[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3518-3543]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            EDUCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 280) to provide for education flexibility 
     partnerships.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported 
from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, with an 
amendment on page 11, line 22, to strike ``Part A'', and insert in lieu 
thereof ``Part B.''
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
committee amendment be agreed to and be considered as original text for 
the purpose of further amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee amendment was agreed to.


                            Amendment No. 31

                     (Purpose: To improve the bill)

  Mr. JEFFORDS. I send a substitute amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 31.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Today, Mr. President, we are taking up what I would 
call ``unfinished business'' from last Congress. Our bipartisan efforts 
in the last Congress resulted in nearly 30 public laws, about a third 
of them in the area of education. However, there was one bill that was 
reported from the Health and Education Committee with broad bipartisan 
support, the Ed-Flex bill, that was not enacted into law.
  A year ago, the President told the Nation's Governors that passage of 
this legislation--and I quote him--``would dramatically reduce the 
regulatory burden of the federal government on the states in the area 
of education.''
  Six months ago, Secretary Riley wrote me to reiterate the 
administration's support for the Ed-Flex bill and urged its passage. 
The Senate Health and Education Committee heeded his advice and passed 
it with only one dissenting vote.
  The National Governors' Association, under the chairmanship of 
Governor Carper from Delaware, has strongly urged the Congress to pass 
Ed-Flex this year.
  Last November, the General Accounting Office looked at this program 
in detail, both at the dozen States that now participate in the Ed-Flex 
program and the 38 that potentially could participate under this 
legislation. It found that views among the current States varied, but 
it was seen as modestly helpful.
  It would be a gross overstatement to suggest that this bill will 
revolutionize education. It will be a sensible step in making our 
limited resources go further toward the goal of improving our education 
delivery system.
  The Department of Education, under the leadership of Secretary Riley, 
has stated that Ed-Flex authority will help States in ``removing 
potential regulatory barriers to the successful implementation of 
comprehensive school reform initiatives''.
  I would like to take a moment to briefly review the history of Ed-
Flex. The original Ed-Flex legislation was first conceived by former 
Senator Mark Hatfield, as many of us know, an individual deeply 
committed to improving education. His proposal had its roots in his 
home State of Oregon which has long been a role model in education.
  Under Ed-Flex, the Department of Education gives a State some 
authority to grant waivers within a State, giving each State the 
ability to make decisions about whether some 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. They have no authority to 
waive any of those.
  The 1994 legislation authorized six Ed-Flex states, three 
designations were to be awarded to states with populations of 3.5 
million or greater and 3 were to be granted to states with populations 
less than 3.5 million.
  These states were not chosen randomly nor quickly--the selection 
process was 2 and one-half years in duration. The Department of 
Education sent out a notice and a state interested in participating in 
Ed-Flex submitted an application.
  In the application, each interested state was required to describe 
how it would use its waiver authority, including how it would evaluate 
waiver applications from local school districts and how it would ensure 
accountability.
  The original six are: Kansas, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and 
my home State of Vermont. Another six states came on board between May 
1996 and July 1997. Those additional states are: Colorado, Illinois, 
Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, and New Mexico.
  Vermont has used its Ed-Flex authority to improve Title One services, 
particularly improving services for those

[[Page 3519]]

students in smaller rural areas. In addition, my home state has also 
used Ed-Flex authority to provide greater access to professional 
development, which is a very critical area and perhaps has the greatest 
impact on enhancing student performance.
  The Department of Education has stated that the 12 current Ed-Flex 
states have ``used their waiver authority carefully and judiciously.''
  In last November's GAO report on Ed-Flex, several state officials 
from the established Ed-Flex states, said that ``Ed-Flex promotes a 
climate that encourages state and local educators to explore new 
approaches . . .''
  The bill before us today, S. 280, under the sponsorship of Senator 
Bill Frist and Senator Ron Wyden, has significantly improved the 
accountability aspects of the 1994 Ed-Flex law.
  S. 280 is very specific regarding a state's eligibility under Ed-Flex 
authority. The bill makes it clear that a state must have state content 
standards, challenging student performance standards, and aligned 
assessments as described in Title 1 or the state must have made 
substantial progress, as determined by the Secretary, in implementing 
its Title 1 state standards.
  This legislation also emphasizes the importance of school and student 
performance. Each local education agency applying for a waiver must 
describe its ``specific, measurable, educational goals'' regarding 
progress toward increased school and student performance.
  As I indicated earlier, this legislation is not meant to serve as the 
sole solution to improving school and student performance.
  However, it does serve as a mechanism that will give states the 
ability to enhance services to students through flexibility with real 
accountability.
  I urge my colleagues to support S. 280 and to withhold extraneous 
amendments that will delay and complicate its enactment.
  I take this opportunity to thank Senators Bill Frist and Ron Wyden 
and their staff for their hard work on this legislation.
  They have done an outstanding job and I commend them for their 
efforts.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I am happy to rise in support of the Ed-Flex 
legislation. I want to commend Chairman Jeffords and Senator Frist for 
their outstanding work, as well as Senator Wyden for his bipartisan 
efforts on behalf of this legislation which I think takes a tremendous 
step--a bold step--toward improving education in our Nation's schools.
  I listened closely to some of those who spoke earlier today and 
yesterday in opposition to this legislation. Time and time again, I 
heard the advocacy of greater spending, as if spending were the sole 
gauge for our commitment to better education in this country.
  I heard time and time again that Ed-Flex was nothing or that it did 
nothing. The fact is that providing greater flexibility for our State 
departments of education, providing greater flexibility for local 
school districts, is the single best thing that we can do to untie 
their hands, to take the straitjackets off local educators and ensure 
that they, in fact, have the ability to make the decisions that are 
going to be in the best interests of the students in this country.
  I remember well when I came to the House of Representatives, the U.S. 
Congress, in 1993, and the great debate was on what we should do about 
welfare reform. We had established across this country a process by 
which States could apply for waivers from the burdensome welfare 
regulations mandated on the Federal level. While not all of the analogy 
between welfare reform and education reform today fit--there are many 
differences--there are also a number of similarities.
  The first step toward what became comprehensive welfare reform was 
the ability for States to apply for waivers and escape the heavy-handed 
mandates coming out of Washington, DC. That first step on waivers led 
us to the much broader step of block grants and comprehensive welfare 
reform, which has worked, and which has taken thousands and thousands 
of people who were living lives of dependency on welfare to now lives 
of independence, lives of hope and greater prosperity.
  It has worked in spite of the dire predictions about giving the 
States the flexibility to enact what they believed would work in their 
States in welfare reform; it has, in fact, accomplished the stated 
goals.
  I believe that while this, as has often been said, is not an end-all, 
it is not a cure-all for educational woes in this country, providing 
the States an ability to escape Washington mandates so long as they are 
accomplishing intended purposes with proper accountability is an 
important first step to take. I hope we will go further. I hope we go 
to dollars to the classroom that will consolidate a number of Federal 
education programs. But this is bold and this is important. I commend 
the bipartisan efforts to bring us to this point.
  I think what we are addressing in this legislation is the tragedy of 
bureaucratic waste. We have heard repeatedly the statistics that have 
been cited, and I think accurately cited, that we have 760 Federal 
education programs; that those 760 Federal education programs spend 
approximately 6 or 7 cents on the dollar in funding for our local 
schools, while mandating 50 percent of the paperwork required for our 
educational programs.
  When Pete Hoekstra in the House of Representatives began his 
Crossroads Project, looking at education in America, one of the first 
things he did was to try to catalog the number of Federal education 
programs. I have the transcript of Secretary Riley before Congressman 
Hoekstra's committee.

       Chairman Hoekstra: How many education programs do you 
     estimate that we have throughout the Federal Government? [A 
     rather straightforward question to ask of the Secretary of 
     Education.]
       Secretary Riley: We have--what is the page? It's around 
     200. I've got it here. One thing that I do think is 
     misleading is to talk about 760--
       Chairman Hoekstra: Well, how many do you think there are?
       Secretary Riley: We have--I've got a page here with it.
       Chairman Hoekstra: Just the Department of Education alone 
     or is this including all other agencies?
       Secretary Riley: It is just a couple less than 200.
       Chairman Hoekstra: Is this just the Department of 
     Education?
       Secretary Riley: Just the Department of Education.
       Chairman Hoekstra: Well, how about including other agencies 
     and those kinds of things.
       Secretary Riley: Well, that is where I was going to get 
     into the 760.

  It goes on. Congressman Hoekstra explains the process they had to go 
through to actually come up with the figure 760 Federal education 
programs, and, in fact, it is quite well verified. So 760 programs that 
had never even been cataloged, when you asked the Department, they 
didn't even know how many there actually were. What we are suggesting 
is that those 760 education programs place an enormous paperwork burden 
on classroom teachers, local educators, and on a State's department of 
education. It is in that area that we can address the enormous 
bureaucratic waste.
  Now, it was said repeatedly that this bill is nothing. I want to 
quote a man I admire greatly, and he is quoted in the Fordham 
Foundation report entitled ``New Directions.'' That individual is the 
Rev. Floyd Flake. Many of you will recognize that name because Floyd 
Flake was a Congressman from New York State for many, many years, 
representing his constituents very well, but who was willing to step 
outside of the box and, in fact, he was so committed to education 
reform and improving the lives of the children of his constituents in 
New York, he left the U.S. Congress--a safe seat for sure--and went 
back to his home district to run a school and pastor a church. This is 
what Rev. Floyd Flake said, an African American pastor who served in 
the U.S. House as a Democrat:

       While over $100 billion in title I funds have been expended 
     on behalf of these children--

  that is, children at risk--

     these funds have not made much difference. Study after study 
     has shown that this important Federal program has failed to 
     narrow

[[Page 3520]]

     the achievement gap. The result for America's neediest girls 
     and boys is nothing short of tragedy. Real education reform 
     will transform the future prospects of America's minority and 
     low-income children, but this cannot come primarily from 
     Washington. What the Federal Government can do is get out of 
     the way of States and communities that are serious about 
     pursuing real education reform of their own devising.

  I believe Reverend Flake, Congressman Flake, has hit the nail on the 
head. We have heard much very strong, emotional and passionate talk 
about the needs of disadvantaged children. I don't believe anybody can 
question Pastor Flake's commitment to disadvantaged children. He said 
the best thing we can do is get Washington out of the way. So I believe 
we can address the tragedy of bureaucratic waste by passing Ed-Flex.
  Secondly, we address the logic that one size fits all; that wisdom 
flows only from Washington, DC; that the U.S. Congress has the wisdom 
and ability to micromanage our schools. So we hear much about 
accountability and that somehow by providing States broad, new 
flexibility we are going to water down or minimize accountability.
  Well, I believe it is a very high form of arrogance to say that we 
don't trust local elected officials, we don't trust local school 
superintendents who are hired by that local school board, that we don't 
trust the Governors of our States, that, in fact, only we can make 
those decisions about what accountability should be. ``One size fits 
all'' rarely works in a country as diverse as the United States of 
America. To believe that we can micromanage local schools from 
Washington, whether they are in inner-city New York City or Desha 
County, AR, or whether it be in Detroit or in Miami, the differences in 
our cultures, our social backgrounds, and our needs across this country 
are so great, we are so diverse, that to believe that we can properly 
diagnose and then treat educational problems from Washington, I think, 
is foolish, indeed.
  In fact, as you look over the history of the last 30 years of 
education in this country, we have seen, by every objective 
measurement, a deterioration in academic success. I suggest to those 
who oppose this bill that they are attempting to defend a status quo 
that is demonstrably flawed. We can address the tragedy of ``Washington 
knows best'' and that we don't trust those local officials. What brings 
us to the floor today--what brings this legislation to the floor today 
is the crisis that exists in American education.
  I listened to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. He used many 
of the same statistics that I quote. He quoted many of the same reports 
that I have before me, which emphasize and underscore the crisis we 
face in American education. But it seems to me that the opponents are 
saying it is a terrible crisis and therefore we need to keep the status 
quo, we need to fund current programs at higher levels, when what we 
have been doing has clearly failed.
  So what this bipartisan bill does is to say, let's try a new 
approach, and that innovation, creativity, and new ideas are coming 
from the States and local schools. Let's give them the flexibility to 
enact those reforms, and I believe we will see education truly improve.
  The federally funded National Assessment of Educational Progress, the 
NAEP report, reports that 38 percent of 4th grade students do not even 
attain ``basic'' achievement levels in reading. In math, 38 percent of 
8th graders score below basic level, as do 43 percent of 12th graders 
in science.
  I point out that there is an obvious trend there. In the lower 
grades, we do better; in the higher grades, we do worse. That reality 
was further emphasized in the TIMSS test report, which is the best 
measurement of an international comparison of student achievement. The 
TIMSS report shows that while we do quite well in math and science in 
grade 4, compared to students in other countries, by the time those 
students reach the 12th grade, they are almost at the bottom, 
internationally. So something has clearly gone awry between grade 4 and 
grade 12.
  I believe that is a strong incentive for us to change the direction 
of education in this country. The Fordham Foundation report is well 
named: New Directions. It is high time that we find new directions in 
education, and that is what Ed-Flex does. It is a first step, but it is 
an important step, freeing us from bureaucratic waste and inefficiency. 
As President Ronald Reagan used to say, ``The only thing that saves us 
from bureaucracy is its inefficiency.'' The tragedy is when you look at 
the inefficiency in the education bureaucracy, those whom it is hurting 
are those who are most vulnerable--our children, our students.
  Lisa Graham Keegan, Arizona State Superintendent of Public 
Instruction, recognizes this. She has stated that it is ``the lure of 
Federal dollars tied to programs with hazily defined goals,'' and 
compliance with those Federal programs is a big cause of the problems 
we face in education today. Keegan specifically indicates that 165 
employees in the Arizona Department of Education are responsible for 
one thing, and one thing only, and that is managing Federal programs--
165 employees just to manage the Federal programs, which account for 6 
percent of Arizona's total spending on education.
  Now, those 165 employees work out to be 45 percent of her total 
staff. She has 45 percent of her educational staff in the educational 
department in Arizona doing nothing more than complying with Federal 
programs that account for only 6 percent of the funding for Arizona 
schools.
  Something is badly out of kilter when that happens. And it happens 
not only in Arizona, but you can echo those same sentiments by 
directors of education across this country.
  This is an opportunity for us to move in a new direction.
  President Clinton has made it very clear that he decided the problem 
with education is class size; that smaller class size is a good thing, 
and that even if the Federal Government has to step in and do it, that 
is what we should do. No research indicates what the impact of class 
size is going to have on a child's ability to learn. Despite this there 
is a $1.2 billion proposal to spend tax dollars to reduce class size. 
That will be a debate for another time. But I think once again it 
reflects the traditional thinking that we can only solve education 
problems with Washington solutions.
  In 1996, then-Governor Voinovich of the State of Ohio who is now our 
colleague in the U.S. Senate noted that local schools in his State had 
to submit as many as 170 Federal reports totaling more than 700 pages 
during a single year. This report also noted that more than 50 percent 
of the paperwork required by a local school in Ohio is a result of 
Federal programs; this despite the fact that the Federal Government 
accounts for only 6 percent of Ohio's educational spending. One-hundred 
and seventy Federal reports, Governor Voinovich said, 700 pages in 
length, and 50 percent of the paperwork, and once again only 6 percent 
of the educational spending in Ohio.
  Then I think the experience in Boston illustrates this need for Ed-
Flex as well. I quote again from this very important report. It states:

       Unfortunately, even this estimate is likely to 
     underestimate the true paperwork burden to local schools and 
     universities across the country.

  According to the President of Boston University, John Wesley, Boston 
University spent 14 weeks and 2,700 employee hours completing the 
paperwork required to qualify for Federal title IV funding. They were 
slowed by repeated corrections and clarifications requested by the 
Department of Education. And, in the end, the university spent the 
equivalent of 1\1/2\ personnel years compiling what turned out to be a 
9-pound application.
  I wish that were unusual. It may be unusual. But they actually 
compute it where it can be quantified. But I am afraid that reflects 
the experience of the education establishment all across this country.
  I know that there are many others who want to speak on this bill. I, 
once again, applaud so much of the efforts of Senator Frist, Senator 
Wyden and Chairman Jeffords.
  My sister is a public schoolteacher in Rogers, AR. She, right now, I 
suppose is teaching her third-grade class in

[[Page 3521]]

Reagan Elementary School in Rogers, AR.
  I was thinking last evening about my experience in elementary school 
in a little town with a population of less than 1,000. And I can to 
this day name every elementary teacher I had. The first grade, Ms. 
Jones; the second grade, Ms. Harris; the third grade, Ms. Miller; the 
fourth grade, Ms. Shinpaugh; the fifth grade, Mrs. Allen; the sixth 
grade, Mrs. Comstock. I can't do that with junior high school or 
college.
  But the impact that an elementary teacher makes upon those students 
is beyond exaggeration, I think. Most of us, I suspect, can look back 
at those elementary teachers who had an incredible impact upon our 
lives. There is a kind of magic that takes place in a classroom. 
Chairman Jeffords sees it every time he goes over and reads to those 
disadvantaged children. All of us who have taught, whether it was in 
junior high teaching civics, as I did, or whether it is teaching third 
grade in the public schools just like my sister does, have experienced 
that magic where the light comes on, where those students connect with 
their teacher, the thrill of learning and where the experience of 
education catches on in a classroom.
  I suggest to those who want to talk about the need for greater 
control in Washington and who want to oppose providing flexibility to 
local schools that they remember that the magic happens in the 
classroom.
  I want my sister, Geri, spending her day teaching those students, 
creating the magic, inspiring those kids to learn and to appreciate the 
value of education rather than spending her day filling out forms for 
the 6 percent of funding that comes from Washington, DC. I don't want 
her having to spend her prep hour filling out more forms for 
bureaucrats in Little Rock and Washington.
  Mr. President, I believe this is a bold step. I hope it is not the 
last one that we take. But it is an important step. I applaud, once 
again, and am glad to be a part of supporting this effort today.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bond). The Senator from Tennessee is 
recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Santorum be added as a cosponsor of both S. 271 and S. 280, the Ed-
Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to speak on 
Ed-Flex and give just a little bit of background of what the bill is, 
the importance of the bill, and where we are going.
  Earlier this morning I had the opportunity to comment on the nature 
of the bill--that it is not a bill that is intended to solve all of the 
problems in education today, but it is a focused bill, a bill which 
will be of significant benefit to hundreds of thousands of 
schoolchildren. And, if we act on this bill sometime in the next 
several days, and if the House does likewise with its corresponding 
bill, it could be sent to the President very shortly, and hundreds of 
thousands of schoolchildren can benefit in the next several months. 
That is why we are moving ahead with this particular bill.
  It has strong bipartisan support. It is supported by the Nation's 
Governors, and by Democrats and by Republicans.
  I thank my colleague from Arkansas who I think did a wonderful job 
setting the big picture and the fundamentals of why a bill that 
stresses flexibility and accountability really unties the hands and 
unshackles the schools which right now have huge amounts of paperwork 
and regulations coming down from well-intentioned laws and statutes 
passed here in Washington, DC, but really makes it very difficult, in 
fact impedes their ability to efficiently do what they want to do, and 
that is teach students and educate our children.
  I thank Senator Hutchinson for that wonderful background and 
presentation. He mentioned the Third International Math and Science 
Study (TIMSS), and although we are not going to be talking a lot about 
that today, it is interesting because this study, which is an 
objective, very good study, recognized nationally and internationally, 
is a good measurement of where we are today. It reflects the common 
interests that we have as American people on both sides of the aisle to 
present a better future to our children by preparing them.
  Behind me are the results of the Third International Math and Science 
Study. It is a little bit confusing when you see the chart. But after 
digesting lots of different studies, the more time one looks at this 
chart the more comfortable it is. And this chart has a lot of 
information which hits right at the heart of why we have the problems 
we have today.
  This particular chart highlights science. I have other charts that I 
won't show today that also highlight similar statistics for 
mathematics. But the statistics are very similar, whether it is 
reading, science or math that is being evaluated.
  Let's look at science.
  In the first column, it is grade 4. As the Senator from Arkansas 
said, the TIMSS study looks at grade 4, looks at grade 8, and looks at 
grade 12--all of those green lines going down in the print. There are 
different countries that are involved. So you will have a relative 
standing of how well the United States does in grade 4, 8 and 12 versus 
other countries.
  Again, the studies are very good, very carefully controlled from a 
scientific standpoint, and right on target. For example, grade 4, at 
the top of the list is South Korea. In the fourth grade in terms of 
average score, in terms of science, the second one down is Japan; third 
one, is Austria; the fourth is the United States. The red line, both in 
grades 4, 8, and 12, is the United States.
  So right off you see in the fourth grade we do pretty well relative 
to other countries. In the eighth grade, just as the Senator from 
Arkansas said, we didn't do nearly as well. And in the 12th grade, we 
fall way down.
  You will also see on the chart a black line. The black line indicates 
the average for all countries.
  So not only do we know where we stand relatively in terms of other 
countries, but we also know where we stand with the average of other 
countries.
  Again, the observation is in the fourth grade, we are fourth when we 
compare ourselves to other countries, which is above average. In the 
eighth grade for science, we fall way down, yet we are still above the 
average. But look what happens by the time we get to the 12th grade. By 
the time we get to the 12th grade, Sweden is ahead of us, Netherlands 
is ahead of us, Iceland is ahead of us, Norway, Canada, New Zealand, 
Australia, Switzerland, Austria, and Slovenia, are ahead of us. Denmark 
is ahead of us, and so are Germany, the Czech Republic, and France. The 
Russian Federation is also ahead of us in the 12th grade in terms of 
science.
  As we look to the future and we look at fields like reading and 
science and mathematics and we see this trend over time, that is really 
the call for us, as a nation, to focus on education, to do it in a 
bipartisan way, a way that really does focus on our children today, and 
recognize how are we going to be able to compete in the next millennium 
with this sort of trend over time. As the charts have indicated the 
United States is below the average of all these other countries, and 
the trend is getting worse the longer one stays in school in the United 
States of America.
  Let me refer once again to what a pleasure it has been for me to 
participate in the education issue on this particular bill with Senator 
Wyden of Oregon. He and I have been working on Ed-Flex expansion 
through a number of committees and task forces--the Senate Budget Task 
Force on Education, working with the chairman of the Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee, which is the new name for that 
particular committee. We began to address this issue over a year ago 
when first explored it through the Senate Budget Task Force on 
Education.
  The more we looked into it, the more we felt this bill could make a 
huge difference, and it is something that Government can and should do. 
The Federal Government needs to take the

[[Page 3522]]

leadership role to untie the hands of our States, our schools, and our 
school districts so that they can carry out the sort of objectives that 
we all generally agree to, the sort of goals that we set in this body.
  Again, what we are doing today, is to expand a demonstration project 
that began in 1994. As the Senator from Vermont outlined in his brief 
history of the program--it began in 1994 as a demonstration project 
with 6 States. It was extended later to another 6 States, so now 12 
States have the opportunity to be Ed-Flex States. And what we are going 
to do in this legislation, which will pass, I am very hopeful, not too 
long from now, is extend that demonstration project from 12 States to 
all 50 States.
  Behind me on the map, again, for the edification of my colleagues who 
may not be familiar with this program, you can see that Massachusetts 
is an Ed-Flex State, and we have, I think, good demonstrated results 
there. Texas has also had positive results with using its Ed-Flex 
waiver authority. Earlier this morning I had an opportunity to present 
some of the outcome data from that particular State. The color yellow 
on the chart indicates the States where Ed-Flex is currently available. 
But Tennessee, the State I represent, says, Why don't we have that same 
opportunity of increased flexibility for greater accountability? Let us 
have that same flexibility to get rid of the excessive regulations. Let 
us get rid of the unnecessary paperwork. Let us get rid of the 
Washington redtape.
  Now, what they are saying is, Allow us to look at our local 
situation, which in Nashville is different than Jackson, which is 
different than Johnson City, which is different than Humboldt, which is 
different than Soddy-Daisy. Give us that opportunity.
  And, again, you can see how it happens. All of us in this body have 
good intentions when we pass these statutes and we pass these laws and 
then they go through this regulatory machine. Everybody has good 
intentions. But the regulations get more and more complicated, which 
seems to be a common theme whenever one look at a variety of fields 
here in Government.
  Now, one of the issues that we are going to be talking about is 
waivers. So what is the Ed-Flex program? There are currently 12 States 
participating. The Ed-Flex program, very simply, is a State waiver 
program which allows schools and school districts the opportunity to 
obtain temporary waivers to accomplish specific education goals but 
free of that Washington redtape, free of those unnecessary Federal 
regulations. And that in one sentence is a description of Ed-Flex.
  Because the Ed-Flex program is currently a demonstration program, we 
have a lot of data available about it. Again, over the course of the 
debate, we will come back to some of the outcomes of Ed-Flex and give 
some examples of how it is being used. The key thing is that Ed-Flex 
gives flexibility to find some of the solutions to specific problems 
that vary from school to school, school district to school district, 
and community to community. It allows that element of responsiveness to 
specific needs. In addition, it allows a degree of creativity, and 
innovation. These things are critical especially when we see the trends 
that I just showed on TIMSS which clearly indicate that we can't just 
do more of the same; we can't just throw more money at existing 
programs; we can't accept the status quo; we can't do a lot of the 
things that at first blush we might think work, because we have tried 
it in the past and it hasn't worked.
  Over the past 30 years, we have been flat in terms of our student 
performance in this country. Now, some people will stand up and say, 
yes that is true, but look at some results released last week or look 
at some from 5 years ago where there is a little bit of improvement. I 
will tell you--and I can bring those charts--if you plot it out year by 
year performance for students has been stagnant in the 4th, 8th and 
10th grades. The problem is that the other countries that have allowed 
creativity and innovation are all improving and we are being left 
behind.
  So I don't want to underestimate the power of that innovation, the 
power of that creativity. We like to think it all begins in this room 
here with the Congress; in truth, it begins in those classrooms with 
hard-working teachers, with hard-working school attendants, with those 
Governors who recognize that they really have made progress and need 
some flexibility.
  We will hear a number of examples of how flexibility and 
accountability have worked. In Maryland, we have seen that the Ed-Flex 
program has allowed a school to reduce the teacher pupil ratios from 25 
pupils to 1 down to 12 to 1. They felt that was important and they 
received a waiver that allowed them to accomplish this based on their 
particular needs.
  In Kansas, waivers have been used to provide all-day kindergarten, 
because this was a priority for them. It was a dimension where they had 
a specific need.
  They were also able to have a preschool program for 4-year-old 
children. They also saw they weren't doing very well in reading, so 
they were able to implement, through the waiver program, new reading 
strategies for all students.
  Now, the waiver issue will come up, and whenever you hear ``waiver,'' 
people have to think, and they should think, ``accountability,'' We are 
saying, accomplish certain goals, but do it in a way that meets your 
specific needs with programs that you believe will work at the local 
community level. It is critical that we build in strong, accountability 
measures.
  If we look at the history, again referring to Senator Wyden's initial 
request to have the General Accounting Office look at some of the Ed-
Flex programs, we can see in GAO's report in November of 1998, that the 
``Department of Education officials told us they believe that the 12 
current Ed-Flex States have used their waiver authority carefully and 
judiciously.'' This is an important statement because we are going to 
hear some rhetoric, and we heard a little bit this morning, that if you 
give this freedom, people are going to abuse it. People say there is no 
evidence. Based on what the Department of Education has concluded and 
reported to us through the General Accounting Office, the waiver system 
has worked well.
  Ed-Flex is a bipartisan plan. It is a common sense plan that will 
give States and localities and school districts the flexibility, which 
I have already been stressing. Now I want to stress the accountability 
provisions. Accountability is critical to the overall success of the 
program. It has to be built in. The two words I want my colleagues to 
remember are ``flexibility'' and strong ``accountability.'' Those are 
two important principles behind this bipartisan bill.
  Now, the accountability measures in the current Ed-Flex programs--we 
have 12 programs with this 5-year history--are very good. I want my 
colleagues to understand that accountability has been strengthened. We 
have given even more teeth to ensure accountability in the bill and in 
the managers' package that has been put forward. Under current law 
there is less accountability than what we are proposing. Under current 
law, a State need only have what is called a comprehensive reform plan 
to participate in Ed-Flex. Even though the current 12 state program has 
less accountability than what we are offering, have been told by the 
GAO, that the Department of Education says there has been a judicious 
and careful use of this waiver authority.
  Behind me is a chart which, again, is going to be difficult to read 
from far away. It is a pyramid and it is tiered, because we have 
accountability measures built in at the Federal level, which is at the 
top; we have accountability measures built in at the State level, which 
is the middle; and at the bottom of that, we have strong accountability 
measures built in at the base, at the local level.
  At the local level, there is a requirement to demonstrate why the 
waiver is needed. You have to spell that out very specifically. The 
applicant has to say how that specific waiver will be used to meet the 
purpose of the underlying program. Again, we are not changing the 
purpose of the program. You have to specifically say how that waiver 
will

[[Page 3523]]

be used, and then you have to have specific measurable goals written 
out in that waiver application. You will be held accountable for all of 
that. There are additional accountability measures in the bill, but I 
have summarized accountability at the local level.
  At the State level, again we include strong accountability measures 
because we address things that are called ``content standards'' and 
``performance standards'' and ``assessments.'' In addition to those 
content standards and performance standards, States are required to 
monitor the performance of local education agencies in schools which 
have received a specific waiver. That includes the performance of 
students who are directly affected by those waivers. Then, for those 
low-performing schools or school districts that are identified, the 
State must engage--and these are the key words--in ``technical 
assistance and corrective action.'' And then the last, in terms of the 
State level, the State can terminate a waiver at any time; the ultimate 
power. If the State says things are not going right, it may terminate 
the waiver.
  At the Federal level, indicated on the chart at the top of the 
pyramid, we have an additional backup, an important element, I think, 
to demonstrate the pyramid effect of this. That is, the Secretary is 
required to monitor both the performance of the States and also to have 
the ability to, as you can at the State level, terminate that waiver at 
any time.
  I think this three-tiered level of accountability is something that 
is very, very important when we give that flexibility to achieve the 
specific goals which are outlined. That, I believe, is a real recipe 
for success as we work towards educating our children and improving 
those scores that have been referred to already this morning.
  I will just spend a couple of more minutes, I think, so we can move 
on with other people's comments. But as I pointed out, we have 
experience with this. This is not a program that we pulled out of the 
sky and said, let's try it out, some experimental program, rushing this 
through the legislative process. I think we need to recognize right up 
front that we have a 5-year history with it. It has been a 
demonstration project, it has been endorsed by the Department of 
Education, it has been endorsed by the President of the United States, 
it has been endorsed by Democrats and Republicans, and something which 
I think is critically important is the fact that all 50 Governors have 
said this program is right; it is what is needed to best educate that 
child who is in the school system in his or her State.
  The Governors are in a position, I believe, both to judge but also to 
lead, as we go forward. I have behind me a resolution that passed just 
last week from the National Governors' Association. The headline or 
title is, ``Expansion of Ed-Flex Demonstration Program To All Qualified 
States and Territories.'' It was a resolution. NGA doesn't do a whole 
lot of resolutions, but this is a major priority for our Governors who 
understand, like we do, addressing as a nation, that we must put 
education at the very top of our priorities. Let me just read the first 
sentence:

       The governors strongly affirm that states are responsible 
     for creating an education system that enables all students to 
     achieve high standards and believe that the federal 
     government should support state efforts by providing 
     regulatory relief and greater flexibility.

  Skip on down just a little bit to the second paragraph so we can look 
back to the past from the Governors' perspective. Again, this is 
Democrats and Republicans, bipartisan, which is the nature and the real 
power of this bill. They say:

       Ed-Flex has helped states focus on improving student 
     performance, by more closely aligning state and federal 
     education improvement programs and by supporting state 
     efforts to design and implement standards-based reform.

  And then just their last sentence:

       Ed-Flex will provide states and territories with increased 
     incentives to strengthen state efforts to adopt meaningful 
     standards and assessments with greater accountability.

  As I mentioned earlier, we ran out of time to pass Ed-Flex last year. 
It is coming back to the floor now. It has been passed in the Labor and 
Human Resources Committee and the now Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Committee, where we had the opportunity to discuss many of 
these amendments. We have an opportunity to pass this legislation very, 
very early in this Congress so it will be to the benefit of hundreds of 
thousands of children in the very near future. That is why we really 
should not put this off. Some people have said, Why don't you consider 
this in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act? That is 
unnecessarily pushing a bill off that we know will benefit children 
today, putting it off for a year or a year and a half unnecessarily, 
given the tremendous consensus that has been reached around this 
particular bill.
  In closing, let me just say I think the time really has come that we 
lend our efforts to give States and give localities and give schools 
and give school districts the flexibility they need, and the tools that 
they need, to accomplish the jobs that we, as a society, have entrusted 
them to do.
  Ed-Flex is not the cure-all. It is not going to be the answer to all 
of our education challenges. But what it is, is a modest first step at 
moving toward that common goal that we all share.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Massachusetts 
is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I think all of us in the Senate are 
looking forward to these next few days during which we will have an 
opportunity to address the fundamental issue which is on the minds of 
most families in this country--certainly the working families in this 
Nation--and that is whether we, as a Federal Government, are going to 
be partners with state and local governments as we try to address the 
critical issues facing our public schools--whether our children are 
going to be able to make academic progress and have the opportunity to 
achieve their full potential.
  Public education is basically a partnership, and one in which the 
Federal Government has had a very limited role, historically. The 
principal responsibility has been local governments, and the States 
have had some interest. The Federal Government has really had a limited 
interest. As has been pointed out, approximately 7 cents out of every 
dollar that is spent locally that can be traced back to the Federal 
Government. Two cents of that is actually in nutrition and the support 
of breakfast and lunch programs. It comes down to about 4 cents out of 
every dollar that is actually appropriated by the Federal Government.
  So all of us are interested in how we can use scarce resources. What 
we are talking about here today is not expanding that in any way. We 
are talking about whether, of that 4 cents, maybe 2 cents will be able 
to have greater flexibility at the local level.
  The question is what are the priorities for us at the Federal level? 
It has been generally agreed that the priority for us at the Federal 
level is going to be targeting the neediest and the most disadvantaged 
children in the country. We, as a society, feel that we have some 
responsibility, some extra responsibility--that it is not just a local 
responsibility to try to deal with those needy children, but that we 
have a national responsibility. That was the basis for the title I 
programs.
  Over a long period of time, we have debated about how that money can 
most effectively be used to enhance academic achievement and 
accomplishment. As has been pointed out today, and as was pointed out 
in the President's excellent statement earlier today over in the 
Library of Congress, we know what needs to be done. It is a question 
now of whether we, as a country and a society and a people, are willing 
to do it.
  During the next few days, we will have an opportunity to look at a 
number of different features of the education priority. We are dealing 
now with the Frist-Wyden legislation, and I want to speak to that for a 
few moments and make some observations and also address, later in the 
afternoon, what I think could be useful changes in the legislation.

[[Page 3524]]

  I commend Senator Frist and Senator Wyden for their initiative, and I 
have voted for this legislation to come out of our committee both last 
year and this year--and, as a matter of fact, I was the author, with 
Senator Hatfield, in 1994 that initially set up the Ed-Flex--and I have 
followed it very closely. I am glad to have a chance to reflect on some 
of the observations that I have made over the years in watching that. 
But we will also have an opportunity to debate whether we, as a Senate, 
are going to go on record as supporting smaller classrooms from the 
early grades.
  We will have a chance to hear an excellent amendment from the Senator 
from Washington, Senator Murray, on that particular issue. We made a 
commitment to the school districts across the country last year that we 
were going to start this process. It was going to go in effect for some 
6 years. We made the commitment for the first year, but the school 
districts across the country are wondering whether this is going to be 
a continuum. Certainly it is extraordinarily timely that we provide 
that kind of authorization for smaller classrooms, so that the school 
districts all across the country will have some certainty as to what 
the education policy at the congressional level will be on that issue.
  The President has included the resources to fund that initiative, in 
excess of $11 billion, in his budgets over the next 5 years. That is 
very important, and we will have an opportunity to address that issue.
  Senator Boxer wants to address afterschool programs. I think we have 
seen, with a modest program in the last year, the beginning of the 
recognition of the afterschool problem. Every day, there are some 5 to 
9 million children between the ages of 9 and 14, who too often find 
themselves not attending to their homework, but rather find themselves 
involved in behavior which is inappropriate.
  What we have seen is that where these programs have been developed--
where children are able to work in the afterschool situation, being 
tutored perhaps in their subject matter or encouraged to participate in 
literacy programs--those children are doing much better academically 
and socially as well. And when they have the opportunity to spend time 
with their parents in the evening time, it is quality time, rather than 
parents telling children as soon as they get home, ``Run upstairs and 
do your homework.'' This has been very, very important, and Senator 
Boxer has an important proposal to authorize and to enhance the 
commitment in those areas.
  There will be modest amendments in other areas. I know Senator Harkin 
has a proposal with regard to school construction. I know Senator 
Bingaman has an amendment about school dropouts. Some of these are 
programs that we have debated in the past and have been actually 
accepted by the Senate. There are other programs as well, issues 
involving technology and other matters that will eventually be 
addressed and brought up. We are not interested in undue delay, but we 
also believe that there is no issue which is of greater importance to 
American families, and we ought to be willing to address these issues.
  We just passed an increase in military pay. There were 26 amendments 
on that particular proposal. I do not expect that we will have as many 
on this, but nonetheless it is important that we do have a chance 
through today and through the remainder of the week and through the 
early part of next week to address some of these issues. We welcome 
this chance to focus on the issues of education and also on what our 
policies are going to be.
  Just to review very briefly, Mr. President, this chart demonstrates 
quite clearly a rather fundamental commitment. That is, for every 
dollar that is spent by the States, they spend 62 cents in addition to 
that for the needy children in their State. The corresponding Federal 
dollar amount is $4.73. This is a really clear indication of what we 
are talking about, primarily with Title I, which is the principal issue 
here--the resources that are being provided are going to the neediest 
children in this country.
  And, interestingly, in the reauthorization bill of 1994, we changed 
the direction of Title I to very high poverty areas--very high poverty 
areas--not just poverty areas but very high poverty areas. And when we 
have a chance, as I will in just a few moments, to go through and see 
what the distinction has been in targeting more precisely the 
resources, there has been a very important indication of progress among 
the children in getting a much more targeted direction in terms of 
resources. This is part of the reason why some of us believe that, in 
addition to being able to get some kinds of waivers from the Federal 
programs in the area of Title I, we ought to insist that we are going 
to require that there be academic achievement and student improvement 
if we are going to move ahead. We are finding now, under the most 
recent report of Title I, that for the first time we are making 
noticeable and important gains on Title I. That has escaped us over the 
almost 30 years, but now we are making some real progress in the area 
of Title I. I will have a chance to review that, but this is basically 
an indication to show the targeting of Title I.
  Secondly, Mr. President, while we are looking at the issue of 
flexibility at the present time, I just want to point out what we have 
done in terms of Ed-Flex. In 1994, we passed what was called the 
Hatfield-Kennedy amendment on the elementary and secondary education 
bill. That amendment provided that six States at that time would have 
Ed-Flex. The Governors then, once they were given that kind of 
approval, would be able to waive particular requirements if any 
community within the State wanted to do so. When we came to the Goals 
2000, we added another six States and we permitted the Secretary of 
Education to provide Ed-Flex to any school district in the country.
  So what we have seen is, with all of the various applications that 
have been made in the period since then, some 54 percent have been 
approved; 31 percent, when they brought those measures up to the 
Department of Education, were shown to be unnecessary and therefore 
withdrawn; and only 8 percent were disapproved. This is a pretty good 
indication that any school district that wanted to seek a waiver of any 
of these rules and regulations has been permitted to do so. In the 
State of California, there have been more than 1,000 applications that 
have been approved. That is the current situation in which we find 
ourselves.
  On the issue of accountability, the real question is, ``In the waiver 
of these regulations, are we going to be able to give the assurance 
that we are going to have student achievement?'' What we are basically 
saying is, if we are going to give you 5 years of waiving the 
regulations, which take scarce resources, and target it on needy 
children, are we going to insist that the children are going to have 
student achievement? That is what we are asking.
  And I mentioned, at least to my colleague and friend, Senator Wyden, 
that we could add those words in three different places in the 
legislation along with the language that is in here and resolve at 
least one of the concerns that I have, and that I think a number of 
others have as well.
  We have seen since it has passed out of our Committee, as I am sure 
has been explained by the authors of the legislation, that they provide 
changes to try to reflect greater accountability. And we very much 
appreciate that. That is in the managers' package, and it is a good 
start. I believe the authors have gone through that in some detail. If 
not, I will take some time to do that briefly later in my discussion. 
But this is where we are, Mr. President.
  What we are interested in is student achievement. What we are going 
to insist on is to make sure that if we are going to give over to the 
States the resources targeted for these particular areas, that they are 
going to be able to come back over the period of the following 2, 3, 4, 
5 years and demonstrate the student achievement. That is what we are 
interested in and what we want to address here later this afternoon.
  Mr. President, education is a top priority in this Congress, and few 
other

[[Page 3525]]

issues are more important to the Nation than ensuring that every child 
has the opportunity to attend a good, safe, and modern public school. 
The Ed-Flex Partnership Act can be a useful step toward improving 
public schools, but to be effective, it must go hand in hand with 
strong accountability.
  Current law already contains substantial flexibility. As I mentioned, 
the 1994 amendments to the Elementary/Secondary Act reduced paperwork 
and increased flexibility. Since then, two-thirds of the Act's 
regulations--two-thirds--have been eliminated. States now have an 
option to submit a single consolidated State application instead of 
separate applications, and all but one State has adopted this approach. 
Schools and school districts already have great flexibility today and 
paperwork is not their top issue.
  According to the General Accounting Office report that was quoted 
earlier today, ``information, funding, and management,'' not paperwork, 
are the primary concerns of school districts. Provisions for increased 
flexibility, such as waivers, ``do not increase federal assistance to 
school districts, nor do they relieve districts of any of their major 
financial obligations.'' That is the finding of the General Accounting 
Office.
  It is interesting to me, Mr. President. I would have thought there 
would be much more authority and much greater credibility if those who 
were talking about this would be able to demonstrate that the States 
themselves were willing to waive their statutes and regulations. That 
has not been the case. In some instances States have, but in many they 
have not. As the General Accounting Office report shows, even if you 
granted it, it would not make a great deal of difference, because there 
are so many State regulations and statutes that are in existence, that 
are related to this program, that it would not really have the kind of 
beneficial result many of us would like.
  I am always glad to hear our good friends the Governors talk about 
reducing the regulations, when we have seen a reduction in the 
regulations by two-thirds since the authorization of 1994, and yet we 
have not really heard from them, nor have we heard here on the floor of 
the Senate, how the States themselves have changed their statutes and 
rules and regulations in order to be more flexible during this period 
of time.
  In fact, in many cases it is the State's redtape, not the Federal 
bureaucracy, that will keep schools from taking full advantage of the 
flexibility that the law provides. Ten States cannot waive their own 
regulations and statutes because State law does not permit it in order 
to match this.
  It is good, as we start off on this, to have some idea about the 
scope of this whole debate. I think it is going to be useful if we get 
through this part of it in the next day or so. The real guts of the 
whole debate is going to be next week when we come to the questions of 
classrooms and afterschool programs.
  But I do want to make some additional points. In fact, in many cases, 
as I mentioned, it is the State's redtape, not the Federal bureaucracy, 
that will keep schools from taking full advantage of the flexibility 
that the law provides. That is why, if tied to strong accountability, 
expanding Ed-Flex makes sense, so all States can ease the burden on 
local school districts as they obtain increased Federal flexibility.
  One requirement to be eligible for Ed-Flex is that a State must be 
able to waive that State's statutory or regulatory requirements which 
impede State or local efforts to improve learning and teaching. That 
step will ensure that the real paperwork burdens on local school 
districts are diminished. As I mentioned, we have 10 States that do not 
have that capacity or willingness to do so.
  Families across the Nation want Uncle Sam to be a partner, a helping 
hand in these efforts. Parents want results. They want their 
communities, States, and the Federal Government to work together to 
improve public schools. In doing our Federal part, we should ensure 
that when we provide more flexibility, it is matched with strong 
accountability for results, so that every parent knows their children 
are getting the education they deserve.
  I support the Frist bill because it provides flexibility and takes 
some steps towards holding States accountable. But it isn't enough. 
Congress has the responsibility to ensure that Federal tax dollars are 
used effectively to help all children learn. Just giving States more 
flexibility will not do the job. A blank check approach to school 
reform is the wrong approach. Our primary concern in this legislation 
is to guarantee that accountability goes hand in hand with flexibility. 
Strong accountability measures are essential to ensure that parents and 
communities across the country have confidence in the waiver process.
  Another fundamental requirement is that States and districts must 
provide parents, educators, and other interested members of the 
community with the opportunity to comment on proposed waivers and make 
those comments available for public review. These public comments 
should be submitted with State or local waiver applications. What we 
are talking about is parental involvement. And we will have an 
opportunity to address that.
  I am sure we will hear the response back, ``Why are we going to do 
that?'' That is going to require more action at the State level. We are 
going to have hearings in order to hear parents' views about it. But 
the fact of the matter is, unless you get the parents involved, you are 
not going to do the job. The parental involvement is essential. We will 
have a chance to go through that in the most recent title I report.
  And you can't show me where in the Frist-Wyden proposal they are 
going to guarantee that the parents are going to have a voice in the 
final decision that is going to be made here. It just is not there. You 
show me a community where you have intense parental involvement, and 
you are going to see a school system that is moving in the right 
direction. You show me a community where parental involvement is 
distant or remote, and you are going to see a school that is in 
decline. Those are not my conclusions--those are the conclusions of the 
educational community. We want to make sure that parents are going to 
be involved when waivers are being proposed to get their kind of input. 
And there will be the transmission of their views to the Secretary.
  Mr. President, it is essential that States and districts provide 
parents, educators, and other members of the community with the 
opportunity to comment on proposed waivers and make their comments 
available for public review. These public comments should be submitted 
with State or local waiver applications.
  That is what we are talking about. Just make that change. Public 
comments should be submitted with State or local waiver applications. 
That would move us in a very, very important, very positive way--we get 
the student accountability and we get the parental involvement. Those 
are the measures we are looking at, Mr. President.
  We must also ensure that all students, particularly the neediest 
students, have the opportunity to meet the high State standards of 
achievement. Fundamental standards should not be waived. Parents need 
to know how their children are doing in every school, and in the 
poorest performing schools, parents also need help in achieving change.
  Under Title I, disadvantaged students have the opportunity to achieve 
the same high standards as all children. School districts must provide 
realistic assistance to improve low-performing schools. Flexibility 
makes sense, but not if it means losing these essential tools for 
parents and communities to achieve reform and improve their schools.
  There were four very important changes in the 1994 authorization: 
first was a significant reduction in paperwork; second, the targeting 
of the highest incidence of poverty; third, the heavy involvement of 
parents in terms of the participation; and fourth, and perhaps most 
importantly, high standards.
  We move away from dumbing down. We establish high standards for poor

[[Page 3526]]

children as well as children that were coming from other communities. 
Those factors have had an important positive impact. We are finally 
getting there.
  We must ensure 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 counts. Student achievement is 
what counts.
  The Secretary of Education should be able to terminate a State's 
waiver authority if the student achievement is not improving after 5 
years. States must be able to terminate any waivers granted to a school 
district or participating schools if student achievement is not 
improving. If waivers do not lead to satisfactory progress, it makes no 
sense to continue.
  What I have been mentioning here is being practiced in one of the Ed-
Flex States, and is showing remarkable improvement in terms of 
education. That State is Texas, where they have real student 
achievement, real accountability, parental involvement, and specific 
student achievement goals. That is true accountability.
  If you review the different State annual reports, there is a dramatic 
contrast between what has been implemented by the State of Texas in 
using the greater flexibility to enhance student achievement and what 
has happened in many of the other States. True accountability is what 
we want to achieve if we are going to have the Federal funds.
  Each of these requirements is sensible. No one wants a heavy-handed 
Federal regulation of State and local education. That is not the issue. 
The real issue is accountability. These important requirements are well 
designed to achieve it. We should do nothing to undermine these 
principles, especially when we have new evidence that they work, 
particularly for the neediest students.
  ``The National Assessment of Title I,'' released earlier this week, 
shows that student achievement is increasing and that the Federal 
Government is an effective partner in that success. The glass on the 
table is half full, not half empty as critics of public schools would 
have you believe. This is good news for schools, good news for parents, 
good news for students, and it should be convincing evidence to 
Congress that many of the reforms we put in place in recent years are 
working.
  Since the reauthorization of Title I in 1994, a nonpartisan 
Independent Review Panel, made up of 22 experts from across the 
country, has overseen the program. Title I is the largest Federal 
investment in improving elementary and secondary schools. Title I helps 
to improve education for 11 million children in 45,000 schools with 
high concentrations of poverty. It helps schools provide professional 
development for teachers, improve curriculums, and extend learning time 
so students meet high State standards of achievement.
  Under the 1994 amendments to Title I, States were no longer allowed 
to set lower standards for children in the poorest communities than 
they set for students in more affluent communities. The results are 
clear: even the hardest-to-reach students will do well when 
expectations are set high and they are given the support they need.
  Student achievement in reading and math has increased, particularly 
in the achievement of the poorest students. Since 1992, reading 
achievement for 9-year-olds in the highest poverty schools has 
increased nationwide by a whole grade level. Between 1990 and 1996, 
math scores of the poorest students rose by a grade level.
  Students are meeting high State standards, too. Students in the 
highest poverty elementary schools improved in five of six States 
reporting 3-year data in reading, and in four out of five States in 
math. Students in Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, and Texas made 
progress in both subjects.
  Many urban school districts report that achievement also improved in 
their highest poverty schools. In 10 out of the 13 large urban 
districts that report 3-year trend data, there were increases in the 
number of elementary students in the highest poverty schools who met 
the district or State standards of proficiency in writing or math. Six 
districts, including Houston, Dade County, New York, Philadelphia, San 
Antonio, and San Francisco made progress in both subjects.
  Federal funds are increasingly targeted to the poorest schools. The 
1994 amendments to Title I shifted funds, as I mentioned, away from 
low-poverty schools into high-poverty schools. Today, 95 percent of the 
high-poverty schools receive Title I funding, up from 80 percent in 
1993.
  The percent of schools with parent compacts--agreements between 
teachers and parents about how they will work together to help the 
children do better--rose from 20 percent in 1994 to 75 percent in 1998. 
A substantial majority of the schools find their compacts are important 
in promoting parents' involvement, especially in higher poverty 
schools. Parent involvement is a key element in terms of academic 
achievement, and that is why we believe their voice regarding waiving 
the requirements should be heard and at least considered.
  Title I funds help improve teaching and learning in the classroom. 
Ninety-nine percent of Title I funds go to the local level; 93 percent 
of those Federal dollars are spent directly on instruction, compared to 
only 62 percent of all State and local education dollars that are spent 
on instruction.
  We are going to hear a lot as we debate education about where the 
Federal money that is appropriated goes, in terms of Federal 
bureaucracy and administration, State bureaucracy and how much of the 
money goes to the local level. This is the most recent report that has 
been done by independents. It shows that local school districts get 
95.5; State administration is 4 percent, Federal administration is one-
half of 1 percent. State administration of their own programs are 
considerably higher, as the chart indicates.
  All of these steps are working together to improve student 
achievement. The best illustrations of these successes are in local 
schools. In Baltimore County, MD, all but one of the 19 Title I schools 
increased student performance between 1993 and 1998. The success has 
come from Title I support for extended year programs, implementation of 
effective programs in reading, and intensive professional development 
for teachers.
  At Roosevelt High School in Dallas, 80 percent of the students are 
poor. Title I funds were used to increase parent involvement, train 
teachers to work with parents, and make other changes to bring high 
standards to every classroom. Reading scores have nearly doubled, from 
the 40th percentile in 1992 to the 77th percentile in 1996. During the 
same period, math scores soared from the 16th percentile to the 73rd 
percentile, and writing scores rose from the 58th to the 84th 
percentile. That is remarkable.
  What happened in this area? We got the parents involved and we 
enhanced the training of teachers to work more effectively with the 
parents to bring the high standards into every classroom.
  The Baldwin Elementary School in Boston, where 80 percent of the 
students are poor, performance on the Stanford 9 test rose 
substantially from 1996 to 1998 because of the increases in teacher 
professional development and implementation of a reform to raise 
standards and achievement for all children.
  In 1996, 66 percent of third grade students scored in the lowest 
levels in math. By 1998, 100 percent scored in the highest level. In 
1997, 75 percent of fourth graders scored in the lowest levels in 
reading. By 1998, no fourth graders were at the lowest level, and 56 
percent were at the highest level.
  We have seen that the National Assessment of Title I shows that high 
standards and parental involvement get better results for children, 
particularly the neediest children. That is what we would like to see 
come through this legislation--where you get the flexibility, but you 
are also going to be able to demonstrate enhanced student achievement 
and parental involvement. Those are the two key requirements.

[[Page 3527]]

  The improvements so far are gratifying, but there is no cause for 
complacency. Clearly, more needs to be done. We must build on these 
successes to ensure that all children have the best possible education. 
Increasing flexibility without accountability will stop progress in its 
tracks. But just increasing flexibility with accountability won't do 
the job either.
  We must provide more support for programs like Title I to make these 
opportunities available to all children. We must do a better job of 
supporting the States and local communities in their efforts to hire 
and train teachers. The National Assessment of Title I found that too 
many students in too many Title I schools--particularly those with high 
concentrations of low-income children--are being taught by unqualified 
teachers.
  The teacher shortage forced many school districts to hire uncertified 
teachers, and asked certified teachers to teach outside their areas of 
expertise. Each year, more than 50,000 underprepared teachers enter the 
classroom. One in four new teachers does not fully meet State 
certification requirements. Twelve percent of new teachers have had no 
teacher training at all. Students in inner city schools have only a 50 
percent chance of being taught by a qualified science or math teacher. 
In Massachusetts, 30 percent of teachers in high-poverty schools do not 
even have a minor degree in their field.
  In addition, many schools are seriously understaffed. During the next 
decade, rising student enrollments and massive teacher retirement mean 
that the Nation will need to hire 2 million new teachers. Between 1995 
and 1997, student enrollment in Massachusetts rose by 28,000 students, 
causing a shortage of 1,600 teachers--without including teacher 
retirements.
  We must fulfill last year's commitment to help communities hire 
100,000 new teachers, as part of our national pledge to reduce class 
size. Research has documented what parents and teachers have already 
known--that smaller classes enhance student achievement.
  It is equally important to help communities recruit promising teacher 
candidates, provide new teachers with trained mentors who will then 
help them succeed in the classroom, and give current teachers the 
ongoing training they need to help keep up with modern technology and 
new research.
  Another major need is in the area of afterschool activities. 
According to the National Assessment on Title I, opportunities for 
children to participate afterschool and summer school programs have 
grown from 10 percent of Title I schools to 41 percent in 1998. That 
has made an important contribution to the enhancement of these 
children's achievement. But more needs to be done. We must increase 
support for afterschool programs.
  In addition, children who have fallen behind in their school work 
need opportunities to catch up, to meet legitimate requirements for 
graduation, to master basic skills, and to meet high standards of 
achievement. A high school diploma should mean something--it must be 
more than a certificate of attendance. It should be a certificate of 
achievement. High-quality afterschool and summer school academic 
improvement activities should be available to every child in every 
community in America.
  Finally, we must do more to see that every child in every community 
is learning in safe and modern facilities. Across the country, 14 
million children in one-third of the Nation's schools are learning in 
substandard buildings. Half of the schools have at least one 
unsatisfactory environmental condition. It will take an estimated $100 
billion to repair the existing facilities.
  Too many children are struggling to learn in overcrowded schools. 
This year, K through 12 enrollment reached an all-time high and will 
continue to grow over the next 7 years. Communities will need to build 
new public schools.
  The agenda is broad, but the need is great. We are on the right 
track. There is no need to make a u-turn on education. We are making 
progress. We need to build on these successes and do what we can to 
meet the pressing needs of schools across the Nation, so that we can 
meet the high standards of achievement. When it comes to education, the 
Nation's children deserve the best that we can give them.
  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield for 30 seconds?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. DODD. I want to commend the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts who, for years, along with our colleague from Vermont, 
has been such a leader in these issues. I particularly thank him for 
raising the issue of the after-school program. Several of us have been 
talking about this. As my colleague from Massachusetts knows, I offered 
an amendment last year when we considered the Ed-Flex bill in committee 
to increase federal support for after-school programs. My colleague 
from California is interested in the subject, as well. We would like to 
bring this issue up. It is a very important one which we will talk 
about later. I thank him for including that in his remarks as he gave 
an overview of where we are on education issues.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. We are all mindful 
that our good friend and colleague is a leader in this body in many 
areas, but when it comes to children's interests, he is truly our 
leader. And on the issue of afterschool programs, Senator Boxer has 
been in the forefront of that effort. We look forward to having a good 
debate on that issue as we move ahead as well. I thank the Senator very 
much for his involvement. Hopefully we will have an opportunity to 
consider that in the next day or so. That is certainly our hope because 
it is a matter of enormous importance.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. First, Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from 
Massachusetts. We have been working with him on the questions of 
accountability. I am hopeful that we will reach agreement on an 
amendment, which he may propose, so that we will not have issues in 
that regard. I point out that the substitute amendment which I offered 
today includes many improvements with respect to accountability over 
the bill that we passed last year out of committee 17-1.
  I will run through, very briefly, the areas where we have already 
improved the accountability and are still attempting to reach agreement 
with the minority.
  First, the substitute amendment I offered strengthens the 
accountability features already included in S. 280. It adds State 
application requirements relating to the coordination of the Education 
Flexibility plan with the State comprehensive reform plan, or with the 
challenging standards and assessment provisions of title I of the ESEA.
  This Managers Package adds emphasis that student performance is an 
objective of Ed-Flex. It adds provisions regarding annual performance 
reviews, by the State, of local educational agencies and schools which 
have received waivers, and reemphasizes the authority of the State to 
determine waivers if LEAs or schools are not meeting their goals. It 
also adds provisions of public notice and comment, and provisions 
requiring additional reporting by the secretary regarding his rationale 
for approving waiver authority and the use of that authority. We will 
continue to work and, hopefully, we can reach agreement so that we will 
not lengthen the time necessary for passing this important legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts has given, in my view, a very important address to the 
U.S. Senate. I want to take a few minutes and try to respond to a 
number of points. The Senator has made a number of points that I 
certainly agree with as a Democratic sponsor of this legislation, along 
with the Republican sponsor, Senator Frist. But there are a number of 
areas where I think the record indicates that we ought to take another 
look.
  For example, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has said 
that,

[[Page 3528]]

in some way, the States are being free riders here, that they are 
asking the Federal Government to waive various regulations, but the 
States are somehow not willing to do that. As our colleagues will see 
on page 6, line 7, it is specifically required that the States are 
willing to do some heavy lifting and also be part of this effort to 
show that they are going to try to ratchet out of their systems some of 
the foolish bureaucracy. This ought to be a two-way street and I think 
the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely right in 
insisting on that. What is thus required today, the legislation spells 
out on page 6, line 7, that the States are not going to be able to be 
free riders. They are going to have to waive some of these mindless 
regulations as well. I think that is an important point for the U.S. 
Senate to consider as we go forward.
  Now, another area that has been raised is this question of smaller 
class size. I think the Senator from Massachusetts again is absolutely 
right in saying that we do need additional funds to reduce class size 
in America. I have, on several occasions, voted for just those kinds of 
measures to provide additional funds to reduce class size. But I think 
it is important to note that Ed-Flex, now in 12 States, is helping us 
to reduce class size using existing law. The Senator from Massachusetts 
is correct; we do need additional funds to reduce class size, but let 
us not pass up the opportunity to use existing law, existing Ed-Flex 
opportunities to reduce class size. For our colleagues who would like 
to have a good example of how Ed-Flex helps to reduce class size, we 
can turn to the Phelps Luck elementary school in Howard County, MD. 
There they put a special priority on reducing class size with their Ed-
Flex waiver. They were able to lower the student-teacher ratio from 25-
to-1 to 12-to-1.
  As we go forward with efforts to try to get additional funding that 
we need to reduce class size in America, which we know is so critical 
in improving student performance, let us not pass up the opportunities 
to use the Ed-Flex program to make it possible with existing dollars to 
reduce class size in America.
  Third, Mr. President and colleagues, there have been questions raised 
about whether the dollars are going to get to the neediest children, 
and particularly with respect to title I, which is one of the seven 
programs that are eligible for Ed-Flex but certainly is an especially 
important program to all of us.
  What we have done--and we have outlined it here--is we have kept in 
place every single one of the core requirements with respect to title I 
protecting our neediest kids. It is off the table, folks, in terms of 
waiving any of those core requirements. You can't do it; it is off the 
table. And although it is hard for Members of the U.S. Senate to see 
these charts, we specifically outline the requirements that cannot be 
waived.
  In addition, with respect to title I--I think there is some confusion 
perhaps at this point with respect to how the Ed-Flex funds can be 
used--under current law, you can only put those dollars into low-income 
school districts. That is the only place they can go. We keep that 
requirement. So today, and under this Ed-Flex legislation that is 
before the U.S. Senate, it is not possible to flex any dollars away 
from a program to help low-income youngsters and send them packing to 
another district that will not need them as much.
  I would like to spend a little bit more time on this question of 
accountability, because this is an area where the sponsors of the 
legislation have been very open to trying to address the concerns of 
those who have begun to look at this program and may not have been 
familiar with it in the past.
  But I want to say that we have made six changes in the legislation 
since it came out of the Senate Labor Committee last year by a 17 to 1 
margin. In addition to the public notice and opportunities for citizen 
comments that the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator 
Jeffords, touched on, there are requirements for specific measurable 
goals, which include student performance, which Senator Kennedy is 
right to focus on. There are reports that would be required for the 
Congress every 2 years on how the Ed-Flex States are doing.
  And then I am especially pleased that we have required now that a 
State review a State content and performance standard twice: First when 
it is decided that the State is eligible to participate, and again when 
deciding whether or not to grant approval for the waiver. This makes it 
clear that a State must be in compliance with title I. If it is not in 
compliance with title I, it isn't going to get a waiver. If at any 
point it has been given a waiver and it is not in compliance with title 
I, the Secretary has the authority to come forward and revoke it.
  So the accountability provisions have been especially important to 
the sponsors of this legislation. And this idea that somehow Ed-Flex 
has relaxed the standard is simply not true on the basis of the clear 
language of the bill. These requirements are kept in place. We have 
added six requirements for accountability since the legislation came 
out of committee.
  I would like to wrap up by giving the U.S. Senate an example of how I 
got into this issue, because I think it is important to get beyond some 
of the rhetorical arguments about this legislation and talk about real 
people, real people who benefit, especially the low-income kids of our 
country.
  We have a high school about an hour from my hometown in Portland. 
They wanted poor kids to get help with advanced computing. The problem 
was that the school didn't have the instructors who could teach 
advanced computing and they didn't have the equipment. So under current 
law, those youngsters, low-income youngsters, wouldn't have had the 
opportunity to pick up those skills to put them on the path to high-
skill, high-wage jobs.
  But in this rural district an hour from my home town is a community 
college just a short distance away that would make it possible, with 
instructors and equipment, for those poor kids to get help with 
advanced computing. So instead of students who couldn't get what they 
needed without additional funds, without additional redtape and 
bureaucracy, what this town did in rural Oregon was simply say we are 
going to use the dollars that we aren't equipped for at the local high 
school to make sure that the kids get advanced computing at a community 
college just a short distance away.
  That is what Ed-Flex is all about--taking this regulatory 
straitjacket off some of the thousands and thousands of school 
districts across the country. They can't use the money for pork barrel 
projects. They can't use it to waive standards. They have to comply 
with accountability. But they can teach advanced computing to poor 
kids. That is why it is going to make a difference when we extend this 
to 50 States.
  I am looking forward to working with our friend and distinguished 
colleague, Senator Kennedy, who knows so much about this issue, on his 
amendment with respect to the achievement standards. My understanding 
is we are getting fairly close on that. I want to make sure, in 
particular, that we can incorporate what the schools call the student 
performance standards, so it includes some of the things like dropout 
rates and issues like that in addition to the tougher test scores. But 
I think Senator Jeffords spoke for all of us a minute or so ago where I 
think we are getting close, and I want Senator Kennedy to know that we 
are going to go forward in good faith and try to work that amendment 
out.
  Finally, the last point I want to make deals with the parental 
involvement issue. We keep in place all requirements for parental 
involvement--all of it. But it seems to me, Mr. President, and 
colleagues, that if we are talking about the best way to get folks 
involved in a convenient, accessible kind of way, it is to have these 
Ed-Flex programs that empower local communities to set up opportunities 
for folks to participate.
  I know that people in rural areas who are 3,000 miles away from 
Washington, DC, find it a lot harder to come to one of the useful 
hearings and forums that are held by the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts. I can get to them.

[[Page 3529]]

I find them very, very useful. But I can tell you that folks in rural 
Oregon would much rather be empowered to participate at the local level 
than to try to say we are going to in some way skew more of the 
parental involvement back to Washington, DC.
  At the end of the day, what Ed-Flex is all about is a third path with 
respect to Federal-State relations. We now have two camps on this 
issue. There is one camp that says only the Federal Government has the 
answer, that those folks at the local level can't chew gum and walk at 
the same time, do not trust them, and run these programs at the Federal 
level. Then there are a group of people 180 degrees the other way. They 
say that everything the Federal Government touches turns into toxic 
waste, just give us all the money at the local level, and we can't 
possibly do any worse with those dollars than the Federal Government 
does.
  What Ed-Flex is all about--and in Oregon, particularly with Senator 
Hatfield's leadership, we have done it in health, in welfare, with the 
environment--what we have said is that Ed-Flex is a third path. And we 
have told the Federal Government, in areas where we have received 
waivers, that we will meet all the requirements of the Federal laws, 
all of them, and the Federal Government can hold us accountable; but in 
return for that commitment to comply with all of the Federal laws, give 
us in Oregon the chance to tailor the approaches that we are using to 
meet the individual needs of our community.
  I feel very strongly that poor kids need the funds that are available 
under title I. I will fight as hard as any Member of the Senate to make 
sure that there is no compromise there. But I do think that in coming 
up with approaches to best meet the needs of kids at the local level 
with respect to title I, what works in rural Oregon is going to be 
different than what works in the Bronx, and the opportunity to get away 
from that one-size-fits-all approach while holding communities 
accountable is what Ed-Flex is all about.
  So I think this is an important debate. I said earlier most Americans 
have no idea what Ed-Flex is all about. I bet a lot of people at this 
point think Ed-Flex is a guy who is teaching aerobics at the local 
health club. We are going to have to spend some time talking about this 
issue to show why it is actually beneficial in the real world in terms 
of serving poor kids and meeting the needs of the communities. I think 
we can do that.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REED addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Chair. It is, indeed, invigorating and 
encouraging to be in the Chamber today to talk about education, talking 
about an innovative proposal to try to reform education and also being 
able to have a principled debate about increasing the accountability 
that should be inherent in this proposal because the issue of 
flexibility alone without accountability could lead simply to sending 
funds to States without proper controls. And so I believe we will have 
to emphasize in this debate and ultimately in this legislation 
accountability as well as flexibility.
  I have been working on these issues since my time in the other body 
on the Education and Labor Committee and here on the Labor and Human 
Resources Committee, and I have always tried to stress the notion of 
accountability because, sadly, there are too many children in this 
country today who are not receiving quality education, particularly in 
rural areas and in central cities. And if we simply transfer funds 
without some meaningful accountability, I think we will continue to 
promulgate that disadvantage and continue to do disservice to those 
children.
  I would prefer, frankly, to look at all these issues in the context 
of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 
because however innovative this approach is today with Ed-Flex, it is 
in my view a nod toward reform, a genuflection toward reform, but it is 
not the comprehensive reform, frankly, that we should be encouraging 
because that comprehensive reform requires improvement in teacher 
quality, the repair and modernization of schools, reduction in class 
size, strengthening parental involvement, equipping our libraries with 
the modern technology and the modern media, which is so necessary. And 
those are the hallmarks of real reform, and those we will encounter in 
a comprehensive and systematic way in the reauthorization of the 
Elementary and Secondary Act. But if we are to deal with and move 
forward on the issue of flexibility, we have to do it right, and we 
have to do it with respect to accountability.
  I want to emphasize one other point in terms of this comprehensive 
approach to education reform. I hope that in this year's 
reauthorization we would take special strides to try to develop ways to 
involve parents in the process. This might be one of the most difficult 
issues we face, one of the most challenging issues we face, but, 
ultimately, if we get it right, could be the lever that moves 
significant reform and in a way which we all can afford, because I 
don't think there is any person in this body who would say that we can 
do less than improve the involvement of parents in the education of 
their children.
  The Ed-Flex bill provides flexibility to States. But, as I have 
stressed before, flexibility must be a carrot for and matched up with 
accountability.
  One aspect of this--and the debate is ongoing now in discussions--and 
I again commend the sponsors for their willingness to talk and to 
discuss and negotiate these amendments, these proposed amendments--I 
think we have to be very clear what we are trying to use the 
flexibility to achieve.
  In my view, we are trying to improve student performance. Our focal 
point should be improved student performance, and this legislation 
should reflect that overriding focal point. It is one thing to provide 
relief from forms of regulation to make the life of a principal a 
little easier, the life of school committee people a little easier, and 
maybe free up a few extra dollars along the way, but if that does not 
result in improved student achievement, then we have missed the boat, 
we have missed the point. That should be our overarching goal, and I 
believe the amendment Senator Kennedy and I are proposing is a key to 
that, and I hope we are making progress to come to a principled 
reconciliation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REED. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I want to say how much I agree with the Senator from 
Rhode Island. Student achievement is measured by the individual State's 
program. I think it is important that we underline that student 
achievement is measured by what is happening in the States, not by some 
Federal standard. That is all we are asking. The State establishes its 
criteria, and all we are saying is if you are going to get the 
additional flexibility and you are going to get the resources, that at 
some place someone ought to know whether the students are achieving and 
making progress.
  Mr. REED. I think that is precisely correct. We are not talking about 
a national standard, a national level of achievement. We are talking 
about letting the States propose their levels of achievement and then 
measuring how well this flexibility leads to the accomplishment of 
their goals.
  Mr. KENNEDY. This is really all we are saying. We are taking Federal 
resources--resources that will go into the States and to the local 
communities--and communities are going to use these resources in ways 
that are going to be consistent with the overall purpose, which is 
targeting the needy children, and, over 5 years at least, there will be 
some progress in student achievement according to what the State has 
established.
  Would the Senator agree with me that an example which incorporates 
what we are intending to do is in the State of Texas, which has set 
numerical criteria that are closely tied to both schools and districts, 
and the specific students affected by the waiver? Texas expects all 
districts that receive waivers under Title I to make annual gains on 
test scores so that in 5 years 90 percent of all the students will pass

[[Page 3530]]

State assessment tests in reading and mathematics. Texas districts must 
make annual gains so at the end of the same 5 years, 90 percent of 
African American students, 90 percent of Hispanic students, 90 percent 
of white students, 90 percent of economically disadvantaged students 
will pass these tests. Now, there is something specific. The State 
establishes the criteria. They say we want the flexibility to be able 
to do it, and we say fine. What we have found out is that they have 
made great academic achievement and progress for those students.
  We have another State of the 12 that says on their waiver, ``We want 
a commitment to the identification and implementation of programs that 
will create an environment in which all students achieve academic 
potential.'' They got the waiver, they got the resources, and it will 
be a bold Secretary of Education that is going to terminate or take 
that away.
  What we are trying to say is, as Texas has done right from the very 
beginning, it has got to be very specific. The State establishes their 
criteria and they have proposed measurable ways of evaluating whether 
those students are going to achieve. And they have met all their goals 
so far. Why do we have to spend so much time in this Chamber saying 
that makes a good deal of sense? We know it is something that is 
working. Why don't we try to accept it? That is all we are looking 
for--for the words ``student achievement'' to be included in the 
criteria.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Senator for his excellent comments.
  I believe Texas is a great example of what we can do if we give 
flexibility and demand accountability. As the Senator from 
Massachusetts emphasized, this accountability is with respect to their 
own standards, but it is measurable, it is objective, and it has 
resulted in great success in the State of Texas. In fact, I suggest 
most of the proponents of this legislation point to Texas as the 
example of what Ed-Flex can be and should be. As the Senator from 
Massachusetts pointed out, part and parcel of that is not just the 
flexibility, it is rigorous accountability. I hope we can incorporate 
that notion in this legislation.
  I think it is also important to recognize, too, that as we debate 
this Ed-Flex bill, we have yet to have the definitive results from many 
of the demonstration States confirming that what they have done with 
Ed-Flex has led to improvement in student performance or just overall 
improvement in the educational process. The GAO has looked at this 
issue. Their report certainly raises as many questions as it answers 
with respect to this issue as to whether Ed-Flex is working in those 12 
States that already have the flexibility to do what we are proposing to 
do legislatively here.
  The other thing I suggest, too, is it is a concern--and it is a 
concern that was expressed by my colleague from Oregon--about whether 
this may endanger funding for the neediest students. I don't think 
there is anyone in this body, again, who would encourage such a 
development. We recognize, particularly through title I, that these 
scarce Federal dollars are going into communities that need them 
desperately and, in many cases over the decades of this program, have 
provided a significant makeup for local funds that are not adequate to 
the purpose.
  But what we are concerned about--and it is a concern that, again, I 
hope is worked out through the process of this debate and amendments--
is that unwittingly we might undo some of that emphasis and effort. 
Again, I would not argue it is the purpose of anyone who has proposed 
this legislation, but we must be careful because, again, we are looking 
at the most vulnerable population in this country in terms of 
education. We are looking at a population that desperately needs the 
support and assistance of every level of government.
  There is another aspect I would like to conclude with, and that is 
the participation of parents in this process. I mentioned initially, I 
believe one of the great challenges we have this year in our 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is 
finding ways to encourage more substantive, meaningful parental 
involvement. In the context of this legislation, along with my 
colleagues, I will propose an amendment that would allow for greater 
parental involvement, allow for parental input that would be available 
for public review and would be included in state or local waiver 
applications.
  We are not trying to hamstring local authorities. Last year I had an 
amendment similar to this that had a 30-day public notice and comment 
requirement. That is not in this amendment. We are just suggesting, 
though, if we mean that we want to have parents involved, this is not 
only a symbolic but a very real and meaningful way to get that 
involvement--to encourage them to submit comments, to have those 
comments publicly available, and then have those comments submitted 
with the application.
  Again, I am extremely encouraged that we are talking about 
educational reform. We are working together to come up with innovative 
ways to do what we all want to do, which is to give every child in this 
country access to an excellent education. Indeed, we hope to guarantee 
every child in this country access to an excellent education.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor 
of the Education Flexibility Partnership Act. This legislation will 
help States and local schools to pursue innovative efforts to improve 
K-12 education. I commend my colleagues, Senator Frist and Senator 
Wyden, for bringing forth this legislation. Senator Wyden has very 
effectively demolished the myths about this legislation. The fact is, 
the goal of this legislation is to improve--to improve the education 
that we are providing to kids all over this country. It is that simple. 
The legislation would accomplish that goal by extending educational 
flexibility to all 50 States.
  The public schools in this country have made an immeasurable 
contribution to the success of our society and our Nation. We need to 
assure that future generations of Americans receive the same excellent 
public education that many of us were so fortunate to receive while we 
were growing up. Unfortunately, as the Federal Government has imposed 
an alarming number of well-intended regulations on our public schools, 
we have seen a decline in the overall achievements of our students in 
our public school systems.
  I am very proud of the progress that Maine schools have made in 
improving the performance of our students through a challenging 
curriculum. For example, Maine students rank highly in the National 
Assessment of Education Progress tests. This achievement reflects the 
efforts of the Maine Department of Education, our teachers, our 
principals, our school boards, our State's elementary and secondary 
schools, and the University of Maine, to design and use challenging 
statewide learning results.
  The NAEP test results show that the efforts in Maine are in fact 
succeeding. They show that our K-12 education system can produce high-
achieving students when the standards, curriculum, and expectations are 
supported and designed by those closest to our schools.
  The process that the State of Maine used was a burdensome one. It 
required seeking individual waivers from the Federal Department of 
Education. It was a lengthy process. It was one that involved a great 
deal of bureaucratic delay. It is that kind of process that would be 
changed by this legislation.
  The fact is, Maine and the rest of our Nation still have a long way 
to go to improve the education of our students. America holds dear the 
tradition of State and local control of education. The basic 
responsibility for improving student achievement lies with the States, 
not the Federal Government. Indeed, perhaps a better name for this 
legislation would be ``The Return to Local Control Education Act.''
  I believe that all of us, in all of our States, are trying to meet 
the challenge of greater student achievement. But our State 
administrators need help from the Federal Government. They do

[[Page 3531]]

not need more dictates. They do not need more regulation. The Ed-Flex 
bill provides some of that help by reducing Federal intrusion into the 
local control of schools.
  How will this legislation help? Let's look at the role of the Federal 
Government. Over the last 30 years, the Federal Government has layered 
new programs on top of old ones that themselves are not meeting their 
goals. This has been done with a blind commitment to the belief that 
yet another program devised in Washington will somehow reverse the 
decline in educational achievement.
  We spend over $10 billion a year to support elementary and secondary 
education. This Federal money is spent through so many different 
programs that we can't even get an accurate count of how many there 
are. The General Accounting Office and the Congressional Research 
Service estimates range from 550 to 750 separate Federal education 
programs. Each of these programs comes with its own objectives, 
statutory requirements, and administrative regulations. Collectively, 
they create a huge administrative burden on local schools. Indeed, 
while the Federal Government funds only 7 percent of our public 
education system, it is responsible for 50 percent of the schools' 
paperwork.
  By passing the Education Flexibility Act, we will allow States and 
local school districts the flexibility they need to pursue creative and 
innovative approaches in using Federal funds. And the Federal dollars 
that they do receive will become a genuine force for education 
improvement. Even more important, the bill will afford States and 
communities the flexibility that they need to craft local solutions. 
Instead of struggling to make programs designed in Washington fit local 
needs, States and localities will have the freedom to make the changes 
that they know are needed in each individual school.
  Because, as the Senator from Oregon put it very well, the schools in 
an urban environment may be very different in their needs from a school 
in a rural community.
  The Ed-Flex Act addresses the need for change within our public 
schools. It will provide a way for State and local education agencies 
to be freed from the multitude of Federal statutes and regulations that 
prevent them from breaking out of the Federal education mold and 
creating their own exciting programs. Expanding the opportunity for Ed-
Flex to every State gives our school boards, teachers, parents, and 
State officials the opportunity to experiment and innovate, to chart a 
new path for better schools, and to provide Congress with the 
information it needs to help promote rather than hinder educational 
improvement.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
legislation. I would also like to clarify that I don't think Senator 
Kennedy deliberately gave me his cold from the hearing yesterday so I 
would be less effective in debating him today, despite the rumor to the 
contrary.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, does the manager of the bill want to say 
something?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I just wanted to give the assurance to--if you will 
yield 15 seconds--to the Senator from Maine, as far as I am concerned, 
she is always effective, whether it is that clear voice that comes out 
from the northeast part of the country, we always listen and take great 
care what she says.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask, with the concurrence of the 
Senator from Connecticut, that the Senator from Wyoming be recognized 
for a period of not more than 5 minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has the floor.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Vermont for 
his request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask that the Senator from Wyoming be 
allowed to proceed as in morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Wyoming.
  (The remarks of Mr. Thomas pertaining to the introduction of S. 516 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman once again for the 
time, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Ed-Flex bill 
introduced by Senators Frist and Wyden. I believe it is a responsible 
way to help our nation's educators meet the challenges that we face in 
preparing our nation's young people for the 21st century.
  Ed-Flex gives states the authority to grant waivers of certain 
Federal requirements to local school districts if such a waiver will 
help that school district better meet the needs of its students. But in 
exchange for this flexibility, the local school district must show 
results. If the district does not show results, the waiver is revoked. 
Ed-Flex gives school districts flexibility, but it also demands 
accountability--and we should discuss how to make the accountability 
measures even stronger.
  In addition, under Ed-Flex states are limited in the kinds of 
requirements they are authorized to waive. They cannot waive health and 
safety requirements or civil rights requirements. And they cannot deny 
districts the funds they would ordinarily receive under these Federal 
programs. Furthermore, districts must prove that the waiver they 
receive truly helps them accomplish the goal it is designed to meet: 
helping more students learn better.
  In Nebraska we have 604 public school districts. They range in size 
from the small rural districts such as Tryon--which has just over 100 
students, kindergarten through 12th grade--and Omaha, which has 
approximately 45,000 students.
  A couple of weeks ago I was visited by Bob Ridenour, principal of 
North Ward and West Ward Elementary Schools in McCook, Nebraska. In 
response to the question, What do you need to do a better job of 
educating your kids?'' his answer was simple: More money and the 
flexibility to help the kids at the lowest end of the economic scale in 
the best way possible.
  But Ed-Flex is not just about flexibility. It's also about better 
coordination. It allows for better coordination between the variety of 
local, state, and Federal education programs available to schools.
  All of the principals in Nebraska would agree that the Federal 
education dollars they receive are vital to well-being and success of 
the school children within that district. But different districts have 
different needs. And in some instances, different districts may need to 
take slightly different paths to reach the common goal that all 
districts share: Making sure that all students have the reading, math, 
and social skills to succeed once they leave the schoolhouse door.
  Right now, 12 States have Ed-Flex. And the feedback we have shows 
that they are using it responsibly and that it is showing good results. 
Texas has implemented Ed-Flex more extensively than any other state in 
the nation. Achievement scores in Texas reveal that districts with 
waivers outperformed districts without waivers in both reading and 
math. And the gains for African American students were even greater.
  And Ed-Flex has allowed States like Massachusetts to assure 
continuity of service to schools that were eligible for title I funding 
one year, ineligible the next year, but expect to be eligible in the 
following year. In the grand scheme of things, this is a minor waiver. 
But to a child in that school, the assistance provided through title I 
dollars makes a major difference.
  Now let me be clear. Ed-Flex is a sound way to give local districts 
the flexibility they need to do a good job of educating students. But 
it's only one part of a complex puzzle.
  Schools also need resources. They need to have the funds to hire and 
train qualified teachers. They need to

[[Page 3532]]

have the ability to reduce class sizes in the lower grades. They need 
to be able to provide students with real classrooms in well-equipped 
buildings.
  And schools need to be able to provide challenging afterschool 
programs so that students can work on their math, science, reading, and 
technology skills between the hours of 3:00 and 6:00 in the afternoon.
  Last summer we helped US West form a partnership with Project 
Banneker, a program that is helping raise the math and science 
achievement levels in Omaha Public Schools. Not only did students and 
teachers benefit from the hands-on technology skills training, but US 
West benefited because they played a role in training prospective 
employees. We are looking forward to another productive summer with US 
West as we work to expand the partnership.
  The Federal government can't do it all--and the Federal government 
should not do it all. But we should be a helpful partner in the effort 
to improve our nation's schools. The Federal contribution to K-12 
education is relatively small--less than 10 percent. That is why it's 
important that we make sure our investments in education are wise ones, 
that they complement efforts at the state and local levels, and that 
the investments yield results.
  We need to make sure that the most disadvantaged students have the 
assistance and resources that they need to succeed in school. We need 
to continue to invest in title I, and also figure out how to make it 
stronger. Nebraska received $31 million year in title I funds last 
year. School districts use those funds in a variety of ways. We need to 
give districts the flexibility to educate those students using the best 
methods available, but we also must demand accountability.
  I believe that the most important way in which the Federal Government 
can be a helpful partner is by making sure that when a young person 
finishes twelfth grade he or she has the skills to get a decent job. It 
may take a couple of years at a community college to fine-tune those 
skills, but the point is that only 60% of high school graduates 
nationwide go on to college, and by the time they are 25 years old, 
only about 25% have a college degree.
  Now we need to do more to make higher education more affordable, and 
we just passed a Higher Education Act that makes significant steps 
toward that goal. But we also have to make sure that those who do not 
pursue a postsecondary degree have the skills to make a good living.
  That's why I believe strongly in the value of vocational education. 
Two weeks ago I visited the vocational education program at Grand 
Island High School, in Grand Island, Nebraska. In the vocational 
education program at Grand Island High, students are receiving hands-on 
education that will translate into real jobs. Grand Island has formed a 
partnership with area manufacturers, and the manufacturers know that 
it's a good deal for them. They have said to Grand Island, You train 
the students, and there will be a job waiting for them when they get 
out of school.''
  In one particular class students work together all year long to build 
an actual house. Every part of the house, with the exception of the 
foundation, is built by the students. Then, at the end of the year, 
they actually sell the house, taking pride in the fact that they have 
created a product that has tangible value to their community.
  Mr. President, I believe we need to increase opportunities for these 
students. I support the Ed-Flex bill because I believe that if it is 
used wisely it can help schools accomplish important goals in educating 
students. But I want to make clear that it's just the tip of the 
iceberg. We also need to increase our investment in these students so 
that all students have a shot at the American Dream.
  Mr. President, just briefly, I thank both the Senator from Vermont 
and the Senator from Massachusetts for their leadership on this as 
well. I want to try to briefly declare why I like this bill and what I 
think needs to be done in addition to it.
  I had a recent conversation with one of the 604 school 
superintendents in Nebraska. Those schools are as small as 100 
students, ranging all the way up to 46,000 students, with a lot of 
variation in between. I talked to a superintendent in one of the rural 
school districts--in my State there is more poverty in the rural areas 
than is in the urban areas among children--and asked what he wanted. He 
said, immediately, ``I need, in some cases, more flexibility to 
implement programs. I do not want any waivers from civil rights 
requirements, no waivers from health or safety. But sometimes with a 
Federal program, the State won't allow me to do what would reasonably 
accomplish the objective of what the Feds want.'' This bill allows it. 
He said, ``In fact, I would like to be held to even higher standards of 
accountability. I want you all to hold me accountable to make certain 
that we are getting the job done.'' This bill does that. It provides 
both flexibility and measures for increased accountability, which is 
precisely what we need.
  I want to point out as well, Mr. President, that he went on to say 
that the greatest challenge is not only flexibility, but increased 
resources for those children of lower income working families in both 
rural and urban environments. He said, ``If you are insistent upon 
making certain that we have trade policies that are open, and if you 
want to keep the restrictions on business to a minimum so entrepreneurs 
can grow, what we are going to have to do is aggressively increase the 
skills of people that leave high school and go right into the 
workforce.'' The only way to get that done is to start very early. And 
I hope that in this bill, Mr. President, that we will have an 
opportunity to put some amendments on it that will give us some 
increased funding for lowering class size, that will allow us to do 
some afterschool programs.
  I know the Senator from Connecticut has a bill dealing with child 
care. To me, child care and education are almost interchangeable. It is 
difficult to tell one from the other. A full third of my high school 
students in Nebraska go immediately from high school into the 
workforce, and there is an increasing amount of concern at the rural 
level and at the community level for the skills of these young people. 
If you do not start it early, it is impossible for us to close that 
skills gap. In my judgment, with the pace of our economy and the speed 
with which things are changing, there is a real urgency to get out 
there with flexibility, which this bill does. I hope we will have the 
opportunity to provide some additional resources so we can make sure 
that, with confidence, we are saying we are doing all we can to make 
sure that our young people, when they graduate from high school, are 
prepared and have the skills that they are going to need in a very 
competitive world economy.
  Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill, and I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I won't take a great deal of time. Senator 
Kennedy, Senator Jeffords, Senator Frist, Senator Wyden and others have 
talked about many of the specifics of the bill before us--the Education 
Flexibility Partnership Act. I just want to take a few minutes to thank 
my colleagues for all their work on this bill.
  I am very pleased that one of the first legislative matters we are 
taking up this year is education. This is about as significant an issue 
in the minds of most Americans as any. There are a lot of other 
questions which are very important, but none that I think dominates the 
concerns of Americans regardless of geography or economic circumstance 
as education, particularly elementary and secondary education.
  Later this year, we will take up the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act reauthorization, which contains the major federal 
programs to assist our schools. This bill requires reauthorization 
every 5 years. And this year is the year that we must reauthorize that 
basic fundamental piece of legislation that deals with the elementary 
and secondary education needs of America. So we will have a chance, I 
suspect, even then to review some of

[[Page 3533]]

the issues that concern people. I had hoped that we could consider this 
initiative on Ed Flex as part of that larger bill given its 
relationship to those programs; however, I am still hopeful that we can 
include the review of this program in our work on the Health, 
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
  Today, as we gather here, in many parts of the country students are 
still in school. Fifty-three million students, more or less, went off 
to elementary or secondary schools this morning, from Hawaii to Maine. 
Of the 53 million, 48 million are in public schools and about 5 million 
are in private or parochial schools across the country. The vast 
majority, of course, attend our public schools. And most attending our 
schools today are doing well and their schools are good.
  I think too often we focus our attention on the things that do not 
work. Partly it is because that is our job. And there are a lot of 
gaping holes in the education reaching students across this country in 
the ability to learn and the opportunity to learn. But in many, many 
communities across this great country we find schools that are filled 
with learning and blessed with qualified, motivated teachers, and 
enriched with excellent resources from libraries to computers.
  In recent years, more and more schools have joined these elite ranks. 
More schools are enjoying the benefits of these wonderful technologies; 
more schools have adopted strong and challenging standards-based reform 
strategies; and more fine, well-educated people are entering the 
teaching ranks.
  But our job, as I said a moment ago, Mr. President, is not just to 
point out the things that are working well. If we are to improve our 
schools, we must also focus on the problems and how to encourage real 
solutions to these problems. And that brings us to this bill. It will 
bring us to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as well.
  Let me just share some statistics with my colleagues, briefly here, 
on the state of education in America.
  The GAO estimates that one-third of all of the schools in the United 
States are in need of basic repairs and renovations. Two-thirds are in 
good shape. That is the good news. But still fully a third of them are 
in poor shape and in need of repairs and renovations.
  Just to give you one example, in my home State of Connecticut, Mr. 
President, there was a study done on school conditions in the city of 
Waterbury, CT. I live in a very affluent State, but there are pockets 
of real poverty in Connecticut. It is a dichotomy of affluence and 
poverty living in a relatively small piece of geography. Waterbury, CT, 
has some very fine and affluent neighborhoods. But like many of our 
cities, there are parts of it that are not doing as well economically. 
Last year, in Waterbury, they found that 500 fire code violations 
occurred in our schools over the last five years--500 fire code 
violations.
  Another statistic, nationwide, 53 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds 
participated in preschool programs.
  Eight percent of second graders were detained in kindergarten or the 
first grade. Second Graders--it is hard to imagine why someone would be 
held back at that level. One could maybe see it later in the elementary 
grades, but by the second grade almost 10 percent are being held back.
  Nearly 15 percent of middle and high school teachers in the United 
States do not minor or major in the area of their main teaching 
assignment. Again, we have 85 percent who do. But there is a growing 
number, about 15 percent, who are being asked to teach at the secondary 
school level in a curriculum that they have not received a significant 
formal education.
  We see, as well, that 86 percent of 18- through 24-year-olds have a 
high school diploma. That number, again, is getting better. But is 
still too high. And is way too high when one looks at some of the sub-
populations of students; over a third of Hispanic Americans are 
dropping out. This is the fastest growing ethnic group in the United 
States and one-third of them are dropping out of school.
  At the end of the 20th century, Mr. President, we are going to have 
to do better in all these indicators if we are going to compete 
effectively.
  So I am pleased we are turning our attention to education today. But 
let's not delude ourselves. The bill that we are talking about here is 
not the answer. I respect immensely the authors of this legislation. I 
have a high regard for them and the motivations which caused them to 
propose this legislation, particularly my good friend from Oregon, who 
had a long and distinguished career in the other body, and who cares 
about young people and their educational needs, and our colleague from 
Tennessee, and others who are a part of this legislation. But I want to 
raise some of the concerns that some of us have about this bill and am 
hopeful that we can work through some of these issues in the coming 
days.
  Six years ago, in 1993, we enacted the Ed-Flex Demonstration program 
in the hopes that it would spur school reform in our states. It was a 
very tightly written program with just 6 states participating. We 
quickly expanded that to 12, recognizing 6 States probably was not a 
good enough laboratory to get some decent results back to determine 
whether or not this new waiver authority would prove to be worthwhile.
  Ed-Flex was a major departure in education policy. We were allowing, 
for the first time, officials to waive Federal regulatory and statutory 
requirements. That is not a minor thing. I mean, we are responsible to 
see to it that the dollars, the Federal dollars that go to education, 
are going to be spent well and wisely.
  Now, I don't question that we can get heavyhanded, and too 
bureaucratic. We are all painfully aware that can happen. But to allow 
state officials to waive statutory and regulatory requirements is a 
significant departure. It is one thing to modify, to amend, to drop 
certain regulations, but to allow a complete waiver of statutory and 
regulatory requirements was a dramatic departure from our education 
policy.
  We included protections in the law at the time. The Secretary would 
have to approve applications for this waiver authority. Only States 
with strong standards-based reforms in place were eligible, and waivers 
could not override the intents and purposes of the laws or civil rights 
and other certain basic protections. But the idea was for flexibility 
in return for results. So we passed overwhelmingly this demonstration 
program.
  But it was for a demonstration program--a test. Well, the results are 
not in. That is one of the difficulties here. It is not that anyone has 
studied this and said they are bad, they are just not in. We do not 
really know. It may be very good, or it may not--but raising the 
legitimate concerns about it is not inappropriate.
  Texas is the only State, the only one, by the way, out of all 12 
States, that has actually been giving us some details on how they are 
performing. Most others cannot produce, unfortunately, any results 
about student achievement results they have achieved through school 
reform and the Ed-Flex demonstration program.
  The General Accounting Office, the GAO, has reviewed Ed-Flex and 
found little in the way to suggest that Ed-Flex is making a difference. 
Now, it may. Again, I find myself in a situation of hoping it does. I 
supported the demonstration program not because I anticipated it to 
fail, but I did it because I anticipated it to work. But I feel I have 
a sense of responsibility to the people of my State--that it is their 
dollars, in a sense, that are going to this--that I can look them in 
the eye and say why we are now going to pass legislation permanently 
establishing this. But if you ask me the question, ``Do I have the 
empirical evidence which draws the final conclusion that in fact this 
can work?'' I have to say, no, not yet.
  Now, maybe it will come in, but it is not here yet. And so I hope my 
colleagues understand that those of us who are raising these questions 
are doing so with a deep sense of optimism that this will work, but 
also a deep sense of concern that we do not have the information yet to 
make these final conclusions.

[[Page 3534]]

  While we don t know much about results, we do know a little about how 
this authority is being used. Seven of the participating 12 states have 
granted 10 or fewer waivers. The vast majority of waivers requested are 
about loosening title I requirements for targetting the neediest 
students. But generally, the finding suggests there is little being 
done with Ed-Flex that is not being done directly with the Secretary 
with his own waiver authority.
  We hear anecdotes from Governors about how it is promoting creativity 
and spurring reform--but the evidence we have on how it has been used 
really do not back this up in the most states. But I have never had a 
Governor or mayor yet that wouldn't like to get all statutory and 
regulatory requirements of the Federal Government eliminated; that 
doesn't come as a great shock. They would like us to write a check, 
give it to them, and get out of the way. That is how Governors and 
mayors think. I find it interesting that in States, when State 
legislatures or mayors ask Governors for similar waiver authority, I 
usually find the Governors are far more resistant to waiver authority 
at the local level than they are in asking us for it. It is where you 
are in the food chain in terms of your willingness to support waivers 
from regulation.
  At any rate, we hear a lot of anecdotes from Governors and State 
education leaders about Ed-Flex changing the mentality of their systems 
and motivating school improvement efforts. I am for this. I hope it 
works. But I think we need to ensure that students are served by these 
changes. That is why we have the accountability amendments.
  Senators Kennedy, Reed, and I will offer two simple amendments that I 
believe get to the core of improving accountability. These build on the 
changes that we were pleased to see the managers include the substitute 
bill they offered earlier today. Our staffs have been working together 
for weeks to beef up the accountability in this bill. I believe we have 
made good progress, but must do more.
  The first amendment offered by Senators Kennedy, Reed and me will 
ensure that accountability is resulting in student achievement. 
Improving the performance of students is what this is all about. I am 
rather surprised we have been forced to offer what we think is a very 
common sense amendment, rather than having it just agreed to and 
accepted. I understand we continue to work on this and am hopeful that 
we will be able to resolve this without a vote.
  The second amendment ensures involvement of one of the key players in 
school reforms, parents and the larger public. The Reed amendment 
ensures that parents and other local leaders can comment on 
applications for waivers and that these comments are given 
consideration.
  Again, I would hope that parental involvement is one of the things 
all of us can agree on. In Head Start, we require that parents be 
involved from volunteering in classrooms to parent planning boards, 
then make key decisions about their community programs. We get about 80 
percent parental involvement with Head Start programs. What has been 
terribly disappointing to me is that by the first grade parental 
involvement drops to about 20 percent. It immediately drops, which is 
terribly disturbing because there is no better way to increase a 
child's performance in education than to have a parent involved--
visiting teachers, talking to them, going to the schools, learning what 
the child is supposed to be learning, involved in school governance and 
reform.
  The requirement we would add would ensure that interested parents 
could be engaged in this process. I hope our colleagues would be 
supportive of that since it fits in with the growing concern among all 
Democrats and Republicans that parental involvement needs to be 
expanded rather than contracted. The Reed amendment does not give 
parents or others veto power. That is not the point. It gives them the 
power to comment knowing their comments will be considered, which is 
not too much to ask. It says their comments should be available and 
included in the application for waiver authority.
  These are simple changes that broadly improve the accountability of 
this bill.
  We will also have the opportunity to consider several other important 
education initiatives--not to belittle the importance some have placed 
on this Ed-Flex bill, but I have never had one parent or teacher or 
student raise it with me.
  I have heard from many concerned about class size, districts looking 
for reassurance that the full promise of 100,000 teachers will reach 
them. Class size is a critical issue to families all across the 
country, whether in a rural school in Idaho, or urban school in 
Connecticut. Parents know that class size matters--how many teachers 
teach how many students, how well educated they are, and are these 
buildings that these kids are supposed to be learning in, in good 
shape. We also hear a great deal about the readiness of children to 
learn when they enter school. We hear about afterschool.
  My colleague from California, Senator Boxer, has an interest in this. 
My colleagues from Vermont and Massachusetts will recall last July when 
this specific bill was in committee, I offered an afterschool amendment 
to this proposal--which I hope to be offering in this debate. My 
colleague from California has an interest in this subject matter, as 
well.
  Eighteen years ago our former colleague from New Jersey, Senator 
Bradley, and I did the initial legislation on afterschool programs in 
the dropout legislation. Over the years I have been deeply involved in 
trying to reduce this afterschool problem, of the difficulties that 
occur with the lack of afterschool programs. This is an issue that many 
people in this country would like to see us do more about.
  I think most of my colleagues are aware of this, but this chart 
points out when juveniles are most likely to commit violent crimes. The 
spike is around 2:30 or 3 o'clock. That is the peek time of violent 
crimes among young people. The hours between 2:30 and 6:00 is when we 
see the largest percentage of violent juvenile crime.
  It is not uncommon for communities to have curfews. Invariably the 
curfew suggests some time after 9 or 10 o'clock at night. In fact, 9 
o'clock or 10 o'clock at night is a relatively calm period of time. It 
is 2:30, 3 o'clock, 3:30, 4 o'clock--when kids are home from school, 
but parents are not--which is the critical time period. We are told by 
chiefs of police and others that violent crime among young people is on 
the increase. Afterschool programs, putting efforts into this, is 
something that we think would make a great deal of difference.
  I hope to offer an amendment on my own or with Senator Boxer or 
others to deal with this issue.
  Mr. President, Ed-Flex may make a difference in some States. Frankly, 
in my view the jury is still out for the reasons; I hope the jury comes 
back with good results and good reports on this. We think the 
accountability amendments will help here.
  But this legislation on its own is no substitute for what our schools 
need and what parents and students across this country are demanding. I 
am hopeful that during these next several days we can have a real 
discussion on education and improve this bill with the addition of some 
critical timely initiatives.
  I am happy to work with the chairman of the committee and the ranking 
member and move through these issues in an orderly way. I thank both 
Senators for their leadership. I commend my colleague from Tennessee 
and my colleague from Oregon for their fine work on this amendment.
  I appreciate, again, the motivations that have given rise to this 
legislation. I think we can make it a better bill and add to it some of 
the elements that we think will strengthen the educational needs of all 
Americans by some of the suggestions I have made here and that others 
have made this afternoon. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I'll use a few moments to take a look at

[[Page 3535]]

last year. What we are talking about right now is where we ended last 
year as far as passing bills on education.
  Let us take a look at what we did accomplish during that period of 
time. This chart lists all of the bills which we passed out of our 
committee, almost all of them by unanimous or close to unanimous votes. 
They all became law. They were very important.
  First of all, we had the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 
for which we had tremendous bipartisan agreement, and we took time to 
do it. It came out and passed practically unanimously by both the House 
and Senate. That is what happens when we have good, bipartisan working 
together.
  The next one was the Emergency Student Loan Consolidation Act of 
1997. We had some important problems that came up with respect to 
student loans, but were able to take care of them. This Act passed with 
a very substantial vote.
  Next, was the National Science Foundation Authorization Act, which 
had not been reauthorized for many years. An important component of the 
National Science Foundation is education; we sometimes forget that. But 
a tremendous amount of funding for the important areas of education, in 
the areas of science, comes through this bill, and that was 
accomplished.
  Then we had a real step forward with the Work Force Investment Act of 
1998, including the Rehabilitation Act Amendments. That bill has turned 
this country around in its attitude and ability to prepare people for 
the workforce. Not only that, but it recognized that workforce training 
is nonstop at high schools and colleges. Training goes on and on and 
on. We now have the nontraditional students of the past who are 
actually outnumbering the so-called traditional students on the 
recommendation that a person's job is going to change many times during 
a lifetime. We had close to unanimous agreement on the Workforce 
Investment Act of 1998.
  And for the first time in 5 years, we did a thorough review of the 
Higher Education Act, taking into consideration the needs of the 
Nation. Again, with very hard work and long, long hours, we were able 
to complete the Higher Education Amendments. Also included were the 
Education of the Deaf Act Amendments of 1998. The Higher Education 
Amendments took a close look at not only higher education, but what 
higher education was doing with respect to the teacher colleges. We 
found we had serious problems with the teacher colleges and things had 
to be changed. We also recognized that we had a huge problem trying to 
get our teachers in schools the kind of retraining that is necessary in 
order to bring them up to speed on the needs not only in the next 
century but this century. This Act passed close to unanimously.
  The work being done now in professional development--we eliminated 
all the bills on professional development in there. They were useless. 
We have now created a very firm foundation for professional development 
in higher education institutions to assist us in our K-through-12 
education.
  The Reading Excellence Act was unanimous here. In close cooperation 
with the President, we came out with that act, and it is in law and 
already having an impact upon the serious problems we have with a 
number of young people graduating from high school who are presently 
functionally illiterate and do not have the basic skills necessary to 
warrant a diploma. We have had what is called social promotion, and the 
President emphasized that we have to do away with social promotion. The 
way that can be done is to try to make sure every kid can read, and the 
Reading Excellence Act will be an important part of that.
  In addition, we had the Charter School Expansion Act. As we go 
forward, it is necessary to experiment in the kinds of institutions we 
can create to have the flexibility and dedication to be able to change 
the relatively low results we have been getting out of our K-through-12 
educational system. Some of the charter schools are working well. We 
have learned a lot. Those will be models for what we can do in the 
public school system. It is an important step forward.
  In addition, we had the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1998. 
That is Head Start and other programs for the very young, as well as 
for those in special low-income areas. It was the first reauthorization 
of Head Start in many years. We came out with an excellent bill, all 
working together, Republicans and Democrats, and with the White House.
  Finally--and this is an important act--is the Carl D. Perkins 
Vocational-Technical Education Act Amendments. We had not been able to 
get that amended in many years. We did a thorough review of its 
application. We upgraded it and brought it into the modern day 
situation.
  I am pleased to say that we almost reached our goal on all the bills 
that we had. However, one bill didn't make it, and it was this Ed-Flex 
bill. The reason it didn't make it is not because the Members did not 
agree with what we had in the bill, but it was seen to be a vehicle on 
which perhaps many other ideas and thoughts about how to change 
education could be amended to it.
  I hope that doesn't occur this time. I hope we don't find ourselves 
in the position of not taking a bill which everybody agrees is 
important. The President has said that he favors it. He gave strong 
words of support for it. The Governors have unanimously agreed that 
they want it. I hope we will be able to get this out in the next few 
days in order to be sure that we can give the flexibility to the States 
that they need.
  My State has had it. It has worked very well. It is not a huge 
success in the sense that it is going to change that much that goes on, 
but it makes it easier for States to coordinate things. You have 
situations--at least in our State--where school districts are very 
close to the 50 percent or the 125 percent thresholds for poverty. If 
you don't quite make it, it fouls everything up. With the flexibility 
we have had in Vermont as one of those six States that have been able 
to use the flexibility, we have found that it has reduced the time and 
effort which go into trying to work with title I. That is all we are 
trying to do today.
  I think we are hearing now an agreement on accountability. If we have 
learned anything over the past year, it has been the tremendous lack of 
accountability in this country in our educational system. If there is 
any area that we need to improve upon--and I serve on the Goals 2000 
panel--it is accountability. One of the most disturbing things I have 
found is that we really don't know what is going on in this country. We 
still can't measure performance, still can't determine--in fact, in the 
report we have no evidence that there was any improvement from the date 
that we got the ``Nation at Risk'' report in 1983. Fifteen years and 
there is no measurable improvement in our schools. But then we found 
that the data we were using to determine whether or not there was any 
improvement was 1994 data, and here it was 1998.
  So we have other improvements to make, and one of those is 
accountability and to be able to measure what is going on in our school 
system. The flexibility will help the States to be able to really 
ascertain and work better with their school systems to determine 
exactly what is going on, how to measure success. That is one of the 
reasons. So I am hopeful that that one bill we were unable to get 
passed last year in the area of education, which we knew was 
appropriate and necessary--I hope we can get it done quickly this week.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will just take a few moments to expand 
upon a couple of issues that have been raised over the course of the 
morning and early afternoon. One has to do with accountability and the 
other, parental involvement. Both of these are very important issues as 
we proceed ahead in addressing both the underlying bill and the 
potential amendments that are coming forward.

[[Page 3536]]

  The Ed-Flex bill itself, again, is a bill that expands a 
demonstration project, which has been very successful, from 12 States 
to 50 States. What it does is simple. It allows schools and school 
districts the opportunity to obtain a waiver, and that waiver would 
allow them to accomplish very specific goals as set out in programs but 
free of the redtape and excessive, burdensome regulations, and it also 
allows them to say we are going to meet those goals and objectives and 
be held accountable for those in very strict ways that identify our 
particular needs. Schools have different needs; a particular school 
might need access to computers and another might need to have a pre-
kindergarten program. Another school might need to have an afterschool 
tutoring program. I think the point is that we don't want to tie the 
hands of our local communities and our schools if they say this is what 
it takes for us to increase student performance, this is how we have 
identified, based on our own needs to achieve, these very specific 
objectives. Again, we are not talking about a block grant. We are not 
talking about changing the goals that we set out. We are saying that 
given the resources that we are putting in a particular area, and given 
the specific goals, we are going to give the local communities the 
opportunity to have more flexibility and at the same time demanding 
accountability to meet those goals.
  That, very simply, is what the bill does. We have this experience 
with it that historically we can look to; we can learn from it. We can 
expand upon it. And that is where we are today. That is what I think 
real leadership in education is all about. I think it is an appropriate 
Federal role to give that flexibility and demand that accountability. 
``Accountability'' is tied with ``flexibility.''
  That accountability needs to be carried out at the local level, for 
which I have the next chart, which was spelled out earlier. We need to 
have the accountability built in at the local level. We need to have 
the accountability built in at the State level and at the Federal 
level, all reinforcing each other in an appropriate hierarchical way 
just to make sure we are holding those schools or school districts 
accountable for the waiver that they have spelled out.
  I have gone through the specifics earlier, but as I keep this chart 
up, just so people can understand how it builds one on the other, let 
me also make it clear that the type of waivers that we are allowing are 
really two kinds. One is an administrative type of waiver. That is a 
waiver where you unshackle the paperwork on local communities, local 
schools, and school districts which say that they are bombarded with 
paperwork and time requiring activities which keep them away from 
accomplishing that goal. Those sorts of administrative waivers are very 
important. And that is one element of the waiver system.
  Another element of the waiver system about which we have talked a 
great deal about today is where the schoolwide waivers take place, 
again accomplishing the specific goals consistent with the intent of 
the Federal law.
  We have to keep in mind that not all waivers are about student 
performance per se, that some waivers are about--I will describe them 
first--lowering that paperwork burden on both schools and school 
districts and at the State level.
  I say that because we have to be careful, if we start modifying this 
bill at all, so that we don't try to connect every single waiver with 
an increase in student performance and use that as the judge. There are 
certain areas that we cannot basically come back and link that 
particular waiver that produces paperwork to the performance of 
individual students in a school.
  On the issue of student performance, I think it is important to point 
out that Ed-Flex, as is spelled out in the underlying bill, has more 
accountability that we have injected into it than the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act which is in existence today. That particular 
act authorizes over $13 billion. We have injected in our bill, Ed-Flex, 
more accountability than is in that Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act.
  I mention that again so people will know how hard we have worked in 
this peer approach to make sure that accountability is included.
  Under current law, education programs that provide direct services to 
students are not specifically required to improve student performance. 
Ed-Flex has more accountability built into it than the largest single 
Federal education law in the land.
  That is point No. 1.
  No. 2, it is important to understand that the accountability 
provisions in our bill as written--I encourage my colleagues to read 
that bill as written--inject more accountability than the existing 12-
State demonstration-project. It is important, because I want people to 
go back and read the bill and not just look at what is in the current 
Ed-Flex program and the 12-State demonstration project.
  First, before a State may issue waivers, they must first provide 
public notice and comment. I am going to come back to that shortly 
because that will give me the opportunity to talk a little bit more 
about parental involvement. But it is very clear that by having that 
requirement that the community at large, including the parents, will be 
very much involved as they can express their concerns if they have such 
concerns about the waiver.
  Second, before receiving any waiver in the State, local school and 
local school districts must establish specific measurable education 
goals, which may include student performance. But they have to have 
very specific goals spelled out.
  That is important, again, so we can demand that accountability as to 
whether or not they meet those goals. As I pointed out before, those 
goals, as spelled out in the bill, may very well include student 
performance.
  Third, every year States must monitor--this is at the State level--
and review the performance of schools and school districts that have 
received those waivers. So we go from local up to the State level that 
the State must monitor. In addition, the States are required to make 
sure that the school and school districts that have received waivers 
are, indeed, making progress toward those goals; again, including 
school performance. Whatever those goals are they establish, consistent 
with the Federal intent, we need to show not only that the goals have 
been spelled out, but that progress on a regular basis is being met. If 
a school district or a school fails to meet that progress toward 
meeting the goals, the State at any time can revoke that waiver.
  Fourth, in addition, we have built in and spelled out here that the 
States have to offer technical assistance, if progress is not being 
made, and also take corrective action.
  Fifth, every year the States must send a report on how Ed-Flex is 
working to the Department of Education; again, an accountability 
measure.
  Sixth, again looking at the top of the chart at the Federal level, 
the Secretary of Education has the final say. He or she can terminate a 
waiver at any time.
  Seventh, the Secretary must issue a report to Congress every 2 years 
on the performance of students affected by the waivers.
  Eighth, State waiver authority to issue waivers is thoroughly 
reviewed every 5 years, and is contingent upon school performance.
  Earlier today, the Senator from Oregon presented the accountability 
checks in the bill. These accountability checks are critical.
  The second issue that I wanted to refer to, again because it has been 
talked about, is regarding the requirements that can or cannot be 
waived. Again, I encourage my colleagues to go back and see what is in 
the legislation, because it has been written very carefully with a huge 
amount of input from a broad number of people. The requirements that 
cannot be waived in Ed-Flex--again, spelled out in the bill--include 
such things as: The civil rights requirements, the underlying purposes 
of each program or act for which a waiver is granted.
  The third one that I want to stress right now--I will not go through 
the

[[Page 3537]]

rest of these--as requirements that cannot be waived under Ed-Flex, is 
parental participation and involvement. We have heard a lot about the 
parents, how important it is to have the parents involved. I agree. 
There is nobody that cares more about their children, about the future 
of their children, than those parents.
  One important thing is the whole notion of public notice. We talked a 
little bit about public notice. This is one area that has been greatly 
improved, I think compared to a year ago--public notice of those 
waivers.
  First of all, let's see what is currently being done in terms of 
public notice of the waivers. Let's look at Texas. In Texas, at the 
local level requests for waivers must be reviewed by campus and/or 
site-based decision making committees composed of parents, teachers, 
and other community representatives.
  The same thing in Maryland. I won't go through the details. But, if 
you look at these examples, you will see that through public notice, 
comments and concerns by the parents are made known. The parents are 
involved.
  To take another example of public notice in current Ed-Flex States, 
in Michigan, it has a waiver-referent group composed of representatives 
from a number of people: Michigan Department of Education, local and 
intermediate school districts, private schools--and importantly--parent 
organizations.
  Furthermore, if you look at the public notice, among the criteria 
that the Secretary uses to evaluate a State's Ed-Flex application is,

       Did the State conduct effective public hearings or provide 
     other means for broad-based public involvement in the 
     development of the Ed-Flex plan? How has the State involved 
     districts, schools and [very specifically] parents, community 
     groups and advocacy and civil rights groups in the 
     development of the plan?

These are the criteria that are used, which will be used as well under 
extension under our bill.
  I can just go on. The other criterion that they have to use is,

       How would the State provide districts, parent 
     organizations, advocacy and civil rights groups and other 
     interested parties with notice and an opportunity to comment 
     on proposed waivers of Federal requirements?

  Again, as you can see, parents are an integral part of this waiver 
process. And there is a good reason. As has been pointed out by both 
sides, we want parents involved. Nobody cares more about the education 
of the children of this country than those parents.
  The National Education Association, (NEA), on February 25, 1999 made 
an important statement. I d like to look at how a group that is 
involved in education, that is objective, that is not on one side of 
the aisle here, that is not just a policymaker but is a group of people 
who are in the field, who have a vested interest in education and 
education policy--how do they view the direction we are going, in terms 
of that overall balance? I think we can go through this first statement 
on the chart. It says:

       . . . the NEA believes the Ed-Flex legislation introduced 
     by Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon and Bill Frist of Tennessee 
     is a step in the right direction.

  Remember, we are not trying to cure all of the problems in education 
today. That is not our purpose in this particular bill. That is a 
process underway in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee right now as we are reauthorizing the ESEA, the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act. That is the appropriate forum for that. 
This is a very targeted bill that can be passed to the benefit of 
hundreds of thousands of children if we do it right over the next 
several days.
  But going back to the NEA, because again I want to stay on this issue 
of parents, how do they view what we are doing from the outside with 
their vested interest in education, the education establishment, and, 
most important, the education of our children? I will turn to the 
second quotation from their letter. They say:

       The bill has been much improved through the addition of 
     increased accountability and coordination measures and a 
     public comment period that permits parents and members of the 
     community to participate actively in education reforms.

  I think this again is critically important, because it demonstrates 
objectively that we, as a body, on a bipartisan bill, have made 
absolutely sure to address the accountability issue and to address the 
issue of including parents.
  I have to say, ``The bill has been improved. . . .'' Those are the 
words of the NEA, which shows we have taken a bill that really went 
through committee and passed, and have been willing to work again with 
all interested parties to make sure that accountability, through the 
eight steps I outlined, through the tiered approach of the pyramid, 
guarantees--guarantees--that accountability.
  Just so people will know, because it is always hard for people to go 
back and read the bill, on the public notice and comment issue, which I 
think is very important--just so people will know specifically what is 
in the bill on public notice and comment, let me just read directly 
from the bill, page 13. The bill has been distributed.

       Public notice and comment.--Each State educational agency 
     granted waiver authority under this section and each local 
     educational agency receiving a waiver under this section 
     shall provide the public adequate and efficient notice of the 
     proposed waiver authority or waiver, consisting of a 
     description of the agency's application for the proposed 
     waiver authority or waiver in a widely read or distributed 
     medium, and shall provide the opportunity for all interested 
     members of the community to comment regarding the proposed 
     waiver authority or waiver.

  I repeat, ``shall provide the opportunity for all interested members 
of the community to comment regarding the proposed waiver authority or 
waiver.''
  There are a number of other issues. I wanted, again, to come back to 
the accountability issue and parental involvement, both issues that 
have been addressed. People who read the bill will find the 
accountability and parental involvement issues very, very strongly 
enumerated, supported, and substantiated in the bill, again with the 
input of the Department of Education, from whom we solicited direct 
input on how to assure that accountability, and many, many other 
interested parties.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know the afternoon is moving along, but 
we are making some progress. Even as we are trying to find some areas 
of common ground, let me just respond specifically to the Senator from 
Tennessee on his provisions in this and on his statement that the 
criteria in this results in greater performance standards than in Title 
I. It is difficult to see that, because, under the provisions under 
Title I, the State has developed and implemented the challenging State 
content standard, challenging student performance standards and aligned 
assessments described in the Elementary/Secondary Act, and therefore it 
has content standards and performance standards included, while, in 
this legislation, Ed-Flex, it says, ``made substantial progress as 
determined towards development.'' So, I think we are headed in the 
right direction, but I don't want anyone to think we have tougher 
standards in this particular proposal than we do in the underlying 
Title I.
  Specifically in the managers' package, on page 3, you have findings:

       To achieve the State goals for the education of children in 
     the State, the focus must be on results in raising the 
     achievement of all students, not process.

  I agree. Amen. That is exactly what we want to try to use as a 
measurable fact. But it is only a finding, it is not part of the 
operative language. This is a good idea, and that is exactly what we 
are trying to do, to make sure that we are going to have the students' 
achievement and performance, as we have outlined in the earlier debate. 
Managers' amendment, page 6, says an ``Eligible State'' is a State 
that:

       . . . waives State statutory or regulatory requirements 
     relating to education while holding local educational 
     agencies or schools within the State that are affected by 
     such waivers accountable for the performance of the students 
     who are affected by such waivers.

  We want to see the whole State, not just the local communities. We 
are able to take what the Senator has put as a finding--and we agree 
and put that into language--and to make sure that

[[Page 3538]]

the State is going to have compliance, that particular provision says 
that a State will hold local districts accountable for results. It does 
nothing to say that the State will evaluate whether they have done so. 
It does nothing more to ensure that the State's overall waiver plans to 
achieve student achievement. If we have that, we have solved at least 
the major problem.
  Look at page 9 in the managers' package, ``Local Application'' shall:

       . . . describe for each school year, specific, measurable, 
     educational goals, which may include progress toward 
     increased school and student performance, for each local 
     educational agency or school affected by the proposed waiver. 
     . . .

  We could solve at least one part of this by instead of saying ``may 
include'' saying ``shall include.'' ``Shall include.'' All we are 
trying to do is to make sure that--while giving the States and local 
communities flexibility--the fundamental purpose of Title I is going to 
be achieved for the reasons that have been illustrated in the very 
impressive report that has come out in the last 2 days about the 
successes of Title I. We want to make sure when we are providing this, 
that the principal criterion is going to be student achievement, and 
that is what we are going to do. The words are used but we do not find 
it applicable, in terms of the statewide program.
  As I say here on page 9:

       Local application shall describe for each school year 
     specific measurable educational goals which may include 
     progress toward increased school and student performance. . . 
     .

  Isn't this all about the performance of the children? Isn't that what 
we are attempting to achieve? That is why we are spending the 
resources, to enhance the students' performance. That is what we are 
doing. As we are prepared to see greater flexibility, we are simply 
saying: Okay, you get the flexibility, all we are asking for is student 
performance and achievement. That is what the basic debate on this is.
  In the managers' package, on page 11 on State waiver approval, it 
says:

       A State educational agency shall not approve an application 
     for a waiver under this paragraph unless . . . the waiver of 
     Federal statutory or regulatory requirements as described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) will assist the local educational agency or 
     school in reaching its educational goals, particularly goals 
     with respect to school and student performance.

  This, again, applies to the LEA rather than the States.
  Just to sum up, Mr. President, for those who support our particular 
amendment, all we are saying is, yes, we will have the flexibility, but 
in giving the flexibility, there is some assurance that there will be 
an improvement in student performance and student achievement, as 
measured by the State plan, not by the Federal plan, but by what 
Alabama wants to do or what Massachusetts wants to do or what Vermont 
wants to do. They are setting their plans. All we are saying is, 
according to your own State plan, that we are going to have measurable 
results in terms of the performance. That is what this amendment is 
really about.
  We have the example which we have gone over in terms of Texas where 
they have spelled out exactly what they are going to do. It has been 
enormously impressive, and the students have made very significant and 
important gains. And that example is being replicated by other 
communities. The parents understand it. The parents know what is 
happening in their particular schools, and they are able to make some 
judgments about it. Mr. President, this is what we are all working 
towards.
  I wanted to get back into reviewing, very briefly, the absolutely 
splendid independent evaluation that has just been released this past 
week on title I and their conclusions. Those will be valuable for our 
Education Committee as we are looking over ESEA. They have made some 
very, very important recommendations, and we ought to be responsive to 
those.
  One of their very key elements is to do the evaluation in terms of 
student performance. We have that. I will go back into it at another 
time, Mr. President, but I see my good friend and colleague, the 
Senator from Minnesota, on the floor, and I yield the floor.


                  Amendment No. 32 To Amendment No. 31

  (Purpose: To preserve accountability for funds under title I of the 
            Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and 
     Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 32 to amendment 
     No. 31.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I object. I prefer to have it read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will read the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       On page 8, line 4, after ``determines'' insert ``that the 
     State educational agency is carrying out satisfactorily all 
     of the State educational agency's statutory obligations under 
     title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     to secure comprehensive school reform and''.
       On page 12, line 22, after ``hearing,'' insert ``that such 
     agency is not carrying out satisfactorily all of the agency's 
     statutory obligations under title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 to secure comprehensive 
     school reform or''
       On page 15, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       (F) standards, assessments, components of schoolwide or 
     targeted assistance programs, accountability, or corrective 
     action, under title I of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, as the requirement relates to local 
     educational agencies and schools;

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from 
Pennsylvania have 5 minutes as in morning business.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry for a moment. 
Certainly that is fine with me. The pending business is the amendment 
that I have on the floor; is that correct?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. That is correct.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That remains the pending amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Is there objection to the request? If not, the Senator from 
Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank my 
distinguished colleague from Vermont.
  (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 528 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Louisiana be allowed to speak in debate only for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank my colleague from Vermont.
  Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 280, the Education 
Flexibility Partnership Act, which we have spent most of the afternoon 
speaking about today, for several reasons.
  First, this Ed-Flex bill, as we have come to call it, represents a 
very solid bipartisan effort to provide greater flexibility in our 
public schools and, hopefully, improvement. Passage now at this early 
stage in this Congress sends a very positive message, I think, to the 
American people that we want to put first things first; we want 
education to be a priority. We are willing now, with the ordeal of the 
trial behind us, to work together across party lines for the things 
that are important to people back home.
  Second, expanding the Ed-Flex program gives every State and school a 
chance to temporarily waive sometimes very restrictive specific Federal 
regulations to help them better meet their new standards and to help 
them

[[Page 3539]]

to better utilize the tax dollars that we send to them and that they 
generate on their own.
  Thirdly, for its timeliness, I am happy to join this debate because, 
next Monday, it will be my honor to host Secretary Riley in Louisiana 
for the first yearly conference on educational excellence in our State, 
as we reach out to develop stronger Federal-State partnership for 
reforms in education. As you know, Mr. President, it takes more than 
just the Federal Government's actions, but it takes our actions, with 
the States and local governments, to make real these kinds of reforms 
for the children in our schools. The conference this week in Louisiana 
and this bill will move us closer to that goal.
  I also support Ed-Flex because it has proven to be effective over the 
last 4 years. As my colleague from Oregon has so eloquently pointed 
out, these pilot programs have worked, and that is why the bill is 
before us today. We know it works. States and local school districts 
under Ed-Flex have received waivers for several Federal education 
programs. These waivers will free States and school districts from 
unnecessary regulations that stifle innovation in education, while 
still ensuring the core principles that have been outlined so clearly; 
specifically, the civil rights principles will be honored with this 
bill.
  At the same time, Ed-Flex is voluntary. No State, no school, no 
district has to apply for these waivers, but they will be available 
should a school or a district choose to apply. And for accountability's 
sake, waivers can be revoked under the current draft of the bill, if 
the Secretary of the Department of Education determines that these 
waivers granted have not improved significantly the performance of the 
students in that school or that district.
  We know that the data resulting from certain demonstration States is 
very encouraging. For instance, in Texas, where this has seen its 
greatest use, students with Ed-Flex waivers outperform those in 
districts without the waivers in the Texas Assessment of Academic 
Skills in reading and math. In Maryland, the Ed-Flex waiver provided 
the opportunity for that State to provide for one-on-one tutoring in 
early grades in reading and math, in grades 1 through 5, and in 
lowering the student-teacher ratio from 25 to 1, to 21 to 1. Mr. 
President, with a 6-year-old who is in first grade now, let me tell you 
that those student-teacher ratios at that level are crucial as our 
young boys and girls, sons and daughters, learn the skills necessary in 
reading. That is something I will speak about in a moment. But that is 
a flexibility that this waiver will provide.
  Oregon has used the waiver authority to simplify its planning and 
application structure to allow districts to develop one consolidated 
plan that meets all State and Federal requirements.
  Let me thank the distinguished authors of this bill for including 
language also that is already presented in the bill as drafted that 
will increase the accountability. Some people are worried that if you 
grant more freedom, we know that then comes more responsibility, and as 
more responsibility comes, obviously there is more accountability. We 
want this bill to hold us all accountable, and through the language 
that we were able to submit earlier, I think with an additional 
amendment that may be acceptable to both sides, that accountability 
piece will be made clear.
  Let me be quick to say, as I conclude my remarks, that while Ed-Flex 
is a move in the right direction, much more must be done to improve 
education. We need to be very clear about this bill. It is a good step 
in the right direction. It tries to reduce bureaucracy, reduce 
regulation, give greater flexibility; but it is only one step. We need 
to do other things.
  I urge this Congress, my colleagues on both sides, to support 
initiatives to decrease class size, particularly in the early grades. 
Let me share with you an alarming statistic from Louisiana that my 
acting superintendent and staff shared with me earlier. In the recent 
test of third graders in Orleans Parish in the basic reading test, 72 
percent of the students failed their basic proficiency in reading at 
that level. In a parish outside of Orleans, a more suburban parish that 
is still struggling and growing, it was 14 percent. I think 14 percent 
is too high; I think 72 percent is tragic. We need to do everything we 
can to reduce class size in those early years--kindergarten, first, 
second and third grade--so we can prevent scores like this from being a 
reality.
  So I urge that we pass additional amendments to decrease class size 
and modernize our school buildings so that our children believe what we 
say when we say they are important. We want them in an atmosphere to 
learn and not in buildings that are falling down around them, with 
roofs that are leaking and situations that are unsafe. I think the 
Federal Government has an obligation to help spend some of our dollars 
in that regard, in cost-effective ways.
  We, as a Nation, face hundreds of issues that affect millions of 
lives every day, but no single issue is as important to our Nation's 
future as education and the challenges that our children face in the 
next century.
  I was, as you were, Mr. President, a proud author of our pay raise 
increase for the military. We have a real problem, as the Senator 
knows, with our readiness in the military forces because the economy is 
so good. It is hard for us to maintain this voluntary, well-qualified 
active force. Why? Because the private sector competes.
  Let me say, in Louisiana a beginning teacher makes $14,000, and in 
some of our parishes up to $24,000. That is bad enough, but even after 
teaching 15 or 20 years, with a good record, the salaries are not that 
much higher, unfortunately. Our State is doing what it can in that 
regard, but if we can come together and pass $10 billion additionally 
for the military, in terms of getting our troops ready for the new 
threats of the future, we most certainly can put our money where our 
mouth is and pass Ed-Flex and look forward to school construction and 
class size reduction, so that we can prepare our children for the 
threats that face them if they are not technologically literate, if 
they don't read well and communicate well. Our whole Nation will be at 
risk.
  I am proud to join my colleagues in support of this important piece 
of legislation. I urge my colleagues to consider that this is a step in 
the right direction, but we need to do so much more. I hope we can make 
good progress in this Congress on these important issues. Thank you, 
Mr. President.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask that I might speak about the 
amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. This is 
for debate only.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes, the Senator is correct.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Then the Senator would be recognized for debate only.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I don't know whether we are going to 
reach agreement on this amendment or not. If we do, that is great. If 
we don't, then I will come back to these points again and debate it. I 
would like colleagues to know what is at issue here because I think 
this amendment goes to the very essence of accountability.
  Mr. President, I have a couple of letters and talking points from the 
leadership conference on civil rights that I want to briefly mention to 
colleagues. Let me just start out and read a little bit here.

       The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights has made the 
     continuation of the standards-

[[Page 3540]]

     based reform adopted in title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act a top priority in the 106th Congress. 
     In order to protect these reforms, we urge you to support 
     amendments offered by Senators Kennedy, Reed, Dodd and 
     Wellstone to the Ed-Flexibility Partnership Act that are 
     urgently needed to protect the opportunities of economically 
     disadvantaged children, children of color, children with 
     disabilities, and other children who need the law's 
     protection.

  Next paragraph:

       While the stated purposes of S. 280 are to advance the 
     efforts to achieve comprehensive school reform, the bill as 
     reported by committee does not assure that States will 
     qualify for waivers only if they can demonstrate that they 
     have complied with a strong record of reform in the 5 years 
     since Congress with strong bipartisan majorities adopted 
     standards-based reform as national policy in title I of the 
     ESEA, nor does S. 280 assure that States once having achieved 
     Ex-Flex status will not excuse local school authorities from 
     fundamental requirements of title I, such as maintaining high 
     quality teaching staffs and offering afterschool and summer 
     programs for children who need them.

  That is it. That is what this amendment says. This amendment is 
really simple, and my colleagues have stated in spirit that they 
support it. This amendment simply says that we take the core 
requirements, and we make sure that the core requirements, the 
fundamental requirements of title I, such as maintaining high quality 
teaching staffs, or offering afterschool and summer programs for 
children who need them, that no local school authority can be excused 
from meeting these standards.
  Let me again just mention what we are talking about. The requirement 
that title I students be taught by highly qualified professional 
staff--who can be opposed to that? The requirement that LEAs hold 
schools accountable for making substantial annual progress toward 
getting all students, particularly low-income and limited-English-
proficient students, to meet the high standards. Who can be opposed to 
that? The requirement that schools provide timely and effective 
individual assistance for students who are farthest behind; and, 
finally--this is it--the requirement that funded vocational programs 
provide broad educational and work experience rather than narrow job 
training. That also applies.
  All this amendment says is that we will make it crystal clear by 
making sure that we will have flexibility with accountability, that no 
State will provide a waiver to a school district from the core 
requirements of title I.
  My colleague, Senator Wyden, has said to me that he agrees with that. 
I am hoping that my colleague, Senator Jeffords, will agree.
  That is the reason for this letter by the Leadership Conference on 
Civil Rights. The reason that I have been out here on the floor for 
hours is twofold. One, I think we ought to be focusing on what we can 
really do for children that will make a real difference. This piece of 
legislation won't. But the second is I don't want to turn the clock 
backwards. I don't want to go back to pre-title I, 35 years of good 
history. I don't want us to essentially say that we as a Federal 
Government, we as a national community are going to abandon poor 
children, that we are going to now say for the first time that we are 
going to allow a State to allow a school district to exempt itself from 
the core requirements of good teachers, high standards, and measurement 
of results.
  My colleagues want to argue that there is already language in the 
bill that says this. I don't think so. The people who I think have been 
involved with this, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights for 
years, have put a lot of sweat and tears into making sure that there 
are educational opportunities for disadvantaged children, low-income 
children, children of color. They are very worried about the lack of 
accountability. This amendment is specific. It says let's make sure 
that we keep this accountability.
  Mr. President, I am hopeful that the amendment will be accepted. I 
guess that we will wait and see. I will have other supporting evidence, 
if we go into a debate. I guess we are now negotiating on this 
amendment. But it is really, I mean, simple. There are a couple of 
things. The States have to be in compliance with title I. Who could 
argue that we would be interested in giving States flexibility, 
exemptions and all the rest, if they are not in compliance with title 
I?
  The second thing the amendment says is no State should be able to 
provide a waiver to a local school authority from these basic core 
values, the core mission of title I. And what are these requirements? 
That these students be taught by highly qualified professional staff, 
that schools be held accountable to making annual progress toward 
helping students, including students with limited English proficiency, 
that the schools provide timely assistance to those kids who need it 
the most. How can anybody oppose this?
  If you do not want to have accountability, and you basically want to 
gut part of what title I has been all about for all of these years, a 
program that, as Senator Kennedy has said, worked very well, go ahead 
and do it. Otherwise, this amendment should be accepted.
  I will wait, for we will continue to talk, and I hope that there will 
be support for this.
  Mr. President, I have had a chance to speak a long time today. So I 
yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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 (Mr. Abraham). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I ask unanimous consent that there be 15 minutes in 
order prior to the motion to table the pending amendment, No. 32, with 
5 minutes under the control of Senator Jeffords, myself, and 10 minutes 
under the control of Senator Wellstone, and that no amendments be in 
order prior to the motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I further ask that following that vote, if the 
amendment is tabled, the only remaining amendments in order this 
evening be an amendment by Senator Wellstone regarding 75 percent and 
an amendment by Senator Kennedy regarding accountability.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous agreement, the Senator from Minnesota now has up 
to 10 minutes for debate, the Senator from Vermont has 5 minutes for 
debate under his control.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, might I ask my colleague, I assume he 
would want me to take my time and then finish up; is that correct? Is 
that the way he would like to do it?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I would just as soon speak now.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is fine.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I will take my 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this is an amendment by Senator 
Wellstone. I will give you a little history. This bill was voted out of 
committee earlier this year. It was basically the same amendment which 
was passed out of the committee unanimously last year--I am sorry, with 
one objection last year. It is generally agreed to. However, there are 
some areas that some Members wanted to address. I rise in opposition 
and I will move to table the pending Wellstone amendment.
  This issue was addressed in the managers' amendment package by 
including the eligibility of the State as a condition for approval and 
consideration. Also, under the eligibility requirement, States must 
have the very standards and assessments as laid out in title I. SEAs 
are prohibited from waiving statewide requirements for local school 
districts. And, finally, the States are required to implement 
corrective action pursuant to title I.
  Therefore, we believe it is redundant and unnecessary. At the 
appropriate time I will move to table.

[[Page 3541]]

  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has yielded back all 
the remainder of his time. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all let me say I very much 
hope that there will be strong support for this amendment I have 
introduced along with Senator Kennedy. If I could just make this 
request of my colleagues--and I will return to the letter from the 
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights in a moment--I don't know why in 
the world we don't just get away from the paper and the words, and why 
we do not accept an amendment that basically says we will do what we 
say we will do. What in the world can be the basis of the opposition to 
this amendment?
  This is an amendment that is strongly supported by the Leadership 
Conference on Civil Rights. This is an amendment that speaks to, 
really, their central fear about this legislation in its present form. 
This is an amendment that makes it crystal clear, once again, that the 
mission of title I, an important mission, which is the improvement of 
educational opportunities for poor children, will not be weakened.
  This is an amendment which says that when it comes to the core 
requirements of title I, when it comes to the essence of what this 
program is about, when it comes to the essence of accountability, no 
State will be allowed to exempt any school district from these core 
requirements.
  We want to make sure that, in every school district in this country, 
title I students will be taught by highly qualified professional staff. 
We want to make sure that schools are accountable for making 
substantial annual progress. We want to make sure that students, low-
income students and students with limited English proficiency, meet 
these standards. We want to make sure that schools provide timely and 
effective individual instruction for students who are farthest behind. 
We want to make sure there is specific language. This is the request of 
the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. This is the request of 
people who have given their lives to title I in this legislation, that 
we have specific language that makes it clear that no State will allow 
any school district to be exempt from these core requirements, the core 
components of title I.
  You say you want to do this but you don't want to support an 
amendment that makes it clear that we will do this. My question is, Why 
not? In all due respect, I may be the only vote against this 
legislation. I know I won't be the only vote for this amendment. I 
think there will be a strong vote for this amendment. But in all due 
respect, if you are not willing to support this amendment which goes to 
the core of accountability, then you are doing some serious damage to 
title I, to the title I mission. This piece of legislation will go too 
long a way towards abandoning a national commitment to poor children.
  Now, for the first time ever, we are saying it will be possible for a 
State to give a school district an exemption from the basic core 
requirements of title I--from the basic core requirements. And this 
amendment just asks you to support what it is you say you are for.
  If you want to go toward block grants, and if you want to go toward 
moving us away from this mission, and you want to go toward weakening 
accountability, then go ahead and vote to table this amendment. But I 
certainly hope a majority of Senators will not do so.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield for a question or yield 
time to my colleague.
  Mr. KENNEDY. What we are effectively doing under the existing 
proposal in Ed-Flex is focusing attention on needy children, but there 
are some specific guarantees under title I; for example, well-qualified 
teachers to ensure that we are going to seek the academic enhancement 
and achievement of the children. That is one example. There are a 
series of those. As I understand the Senator's amendment, without the 
Senator's amendment, they will be able to waive those as well.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is correct.
  Mr. KENNEDY. This really has nothing to do with paperwork at all. We 
have already decided that there are going to be other kinds of 
safeguards to make sure that the funding is focused in terms of the 
needy students, but there are some specific guarantees that have been 
written in there, the ones that I have said. The purpose of the 
Wellstone amendment is to give assurance that those particular 
guarantees will not be waived for the neediest children, as I 
understand it.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. My colleague from Massachusetts is absolutely correct, 
and I say to my colleague from Massachusetts, I will list these other 
core requirements. One of them has to do with title I students, that 
they be taught by highly qualified professional staff.
  Another one is that the LEAs hold schools accountable for making 
substantial annual progress toward getting all students, particularly 
low-income students and limited-English-proficient students, to meet 
the same high standards, and the requirement that schools provide 
timely and effective individual assistance for students who are 
farthest behind.
  I say to my colleague, the reason that the Leadership Conference on 
Civil Rights feels so strongly about this amendment and the reason my 
colleague from Massachusetts does, is we know this goes to the very 
mission of title I. Why in the world would we not want to have this 
accountability built into this legislation?
  Mr. KENNEDY. This is entirely different than what we talked about in 
the general Ed-Flex where we had requirements that, for example, you 
could have a studentwide utilization of resources if it was 50 percent 
poor, and then if it went down to 45, we said, OK; 40, maybe yes. Those 
were the general kinds of waivers. But the point that the Senator from 
Minnesota is trying to say is those specific criteria which have been 
found by educators who have really spent their lifetime focusing on the 
needs of the neediest children, such as qualified teachers and some 
commonsense protections, effectively could be waived if the Senator's 
amendment is not agreed to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota has 2 minutes 30 
seconds.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is 
absolutely correct, and this is why I speak with some indignation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for one more brief comment? I 
don't want to interrupt the thought line, but I have just been informed 
by the Administration that they support the Wellstone amendment and 
believe it is consistent with the Statement of Administration Policy. I 
ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement by the 
Administration in support of the Wellstone amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   Statement of Administration Policy


         s. 280--education flexibility partnership Act of 1999

       The Administration has long supported the concept of 
     expanding ed-flex demonstration authority to permit all 
     States to waive certain statutory and regulatory requirements 
     of Federal education programs in a manner that will promote 
     high standards and accountability for results, coupled with 
     increased flexibility for States and local school districts 
     to achieve those results. The Administration supports 
     amendments designed to: 1) ensure that State waivers of 
     Federal requirements result in improved student achievement; 
     and 2) enhance parental involvement.
       In order to ensure consistency between ed-flex authority 
     and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (ESEA), which will be undergoing reauthorization this year, 
     the Administration urges Congress to sunset this legislation 
     upon enactment of the ESEA.
       The Administration strongly supports an amendment that is 
     expected to be offered to S. 280 that would implement the 
     President's proposal for a long-term extension of the one-
     year authority to help school districts reduce class size in 
     the early grades, which the Congress approved last year on a 
     bipartisan basis. In order to hire qualified teachers, 
     arrange for additional classrooms, and

[[Page 3542]]

     take other steps that are necessary to reduce class size, 
     school districts need to know, as soon as possible, that the 
     Congress intends to support this initiative for more than one 
     year.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. President, this is not on the whole question of funds and, 
frankly, I have been worried about the dilution of funds. I have an 
amendment that will be accepted tonight that says schools with over 75 
percent low-income children have first priority to funds. And I say 
this to my colleague from Vermont, I really speak now with some sadness 
because he is going to move to table this because this goes to not 
technical issues, not formula, this goes to the very essence of what 
title I is about. This goes to the core requirements, the core mission, 
the core accountability, and you now have a piece of legislation that 
tosses that overboard.
  You are overturning 35 years of important history. You are 
overturning 35 years of history of a commitment on the part of our 
National Government to poor children in America. You are overturning 
the hard work of many women and men who have written a title I program 
with accountability that has really worked well for children. That is 
why the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights is so strongly in favor 
of this amendment.
  I hope my colleagues will vote against this motion to table this 
amendment. This is the central accountability amendment. If this 
amendment does not pass, we do not have the accountability that has 
been so important to the success of title I.
  I yield back the rest of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back on both sides.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and 
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Torricelli) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) is 
absent attending a family funeral.
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 30 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (HN)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Biden
     Byrd
     Torricelli
  The motion to lay on the table amendment No. 32 was agreed to.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The pending business is the 
substitute of the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. It is my understanding that two amendments would be in 
order, if offered--the Kennedy amendment and a Wellstone amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Those are the two 
pending amendments that will be agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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.


                  Amendment No. 33 to Amendment No. 31

 (Purpose: To prohibit waivers with respect to serving eligible school 
                    attendance areas in rank order)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 33 to amendment No. 31.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 15, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       (F) serving eligible school attendance areas in rank order 
     under section 1113(a)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965;

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment simply requires that 
schools with over a 75-percent low-income student population must 
receive funds first, as a matter of priority--first, in terms of the 
allocation of the title I money--and that those neediest schools with a 
population of low-income students over 75 percent would have first 
priority in receiving those funds.
  It is accepted by both sides. I thank my colleagues, Senator Kennedy, 
Senator Jeffords, Senator Wyden, and Senator Frist, as well.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. HAGEL. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the 
Senator from Minnesota.
  The amendment (No. 33) was agreed to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 34 to Amendment No. 31

   (Purpose: To ensure that increased flexibility leads to improved 
                          student achievement)

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself, 
     Mr. Reed, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Wellstone, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 34 to amendment No. 31.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 7, line 21, strike ``and'' after the semicolon.
       On page 7, line 24, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       On page 7, after line 24, insert the following:
       (v) a description of how the State educational agency will 
     evaluate (consistent with the requirements of title I of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965), the 
     performance of students in the schools and local educational 
     agencies affected by the waivers.
       On page 9, line 22, strike ``which may include progress 
     toward'' increased school and student performance.
       On page 11, line 17, insert ``in accordance with the 
     evaluation requirement described in paragraph (3)(A)(v),'' 
     before ``and shall''.
       On page 12, line 14, before the period insert ``, and has 
     improved student performance''.

[[Page 3543]]

       On page 16, line 9, insert ``and goals'' after ``desired 
     results''.
       On page 16, lines 10 and 11, strike ``subsection 
     (a)(4)(A)(ii)'' and insert ``clauses (ii) and (iii) of 
     subsection (a)(4)(A), respectively''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just take a moment of the Senate's 
time. We had a good opportunity during the course of the afternoon to 
talk about the student performance. We have worked out language which I 
think responds certainly to my concerns and, hopefully, is consistent 
with what Senator Frist and Senator Jeffords were doing. Now the States 
will be able to receive Ed-Flex, but they will also--in the 
application, there will be an indication about what their expectation 
in the State is in terms of the students' performance, consistent with 
what the overall State plan is to enhance academic achievement. It also 
will take in student performance after 5 years, should there be the 
request for the continuation of this legislation.
  I thank my colleagues and friends. I think we really have the best of 
all worlds here. I am grateful to Senator Jeffords and Senator Frist 
for working this through.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I think the amendment is a helpful 
addition to the bill. We appreciate the efforts of Senator Kennedy and 
are happy to accept it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The amendment (No. 34) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, under the Wellstone and Kennedy amendments, 
would Michigan be able to continue their current Ed-Flex authority?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, Michigan would be able to continue its current Ed-
Flex plans.
  Mr. LEVIN. In January, 1998, Michigan moved to lower the poverty 
threshold statewide from the 50 percent poverty level in title I to 35 
percent. Would either the Wellstone or Kennedy amendment prohibit 
Michigan from continuing to allow these waivers under Ed-Flex that is 
improving reform in the affected schools?
  Mr. KENNEDY. No.
  Mr. President, we have made some progress today. We are looking 
forward to having some debate on the Bingaman amendments tomorrow, 
followed by my friend and colleague, Senator Kerry. We will indicate to 
the membership that we will tentatively get started sometime around 11, 
and we will let the floor managers know at least in what order we will 
want to offer our amendments.
  Obviously, they have their own rights. But we will try to keep them 
as fully informed as possible so that we can all be as prepared on 
these amendments as possible.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend and Senator from 
Massachusetts. I deeply appreciate the cooperation we have had today. 
We moved along well. We are well on our way. I look forward to seeing 
the wonderful cooperation that we will have as we proceed on this bill. 
I look forward to seeing you all again in the morning.

                          ____________________