have come to the debate on the Ed-
Flex bill and also talked about the other important national 
investments we must make and continue to make in our schools.
  In the process, there have arisen some threats to that overall, more 
important national effort. There was an amendment to this bill that 
would have undone the very important, vital, bipartisan agreement we 
all came to last year in helping communities reduce class size. If that 
amendment had prevailed, we would have seen communities--communities 
that are now struggling to put together their budgets for next year--we 
would have seen them forced to make some very ugly choices in school 
board meetings that already have enough disagreement and contention.

  The good news is, that amendment which would have forced school 
districts to pit special education and regular education students 
against each other has been dropped. In its place, we have bipartisan 
language which will allow more flexibility to the very small school 
districts who have already reduced class size. That is progress.
  This year, we can have the opportunity to debate class size reduction 
and many other efforts to improve communities' abilities to improve 
their schools. My hope is that we take that opportunity. My hope is 
that we have a full discussion and make some compromises and get to 
further progress.
  Passing the Ed-Flex bill is a good first step. Continuing with our 
effort to leverage class size reduction across the Nation will be a 
good next step because school boards are making those decisions now. 
Moving forward on school construction this year will be another good 
move.
  Increasing funding for special education by at least $500 million 
will be another step towards progress. Improving the resources 
communities have to improve teacher training will be progress. We 
should reauthorize the elementary and secondary school bill this year, 
just as we are scheduled to do.
  We must continue talking and working. It is what the American people 
expect of us. It is our responsibility.
  We must increase flexibility and resources at the same time. People 
want their schools to have the freedom to act and the funds to pay for 
it. Most people are, frankly, shocked by the fact that less than 2 
percent of our overall national spending goes to education. We must 
make that a higher priority. We have started our work. Now let's 
continue and do our part in the great partnership we call America's 
public schools.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank my colleague for 
yielding.
  It certainly is ironic that we should be scheduled to vote on 
education legislation today in the wake of last night's tragedy in 
Colorado. All of the Nation is wondering how we can help our children.
  Since a school shooting a year ago in my home State of Arkansas, I 
have been grappling with ideas to ensure that this type of tragedy 
never happens again. Unfortunately, it did happen again yesterday when 
the peacefulness of a Denver, CO, suburb was shattered by the sounds of 
explosions and gunfire.
  The first line of defense against the terrible television images that 
we have seen over and over during the last 24 hours, and all too often 
during the last year, is guidance and love in the home. Parents must 
take responsibility for their children. And we, as a society, must do 
all that we can to provide the support our children need.

  Our children are truly our greatest national resource. We must make 
their education a national priority. In order to do this, our teachers 
need help, too.
  Each year our Nation's educators are asked to wear more than one hat, 
to take on more roles--all the while teaching our most precious 
resource. They make sacrifices every day, and quite literally in some 
instances have put their lives on the line for the safety of our 
children.
  I do not claim to have all of the answers, but I do think we should 
provide more assistance to our teachers in identifying troubled 
children and giving them skills to deal with these students. One of the 
single common denominators I get from school principals in K through 3 
elementary grades is that they must have more resources in their 
schools, more medical professionals to deal with the severity of 
problems that our young children are coming to school with today.
  We have to give the teachers and the administrators the support and 
trust necessary to guide our children when we cannot be there. And 
finally, we must put more counselors and qualified medical health 
professionals in our schools as resources for teachers and 
administrators.
  Yes, we can install more metal detectors and surveillance cameras in 
schools, but we will not get to the root of the problem. The youth of 
America are suffering, and all of the increased security in the world 
may ease our minds but it will not ease their pain.
  I plan to work with the Senate Education Committee on school 
counseling and mental health legislation so that we can take proactive, 
commonsense steps toward seeing that tragedies such as those in 
Colorado and Jonesboro, AR, become only a distant, painful memory.
  But we are here today to move forward in the field of education. I am 
proud to be an original cosponsor of the Ed-Flex bill. I am pleased 
that both sides could reach an agreement in conference so we can 
proceed to final passage of S. 280.
  Although this process has taken longer than most of us wanted, there 
is a silver lining in this cloud. The Ed-Flex bill has given the Senate 
the opportunity to talk seriously and comprehensively about education--
one of the most important issues facing our country.
  It is absolutely essential that we continue that debate in the 
Senate. I have a county in southwest Arkansas where our superintendent 
made it an obligation to his school district that within 3 years he 
would minimize the size of K through 3 grades to well below 18 students 
per teacher. This school year they achieved that goal and have seen 
remarkable differences in their students.
  Once the Ed-Flex bill passes, and States have greater flexibility 
with Federal funds, we hope to see so much more of that. We still have 
lots of work to do to ensure that our children get a good education and 
the best possible start in life.
  Why? Because education is a national investment, with the highest 
possible return for which we could ask. The knowledge and training that 
we provide our children are the tools that they will carry with them 
for the rest of their lives. When we give them these tools, we have 
successfully invested in the success of our workforce and the future of 
our country.
  How do we accomplish this? First, let's talk about school 
construction and renovation.
  As a product of Arkansas's public schools, I know they are not just 
buildings where students and teachers spend their time; they are the 
cornerstones of our communities. And when a community works together to 
improve its schools, everyone benefits.
  We have to physically fix our schools that are crumbling. What kind 
of a message does it send to our children when we send them to a school 
that has been allowed to literally fall apart? We have to devote the 
resources necessary to improving these situations.
  School buildings also need to be adapted and equipped for computers 
that are wired to the Internet. All of our Nation's children should be 
able to take advantage of technology and a ride on the information 
superhighway.

[[Page S4001]]

  In Arkansas, a recent survey of school facilities conducted by the 
Arkansas Department of Education reports that facility maintenance is 
one of the largest expenses for schools. The need for maintenance is 
often forgotten or overlooked, but in fact, the cost of roof repair or 
replacement is one of the largest expenses that schools incur.
  The study also indicates that 364 buildings are occupied beyond their 
capacity. Some areas of the state are struggling to provide adequate 
facilities to accommodate the student population growth. No one wants 
our children to study in make-shift classrooms. Portable buildings and 
mobile trailers don't serve children or teachers well.
  As a Senator who represents a predominantly rural state, let me point 
out that we can't ignore our rural schools when we talk about school 
construction and renovation. I raised the needs of rural schools last 
week on the Senate floor and will continue to do so as long as the 
education debate continues. I look forward to working with Senator 
Kennedy on the needs of rural schools as well as other Senators on both 
sides of the aisle who share my concern.
  In addition to building new schools and renovating older ones, we 
must reduce class size by hiring new teachers. Studies show that 
children learn better in smaller classrooms and teachers are able to do 
a better job teaching children when they can devote more time to fewer 
children.
  I have spent a lot of time talking with teachers in Arkansas. They 
are desperate for Federal assistance to help them reduce class size 
because a crisis is looming. Only 15 percent of the teachers in 
Arkansas are under the age of 40.
  This summer, Arkansas will receive $11.6 million as its first 
installment of funds to hire teachers to reduce class size in early 
grades. Clearly, State educators are excited about this new pool of 
funding to hire more teachers, but they are quick to point out that 
they need commitments from Congress for additional funding to maintain 
the new teachers in years 2 through 7. They simply don't have the funds 
to pay for these new teachers in years 2 through 7. What an important 
field. But we also must encourage young adults to go into education.
  Schools are now in the process of making hiring decisions for the 
fall. Let's make a commitment to this funding soon so school boards and 
principals can hire new teachers and promise them jobs for more than 
just one year.
  I believe that as Senators, we can come together and do the right 
thing by our Nation's children, parents and educators. Let's take steps 
to end violence, reduce class size and rebuild our schools so America's 
children can thrive. Let us, in the Senate, not end our discussion on 
education--our greatest national investment with this Ed-Flex bill, but 
let us continue this discussion and truly make our children's education 
a national priority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I appreciate and certainly add my support to the Ed-
Flex bill. I encourage the rest of the Members of this body to continue 
this debate on education throughout the next 2 years of this Congress.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank the chairman 
for yielding.
  I am glad to join my colleague from Arkansas in supporting the Ed-
Flex bill, also in joining all of my colleagues in our expressions of 
grief for the families who are suffering such a loss in Colorado today. 
I have been struck, as I have listened to my colleagues on the Senate 
floor. Time and time again words fail me to express the grief, the 
sorrow, that we all feel and really the lack of answers that we have.
  As I presided a few moments ago, Mr. President, and listened to 
Senator Wellstone, he made the statement that if he could snap his 
fingers and somehow make yesterday not happen, he would do that. I 
think all of us feel that way.
  I would add that if we could somehow pass a law today, if we knew the 
silver bullet, if we knew what it is that we could pass legislatively 
from Washington, DC, and put it in statutes, and that it would prevent 
these kinds of tragedies from occurring, I think we would have a 100-0 
vote this evening in the Senate.
  Unfortunately, the solutions are not so simple. The answers are not 
so obvious. Perhaps it goes to the cheapening of life in our society. 
Perhaps it goes to the culture of violence that permeates so much of 
the popular media today. I do not know all the answers, and perhaps 
today isn't the day to even talk about what the answers are or whether 
we can do something from Washington, but certainly there is agreement 
that it is a deep and shocking problem in our society. What is it in 
America that allows this to happen?
  I will join my colleagues in seeking to find answers and trying to 
make this the kind of society where these tragedies are fewer and 
fewer.
  I am glad to rise in support of the Ed-Flex bill. Certainly this is a 
step in the right direction in education reform in our country.
  The Ed-Flex program is about cutting the unnecessary strings attached 
to Federal education funds. It does not cede accountability. In fact, 
the States must use the funds for the purpose intended; the money must 
remain targeted to the population it is designated to serve.
  This bill, though, is recognition that when limited Federal funding 
is spread so thinly over such a wide area, the result is ineffective 
programs that fail to provide students with the basic skills they need 
to succeed.
  If we are to expect schools to increase their performance and provide 
a better education for our children, then we must allow them to 
coordinate school reform plans and to implement plans that coordinate 
program funds. We do not need to compartmentalize education, and this 
bill makes that coordination between programs easier.
  In States such as Arkansas, where there are many small school 
districts, rural school districts that receive only small grants 
through various Federal programs, flexibility is the key. We must allow 
local school districts to decide how to spend Federal dollars in the 
way that will work for them, not the way that Washington tells them to 
do it.
  That is why, in addition to supporting this bill, I have introduced 
the Dollars to the Classroom Act, which also gives more flexibility to 
local school districts. It would eliminate the bureaucracy and allow 
schools to continue the reform efforts that they have already started 
to implement.
  Why do we think that Washington bureaucrats, who are over 1,100 miles 
from Arkansas school districts, can decide how to improve our 
children's education better than the parents, the teachers, the 
principals who live there?
  We must give schools the tools that are necessary to let them address 
the needs they are facing.
  It is time to stop the one-size-fits-all approach to education, and 
allow those at the State and local level to decide what is best for 
their children. The problems facing Arkansas schools are not 
necessarily the same as those facing schools in other parts of the 
Nation. Ed-Flex allows States and local school districts to address 
these problems without restrictions that can inhibit school reform.
  If Congress expects improvement in our Nation's schools, then we must 
not add any additional regulatory burdens that only create more 
paperwork for our teachers and principals. If we really want teachers 
to spend more time with their students, then we must cut the red tape 
that occupies so much of their time.
  In his testimony before the Senate Health and Education Committee on 
February 23, as we well remember, Michigan Governor John Engler stated:

       Many governors feel so strongly that the bureaucracy is the 
     problem that we cannot imagine being unable to improve 
     education with greater funding flexibility.

  In fact, he and the 49 other Governors support this legislation, 
along with the President and, most importantly, the teachers, the 
principals, the school boards and the administrators of this country.

[[Page S4002]]

  The U.S. Department of Education's 1998 report to Congress on waivers 
states:

       Waiver authorities can be useful tools for promoting 
     improved student achievement and for promoting flexibility to 
     support local efforts to improve teaching and learning for 
     students.

  Finally, I am disappointed that the Lott amendment regarding IDEA was 
removed during conference.
  The main objective of the Ed-Flex legislation is to give schools more 
flexibility. Allowing school districts more options in how to spend 
their federal dollars can only benefit those districts by giving them 
control at the local level.
  After talking with an administrator for the Class Size Reduction 
program in Arkansas, there are still several school districts who will 
choose not to participate in this program because of excessive 
regulations. Many of the small- to medium-sized school districts in 
Arkansas who have not yet reduced class size to 18 students per class 
will choose not to go through the burdensome steps to form a consortia 
with several other school districts for the hiring of only one teacher 
that they must then share.
  While this is an issue that we must continue to resolve, I am proud 
to have supported this legislation, and I hope that the education 
debate that we have had in Congress will not end with the passage of 
this piece of legislation. A significant amount of work remains in 
improving our schools, and I look forward to further consideration of 
this issue.
  That is what this bill is about. That is why it has such broad 
support. Though we need to go much further, this is an important first 
step in providing greater local flexibility.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). Who yields time?
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just take a moment and then I am 
prepared to yield back my time. I guess the Senator from Minnesota 
still wants to address the Senate. I yield myself a moment.
  In my absence, our chairman has indicated that we will move forward 
and have some hearings about violence in schools for our Committee on 
Education and Human Resources. I commend him for being willing to 
undertake that. I think that could be enormously important.
  I do not think at the outset we are expecting the magical solution, 
but I do think that we probably will get some very constructive ideas.
  I can remember it wasn't long ago that several Members of the Senate 
got together with the Attorney General and some of the parents from 
schools that had seen this kind of violence in the recent past. The 
parents had a number of ideas and recommendations and suggestions. I 
think doing this in the formal setting of a committee hearing so that 
we will have the record and have it kept and make it available to our 
colleagues perhaps will be one of the most important things that we 
undertake in our committee--and we have many important things to 
undertake.
  I thank the chairman of the committee for his willingness on that and 
indicate that we are all looking forward to cooperating and working 
very closely with the Chair in every way that we possibly can to hold 
meaningful hearings and perhaps to help not just the families, but to 
help our country come to grips with at least the role of the school in 
this whole process of young people's development and what we might be 
able to suggest that might be a constructive and useful idea.
  We will not have all the answers, but maybe we will have some. I 
think with that kind of commitment today, many of us feel at least the 
Senate is attempting to deal with this in an important way.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his thoughts.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise today to once again voice my 
support for the Education Flexibility Partnership Act or Ed-Flex. With 
the passage of this important legislation, we are taking an important 
first step towards reducing the intrusive regulations and bureaucratic 
red tape the federal government imposes on local schools in Kansas and 
around the nation.
  First, I would like to note that Ed-Flex legislation did not make it 
to this point without the combined efforts of a great many talented 
people. I would like to commend and thank my colleagues Senators 
Jeffords and Frist for their dedication to this legislation. I would 
also like to thank our colleagues in the House and all of the staff 
that have dedicated their time and ability to increasing flexibility 
for school districts.
  Mr. President, Ed-Flex is a truly significant piece of legislation. 
For too long, the Federal Government, through the Department of 
Education, has prevented local schools and school districts from 
creating and implementing original programs custom designed to help 
their students learn. Ed-Flex provides local schools a chance to waive 
Federal regulations and statutes which prevent them from implementing 
these innovative programs. We are sending an important message to 
teachers, parents and local school boards that we recognize that they 
know best how to educate their students.
  My home State of Kansas is one of the 12 States already covered under 
Ed-Flex, and which have benefited from the waivers. Schools from across 
Kansas have submitted 43 waiver requests, none of which have yet been 
rejected. To hear from the folks back home with whom I visited, 
students are much better served by flexibility than they are by rigid 
Federal mandates.
  And Kansans aren't the only people who have supported our efforts to 
provide more flexibility. Both the Senate and House versions of this 
bill passed with broad bi-partisan support. All fifty governors have 
endorsed Ed-Flex. In fact, even President Clinton agrees that Ed-Flex 
will help to improve education in this country.
  However, while Ed-Flex is an important first step towards relieving 
the pressure of Federal mandates on local schools, it is still just the 
first step. Recognizing that the Federal Government is not best suited 
to set the rules under which we educate our students, we must continue 
to reduce the role of the Federal mandates in local education. The 
demands on a school district in urban California are quite different 
from those on districts in rural Kansas--no less daunting--simply 
different. We, as a body, must continue to move legislation which will 
allow those two districts to decide for themselves how best to educate 
their children.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Conference Report 
on the Education Flexibility Partnership Act.
  I am particularly pleased that the Conference Report contains my 
amendment to ensure that parents have a strong voice in the Ed-Flex 
waiver process. My amendment requires states and school districts to 
provide public notice and comment opportunities to parents and other 
interested members of the community before requesting waiver authority 
or waivers.
  As an added accountability measure to ensure that parents and 
communities across the nation have confidence in the waiver process, my 
amendment also requires states and school districts to submit these 
comments along with their application to the Secretary or the state as 
appropriate.
  Such requirements provide parents an opportunity to play an active 
role in the waiver process, and, by doing so, empower them to help 
their children succeed in school.
  I believe that it is extremely important for parents to be involved 
in their child's education. As the Center for Law and Education has 
noted, ``when parents are involved at school, their children not only 
go further, the schools become better for all children.''
  Moreover, the implications of waiver requests are broad. Input and 
participation by parents and other interested members of our 
communities can only lead to more effective use of any waivers. Indeed, 
parents are more likely to be receptive to the waivers and work to see 
that the goals intended by the waivers are achieved if they actually 
know about the waivers; are involved in shaping the waivers; and have a 
real stake in the waiver process.
  With Ed-Flex, we have an opportunity to provide more flexibility to

[[Page S4003]]

enhance state and local education reform efforts. I am pleased that the 
Conference Report recognizes the need to balance that flexibility with 
accountability by containing provisions that I worked on closely with 
Senators Kennedy and Dodd to ensure that the increased flexibility 
provided to states and school districts is tied to strong 
accountability.
  When we send scarce federal dollars to states and school districts, 
we need to hold them accountable for results. Indeed, too many of our 
children do not get the education they deserve. Without accountability, 
we will never reverse this situation.
  Mr. President, I am also pleased that the bipartisan commitment we 
made last year to fund the class size reduction initiative is 
maintained in the Conference Report. Indeed, the Republican attempt to 
pit the needs of children with disabilities against the general student 
population is both counterproductive and destructive.
  Lastly, I want to note that Ed-Flex alone is not going to turn around 
the education of our children. Ed-Flex is one of the easier and less 
complex education issues we may consider this year. Now it is time to 
begin the hard work of truly improving teacher quality, strengthening 
parental involvement, equipping our school libraries with up-to-date 
books, repairing and modernizing our schools, and reducing class size. 
These initiatives are the hallmarks of real education reform--not 
slogans about block grants and vouchers.
  Mr. President, the issue of education is one of the greatest 
challenges facing our nation. There are no quick fixes. It is only 
through hard work and sensible reauthorization of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act that we can begin to truly improve education.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor of the 
Education Flexibility Partnership Act to speak in support of the 
conference report on this important legislation designed to improve the 
quality of our children's education.
  This is a straightforward, bipartisan proposal with no budgetary 
impact. It is endorsed by the governors of all fifty states. It will 
give to every state the flexibility that twelve states have had for the 
last five years--flexibility that will allow states and communities to 
pursue innovative efforts for the improvement of K-12 education. We 
should approve the conference report and take an important first step 
toward returning the control of education to our states and local 
communities.
  Opponents of education flexibility claim that it reduces the 
accountability of the states and will divert federal funds away from 
programs that support low-income children. These arguments simply have 
no validity because of the safeguards we have written into the act. To 
be eligible to participate in Ed-Flex, a state must have made 
significant progress toward developing and implementing challenging 
standards for education content and performance for all of its 
students. Moreover, an Ed-Flex waiver can not exceed five years unless 
the Secretary of Education determines the waiver has been effective in 
assisting schools in implementing education reforms.
  It is not accountability that Ed-Flex eliminates; what Ed-Flex does 
away with is the direct federal control of local decisionmaking. The 
objectives of federal education funding remain the same--improve the 
performance of all students and all schools. Ed-Flex encourages and 
supports the states and local school districts in developing innovative 
new approaches to education reform and improvement. The intent of 
existing education programs is preserved while the administrative 
burden on the states and local communities is lessened. States and 
communities will be allowed to tailor these programs to fit local needs 
and conditions. In short, the legislation we are now considering 
recognizes that the people closest to our schools--our school board 
members, teachers, principals, and parents--are the best able to craft 
reforms that respond to local needs.
  As pleased as I am to support this conference report, I am very 
disappointed that it has eliminated the Senate's provision that would 
have afforded local schools the choice of using the funds appropriated 
for class-size reduction to pay for special education. Contrast the 
progressive objectives of the Ed-Flex bill with this decision. Some 
members insisted on placing new federal requirements on local schools 
through a new categorical program at the same time we are moving toward 
more local control through this bill. We need to move away from this 
``Washington knows best'' approach.
  I am a strong supporter of public education and believe that the 
federal government should increase its support for our schools. It 
should realize this goal first by meeting its commitment to pay the 
federal share of special education, not by creating new Washington-
driven programs. If we meet our obligation to pay forty percent of the 
cost of special education, millions of dollars of local education 
dollars will become available for the needs of education in every state 
and in every school district. These are dollars that can be spent on 
more teachers--or on school construction, drop-out prevention, after 
school programs, or on any other need a local school establishes as its 
priorities.
  Clearly, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act is only the 
starting point. We need to go much further in cutting the federal red 
tape that binds our local schools and hinders their ability to respond 
to the needs of their students. Giving schools greater flexibility must 
be a major priority as we proceed with the reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I plan to take another step in 
the direction of less federal control by introducing a bill to give 
small, rural schools greater flexibility in the way they use federal 
education funding.
  The federal government must help our local schools to improve their 
performance. But control and management from Washington are not what is 
needed. Extending the option of Ed-Flex to every state eases the 
federal hold on our local schools. I urge my colleagues to approve the 
conference report that is before us today and to move forward in 
supporting more local decision-making as we reauthorize the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act later in this Congress.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to express my support for the 
Education Flexibility Partnership Act conference report. I commend the 
conferees for working so hard to remove the provisions of the bill that 
would have been harmful to our schools, and for keeping the elements 
that really will provide much-needed flexibility to States and local 
school boards to try new, innovative approaches to improving public 
education.
  I support this conference report for several reasons. First, it 
removes the provisions in the Senate bill that would have forced school 
districts to choose between hiring teachers or serving students with 
special needs. I strongly support putting more money into IDEA. The 
Federal government is required to pay for up to 40 percent of special 
education costs; yet, we are currently only contributing about 10 
percent. This is unacceptable and I am committed to increasing the 
Federal contribution to IDEA. But taking the money away from teachers 
is not the way to do it. We must find the will and the resources to 
meet all of our educational needs and responsibilities--we should fund 
teachers, and special education, and technology, and school 
construction. We should not force school districts to choose between 
these important priorities, and I am pleased that the conference report 
no longer does so.
  Second, I strongly support the provision in the conference report 
that allows schools to place disabled children who carry or possess a 
weapon at school in an alternative education setting. Unfortunately, 
during consideration of the Senate Ed-flex bill, the amendment that 
contained this important provision also contained other harmful 
provisions that would have diverted funding away from teacher. Although 
I voted against the amendment because of the funding piece, I support 
this provision to appropriately discipline and remove any student who 
brings a weapon to school. I am pleased that the harmful pieces of that 
amendment were dropped in conference, and that this provision to keep 
guns out of our schools was retained.
  It seems particularly appropriate, yet tragic, that this requirement 
should be passed on the day after the school shooting that occurred in

[[Page S4004]]

Littleton, Colorado. Although authorities are still sorting through the 
facts and details of that horrifying incident, one thing is clear: we 
must aggressively take every step possible to keep guns out of the 
hands of children and out of our schools. Enactment of my Gun Free 
School Zones Act was a good start, and this provision continues to move 
us in the right direction, but I believe we must go further and make 
the safety of our school children a national, state and local priority.
  Finally, the Ed-Flex conference takes a small but important first 
step in correcting a glitch in last year's Class Size Reduction Act. 
Current law requires that if a school district receives less money than 
is necessary to hire a teacher, that district must form a consortium 
with other districts, pool their money together, and share a teacher. 
This simply won't work in many places in Wisconsin; the teacher would 
spend more time traveling between school districts than teaching. Yet, 
under current law, unless the district formed the consortium, they 
would not have access to the class size money at all.
  The Conference report partially fixes this problem by allowing those 
school districts that have already reduced class size in the early 
grades to access this money without forming a consortium. They are free 
to use this money for professional development to improve teacher 
quality. I am pleased by this change, but this does not address the 
problem for those districts that have not yet reached the target class 
size reduction goals. These districts want and need this money, and I 
will continue to work with my colleagues and with the Department of 
Education to make sure they get it.
  Mr. President, the Ed-Flex bill does not solve every problem in 
public education. We still have many issues to address when we 
reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. But I support 
the principle of providing more flexibility to States and local school 
districts, who have the ultimate responsibility of educating our 
Nation's children. Although it is a modest step forward, I am pleased 
to support the Ed-Flex conference report.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of this conference report 
on the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. When this so-
called ``Ed-Flex'' bill was last before this body, it contained a plan 
to cut back on the commitment this Congress made last year to help put 
100,000 new teachers in our schools. Now that this contentious 
provision has been removed, I'm pleased this afternoon to support the 
final passage of this bill and to clear this measure for the 
President's signature.
  There's little doubt that education is something that can help set an 
individual free or consign him or her to a lifetime of uphill battles. 
And as a Nation, the quality of our educational system can make us a 
world leader or relegate us to a second-class status.
  While most education decisions are--and should continue to be--made 
at the state and local level, the Federal Government has a crucial role 
to play in helping schools to educate all our children for the high-
tech world of the 21st Century. I believe this bill will help us to 
better reach our goals.
  All across America, parents, teachers, school boards, students, and 
policy makers are looking to improve their schools, and the Federal 
Government has offered help to schools in developing and instituting 
innovative reforms. In 1994, we took the important step of setting up a 
demonstration program in six states to allow certain regulations in 
Federal education programs to be waived if those regulations impede 
progress on school improvement efforts. We later expanded that 
demonstration program to twelve states.
  This legislation we are passing today will allow all states, 
including Delaware, the same flexibility that was afforded the states 
in the demonstration program. The Federal dollars will still be spent 
for the purposes intended, but states will be freed to use the money in 
the most efficient and creative ways, most responsive to local needs. 
Importantly, this bill also includes strong provisions to ensure that 
schools will be held accountable to meet educational goals.
  In the struggle to improve our education system, this is an important 
step in promoting new ideas and solutions to better our schools and 
make the most of our education dollars.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to again express my 
strong support for the education proposals currently before the Senate, 
which would direct more dollars and decision-making authority to 
states, teachers, and parents.
  Today the Senate considers 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 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's ridiculous. We 
need to put education dollars into the classroom instead of 
bureaucracy.
  Ed-Flex takes a critical step in allowing more localized decision-
making authority--the power to decide when the federal regulations are 
more troublesome and expensive than they're worth. Today, there are 
simply too many regulations which are despised by school 
administrators.
  Giving more decision-making 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've got 
farm kids, suburban kids, and city kids. 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.
  This week in Minnesota, the focus in the State Legislature is on 
education, and those involved in the debate over spending priorities 
and education initiatives will be Minnesota state officials, teachers, 
and parents: people much better suited to be making decisions for our 
students than Washington bureaucrats.
  We have opportunities before us to do something meaningful for our 
children's education. A complementary bill to Ed-Flex which promotes 
local decision-making power is Senator Hutchinson's Dollars to the 
Classroom Act. Under this proposal, 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. The bill 
would require that at least 95 cents out of every dollar spent on 31 
primary and secondary federal education programs go to the classroom, 
allowing teachers and parents to support local education priorities.
  It would take money from competitive federal grant programs, which 
rarely reach the local classrooms that need them, and send this money 
directly to local schools and districts for their spending needs.
  Mr. President, in a more general sense, we need to address the 
reasons why our students aren't achieving the levels of academic 
excellence they

[[Page S4005]]

should. Of course we all want the best education available for our 
children, and to improve the state of American education and schools 
for all children.
  It's in the best interest of our kids and of our country. 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're at rock bottom. It's 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 and the Dollars to the Classroom Act, that 
return money and control--from Washington--to parents, teachers, and 
local school districts. After all, they know best how to spend 
education dollars.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I know that education has a lot to do 
with what happens in these cases, and the failure of our educational 
system in some regards is certainly a contributing factor. As we get 
into the dropout protection aspects of the bill and also the Safe and 
Drug Free Schools Act, I think you will learn some startling things.
  I remember not long ago here we had a speaker who told about the 
amoral generation we are raising in gangs across the country leading to 
these kind of problems. I think it is incredibly important that when we 
do take up, which only occurs once every 5 years, the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act, we have to examine what happens and why we 
have these problems. I look forward to working with my friend to design 
hearings which should be productive to our society.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
conference report on H.R. 800.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we cannot yield the remainder of the 
time until we have the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum on his 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have checked with the minority, and I 
yield back all remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on agreeing to the 
conference report. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
absent due to surgery.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``aye.''
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 89 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Wellstone
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Moynihan
       
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will briefly speak to thank the staffs 
on both sides. They worked so hard on this bill. When we went to the 
conference with the House, there were many things that had to be worked 
out and they worked extremely fast and very competently to allow us to 
have this bill passed and on to the President as soon as possible.
  I especially thank all of the staff who worked on this bill: Meredith 
Medley and Lori Meyer with Senator Frist, Danica Petroshius with 
Senator Kennedy, Suzanne Day with Senator Dodd, Denzel McGuire and 
Townsend Lange with Senator Gregg, and Lindsay Rosenberg with Senator 
Wyden. I also thank Susan Hattan and Sherry Kaiman with my staff.
  I thank all the Members for their excellent cooperation on this bill, 
which will do a lot to help our local schools in particular to be able 
to better face the problems they encounter.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________