[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.
____________________