[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 56 (Thursday, April 22, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E742-E743]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 21, 1999

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I support the concept of flexibility in 
the way that our federal education programs are implemented at the 
state and local level. Local Educational Agencies and individual 
schools need flexibility to ensure that our programs are conducted in a 
manner that is responsive and relevant to local conditions and the 
divergent needs of all students. However, educational flexibility needs 
to be viewed in its proper context--specifically in terms of the 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In this 
context the Conference Report on H.R.

[[Page E743]]

800, the Ed-Flex legislation, falls short and I rise to oppose the 
Conference Report.
  I am a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, and 
this Committee has just begun to take up the numerous important issues 
that are involved in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It is 
folly, Mr. Speaker, for this final version of the Ed-Flex bill to come 
up before the ESEA has even been considered. How can we justify 
creating a system in which all states can have the option to waive 
federal education requirements when those federal education programs 
have not even been reauthorized? It is inappropriate and unjustified 
for the Congress to be granting across-the-board waiver authority to 
states before the House Education and Workforce Committee has 
reconsidered the ESEA.
  In fact, the Conference Report on H.R. 800 is actually weaker than 
the version that was passed by the House of Representatives. At least 
our House version of the bill contained a sunset provision that 
mandated that Ed-Flex be taken up during the ESEA reauthorization 
process. The Conference Report eliminates this provision.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, accountability must not be sacrificed for 
the sake of flexibility. If the Congress grants greater flexibility to 
the states, the states must be held responsible to use these new powers 
in a way that improves educational quality and student performance. The 
Conference Report is weak on accountability provisions. We tried to 
strengthen these accountability provisions in Committee, but were not 
successful. Now the Congress has placed itself in a position that will 
grant huge loopholes to states and localities when it comes to 
measuring and enforcing accountability. This is another reason why I 
urge my colleagues to oppose the Ed-Flex Conference Report.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the long-term effect of Ed-
Flex will be to shift valuable federal resources away from schools in 
high-poverty neighborhoods towards school in more wealthy districts. It 
is a hallmark of national education policy that federal funds be used 
to benefit schools and school districts that are most in need of 
outside resources. Federal programs need to be targeted to the 
disadvantaged. It is very possible that this bill will open the way for 
states to redirect ESEA Title I funds away from the disadvantaged. This 
trend dilutes the essential purposes of Title I. For these reasons, Mr. 
Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Ed-Flex Conference 
Report.

                          ____________________