[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4099-4120]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) 
offering this amendment, and I rise in strong support. This amendment 
seeks to strengthen the efficiencies in the Ed-Flex program identified 
in a November General Accounting Office Report. This report of the GAO 
said that the ability of the existing Ed-Flex program to enforce 
accountability is suspect. GAO said that the States are not setting 
required goals for increased student achievement and little is known 
about the actual impact of waivers.
  Part of the rationale for the enactment of this demonstration program 
in 1994, and it was 1994, Mr. Chairman, when I was still chairman of 
the subcommittee; part of the rationale for the enactment was that we 
will be able to gauge the impact of waivers on student achievement. 
This is not presently possible. The Miller-Kildee amendment, 
accountability amendment, seeks to address these issues.
  Very simply, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require States who 
wish to participate in Ed-Flex to have the system of standards and 
aligned assessments as required in Title I in place. This amendment 
will mean that States participating in Ed-Flex will be able to 
accurately measure student performance and also produce disaggregated 
results based on categories of at-risk student populations. Without 
this type of information in place, we will not be able to accurately 
measure whether the student achievement is going up over time and 
particularly how it is going up with particular groups for whom this 
bill has been targeted in the rest of ESEA.
  Our taxpayers who are the investors in education in this country want 
to know and have their right to know how their money is being used and 
whether that money is being used successfully. I think we have an 
obligation in spending those dollars that we require that assessment 
make sure that that money is being spent effectively. I urge all our 
Members to adopt this amendment. This amendment to my mind is such a 
perfecting amendment, my colleagues will not only gain power in this 
bill for education, but we will find a real bipartisan bill emerging 
from this House.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

  Mr. Chairman, I rise, and I guess I rise reluctantly, to oppose this 
amendment, but in a sense of the bill we are dealing with I cannot be 
that reluctant. The concept of putting all of these things in place; 
that is, content standards and performance standards and assessments 
that are aligned with the performance standards is clearly the way we 
are supposed to go in this country. I have absolutely no doubts about 
that whatsoever, and I think we should do it, just as there are other 
things are being discussed on this floor today about which I also feel 
good that we should be doing. The question is what should we be doing 
in the education flexibility bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know how many people listen to the chairman, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and, as my colleagues 
know, if somebody can repudiate this, hopefully not on my time, but on 
their time, I would welcome them to do it. But it is my understanding 
that when we are talking about the final assessments, that there is not 
one State in the United States at the present time which has its final 
assessments in and approved by the Secretary. I do understand that the 
chief State school officers say that there are 17 that are ready to go 
and they just have not submitted them. Fine. That leaves 33 who are not 
there, and only 21 States have their performance standards done.
  Why? The reason is that in the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act, where this would be a very applicable amendment, in that 
particular act they do not have to have this completed until the school 
year 2000-2001, and yet we are taking this education flexibility bill 
in which we are trying to get States the ability to work with the local 
school districts to get around some of the Federal bureaucratic things 
that we have done, and we are getting an amendment like this, which is 
all of a sudden taking an incredibly overwhelming, almost crushing 
responsibility of getting these ready a couple years in advance or they 
will not be eligible for education flexibility.
  That is a mistake. I mean there is nothing wrong with the amendment. 
There is nothing wrong with the intent of the amendment. There is 
nothing wrong with any of the positions that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) or anybody else has taken here today. 
But it is very wrong to even think about attaching this particular 
amendment to this bill though it is my hope that maybe the statement 
has been made and this particular amendment can be withdrawn because it 
just is so ill fitting with the legislation before us.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, we have put a great deal of accountability in this 
bill to the extent that we can. There must be annual reports submitted 
to Congress. The Secretary has to approve State applications. The 
Secretary conducts performance reviews of State performance. We have 
done it at the State level. They must have specific and measurable 
performance goals required to monitor local waiver recipients annually 
and hold them accountable for performance. We must provide public 
notice and opportunity for comment when waivers are approved. We must 
submit an annual report to the Secretary and States must submit an 
annual report to the Secretary that summarize the student performance 
and types of waivers granted and that at the local level local 
applicants must send specific and measurable performance goals as part 
of an overall reform effort. They must track the performance of schools 
and groups of students affected by waivers, and waivers are

[[Page 4100]]

subject to termination, the performance declines, against objectives 
for 2 consecutive years.
  Why did we put that into this particular bill? Because in the GAO 
report they said there has to be more accountability and more 
assessment, and so we have started that process here. But we do not 
leapfrog over to the demands which are in the gentleman from 
California's amendment which are final assessments which simply are 
ready and are going to cut most States out of Ed-Flex.
  This is a killer amendment of killer amendments, as far as I can 
ascertain, and again I honestly ask somebody to try to rebut what I am 
saying, if they are able to do that at some point in this discussion. 
But I thing we are making a mistake even considering this amendment. We 
are close to the universal agreement that this is a good bill. The only 
question is what amendments are we going to adopt. This is not one that 
we should adopt.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing 
forward this bill along with my colleague from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). I 
think it is a good bill and one that I am very pleased that we have on 
the House floor today. I unfortunately have to join the gentleman in 
rising in opposition to this amendment because I do think it would gut 
the primary benefit that we receive from this bill, which is 
essentially to extend to 38 States the possibility to be able to 
participate in this waiver program that addresses the one problem that 
I hear over and over and over again when I talk to educators in my home 
State of Indiana. They tell me that they cannot focus 100 percent of 
their time on teaching their children and developing policies and 
curriculums that will make our schools the best in the world because 
they have to worry about rules, and regulations, and paperwork, and 
policies coming out of Washington that do not always make sense for 
their school.
  One of my wife's best friends, a young teacher named Brenda Wilson, 
teaches in the gifted and talented program in Pendleton Schools, and 
she told me they thought about abolishing gifted and talented programs 
because they could not fit it into their budget priorities when they 
met all of the different requirements in the federal programs, and that 
would be a sad day if that happened.
  So I rise in strong support of this bill and would urge my colleagues 
to vote no on the amendment.
  H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act, is our first 
opportunity this Congress has to reform our nation's troubled education 
system.
  It is bipartisan legislation that the Education Committee passed by a 
vote of 33 to 9.
  ED-FLEX is a step in the right direction for families who are 
concerned about the education of their children.
  Why are families concerned? Because they worry, as you and I do, 
about poor reading skills--whether their child is reading at grade 
level and failing math and other test scores. And they care, like so 
many of us in this body, about the values their community holds dear 
and wishes to pass on to the next generation through education.
  Why can't states fix these problems today? One of the reasons is that 
states have been saddled with prescriptive, top-down, Washington-knows-
best approach to education that stifles local common sense and 
excellence.
  H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act, satisfies many 
of the problems families are concerned about. Specifically, H.R. 800 
allows parents to have greater input and local education agencies more 
control over the education priorities that matter to them. Twelve 
states have been eligible for this, but currently, Indiana does not 
have the freedom to use federal categorical aid on how they wish to 
support locally-designed, comprehensive school improvement efforts. 
They are one of the 38 who need this bill. This bill makes all 50 
states eligible for greater State and local flexibility in using some 
federal education funds. It allows waivers from federal mandates, 
regulations, and requirements that rob local education agencies of 
their ability to solve the problems they see every day.
  The complaint I hear from teachers and school administrators in my 
district over and over again is that federal mandates get in the way of 
school's ability to serve their students in the most effective way 
possible. Ed-Flex would address these concerns by allowing states and 
local school districts greater flexibility in using federal education 
funds in exchange for greater accountability.
  National test scores place Indiana 44th out of 50 states on the SAT, 
and 40 to 60% of Hoosier high school students are failing basic math 
and English on the ISTEP tests we have in Indiana.
  Because of this, people in my district want relief from the federal 
mandates that have a stranglehold on education in Indiana. I have 
discussed this legislation with teachers, administrators and parents on 
my Education Advisory Committee, and they support this bill.
  They support it because, even in our most rural communities, 
different schools have different needs. Our teachers and administrators 
are full of ideas about how to improve education programs and how to 
best serve their students, but in many cases they cannot because of 
bureaucratic requirements. This bill will give them the flexibility to 
act on these ideas.
  Can we do better? Should we allow states the chance to do better? 
Should we give parents more opportunity to help their kids learn?
  Of course we should!
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote for passage of H.R. 800, the 
Education Flexibility Partnership Act, and give families more control 
to improve the education of their children.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kildee-Miller amendment and I 
rise as a supporter of the underlying bill because I believe that the 
Kildee-Miller amendment significantly strengthens the underlying bill.
  The underlying bill here is one in which we say to States and 
localities that if they truly believe that they have a more creative 
and powerful way to achieve the goals set forth in various Federal 
education initiatives, then try them; if they can do better than the 
orthodox way of doing things, then we applaud them and support them.
  Implicit in that proposition is a measurement of whether the States 
and localities are, in fact, doing better by trying the flexible 
approach. I know that the words are in this bill that would measure 
whether the States and localities are doing better, but as the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) said earlier today, 
educational bureaucrats in particular are masters at spinning words 
about what they are doing. They are not always so good about providing 
measurements.
  I would submit that it would be technically within the definition of 
a meaningful evaluation under the statute if the chief school officer 
of a State submitted the following annual report about his or her 
waiver schools: We have spoken to every teacher in every school 
district and assessed their evaluation of the success of our waiver 
program. Each of those teachers has reported to us that each of their 
students is doing better than they were before in reading, language, 
arts and math. That is a specific measurable evaluation of how well the 
schools are doing. It is also utterly worthless, because it does not 
measure.
  It makes four mistakes. It permits words rather than numbers. We need 
measurable, quantitative measures to figure out whether students are 
doing better under the waivers. It permits us to talk about States and 
not localities within those States. An aggregate State average may well 
show improvement but it would mask continuing deficiencies in districts 
with special challenges and communities with special needs.
  It permits States to talk about groups of students without 
disaggregating or breaking out particular subcategories of students who 
have particular barriers of discrimination, of poverty of other reasons 
that they may not perform as well their peers.
  Finally, it lets States report on process rather than result. We had 
64 seminars last year; we sent out 321 bulletins; we had 5,422 
meetings. That is all data. It is performance data. It can be 
characterized as that, but it tells us nothing about whether these 
students are performing better than they were under the regular 
orthodox programs.

[[Page 4101]]

  The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) are putting the school districts to the test 
and saying if they think they can do better, we will give them that 
opportunity with our money, with Federal money, but prove it; prove 
that they are doing better. Give us numbers, not words. Break it down 
by school districts, not in the aggregate State level. Tell us about 
groups of students, African American students, poor students, Hispanic 
students, female students, others that may have particular problems.
  It requires States to talk about results, not processes.
  If we are investing in a company and the chief financial officer of 
the company says we had a great year, we had six meetings of the board 
of directors, we added 12,000 new employees, we had a lot of new work 
on our employee manual this year, but does not tell us how much money 
they made, what their sales were, we would not invest in that company. 
This Ed-Flex bill, without the Miller-Kildee amendment, is an 
invitation for educational bureaucrats to blather us to death.
  The Miller amendment says put your results where the money is. It 
will strengthen the Ed-Flex concept. It should be adopted because it 
demands those at the local level to give their very best to the 
children who depend on them.
  This is a good bill that could be made much better with the adoption 
of the Miller-Kildee amendment. I urge both Republican and Democratic 
supporters of the bill to support this amendment as well.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that Ed-Flex is wonderful for Wisconsin, my 
home State, and for our country. Unfortunately, this amendment is anti-
flexibility. As proponents of this amendment discuss, it demands local 
control, it demands our local school board members, our local 
educators, do what they do in Texas.
  The law of Texas is great for Texas but the law of Wisconsin should 
be better for Wisconsin. I believe that we have to go down the road of 
having more flexibility for our local schools.
  As I have talked to parents, school board members, educators and our 
superintendents, I ask them time and time again, what is it that we can 
do in Congress to help them educate our children best? They tell me the 
same thing: Cut the red tape. Give us the freedom to do what we know 
works best.
  I was written by a constituent of mine, a guy named John Bechler, who 
is a very active member in our Kenosha School District. He is on the 
Kenosha Unified School District board, and I would like to quote a few 
things from the letter from Mr. Bechler, our school board member. He 
said, ``Did the Federal Government ever ask school districts what they 
needed most or did they just assume one approach fits all?''
  The answer is no. They assumed that one approach fits all. I am 
concerned that even today Members from other States are attempting to 
dictate education policy for my district's public schools. This 
amendment seeks to dictate education policy from other States on to our 
local public schools.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot have bureaucrats in Washington or in other 
parts of the country blindly deciding that programs that work in Los 
Angeles or Detroit or even in Texas must also work in southern 
Wisconsin. This is simply not true.
  John Bechler and his fellow school board members all across this 
country should be asked, what works? We should then let them make the 
decisions, and this very important piece of legislation begins the 
process of returning decision-making power to the local level.
  John concluded in his letter to me saying that I would hope the 
Federal Government would allocate the education funds to the local 
school districts and allow the local school boards to determine what is 
the best use of funds to achieve quality education.
  I could not agree more. Mr. Chairman, this is what educators 
throughout my district are saying. They are saying enough of the 
cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all public relation driven education 
policies. This legislation gets us toward the movement of giving more 
flexibility to our local school districts.
  This amendment is anti-flexibility. I applaud the efforts of the 
members of the committee to produce the amendment, but it does go 
against the grain. We need more local control. I believe that the 
educators in our local school districts know best how to solve the 
problems in our local school districts. After all, they are there on 
the front lines of the fight, improving our education standards.
  I believe we should vote against this amendment and vote for the Ed-
Flex bill. It is a move in the right direction.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to applaud the authors of the amendment, who I 
deeply respect, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and also to applaud their 
amendment.
  I think that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and I already 
have much of what they are requiring in their amendment in our bill. I 
do not know how many times it has to be said, and then say it again, 
about assessments or measurement or accountability or termination, if 
it does not work. We do not need to get into the bureaucratic and 
legislative babble and blather that the people here are talking about 
not wanting to repeat. We do not want to get into that.
  I applaud the authors of the amendment for the following reasons, 
because they are concerned with what we try to get at and is the very 
heart and soul of this legislation, and that is the nexus between 
increased flexibility and reliable accountability. We do not want to do 
that with new paperwork. We do not want to do that with handcuffing our 
local parents and teachers. We do not want to do that with more 
mandates coming from Washington. We want to do it by one rope of 
accountability to student achievement, and we want to be able to 
measure that student achievement.
  Let me point out, first of all, before I get into some of their 
arguments, the legislation of myself and the gentleman from Delaware 
(Mr. Castle) is tougher than current law. We incorporate some of the 
recommendations from the GAO on eligibility, where we have changed to 
have this tougher eligibility from Goals 2000 to now Title I 
eligibility. We have tougher assessment tools than current law and we 
adopted tougher language in our committee on termination.
  We do not want to go so far, Mr. Chairman, as to rip out the very 
flexibility that we are trying to extend to our States.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) talk about reliability assessments, and I 
agree with that. We need to have reliable assessments. On page 6 of the 
Castle-Roemer legislation, we talk about assessments, and I quote on 
lines 12 through line 19, developed and implemented content standards 
and interim assessments and made substantial progress, as determined by 
the Secretary, toward developing and implementing performance standards 
and final aligned assessments, and it goes on.
  They talk in their amendment about being able to measure and get 
results on disaggregated data.
  On page 10 of our bill, Mr. Chairman, we specifically talk about 
measuring. My good friend from New Jersey was talking about measuring 
these things, and we say on page 10, the State's objectives are, one, 
specific and measurable; two, measure, again measure, the performance 
of local educational agencies or schools and specific groups of 
students affected by waivers.
  That is the disaggregated data. Those are the specific, different 
economic, racial, various groups of students that are going to be 
affected by this legislation and potentially by a waiver. We asked to 
have that measure.
  Thirdly, we get at, on page 13, the termination; that after 2 years 
if you

[[Page 4102]]

have significantly declining scores one is terminated from the program 
and one has to reapply for a waiver.
  Those are tough accountability standards, tougher than what we have 
in current law, but we do not want to overreach, Mr. Chairman. We do 
not want to take away the very flexibility that we are extending to the 
States when we say we want to give you added flexibility and we are 
going to hold you accountable to those students doing better in their 
classrooms.
  I come back to the example of Maryland that I talked about in my 
opening statements. When they had that waiver authority for success for 
all, reading for all, schoolwide reform programs, scores went up in 
Kent County schools in Maryland. African-American scores went up in 
those schools.
  So I think that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and I have 
really tried to craft this delicate nexus, this delicate and sensitive 
balance, between accountability for taxpayer dollars and increased 
flexibility to our States, and while I applaud the authors of the 
amendment, I would encourage us to stay with the underlying legislation 
and support this bipartisan bill.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, exactly 3 weeks ago tomorrow, I presided over my last 
board of education meeting as chairman of the State Board of Education 
of Georgia, so probably from a contemporary standpoint I am closest to 
the effects of this legislation and the proposed amendment than anyone.
  I do oppose the amendment, but I oppose it because I think the 
previous speaker, the coauthors, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), have done an 
outstanding job of ensuring that there is accountability without 
ensuring that the babble that was referred to that went from the local 
systems up does not also come from the Federal Government down.
  In the final amendment that the committee adopted in the legislation, 
which was referred to by the previous speaker, there is the greatest 
accountability of all. That accountability is that if a system for two 
successive years is declining, their waiver is withdrawn.

                              {time}  1615

  Now, I understand school people about as well as anybody else. We 
spend $5 billion State dollars a year in Georgia, and we appropriate it 
to local systems. I got appointed to the State Board of Education in a 
unique circumstance. The governor fired the entire board that he had 
appointed about 2 years prior to my service here. He did because they 
were fighting, they were raising accountability, they were 
micromanaging schools, and Georgia was hurting and Georgia was 
declining.
  When he put in a new board, he asked us to do the following. He said, 
give them the chance to succeed or fail, just make sure if they fail, 
you take away the latitude that you have given them.
  This legislation does not just require a waiver of Federal rules, it 
requires a waiver of State rules as well. No waiver can be granted from 
the Federal level if it is also granted at the State level. And if we 
understand how local boards of education work or how the system works, 
what in fact happens is a local board of education has to first approve 
the request before it goes to the State Board of Education and before 
the Federal Government approves it. Now, that is a lot of 
accountability. It is a lot of accountability for the merits of the 
request and the intent.
  The last point I want to make is not that I am opposed to 
accountability by any measure; I am not. But I think the authors have 
ensured and the committee ensured that it was there.
  I want to just for a second close with why flexibility is so 
important. Children are taught in classrooms by teachers, not by 
Congressmen, not by boards of education, not by State boards of 
education. Our children are uniquely different from Montana to Georgia, 
from California to Michigan. In the programs affected by this 
legislation from Title I to technology, there are differences as broad 
in my State from one end to the other as there are in your State to my 
State. We are opening the door, I think, to a great opportunity, and 
that is to challenge our States to do better and say we trust them, and 
if they fail, we will pull it away. There is no greater accountability, 
and there is no more greater testimony to where education really takes 
place than to grant flexibility back to where it all begins: in the 
classroom where a teacher deals with one child at a time, trying to 
build the future of our country through an improved education.
  I urge the adoption of this bill, but not the adoption of this 
amendment. The authors have put in the accountability. The flexibility 
our systems need will bring about the progress all of us hope for.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller-Kildee 
amendment.
  One thing should be very clear in this debate. Flexibility is not an 
end, it is a means to an end. I think some of my colleagues get so 
wrapped up in the notion of flexibility that they think that that is 
really the problem.
  The problem is educational attainment. We got into this business 
because in the recent international tests, we found American students 
scoring below the international average, and we said we need to get 
serious about improving educational performance by all American 
students.
  We are prepared to spend $50 billion over the next 5 years to address 
this problem. But the issue is not just flexibility, the issue is also 
accountability. How can we assure that the money we spend actually 
results in improved performance?
  Now, I am from one of the 12 States that had this experiment. I am 
from Maryland, and Maryland officials, the Superintendent of Schools 
for the State of Maryland supports the Miller-Kildee amendment, because 
we understand that we must have stringent accountability. Not just 
accountability in name, and not just accountability in rhetoric, but 
accountability with real teeth. There are several things that need to 
happen. There needs to be some specific assessment, goals and 
assessment vehicles. We use a set of tests in the third, fifth and 
eighth grade to accomplish this objective.
  Now, I hear my colleagues saying, well, each State is different. That 
is true. We do not tell the State how to do it; what we tell the State 
is, you present us with a plan, your plan, for how you want to achieve 
these results, and I emphasize results. What are going to be your 
goals, and what are going to be your mechanisms.
  Now, some people say, well, we can pull the plug in 2 years. Well, 
that could be 2 years of wasted money if we do not have stringent 
assessment tools, goals and mechanisms on the front end, and that is 
simply all the Miller amendment is saying, is that we need to be 
serious about accountability, because we are spending the taxpayers' 
dollars, not just for some elusive goal of flexibility, but for some 
real, tangible performance results.
  Second, the Miller-Kildee amendment says that when we spend this 
money, it has to benefit all students, not just some students, or not 
just the overall aggregate. We need to know what black students are 
doing, what Hispanic students are doing, what poor students are doing, 
what female students are doing. It specifically says, you must 
aggregate your data so that even if your State is making progress, we 
want to see how female students are doing in math and science, we want 
to see how Latino students are doing in specific subject matters; are 
African-American students learning to read with the money the Federal 
Government is spending.
  So this is not an outrageous or an intrusive amendment. It is a 
perfecting amendment that takes the concept of flexibility, which I 
support, and says, we need to get serious about flexibility.
  I believe the Miller-Kildee amendment addresses these concerns in an 
effective, nondestructive way and I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.

[[Page 4103]]

  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the 
chairman of the committee.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I would repeat one more time that if this 
amendment had been part of the Goals 2000 legislation, Maryland would 
not have been eligible to participate.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is about flexibility. We have had 40 years of 
bureaucratic control and union control of education. We are number 20, 
20th in the world, for math and science. We are a Nation with the 
resources, more Ph.D.s, more technology, better technology than any 
other country in the world, but yet we are falling behind. We want to 
give the States and the local school districts the flexibility, not to 
tie them down.
  When we talk about accountability, in the crux of this whole debate, 
the gentlewoman a minute ago said, we need to control how the dollars 
are spent. That is the whole issue. And their statement is, that they 
do not trust the States to account for the students that my colleague 
just talked about a minute ago. We do trust the States. We do trust the 
school districts. Because if anyone knows about an African-American 
student or a Hispanic student or young women or young men, it is the 
local teachers, the administrators, the community that knows, not a 
bureaucrat sitting here in Washington, D.C. And this is the heart of 
the debate: when we talk about accountability, look at why most of us 
fought against Goals 2000 when many on that side of the aisle tried to 
put government regulations in a well-meaning bill that was crafted 
before.
  There were 24 ``wills'' in Goals 2000. It means to comply under legal 
language, and a special board in each school district had to look at 
the local Goals 2000 plan. It had to go to the superintendent. The 
superintendent had to send it back to the board. The board then sent it 
to Sacramento where there was a big bureaucracy. That big bureaucracy 
had to send that bill to Washington D.C. to the Department of 
Education. The bureaucracy there had the paperwork going back and 
forth, and that costs a lot of money and ties people up. And that means 
more wasteful government control in the name of ``accountability.'' By 
contrast, we on this side of the aisle, just said, let us send the 
money to the States. Let them do a Goals 2000, without all of that 
paperwork, without all of that government control. Big difference, I 
say to my colleagues.
  Look at charter schools. The NEA fought tooth and nail against 
charter schools, which are an attempt to take off many of the 
burdensome regulations. Charter schools have been a big success. Look 
in Washington, D.C. We fully funded charter schools, we fully funded 
the public education system. We got another superintendent that wanted 
to make change, Arlene Ackerman. And guess what? We had 20,000 students 
beg to come to summer school in one of the worst school districts in 
the United States, because they wanted to learn, not because they had 
to, because we are trying to improve flexibility.
  But let us look at other controls. We on this side of the aisle 
wanted to give flexibility to the States and in this case, Washington, 
D.C., under the President's goal to have more school construction. The 
gentleman and I talked about this the other night. If we want to give 
the State flexibility, let them waive Davis-Bacon, which costs 30 to 35 
percent more for school construction. Let the unions compete with 
private contractors, and let the schools save the 30 percent for other 
construction or to upgrade their schools. But no, there are some here 
that want the union control, the government control. That's wrong. That 
is why we are opposed to this amendment. That is why we are opposed to 
all of these amendments. We want the flexibility to go forward with it.
  I have 3 school board members that came to me along with 3 
superintendents. They went to school for 8 days to see if they are in 
compliance just with the Federal regulations, not even the State 
regulations. They are going to get audited. Five phone books of 
regulations. They had to hire a lawyer. It costs $130,000 to see if 
they are in compliance. That is what we are trying to get rid of, I say 
to my colleagues. We want the schools to be able to have the 
flexibility to do it better.
  Look at Alan Bersin, a Clinton appointee, now Superintendent of San 
Diego City Schools. I am going to help Alan Bersin because he is 
sitting in there trying to clean up San Diego city schools. Look at 
Gray Davis, the new governor of California. He is trying to identify 
the schools that are not working within California. He has a big job, 
but I am going to do everything I can to help Gray Davis. But Federal 
regulations and the unions are trying to stop him. He wants to support 
the principals, make them the captain of their ship, so that they can 
fire or get rid of people that they do not think are performing. But do 
my colleagues know who is stopping that? Federal regulations and 
bureaucracy.
  Alan Bersin said, his number one problem is special education because 
of the regulations that are killing the schools. Trial lawyers are 
ripping off the money, just like they did in the Superfund, and he 
cannot change it. He is having a difficult time, and we need to help 
him.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Cunningham was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, men like Gray Davis, our new governor, 
and Alan Bersin in San Diego, are trying to do the right things and get 
through the bureaucracy and get more flexibility into the school 
system. We need to support them.
  I heard the word ``bipartisan.'' The President will sign this bill as 
it is, and the saying is, ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Because 
by ``fixing it,'' in the way some on the other side want, we are going 
to increase the Federal regulations in the name of ``accountability.'' 
We do not want to do that. We want to help these kids. Let us go 
forward and let us do a good job.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I think the gentleman who has just spoken and all of the people in 
this room will agree with me that at least 90 percent, or more than 90 
percent of the funds we use to run our public schools with are State 
and local controlled. We are talking about less than 10 percent of the 
total funds. We are talking about flexibility on less than 10 percent 
of what we use to run our schools with, and if we have 10 percent of 
the funding by the Federal Government, it means the Federal Government 
only has about 10 percent of the control, if there is any control at 
all.
  So the American people should understand that the whole flexibility 
argument is based on a phoney hypothesis. Our schools are in bad 
trouble, bad shape. We are 20th in the international arena because the 
States and the localities have not done a good job, and the Federal 
Government wants to participate. They only want to participate. They 
are not willing to put up even 10 percent. It is less than 10 percent 
participation. What we are talking about here is an attempt to destroy 
the Federal Government's role totally. We are back to where we were in 
1995 with a call to abolish the Department of Education. It is just 
another approach. It is a more sanitized approach to destroying the 
Federal role in education.
  The New York Times today has said what I said in the committee. They 
said it in much more succinct terms. The wise thing to do, this is an 
editorial of March 10, today, the wise thing to do would be to put Ed-
Flex aside until later in the session when Congress reauthorizes the 
entire elementary and secondary education act.
  What we are doing here is stampeding. Education, there is an 
emergency in America on education. It deserves a serious response from 
Congress. What we are doing here is not a serious response. This is a 
stampede to push us into a political posture. We want to open the door 
for block grants. That is what we are doing today.

                              {time}  1630

  It is trivializing the legislative process, because we have on our 
agenda for

[[Page 4104]]

this year the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act of 1965. That is on our agenda. Why can we not wait, as the New 
York Times says we should, and I agree? Why can we not wait?
  The New York Times editorial also says, ``The Ed-Flex expansion being 
debated in Congress would extend waivers even to States that have no 
intention of innovation and no means in place of evaluating what they 
do.'' Correct.
  The New York Times starts its editorial with the following: ``The 
achievement gap between affluent and disadvantaged children is a 
challenge to American education and a threat to national prosperity. 
Unfortunately, a bipartisan bill that is scheduled for debate and a 
vote today in Congress could widen that gap by allowing states to use 
Federal dollars targeted at the poorest students for other educational 
purposes. The so-called Ed-Flex proposal could damage the poorest 
districts, which have traditionally been underfinanced by the states 
and cities even though they bear the burden of teaching the least 
prepared students.''
  Why did the Federal Government get involved in education? Lyndon 
Johnson, what was his argument when he started the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965? That we would help the poorest 
students in the poorest districts.
  What Ed-Flex does is provide money for greedy Governors who have 
shown by the way they have handled the welfare reform money that they 
do not intend to spend money for exactly what it is intended for, they 
want to have the freedom to use it in various ways that do not 
necessarily focus on the poorest people for which the funds are 
intended.
  We have a continuation of an effort to destroy the Federal 
partnership. The Federal Government only wants a role. We want to make 
certain that the national security, the national interests, are 
protected by having the most educated populace we can have.
  What the majority in this Congress is seeking to do is what they 
sought to do in 1995, get rid of the Federal influence. It is only a 
tiny influence. The American people should understand that we are 
talking about less than 10 percent funding, less than 10 percent 
control. The States and the local governments are in control, and they 
have all that flexibility with the 90 percent of the funding that they 
put up. They have maximum flexibility.
  With all that flexibility, they have not been able to keep up with 
the demands for modern education. The Federal Government needs to be 
involved because education is our primary means of guaranteeing the 
national security. We have a Navy which floated an aircraft carrier, 
and could not find enough personnel to run the high-tech carrier 
because they were not available. We need an educated population. We 
cannot leave it up to the States. They have not done a good job. The 
States should at least be willing to partner with the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind everyone that the 
law says that at the local level, they will use the money for the most 
educationally disadvantaged youngsters.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the 
amendment. I move against this amendment, I am in opposition to it and 
I vigorously want to oppose it, not because I doubt the sincerity or 
intent of the message. My good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Major Owens) has spoken very eloquently about his beliefs.
  But I would simply ask that Members not confuse the idea of 
accountability with Federal mandates and government control. The 
Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 provides our teachers and 
our local school systems the things that they need, that flexibility 
within accountability to provide the education.
  As I travel through my districts in North Carolina, and I have to be 
careful not to go back through my own career in public education, which 
was delightful, so delightful I probably did not achieve as high marks 
as I should, but I remember those principals and those teachers that 
worked from morning until night to give me the chance to learn about 
math, about science.
  I think of Jessie Blackwelder in Concord, who took over a school that 
was suffering real problems. She got on the phone and called me up. She 
said, get a couple of dump trucks over here. We need to clean this 
place up. She started calling parents. She said, we need books. We need 
help. We need new desks. We need you over here. We need local support. 
We need those of you who know this community and these students to pour 
out your heart and soul into our education system.
  What keeps this from happening so many times is the Federal 
Government, with more mandates shutting down this creativity, shutting 
down this support, this enthusiasm, this involvement between parents, 
teachers, grandparents, school boards, and those that are empowered and 
entrusted.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman give us one example of 
what he means by the Federal Government interfering with one's ability 
to be flexible with parents and run the schools?
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, it has been my experience as a legislator in 
North Carolina, and one who has run Statewide, that each time I move 
into a district, regardless of whether it is the east or west, time and 
time again a Federal mandate for paperwork, to make it in the simplest 
terms, takes away from that classroom teacher's time that she could be 
spending with her children to fill out forms and endless paperwork. 
This is one of the clearest examples.
  Mr. OWENS. I would ask the gentleman, classroom teachers do 
paperwork?
  Mr. HAYES. Yes, sir.
  Mr. OWENS. Classroom teachers do the paperwork for the grants?
  Mr. HAYES. Classroom teachers, superintendents, principals. It is 
just too much of their time that is spent meeting Federal requirements 
which are not productive, and I think this bill does a fabulous job of 
giving them their time back to spend it in their classrooms with the 
children.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it 
is not a question of flexibility, it is a question that we need more 
paperwork reduction.
  Mr. HAYES. I have lost the gentleman's train of thought, but I 
appreciate the gentleman rising to talk about that.
  Mr. Chairman, my point is that accountability flows from local 
involvement. Accountability comes from parents and teachers and school 
boards being involved. It does not come from the Federal Government 
imposing itself upon our local education system.
  Again, I oppose this amendment. I vigorously support the Education 
Flexibility partnership. It is a commonsense proposal that will help 
stop the one-size-fits-all mentality that comes from Washington and the 
Federal Government. The bill addresses the basic fact that what works 
in New York City unfortunately does not always work in Rockingham, 
North Carolina.
  Our Nation's future rests on the quality of education that our 
children receive. There is nothing we can do in this Congress that is 
more important than ensuring the quality of education in our public 
school system.
  Mr. Chairman, I have spent a lot of time listening to parents and 
teachers in the Eighth District of North Carolina. What I have learned 
from these conversations is that the best new ideas and innovations 
come from the districts, and not from Washington. Unfortunately, it is 
the Washington bureaucracy that stifles the creativity at the local 
level.
  Mr. Chairman, we have before us today a bill that helps cut the 
Federal red tape which hinders excellence in public education. This 
amendment works against the Ed-Flex bill, requiring more Federal 
mandates for local education.

[[Page 4105]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Hayes) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Goodling, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hayes was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, the American people know that Republicans 
and Democrats have some differences on the issue. They accept that. But 
what they do not understand is why we do not move forward on the issues 
when we do agree.
  The Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 has the support and 
the endorsement of all 50 Governors, Republicans and Democrats alike, 
from all areas of the Nation. Mr. Chairman, it is time we passed this 
bill. It was intended to empower the people who are the true innovators 
in public education, our local folks, our parents, our teachers.
  Do not let those who are opposed to this flexibility speak out and 
hurt this great bill. Join me in a strong vote of confidence for our 
parents and teachers. Support the Education Flexibility Partnership Act 
of 1999 and oppose this amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman wanted to tell his 
friend, the gentleman from New York City (Mr. Owens) that the great 
mandate that the gentleman really wants to tell him about, which is a 
100 percent mandate, which destroys his school district from hiring new 
teachers, destroys his school district from reducing class size, 
destroys his school district from building new buildings, destroys his 
school district from maintaining the existing buildings, is the 100 
percent mandate from Washington, D.C. called, called ``special 
education.''
  That is the mandate that the gentleman wants to tell the gentleman 
from New York City about, because oh, my, if he got that 40 percent of 
excess costs, he could do anything under the sun in his district. He 
would get millions of dollars. He would get $1 billion or more every 
year. That is all he needs.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I just did not want to be that hard on my 
good friend, the gentleman from New York.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, during the course of this debate I have wondered 
exactly where I was; whether we were really debating the reality.
  I rise in support of the Miller-Kildee amendment. I believe it 
strengthens the basic legislation. I do not feel enacting H.R. 800 is 
necessary, but I believe that the Congress is probably hellbent in 
moving in that direction, and if we are going to do it, then it seems 
to me that accepting the Miller-Kildee amendment would signal to this 
country that we are not prepared to abandon the very core necessity for 
title I, ESEA.
  I happen to be one of the few legislators here who served in 1965, 
when the great debate on how Federal aid to education was going to be 
provided to our communities and our States, led to Congress enacting 
P.L. 89-10. It was preceded by 25 years of agonizing debate on how to 
structure this kind of federal assistance to our public school systems.
  From that time to now we are still struggling with this issue with 
mounting frustration coupled with our agony that our school systems 
still cannot produce quality education where all of our children 
achieve, based upon reasonable standards and assessments, which must be 
a part of any legislation we accept.
  PL 89-10, which is Title I of ESEA is part of this Ed-Flex 
legislation. Title I is geared to the idea that the very poor in our 
society live in districts that cannot afford to educate their children 
as they are able to in wealthier, richer districts in our country. We 
need to understand that the strength of this Nation, indeed our 
national security, is dependent upon lifting the educational 
performance of all children, wherever they live, whatever their 
economic background. And if we do this as a Nation, we rise and we 
achieve, and our society can accomplish all of the complex exercises 
that we have to engage in in order to prosper as a Nation, to be the 
leader of the world. So we fashioned Title I.
  I want this body to understand that the Title I allocation of funds 
is based upon a head count, a census, a determination of where the poor 
children are located. We have a count that is provided to the Federal 
Government, and based upon this head count of poor children, of the 
poverty children of America, a formula is created and the money is 
distributed to the States and local agencies based on the number of 
poor children that live in a school district.
  This money belongs to the poor in these communities. It belongs to 
the poor children in our communities. We have no right to count the 
poor children in this country, base a formula for distribution on the 
poor, and then when it comes time to determine how to spend this money, 
which is based upon a computation and calculation of these poor 
children, allocate it in ways that are flexible and could exclude the 
poor. This is pure manipulation, exploitation of the children for whom 
this legislation was designed. That is my basic difficulty with the 
legislation that is now called ``flexibility''.
  We want to be flexible. We do not want to engineer all this heavy 
bureaucracy on the local communities. But remember, the Federal funds 
are something less than 7 or 8 percent of the total amount that is 
spent in our school districts. Ninety-three percent of the funding for 
education in our school systems is locally raised by the local 
communities or by the States. The Federal Government only puts in 7 or 
8 percent. There is no monstrous bureaucracy here engineering the 
public educational system to the detriment of our children. It is a 
small contribution, and because it is so small, the Congress is 
determined to make sure that that small amount is spent for the benefit 
of the poor children for whom it was legislated. That is the heart of 
this debate.
  The Miller-Kildee amendment says before we waive requirements to 
direct the money to the poorest of these communities, let us make sure 
that the States come up with a plan that sets down the assessments, the 
criteria for achieving these goals, so that in the end, these States 
can come forward and say, the poorest of our children benefited. Their 
test scores must show this. These assessments by our impartial entities 
must determine that the poor have actually benefited.
  That is all that we are doing under the Kildee-Miller amendment, and 
I urge this House to accept it before enacting a bill that nullifies 
the purpose of Title I.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORBES. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), and she knows this, yes, the money does go 
down based on poverty. However, when the money gets to the schoolhouse, 
it is based upon educationally disadvantaged. That is what the law 
says.
  I would ask the same question that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Miller) asked several times in committee, only I would say it a little 
differently. He has said over and over again, ``What have the taxpayers 
gotten for $120 billion? We should know.'' I say, ``What did the 
children that we wanted to help the most get for that $120 billion?'' 
That is the question.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I rise reluctantly but 
necessarily in opposition to the Miller-Kildee amendment. I believe 
that this amendment would be a killer amendment and would underscore, 
unfortunately, the loss of this great Ed-Flex legislation. The 
President has suggested that he supports Ed-Flex. The 50 governors have 
suggested they support

[[Page 4106]]

Ed-Flex. I think we should not mix apples and oranges on this occasion.
  Frankly, there are going to be many opportunities for those of us who 
want to see education and the fixing of what I believe is the despair 
in our schools, fixing of the problems in our schools.
  We are going to be dealing with the reauthorization of the Elementary 
and Secondary Schools Act, and I think, at that time, we have a great 
opportunity to stand up for smaller class, to stand up for construction 
and doing away with some of the overcrowded conditions, to stand up for 
voluntary testing.
  I happen to support all of those worthy goals because I believe there 
is no greater issue, no greater issue facing the American people and us 
as problem solvers, as legislators, than making sure that our children 
are adequately prepared for the 21st Century.
  Our praise in the world depend on adequate education for our 
children. Unfortunately, our schools are in disrepair and despair. They 
are in despair because we are seeing, for example, in this great 
sophisticated age, this Internet age, that more and more of our kids, 
particularly in the inner cities, are not getting the kind of education 
that they need because they are coming from poor districts, from 
districts that do not have the wealth to meet these challenges.
  So I believe that Ed-Flex is a very good piece of legislation. It 
needs to be passed but unencumbered at this point by some of the other 
worthy goals that we talk about here.
  So I would urge my colleagues to think long and hard. If we do 
nothing else in the 106th Congress, I would implore my colleagues, let 
us dedicate ourselves to this most pressing problem, the problem where 
our children are not learning, despite in places like my own suburban 
Long Island districts where we are spending more money than we have 
ever spent.
  The scores are down. They are lower than they have ever been. SAT 
scores are down. Why? Because we are not doing in our classrooms what 
we need to be doing.
  So I would hope that Congress, which understandably wrests local 
authority, the States and local authorities must have policy-making, 
decision-making authority that should never be compromised. But we in 
Washington should do a greater job of standing by those schools. Yes, 
we have got 7 percent of national effort helping our local schools, 
over $120 billion.
  But let us deal with some of the most outstanding problems, like the 
idea of special education. We mandate upon the school districts that 
they deal with special education, that they fully fund it. But we in 
Washington are not sending the dollars. We are sending a very 
embarrassing proportion of those dollars.
  The first thing we ought to do as a Congress, 100 percent of funding 
should come from Washington, because 100 percent of the mandate comes 
from Washington. That is absolutely necessary. We need to do that if we 
are going to provide for our schools.
  We also need to, as has been suggested here, address the size of our 
classrooms. We should do that but under another venue, as I have 
suggested. We have plenty of time in this Congress to do it.
  But to sidetrack the Education Flexibility Partnership Act, a most 
important measure, a bipartisan measure authored by the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) would 
be wrong.
  So I would urge my colleagues, let us deal with these issues. Let us 
make the 106th Congress the place where we deal with these many 
problems. We assist the State and local governments in meeting the 
needs of our children, but let us not sidetrack Ed-Flex in that worthy 
goal.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller-Kildee amendment. I 
rise in support because it is about accountability. This amendment says 
that States must show the progress or the lack of progress that 
students are making from year to year. We are not telling local schools 
how. We are asking them what. What are the expected results? What are 
the measurement criteria?
  The Miller-Kildee amendment requires States to show what they want 
their students to learn and how they will measure if the students are 
actually learning what they intended. In the State of Texas, this 
information will be broken down by race, gender, and income, giving 
special attention to the students who are the most at risk.
  The funds that the Federal Government sends to the States and schools 
are, as many of us have said today, and I have heard it on the other 
side of the aisle, too, and I am grateful for that, these funds are not 
enough. I would like to work with the other side of the aisle to put 
together a plan to fully fund IDEA.
  But whatever the funding, that funding is in place so that we will be 
clear that there will be outcomes. The use of Federal funds is in place 
to ensure that our children in America, all of our children, rich or 
poor, black, brown, or white, girl or boy, has access to a good quality 
education. I know this is what all of the supporters of Ed-Flex want. 
The Miller-Kildee amendment makes this possible.
  We still do not really know what the effects of the demonstration 
programs will have on education. If we are going to extend waivers 
further, we must have accountability. We must measure whether students 
are learning in schools. We must measure that Ed-Flex has reached the 
goal that States have intended. After all, in the end, is not the 
purpose of Ed-Flex and all of our education programs to enable our 
students to learn more?
  Mr. Chairman, I want to vote for Ed-Flex, but do not ask me to 
without accountability. I cannot do it.
  Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. This amendment changes 
the accountability standards of H.R. 800, and it does it in such a way 
that it is so restrictive that really none of the States currently 
participating in the Ed-Flex program would be eligible for waivers 
under the Miller amendment. It also tells the States what their goals 
must be, again decreasing flexibility.
  The following example is the requirements that are in the current Ed-
Flex, and this puts exactly the kind of burden we need on schools and 
exactly the kind of accountability that we really need without going 
too far and returning to some of the old ways of doing things, the 
mandates that we have had for years that really have not produced the 
kind of progress that we really desire and I know all of us desire.
  But there is monitoring required. Every year, States must monitor the 
activities of the local educational administrators. Schools receiving 
waivers must send an annual report to the Secretary. Two years after 
being designated as an Ed-Flex State, States must submit performance 
data as part of that report. After 3 years of being an Ed-Flex State, 
the U.S. Department of Education can terminate a State's Ed-Flex status 
after notice and opportunity for a hearing if it has failed to make 
measurable progress toward its stated goals.
  Also, the local education agencies and the school district's waiver 
application must describe specific measurable goals for schools or 
groups of students affected by waivers and must be part of the local 
reform plan.
  States can apply to be an Ed-Flex State for up to 5 years. When they 
reapply for Ed-Flex status, the Secretary must review their progress 
toward meeting the objectives described in their application. So I 
think there is plenty of accountability in this bill.
  Someone mentioned what the New York Times says and what they want to 
do, and they recommend a delay. Let me say this, my folks back home in 
Kentucky do not read the New York Times. I think they should be more 
concerned probably with the schools in New York City than they are 
necessarily about those across the Nation.
  I have had the chance of visiting a lot of schools in the last few 
weeks, and I can think of two principals of elementary schools. One is 
Edwina Smith

[[Page 4107]]

and the other is Elaine Farris. They are in schools that deal with 
primarily a lot of low-income students, a lot of disadvantaged 
students.
  When I talk to them, the teachers there, as well as the principals of 
these schools, and some of the superintendents in the districts, they 
want flexibility. They are tired of having mandates coming down without 
the funding.
  Yes, maybe it is only 6 percent, but what have we done? We have spent 
$118 billion in educational dollars over Title I the last 34 years. 
Yesterday, our 12th graders were out-performed in mathematics by their 
peers in 18 other countries. Sixty percent of our children in urban 
school districts failed basic tests on reading and math. Forty percent 
of our Nation's fourth graders fell below the basic reading level.
  So I think we really need to look and say, the way we have done 
things in the past has failed. We do not need to return to that. I 
think that is what this amendment begins to do is to return to old, 
failed policies of government mandates, of 6 percent, the tail wagging 
the dog, 6 percent, dictating what is to be done back in our States.
  Yet we have seen in those States that have exercised the flexibility 
given, which they would not have under this amendment, that they have 
increased the progress of minorities, of the economically challenged 
children.
  So I think we need to oppose this amendment because it reduces 
flexibility and goes back to some policies that have failed in the 
past. It is a new day. I think we ought to start in new policies, in 
new ways, the flexibilities, things that are proven to work here 
recently, and give the opportunity of the flexibilities back to the 
State to take this progress further so that we can see these low-
economic students achieve the kind of achievements that they can have 
to renew their hope and allow them to be all that they can be.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kildee-Miller amendment and 
rise in support of this legislation. I think we all can agree that 
local educators and parents are closest to our children and are closest 
to the impact that our policies are having in the elementary and 
secondary setting.
  But here is another reality. When one goes to a bank to borrow money, 
particularly when one looks like me, the bank asks for a business plan 
or some other sources of income to determine if one can pay the loan 
back. Provided one puts forth a good plan, they will loan one the 
money.
  Business people, when they own businesses and ask for money from 
shareholders and ask for investors to invest, they have to present a 
plan. If they are able to make a reasonable return on the person's 
investment or the investor's investment, they will continue to have 
folks invest in their plan.
  What we are asking for here is even less. We are just asking for 
States to put up a plan. It does not have to necessarily be a cogent 
plan. But give us some sense of how they are going to go, what goals 
they are trying to achieve, some sense of how they are going to 
evaluate, how far they are coming, and where they would like to go.
  That is all the Kildee-Miller amendment seeks to do. No new 
regulations, I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), 
my good friend. It does not strengthen the unions, I say to my good 
friends on the other side. It does not line the pockets of trial 
lawyers.
  I have searched and searched and searched in the legislation for the 
last half an hour to an hour to find out how this legislation could 
line the pockets of trial lawyers, but I have yet to find out. But I am 
open to a conversation if some of my friends on that side can identify 
that.
  We have paid a lot of lip service today to this notion of local 
control. We have paid a lot of lip service to this motion that the 
Federal Government somehow or another has come in and intruded and 
trampled and usurped the powers of our local school boards and local 
officials. Let us stop deluding ourselves.
  We have heard speaker after speaker. The other side gets up and has 
speaker after speaker. Virtually all of the education policy setting 
authority in America rests with local authorities. One cannot deny it. 
It is a fact.
  Ninety-four cents of every dollar raised and spent on local education 
on education is raised and spent at the local level. When one 
criticizes the Federal Government, and my good friend, the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), and I respect his comments about the New 
York Times, they do not read them in Memphis either, they read the 
Commercial Appeal, sometimes I wish they read the New York Times, but 
my friends in Memphis, those folks that are graduating, those seniors 
that are graduating who might have participated or benefitted from 
Title I funds, Mr. Chairman, what about the 94 cents that were spent on 
those children throughout their time in elementary and secondary 
schools. We have to blame everybody if we are going to begin to point 
fingers.

                              {time}  1700

  What Ed-Flex seeks to do is to give States the flexibility to make 
these decisions. But I think it is rational, I think it is sensible to 
ask them just to provide a plan as to how they are going to spend this 
money. If the local authorities and local school boards had all the 
answers, why are our schools falling down? Why are our kids dropping 
out of school? Why do the international math and science tests over and 
over and over again demonstrate our kids are failing?
  We can argue all day, Democrat, Republican, unions, no unions, 
lawyers, no lawyers, but the people that are losing are our children. 
Sure, local educators and parents, give them the authority, but like my 
colleagues, when I go home, what my parents and teachers and local 
educators are saying we need to build new schools. We can debate how we 
are going to do it. Let local authorities decide that. Let us provide 
incentives for them to do it.
  My colleagues cannot deny what this President has done, saying we 
will end social promotion, we will provide monies to school districts 
to hire new teachers and build new schools; if they close or address 
under-performing schools, more money to build new schools. That is what 
they do in the business community. That is what the Republican Party 
has been yelling year after year after year.
  I am only in my second term, 28 years old. I watched the Republicans 
growing up. This is what the Republican Party has been talking about. 
This is the Republican mantra. Why abandon it now?
  All we ask for is that these school districts be held accountable. If 
they do a good job, give them more money, I would say to my good 
friends, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman. But if they do not, close 
them. That is what taxpayers want, that is what shareholders want, that 
is what we all expect.
  All this partisan rancor, unions, lawyers, State authority, local 
authority, Federal authority. The national government has a role in how 
kids are being educated. These are our future workers, these are our 
future congresspeople, our future pastors, our future teachers. We have 
an obligation to ensure that kids are educated in Kentucky and 
Tennessee and New York and Delaware, I would say to the former 
governor, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). All we want on this 
side, I think all we want in this body, is to ensure that Delaware is 
doing a good job, that Tennessee is doing a good job, Nevada, Texas, 
California, Michigan, New York. All we would like to do is see a plan.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller) are absolutely right. This is not about black 
kids, white kids, or Hispanic kids. This is about children. This is 
about a new generation of Americans. We have an opportunity in this 
House to do something truly historic; reform Title I in a way that 
gives States that flexibility.
  But understand, Ed-Flex is not going to solve all of our problems. We 
in this Congress must have the courage to do

[[Page 4108]]

the right thing, and I hope Democrat and Republican can find common 
ground.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Castle, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Ford was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I would only hope we would do the right thing 
in this Congress. We have our differences. I heard someone stand up and 
say they want to support this bill because the President supports it. 
There was something the President supported a few months ago that the 
other side did not support, but I am glad to see we are on the same 
page on this one. So let us do what is right for the kids.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from Delaware.
  Mr. CASTLE. My only question, Mr. Chairman, and I do not have a 
problem with anything the gentleman said, and he says it extremely 
well, I might add, at any age, but I go back to the original question I 
posed on this particular bill about an hour ago, and I do not know if 
the gentleman was on the floor, but I pose it again, and if the 
gentleman does not know the answer, somebody can answer over there at 
some point.
  My view is, based on what our knowledge is, that if the Miller 
amendment passes, that we have only 21 States that have performance 
standards in place and we have no States that have their final 
assessments in place, and that means that no States will get education 
flexibility. That is the problem.
  It is also true that in the year 2000 and 2001 all these things will 
be done under ESEA. I do not know how that can be repudiated. That is a 
fact, not a wandering statement. I would be curious to hear the 
gentleman's answer or anyone else's.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my reading of it does not 
suggest that.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman wants to 
suggest that under his bill everyone is going to qualify. We know there 
are about 17 States that are prepared to go. If a State is going to do 
this right, let us not pretend like they are going to do it this school 
year. They will be making applications for 2000, 2001. That actually 
coincides with what we told them 5 years ago to be ready to do.
  The fact is most of the States have not been ready because they 
thought they could slide by again. That is what this accountability is 
about saying enough is enough, we have made a decision, and we now want 
standards of accountability that we can measure how the students are 
doing. So there is nothing inconsistent with that at all.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from Delaware.
  Mr. CASTLE. The bottom line is that they have to do these things by 
2000-2001 anyhow under ESEA, and the gentleman is moving up the time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If the gentleman from Tennessee will 
continue to yield to me, under the gentleman's waiver they do not have 
to do it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) has 
again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Ford was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. The problem with the bill, and why 
we have the amendment, is that under the gentleman's they do not have 
to have it done, they have to make substantial progress toward it. They 
can have interim assessments, so we will not be able to judge how the 
progress is from year to year because we may have different assessments 
on that, and we are right back into all the excuses why we cannot 
finally find out how the children are doing, how they are progressing, 
and whether or not this investment is worth making or not. That is the 
difference.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from Delaware.
  Mr. CASTLE. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that under ESEA all 
the things the gentleman is talking about have to be in place by the 
school year 2000-2001 one.
  Right now, although 17 schools may be ready for it, right now none 
have their final assessments in place, a lot of them do not have their 
standards in place. The gentleman is saying that they cannot have Ed-
Flex at all.
  We are saying Ed-Flex is a relatively simple bill. We have worked 
with the gentleman and put a lot more accountability in here than was 
in before, which the GAO report wanted, but now I think the gentleman 
is extending it to a level that none of us want to live up to.
  I give the gentleman credit for a good presentation, but I was 
wondering if we really have to go forward with the amendment. I think 
this amendment would be counterproductive to those of us, including 
maybe the gentleman, who are supporting the underlying bill.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If the gentleman will continue to 
yield, it is not counterproductive at all. The question is are we going 
to fish and cut bait. We all talk about we do not want social promotion 
of children; I do not want social promotion of school districts in 
States that are not prepared to meet the standards. And the standards 
ought to be that they can tell us whether or not children are in fact 
making advancement and on achievement and meeting the goals of that 
State and whether they are not.
  So far what we have found out from the pilot program, we have not 
learned from the pilot program, is that essentially 8 out of the 10 
States could not tell us that. Could not tell us that.
  Mr. FORD. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank both the 
gentlemen. I would just close by simply saying that I hope perhaps we 
can work this out in the interim here. And I would hope if we cannot, I 
say to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller), I do not think anything is wrong with asking 
these local school districts that want this authority to rise up to the 
occasion and to be able to live up to these standards today.
  I would close by merely saying to all my colleagues in the Congress, 
particularly on the majority side, the $100 billion infrastructure 
problem we have in America, the Federal Government did not cause that 
problem; the 2 million teacher shortage we have in America, the Federal 
Government did not cause that problem. Let us work together to get the 
job done. Support the Miller-Kildee amendment.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeMINT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I tell my friend from Tennessee that 
there is no question if they did not require a plan, if Castle-Roemer 
did not require a plan, I would not support it. If they did not meet 
what the GAO said they needed to meet, I would not support it.
  And when the gentleman says if they do not produce, kick them out, 
that is what the legislation says. They have 2 years to show, and they 
better show. They better produce. And then at the end of 5 years, this 
secretary down here says, they are out.
  So everything that the gentleman wanted in the bill is in the bill, 
and that is why I can support the bill.
  Mr. DeMINT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against 
the amendment as well. Ed-Flex is a great bill, and the amendment takes 
the flex out of the whole bill.
  This bill does what I think we have been talking about for years. It 
begins to take dollars, decisions and freedom

[[Page 4109]]

out of this House and moves it back to houses in our districts. It 
restores freedom. To me, this bill, flexibility, means more freedom, 
and I believe that the true accountability comes to teachers and 
parents and local communities.
  Last week I had the opportunity to help present an unprecedented 
fourth national blue ribbon award to Spartanburg High School in South 
Carolina. This is the only school in America that has won this four 
times. So my discussions with the principal, administrators and 
teachers were very interesting to me, because it seems the Federal 
regulations that we think are helping to build our schools are, to 
them, just obstacles that they have to dance around to do what they 
know really works.
  When I talked to the superintendent, he said, quit funding 5 percent 
of these programs and demanding 100 percent of the control. We have 
talked about the fact that it is just 10 percent, and that is right, 
over 90 percent of the funding for these schools comes from local 
school districts. But when we tie them up with the type of amendment we 
are talking about today, this type of control invades all aspects of 
our public school system.
  I had a chance to visit Berea Elementary School in Greenville, South 
Carolina. They had a brand new school. They do not want the Federal 
Government to build them a new school; they want some new technology. 
But we will not know what they need from here.
  I had a chance to walk up the steps with the class from Berea on my 
way in here today. They are probably watching what we are doing right 
now. They know that we cannot manage their school from here, and after 
meeting their principal, I am glad that Ed-Flex will help to keep us 
from trying.
  I also visited an elementary school that had an old building but 
plenty of teachers. We cannot decide for them that they need more 
teachers when they need something else.
  I have a son who was playing on a JV basketball team in a public high 
school. They practiced for about 2 months, but then they had to cancel 
their game because the girls JV team had not been able to schedule 
enough games to match theirs and they were afraid of Federal 
regulation. It is just a little bit, but it invades every aspect of 
management.
  I have learned as a quality consultant that one of the biggest 
obstacles to quality improvement, that we talk about here for 
education, comes from multiple levels of authority. There is no way we 
will ever have quality education in America with local control, State 
control, and Federal control. This bill recognizes that we need to send 
dollars, decisions and freedom back to the people who are truly 
accountable.
  It is really a little insulting, I think, to think that we are more 
accountable here than governors and mayors and county councils and 
school boards. Actually, we are a lot less accountable because we can 
hide here away from them and they cannot blame any one of us. We are 
not talking about accountability with this amendment, we are talking 
about control, control that we need to relinquish.
  I have to take special exception to this idea that our local 
governments and our States have not done a good job with education. If 
we track education and our test scores since the Federal Government got 
involved in the 1970s, there is a direct relationship to the fall of 
our test scores and the increase in funding from the Federal 
Government. With every dollar we send them, we send more control.
  In my State, about 50 percent of the paperwork has to match only 
about 5 to 7 percent of the funding.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Goodling, and by unanimous consent, Mr. DeMint was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, in my State they tell me, with only about 6 
to 7 percent of their funding coming from the Federal Government, that 
the Federal regulations count for about 50 percent of the paperwork. 
This is what we are trying to do away with, and adding regulation, 
restrictions and more reports to this bill is not going to help.
  The real threat to our education system is coming from us, because 
the innovation, the trials are being hindered by them trying to keep up 
with our paperwork and our regulation. I believe that we can secure the 
future of every child in America if we recognize that freedom does work 
when it is in the hands of parents and teachers and local communities; 
when we give more local control.
  This bill has the accountability that we need to make sure that we 
have the plans to match the Federal dollars, but it does not have 
control that is out of proportion to the funding that we are sending 
back to the States. I hope all of us will think and vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kildee-Miller amendment, and I 
do so because I believe that we must try and create equal educational 
opportunity. We must try and make education available for all of the 
Nation's children, no matter where they live, no matter where they come 
from, and no matter who they are.
  Mr. Chairman, 80 percent of the schools in the City of Chicago's 
public school system receive and use title I funds to support the 
educational needs of disadvantaged children. This means that 80 percent 
of the schools in the Chicago public school system have over 50 percent 
of their children from low-income families. We have a responsibility to 
ensure that these children, that each and every one of them have the 
greatest amount of educational opportunity that we can provide from all 
levels of government, whether it be State, local or Federal. That is 
why I cannot support the Ed-Flex bill as it is.

                              {time}  1715

  Ed-Flex in its current form lacks the efficiency and accountability 
needed to protect what took decades to correct. The Ed-Flex bill will 
allow local school authorities to redirect funds from special 
educational programs as well as dismantle professional development for 
teachers. In fact, this bill may exempt schools and districts from 
complying with Federal standards that have been set for student 
performance.
  I am aware, Mr. Chairman, that there have been 12 demonstration 
programs, and yes, my State, the State of Illinois, is one of them. 
However, these States have not been totally examined. Therefore, I am 
not sure that all the potential implications of a nationwide expansion 
are really known.
  Mr. Chairman, it is the responsibility of this Congress as we 
approach a new millennium to ensure that our Nation's children are 
educated with whatever resources are needed. And so I call upon us to 
build a new era of equality for all Americans, an era where African 
Americans, Latinos, poor children, Native Americans and other 
minorities who have long lived with the highest poverty schools and in 
the highest poverty communities will have guaranteed access to 
resources to try and catch up, to try and come from behind, to try and 
realize the potential that they have, to try and know that before 
resources that perhaps are not as greatly needed are put in other 
places and in other areas, that they would have access to those 
resources.
  And so I appreciate the concept of flexibility. I appreciate the 
latitude that teachers, principals, and administrators need in order to 
do the work that they have set out to do. But I do not believe at this 
time that we can risk these greatly needed resources missing their 
mark. Therefore, I would urge all of us to vote in favor of the Kildee-
Miller amendment.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KILDEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) has mentioned that under the Miller-Kildee 
amendment certain districts would not qualify. But those districts who 
do not meet the requirements of the Miller-Kildee amendment by the 
school year 2000 do not

[[Page 4110]]

lose their Federal dollars. They only fail to achieve that flexibility 
which must be linked to accountability. There is no loss of Federal 
dollars at all, but we say if you are going to have flexibility, we 
have to have accountability. The Kildee-Miller amendment does not 
penalize them by taking away their Federal dollars, it merely does not 
give them the flexibility unless there is a nexus with accountability.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Flexibility and accountability must go hand in 
hand.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TANCREDO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. I want to make sure that everybody understands. Nobody 
said anybody loses money. What we said is you lose the opportunity to 
participate. That is what you lose. You do not lose money. No one ever 
said you lose money. You lose the opportunity to participate. That is 
what you lose.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to this 
amendment, as if it were passed we would have to change the name of the 
Ed-Flex bill to the Education Inflexibility bill because, of course, 
that is exactly what happens here.
  I was a former public school teacher, I was the regional director for 
the U.S. Department of Education for 11\1/2\ years, and I have 
certainly experienced firsthand the Federal Government's bureaucratic 
overregulation of our country's educational system.
  While I was with the U.S. Department of Education, we published a 
document called ``What Works'' in which we identified all of the 
activities, all of the programs that apparently had some positive 
impact on the educational experience of children. What we also could 
have done, however, is write another book that was called ``What 
Doesn't Work.'' We could have identified the hundreds of elementary and 
secondary education programs at the Federal and State level, thousands 
of Federal program administrators and State agencies, millions of hours 
of paperwork requirements produced by the Department every year. We 
could have identified all of those things as being examples of what 
does not work and we could have pointed to all of the children who had 
not learned as a result of all of this bureaucratic intervention.
  We know what does not work. It is fascinating to me, because I have 
been a strong supporter of school choice programs, including vouchers 
and tuition tax credits. I have said what the gentleman from Tennessee 
said a little bit ago. I was astounded, as a matter of fact, to hear 
the gentleman from Tennessee use this very language when he said that 
he wants schools to either do a good job or be closed. Public schools, 
he was talking about. He wanted to see that kind of accountability. He 
wanted to make sure that if they were not operating and actually 
producing the kind of educational experience that would be best for the 
kids, that they would close. Those were his words. Great words. 
Absolutely accurate words.
  Mr. Chairman, that is one of the reasons why I can support this 
Education Flexibility Act and oppose this amendment, because in fact 
there are a lot of things happening around the country today that do 
give pause to public school administrators and teachers in the realm of 
choice because we now know what works, we now know that charter schools 
and giving parents the ability to make selections from a wide variety 
of educational opportunities works. We know that works. And so there is 
accountability in the public school system today. The only reason why 
we are seeing as much concern expressed on the part of public school 
administrators today is because in fact there is a little more choice 
in the system. So I certainly support the concept of choice, and I 
support the ability of schools to make a lot of decisions here because 
in fact there are consequences if they do not make those correct 
decisions. Children do go other places. That is okay. We can watch and 
see what exactly is going to happen here. I certainly hope that we do 
not pass the Miller-Kildee amendment as it will, as I say, change the 
whole concept of this bill to the Education Inflexibility Act.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
just wanted to mention in relationship to Chicago, for instance, the 
beauty of what is happening there, if they are going to be successful, 
is the fact the State said, ``Hey, all these years you have failed the 
children in Chicago. Now, Mr. Mayor, you take over. Forget the State 
regs, forget all these things. You take over.'' They did not say, ``You 
must have in place everything you are going to do, Chicago,'' because, 
of course, this was all new to them. But they are putting everything in 
place. And from everything we can gather, what they are doing is 
helping children. All these years they did not help children in 
Chicago. And so the State said, ``Forget us. Forget these regs. Make it 
work. Make it work your way, but we want the children to learn, to do 
better,'' and it appears that they are having success. Flexibility is 
what they gave them.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Also, Mr. Chairman, let me say that it has been my 
experience that for ages now we have been debating whether or not we 
should have any confidence in the local administrator, in our local 
schools, in the local teachers who confront our children every single 
day. Really what this bill does is it tests that theory.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle, I know, believe that 
people in the system are doing their level best, that everybody is 
trying as hard as they possibly can.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Tancredo was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. TANCREDO. Does anyone really believe that a majority of the 
teachers out there, a majority of administrators out there today are 
looking for ways around doing a good job? That they are trying to 
figure out what they can possibly do not to have children succeed? In 
fact, we know that is not true, that in most cases, in 90 percent or 
more certainly of the cases out there, everybody is working as hard as 
they possibly can to make sure that children learn.
  Something is wrong in the system. We are going to give people the 
ability to address those problems and come back to us and say, ``Here 
is how we can make this work. You gave us the freedom, here is now what 
we have been able to show as the success.'' That is all we are 
suggesting happen here, give them the freedom to make this thing work.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, it really amazes me that there is more in common with 
our commitment to education than maybe the voices on this floor would 
seem to acknowledge.
  I applaud the Miller-Kildee amendment, and I believe that if we were 
to pause for a moment, we would find more opportunity to agree to this 
amendment and to have this amendment passed and to move on to do what 
is best for our children.
  Let me simply say to the parents of America, and ask the question 
whether you would agree or disagree, and the children, with this very 
simple proposition. The Miller-Kildee amendment simply says that if we 
are going to waive requirements issued by the Federal Government on 
educational excellence, then the States must have in place a viable 
plan for how student achievement will be assessed. Nothing more, 
nothing less. It simply says that if you are going to move forward to 
change requirements to enhance the educational standards of our 
children, tell us how you will still maintain student achievement.
  Everybody seems to get it. I do not know why some do not. The New 
York Times said that the Miller-Kildee amendment provides the answer to 
the threat of impoverished schools. What it says is that simply there 
is a gap between affluent and disadvantaged children and it is a 
challenge in the American education system to bridge that

[[Page 4111]]

gap. This amendment to what we have all come to accept as a reasonable 
understanding of the educational leaders of our respective States, that 
they do know education, I do have a degree of confidence in what they 
do, but what is wrong with maintaining the fact that they must be 
accountable?
  I am somewhat puzzled again about this whole accusation against the 
Federal Government, that it should not be in education. I agree it 
should be a partner, not someone who dictates to our local communities. 
But I am gratified that the Federal Government moved into this whole 
idea of the educational realm in looking at math and science issues and 
saying that we needed more money to provide for professional 
development for our teachers, for Title IX when there was a discussion 
about parity between boys and girls and providing dollars to ensure 
that boys and girls had equal athletic opportunities and other 
opportunities. What is wrong with that?
  And might I simply say, in a time in our country where many went to 
segregated schools, unequal schools, I am gratified for the, if you 
will, involvement of the Federal Government. It is interesting to note 
that the Federal funds are only 8 percent. However, in underprivileged 
and rural communities, Federal funding, especially under Title I, can 
account for almost a third of a local school system's budget. We must 
ensure that those moneys continue to go to those school districts in a 
manner that helps those students achieve. There is no accusation to my 
friends on the other side of the aisle. But there is a recognition that 
there is nothing wrong with the amendment that says be accountable, 
prove to us if you do a waiver that you will in fact be doing the right 
thing for our children.
  Let me say, finally, my home State of Texas has been very successful 
in implementing the Ed-Flex program, but it has adopted rigorous 
standards that makes sure that all students, including minority and 
economically disadvantaged students, rural students, urban students, 
receive the benefit of Federal funds. For instance, Texas school 
districts that waive Federal regulations must still show that 90 
percent of the African-American students, 90 percent of the Hispanic 
students and 90 percent of the economically disadvantaged, that means 
all of those who find themselves in a position where they have to go 
over a hurdle to learn, they must show that those students are 
improving in their studies.
  I would say, Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity to show America 
that we can work together. The Miller-Kildee amendment clearly says 
that all we want is accountability.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee) a question, if I could. There was a comment made that this is 
an inflexible amendment, that his amendment is inflexible, and I 
believe that this gives more flexibility. To me it provides flexibility 
to the extent that it helps us be accountable.
  Mr. KILDEE. If the gentlewoman will yield, I think it is a reasonable 
amendment. The amendment really is patterned basically on the structure 
that Texas put into place. Texas is the most successful State so far. 
We were just asking them, if we are going to give them that 
flexibility, which we will give them, we are not going to deprive them 
of their money, that they have to have some accountability. Texas was 
willing to give that accountability. I think our flexibility amendment 
is very flexible.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the proof 
is in the pudding. This is a good amendment and we need to pass it.
  I rise in support of this Amendment, which requires that state and 
local school districts that are able to obtain waivers under this bill 
must closely monitor their students to make sure that at-risk 
populations are continuing to achieve academically.
  This amendment substantially improves this bill, because it prohibits 
school districts from taking the additional discretion given to them 
under the Ed-Flex program, and using it to further disadvantage 
children from minority and lower-income families.
  Federal funds are scarce and highly sought after by the states, but 
they make up only 8% of all education spending. However, in 
underprivileged and rural communities, federal funding, especially 
under Title I, can account for almost a third of a local school 
system's budget. We must make sure that if federal funding is to be 
had, that it should be used to benefit all students, and not just a 
select few.
  Federal funds often help finance necessary supplemental programs that 
substantially improve the quality of education in all regions of the 
country. These supplemental services include remedial math and reading 
classes, and career counseling. All schools need these services, and 
this amendment guarantees that all schools will receive them.
  My home State of Texas has been very successful in implementing Flex-
Ed because the State has adopted rigorous standards that make sure that 
all students, including minority and economically disadvantaged 
students, receive the benefit of federal funds. For instance, Texas 
school districts that waive federal regulations must still show that 
90% of the African-American students, 90% of their Hispanic students, 
and 90% of the economically-disadvantaged students are improving in 
their studies.
  This type of self-imposed criteria should be lauded, and hopefully 
they will be emulated by all the 50 states if this bill is passed. 
However, because we cannot rely on each state to do so, this amendment 
is necessary if we are to pass H.R. 800. I hope that you will all 
support it.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kildee-Miller amendment. 
But I wanted to say at the very beginning that I have known both of 
those gentlemen for many years as a staffer and as a Member and while 
we may have disagreements as to how to implement education policy, 
never in my career as a staffer or a Member have I ever seen Members 
more committed to the interest of kids than the two authors of this 
amendment.

                              {time}  1730

  I disagree with how they do that, and I think that sometimes they 
want to do what is best not only for their own kids, but other kids, 
but their heart is right, and it is important when we are debating 
things to understand those fundamental principles that one can disagree 
and still want to have what is best for education.
  This is not just about process. This is about what is the best way to 
educate the kids in America, and is it best through the Federal 
Government or moving it closer to the parents?
  But I want to go through this amendment in particular.
  In the third clause it says the assessment information is 
disaggregated by race, and ethnicity, sex, English proficiency status, 
migrant status and social economic status for the State, each local 
education agency in each school unless it does not meet the statistical 
reliable information level.
  Now it is important here, as we have been arguing whether this is 
flexible or inflexible, but let us just think about all these different 
standards: race, ethnicity, sex, English proficiency, migrant status 
and social economic status. Now I understand the value of 
accountability, and I understand about the value of having information. 
But here we are not block granting everything; it is only within the 
limits of small changes within certain programs. After all, this is a 
bill backed by every Governor and by the President of the United 
States.
  In Indiana terms, it is an itty-bitty flexibility. It is not a 
flexibility like this or a big light. It is a little tiny flexibility, 
and there becomes a question of proportionality here because there is 
lots of information that we would like to have that would be useful. I, 
for example, would like to have family composition information. I think 
it would be helpful to know how kids are doing in two-parent families, 
single-parent families. We all know that children of divorce, 
particularly in those first periods, have a decline in educational 
standards. Why not have a report to see what the kids are doing there?
  How about mobility? Nobody has ever visited an urban school where 
they are having trouble with their test scores, or even suburban 
schools, but particularly highlighted in urban schools where kids are 
moving between these different schools. Often they will

[[Page 4112]]

move four times in a given year. Maybe we should have data tracking 
kids by whether they moved in 3 months, 6 months, 1 year or 2 years, 
and we might find that that data has more meaning than a lot of the 
particular breakouts here.
  Now furthermore, the President's proposed policies on social 
promotion and school uniforms where maybe we ought to have data on that 
to see whether, if they put school uniforms in school, stop social 
promotion, to see whether the President's initiatives are, in fact, 
working, and maybe that ought to be part of it, so enough that we ought 
to be passing a bill, we ought to have measurement standards.
  Now the problem here is, is that in addition to this, let us look at 
the actual terms. Ethnicity is a difficult statement here. How many 
breakouts are we going to have? I have the largest concentration of 
Macedonian Americans in my district. Does this mean that we have to 
break it out by Macedonian Americans if there is a statistical reliable 
subgroup, and how many years in the U.S.? I assume that that has a 
technical meaning with larger subgroups, but the principle is still 
there, and we argue that all the time in the census right now of forms 
and even how to do ethnicity and background.
  What about by subject matter? One Member from the other side of the 
aisle came down to the floor and said that he would like to know how 
math kids are doing by race.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I do not think I could 
support the gentleman's amendment. It sounds far too complex and 
restrictive for myself, but the gentleman should go ahead, if he would.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California.
  But what about having science by sex? What about English proficiency 
and social economic for reading? Because, in fact, the subcategories, 
that would be useful information and really is information that is 
useful in English proficiency if we do not know the differences by 
whether they are a current migrant or whether they, in other words, we 
start to multiply the variations in what is already there.
  All of this is important data. Are we going to data the districts to 
death?
  Furthermore, in addition in this subsection 4(a)(A) it says that 
there has to be assessment instruments in performance objectives for 
every subgroup that is disaggregated. So that means, for example, if we 
have female and male Macedonian American students by income, unless 
they come in the current migrant status, then we would have to have 
them in a different subgroup, and then we say this is giving schools 
flexibility for this itty-bitty, tiny flexibility that we are seeking 
here. This is a massive potential even without my proposed additional 
information. This is a potential massive paperwork problem, and I urge 
that we reject this amendment, but we in effect gut Ed-Flex.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Kildee, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Souder was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. SOUDER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, as my colleague knows, the language that we 
have in our amendment and the language which the gentleman quotes is 
not new language at all. It is the language that is in the Title I 
reauthorization of 1994, the standards that should be put in place, and 
it is the language which is in the Texas model. So it is not something 
that the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and I dreamed up; it is 
something that we voted on, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) voted for it in 1994, and it is the same language in the 
Texas model.
  Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, what I would like to 
point out is, is that while that may be true in a Title I massive 
grant, the smaller the flexibility becomes, it becomes a 
proportionality question, and, furthermore, I would suggest that if we 
want to do this much detail, that is why we run for local school 
boards, not become Members of the United States Congress.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes, but as we come to a 
conclusion on this debate after almost 5 hours, it is and should be 
fairly clear to all of us and certainly to the American people that the 
American education system needs reform, it needs changing, it needs 
improving, and I do not think we can get any disagreement at all from 
Democrats or Republicans that that is a true statement. But, as usual, 
we come down to how do we implement that, how do we achieve that goal, 
and, as usual, we do have different ideas about how one might do that.
  Today's bill is about being flexible. It is about allowing people 
back home, who do very much understand the need for good training and 
good education, people who actually know the names of some of the 
children that we wish to educate, people who have a great deal riding 
on the education system for their State, and indeed, and most 
importantly, for our country. I listened to a debate a day or two ago 
where it was pointed out, and I think it has been pointed out this 
afternoon in numerous occasions, that all 50 Governors support this Ed-
Flex.
  I oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), 
and I do not really like doing that especially because of my respect 
for Mr. Kildee, but I oppose all these amendments simply because every 
amendment is based on taking away what we started out to do 5 hours 
ago, which was to be flexible in our funding for education.
  The 50 Governors that support this particular bill happen to be 
Democrat and Republican. My Democratic Governor in Georgia I am very 
confident believes in education, and is very concerned about education 
in our State and is going to make the right decisions to the best of 
his ability. A lot of times some of the Governors, Republican and 
Democrat, who are trying to make decisions about education back home 
cannot do so because of the rings of red tape, and that goes back to 
the philosophy, and maybe the basic difference in us here is the 
philosophy in many people up here that only education, only the 
problems in education, can be solved in Washington. Only we care. 
Nobody back home could possibly care about our children, and their 
training and their education as much as we care here in Washington.
  Mr. Chairman, that is not the contest. The contest is not who cares 
the most. The contest is what must we do in order to improve their 
training and improve their education.
  I think that the 50 Governors are right. I think there is 
accountability in this in the sense that there is only one thing we are 
asking the States to be accountable for: Are they better or are they 
not? Have they improved, or have not they? And that is the question, 
and if my colleagues have not solved that within 2 years, then they are 
not eligible for Ed-Flex.
  So with that in mind, let us give it a try. Let us see how we do. We 
have given it a try in 12 States. Let us try all 50 States, and let us 
look, I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), and see what 
the results is. Let us look and see if the test scores are going up, if 
they are learning better, if they are preparing for life through 
education better, and if they are, let us do a lot more of this, and if 
they are not, then let us draw back and say, well, maybe they care back 
home in Georgia, but gosh, they just are not as smart as we are. We are 
going to have to take back over.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I would like to wrap up by indicating

[[Page 4113]]

what I said at the beginning of this entire debate, and I do not know 
how I can say it any more sincere.
  The well-intended legislation of the 1960s failed the very people we 
wanted to help the most. We have to admit that. All the results 
indicate that. Every study has indicated that. So what I am asking my 
colleagues to do is we have lost 30 years. How many generations of 
young children have we lost who have not gotten a decent education 
because we would not admit that we had a problem? We always said if we 
had more money, we could cover more children, and somehow or other 
things would be beautiful. It did not work out.
  Now that does not hurt us, but it sure does hurt all of those 
millions of children that we had hoped that we could give them a good 
start in education so that the life would be far better for them, and 
that is why it is so important that the accountability that is put in 
this bill is there.
  I want to review that so that everybody understands exactly what the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Roemer) have done. Accountability at the federal level, the annual 
report to Congress; Secretary must submit a report to Congress of State 
use of Ed-Flex waivers and their impact on student performances. The 
Secretary on the Federal level approves the applications, Secretary 
evaluates the State application for Ed-Flex and determines whether they 
will receive Ed-Flex authority. The Secretary conducts performance 
reviews. The Secretary must conduct a performance review of States with 
Ed-Flex.
  Then we go to the State level, accountability at the State level. We 
must set specific and measurable performance goals. In order to qualify 
States must set measurable performance goals, agree to hold schools and 
districts accountable for performance. They are required to monitor 
local waiver recipients annually. States must monitor local waiver 
recipients and terminate waivers after 2 years of declining 
performance.
  Public notice and comment. States must notify the public when they 
grant waivers and provide them with opportunities to comment. They must 
submit an annual report. States must submit an annual report of how Ed-
Flex waivers have been used. This report must include information on 
the types of waivers granted and how they have helped to implement 
reform and improve student performance.
  Now we get down to the local level. They must set specific and 
measurable performance goals, specific and measurable performance 
goals. They must track the performance of schools and groups of 
students affected by waivers. The waivers are subject to termination if 
performance declines against objectives for two consecutive years.
  This is far more than any of the 12 at the present time are asked to 
do, far more, and as I have said many times, they could not qualify any 
of the 12 for the Miller-Kildee if the Miller-Kildee amendment were 
part of that Goals 2000 proposal.
  So again I plead with all of my colleagues. Think not about sound 
bites, think not about politics. Think about how we have failed the 
most needy children in this country and what is it we are going to do 
to make sure that changes and make sure as we do, as I said as the 
State does, with Chicago. They give them time to get everything in 
place. It is a new ball game for them, but they are given that 
opportunity, and, as I said, it appears they are working. It appears 
that children are benefitting in Texas. It appears children are 
benefiting in Maryland from this opportunity. Now let us give all 50, 
and let us stick to our commitment which basically says all must be in 
order by the school year 2000-2001.
  Mr. Chairman, let us think strictly about children. Let us make sure 
that every child has a golden opportunity for a good quality education.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. CLAY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for yielding.
  I would just say that I would follow on to what the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has said. We ought to learn from the 30 
years. For 30 years, the Federal Government has been enabling very 
sloppy tactics, a lack of accountability. We have simply evaporated on 
accountability.
  We ought to do it right this time, because we are making a dramatic 
change in direction with respect to flexibility. I think it is the 
right change to make, but we ought to be able to look our constituents 
and parents and teachers and students in the eye and say that we have 
in here public accountability, to try to assure that, in fact, we do it 
right, because we have not done it right in the past.
  I only wish that so many people who spoke against this amendment 
would have in fact read the amendment because they characterized it in 
so many ways it has nothing to do with what this amendment does.
  I would ask, for the first time, to put teeth into accountability. 
Let us find out how all of our children are not doing, it is not just 
some of the children, and vote for the Miller-Kildee amendment. I urge 
the passage of this amendment.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Miller-Kildee amendment, which ensures that meet our intended education 
goals: improving public schools, improving student achievement, and 
making sure our children are well prepared for the future.
  Of the 12 states which are currently participating in the Ed-Flex 
pilot program, only Texas has set specific numerical criteria for 
student achievement. The GAO found that many participating states have 
only vague objectives that don't allow us to measure how students are 
progressing under the program.
  The Texas plan has shown results. It has allowed the state the 
flexibility to identify problems and allocate resources where they are 
needed the most. School districts which have received waivers have made 
tremendous gains on state tests. This is the essence of Ed-Flex--the 
flexibility for states to make their own plan while showing measurable 
improvement in our student achievement that proves to parents that this 
money is being put to good use.
  Democrats believe that local school districts should have flexibility 
when they administer federal education programs. But we also believe 
that flexibility should be coupled with accountability to ensure that 
our teachers, students, and parents receive the support they deserve. 
This Congress should: Authorize 30,000 more teachers on our way to 
100,000; ensure that the neediest schools are protected; and hold 
schools accountable for student performance.
  We can't just turn this money over to states and say, do with it as 
you will. States must set measurable goals and show progress in meeting 
those goals. Vote yes on the Miller-Kildee amendment.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, Mike Ward, North Carolina Chief School 
Official said before the Committee, we wanted Ed Flex as soon as 
possible. This postpones it.
  As a former county commissioner, I was able to see the actual effect 
of federal funding of local education along with the rules and 
regulations that tell you what you have to do and how you have to do 
it. One size fits all--like it or not. Same for my poorest or richest 
schools. Now we have a chance to free local schools from the 
restrictions and red tape that go with not only federal but also state 
monies. Let's keep it simple and Ed Flex does that.
  Twelve states are currently able to waive certain federal education 
regulations, giving schools within these states the ability to use 
federal education funds to support innovative, comprehensive school 
improvement measures. I feel that it is imperative that we give all 50 
states such waivers--including my state of North Carolina--so that 
students all across America may benefit from locally-designed school 
improvements.
  Only approximately six percent of the funds needed to educate our K-
12 students are provided by the federal government. However, countless 
regulations and requirements are tied to the use of these funds. Again, 
the education environment in each state and local school district is 
different, so why should the federal government operate under the 
assumption that one set of universal program requirements fits all 
circumstances? States and schools must be flexible in addressing local

[[Page 4114]]

school matters and the federal government should aide in this effort 
rather than obstruct positive reforms. And, for the record, H.R. 800 
does contain provisions that ensure states are on the way to adopting 
educational content standards, performance standards, and 
accountability standards for local education agencies before being 
granted waiver authority. Under the bill, the Secretary of Education 
will conduct performance reviews and can revoke a state's waiver 
authority if a state educational agency fails to make measurable 
progress in meeting their stated objectives.
  Like the existing 12 ``ed-flex'' states, North Carolina and every 
other state deserves the right to participate in this program. As we 
all know, education in this country is at a crisis point. We must let 
go of limited thinking in terms of education improvement and let the 
states and local governments use every tool at their disposal in 
finding new solutions--including non-traditional uses of federal 
education funds. We need to formulate some new thinking in education 
and passage of this bill is one step towards that goal.
  Some of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle have said 
that they are in full support of this bill but feel it should only move 
if it is part of the reauthorization legislation for the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act which we hope to pass in the upcoming months. 
Well, if Congress were to wait for the ideal vehicle to move all 
legislation, we'd never get anything done. And maybe as some people 
look to the 2000 election--that's the point.
  Two or three weeks ago the minority leader in the Senate said this 
was the ideal bill to show how bipartisanship works and that probably 
all 100 Senators would vote for it. Additionally, all 50 governors 
endorse it. So what happened? Last week the minority decided to hold up 
that bill in the Senate by offering partisan amendments. Does it appear 
that our Democratic brethren have decided to stop all constructive 
efforts in hopes to produce a ``do nothing Congress'' and in doing so, 
gain control of the House and forget the needs of the country.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196, 
noes 228, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 39]

                               AYES--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--228

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Becerra
     Bilbray
     Capps
     Conyers
     Frost
     Hinojosa
     McCrery
     Minge
     Reyes

                              {time}  1805

  Messrs. Simpson, Hansen, Burton of Indiana, Ewing and Lipinski 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. Kaptur changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

  Stated for:
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 39, on agreeing to 
the Miller amendment, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                 amendment no. 2 offered by mr. castle

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment 
number 2.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Castle:
       In section 4(a)(4)(A)(iii) (of H.R. 800, as reported), 
     strike ``or'' and insert ``and''.
       In section 4(a) (of H.R. 800, as reported), strike 
     paragraph (5) and insert the following:
       ``(5) Oversight and reporting.--
       ``(A) In General.--
       ``(i) Oversight.--Each State educational agency 
     participating in the education flexibility program under this 
     section shall annually monitor the activities of local 
     educational agencies and schools receiving waivers under this 
     section. Such monitoring shall include a review of relevant 
     audit, technical assistance, evaluation, and performance 
     reports.
       ``(ii) Reporting.--The State educational agency shall 
     submit to the Secretary an annual report on the results of 
     such oversight

[[Page 4115]]

     and its impact on the improvement of education programs.
       ``(B) Performance data.--
       ``(i) State reporting.--Not later than 2 years after a 
     State is designated as an Ed-Flex Partnership State, each 
     such State shall include, as part of their report to the 
     Secretary under clause (ii) of subparagraph (A), performance 
     data demonstrating the degree to which progress has been made 
     toward meeting the objectives outlined in section 3(A)(iii). 
     The report to the Secretary shall, when applicable, include--
       ``(I) information on the total number of waivers granted, 
     including the number of waivers granted for each type of 
     waiver.
       ``(II) information describing the types and characteristics 
     of waivers granted and their relationship to the progress of 
     local educational agencies and schools toward meeting their 
     performance objectives; and
       ``(III) an assurance from State program managers that the 
     data used to measure performance of the education flexibility 
     program under this section are reliable, complete, and 
     accurate, as defined by the State, or a description of a plan 
     for improving the reliability, completeness, and accuracy of 
     such data.''.
       ``(ii) Secretary report.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(I) make each State report available to Congress and the 
     general public;
       ``(II) submit to Congress a report, on a timely basis, that 
     addresses the impact that the education flexibility program 
     under this section has had with regard to performance 
     objectives described in paragraph (3)(A)(iii). The Secretary 
     shall include in the report to Congress an assurance that the 
     data used to measure performance of the education flexibility 
     program under this section are complete, reliable, and 
     accurate or a plan for improving the reliability, 
     completeness, and accuracy of such data.''.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is offered by myself, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), the cosponsor, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  This is a relatively simple amendment. I will take very little time 
to explain it. It pertains to oversight and reporting requirements, as 
sort of a follow-up on some of the earlier discussions about GAO.
  It strengthens accountability by clarifying reporting and oversight 
requirements. It ensures that when States monitor the performance of 
local waiver recipients, they use all information available to them to 
hold them accountable for using Ed-Flex to improve students' 
performance.
  It clarifies what States must submit to the U.S. Department of 
Education in their annual Ed-Flex reports. States need only to provide 
performance data and information about the types and characteristics of 
the waivers granted. No unnecessary burdensome paperwork requirements, 
just what Congress needs to evaluate the success of the program and how 
it is helping reform at the local level.
  Finally, it will enable Congress to better understand how Ed-Flex 
waivers are being implemented, a concern raised by the GAO. It requires 
States to provide an assurance that their data is complete, reliable 
and accurate, which is in accordance with standard accounting 
procedures, and it clarifies that the Secretary should report the 
information they receive to Congress and the general public on an 
annual basis.
  Included in this report will be an overall assessment of the impact 
of Ed-Flex waivers on student performance. That is the heart and soul 
of what this amendment is.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the coauthor of this amendment. I 
support this amendment very strongly. The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Miller) originally came up with this language in committee that 
was modified and hopefully improved on by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  We believe it is very important to get good information about how 
these waivers are being used. We believe it is very important to get 
specific information, and not just accumulate a phone book, but get 
specific data, for instance, on how the Ed-Flex waivers are being used 
for the Eisenhower Program.
  And if a particular program is still keeping scores up and they are 
still using the waiver, but their science and math scores are 
maintaining as high or if not higher than the rest of the State, we 
want them to share that information with other States that are applying 
for the waiver.
  So we strongly support this language. We thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller) for the discussion we had on this in our 
committee, and I would propose to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Delaware, the coauthor of the amendment and the bill, that we have a 
unanimous consent agreement at the present time to limit the debate on 
this particular amendment, which is an agreed-to amendment, to just two 
or three speakers, maybe just the managers of the bill, and then move 
on to the Scott amendment, which is an important and substantive 
amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I have no problems with the gentleman's 
offer, but I have the chairman of the committee standing here. Maybe I 
should get his wise advice.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. I think that would be a good idea, Mr. Chairman. 
Basically, after the last discussion we had for hours and hours and 
hours, no one should oppose this, since it strengthens accountability 
by clarifying reporting and oversight requirements. So I would think it 
is a unanimous vote, and if the gentleman needs a recorded one to see 
that it is unanimous, the gentleman can ask for one.
  Mr. ROEMER. No, we do not want a recorded vote.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I realize there is a time problem here. We 
have one or two people who want to speak. Can we have two speakers of 3 
minutes, or something of that nature?
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent now that we have 
two speakers; that the gentleman has 5 minutes of debate and we have 5 
minutes of debate, and we would yield back our 5 minutes on this 
particular amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Yes. I would agree to that.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Delaware?
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, let me restate it, 5 minutes on each side?
  Mr. ROEMER. That is correct.
  Mr. GOODLING. On this amendment?
  Mr. ROEMER. That is correct. Then we would move on to our side, and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) would be eligible to offer an 
amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. That is 5 minutes total for our speakers?
  Mr. ROEMER. Five minutes on each side, and we would probably yield 
back our 5 minutes.
  Mr. CASTLE. Yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous consent request, as the Chair understands 
it, is 5 minutes on each side for this amendment and any amendments 
thereto.
  Mr. ROEMER. No, just this amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Just this amendment, and amendments to this amendment, 
yes. Sorry.
  The CHAIRMAN. That is what the Chair said.
  Mr. CASTLE. Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. For this amendment and any amendments thereto, 5 
minutes on a side, the time to be controlled by the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleagues from the other 
side. I came to this debate fully expecting that there would be a 
donnybrook and

[[Page 4116]]

battle. I think it has been a very healthy debate, showing differences 
on the issues itself. It did not get personal. There was very little 
partisanship that went through. I think that is very, very good.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee). Of anybody I have worked with in Congress, both when he 
was my chairman on the committee and then when I was his chairman on 
the committee, there is no other one on the other side of the aisle 
that I have ever worked better with on education issues.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  Mr. GREENWOOD. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. 
Chairman.
  I think it is constructive that earlier this afternoon the 
Pennsylvania delegation met with Governor Ridge, a former member here. 
The first question that our Governor asked is, When are you going to 
move this Ed-Flex bill? We absolutely have to have it.
  This is what he said was the primary reason, that 40 percent of the 
bureaucrats working in the State Department of Education are employed 
filling out Federal forms, only to qualify them for 7 percent of their 
total educational package.
  So the notion that the Castle amendment, joined in with the Ed-Flex 
bill, will give the Governor of Pennsylvania the opportunity to put 
some of those 40 percent of the educational bureaucrats to work doing 
something productive is reason enough for both the Castle amendment and 
the bill.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I strongly support the Castle-Roemer amendment, and thank the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) for his excellent contributions.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Scott

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Scott:
       In section 4(c) (of H.R. 800, as reported), after 
     ``Secretary'', insert ``or a State educational agency''.
       At the end of section 4(c)(1)(G) (of H.R. 800, as 
     reported), strike ``and''.
       After subparagraph (H) of section 4(c) (of H.R. 800, as 
     reported), insert the following:
       (I) in the case of a school that participates in a 
     schoolwide program under section 1114 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965, the eligibility requirements 
     of such section if such a school serves a school attendance 
     area in which less than 35 percent of the children are from 
     low-income families; and

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, historically, when it comes to educating the 
most difficult and challenging portions of our society, it has always 
been the Federal Government that has been forced to act because of the 
States' inability or unwillingness to act.
  For example, it was the United States Supreme Court in Brown vs. 
Board of Education which forced States to provide an equal education 
for African American students.
  It was Congress, through the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act, which required States to afford free and appropriate education to 
children who are physically and mentally challenged. For low-income 
children, Title I was fashioned by Congress to focus resources on a 
population whose needs were not being met.
  Today it seems that we are prepared to abrogate our responsibility to 
make sure that those who are in need of educational services continue 
to receive focused Federal educational assistance. In the name of 
increased flexibility, the bill before us allows States and school 
districts to shift targeted Federal educational assistance away from 
the most educationally and economically disadvantaged students.
  This amendment, which I am offering today with my colleague, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), guarantees that we will continue 
to focus on children most in need of assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, without this amendment we would allow schools to shift 
funds designed to improve educational opportunities for those who are 
economically and educationally disadvantaged in favor of those who are 
not in as much need. The purpose of Title I is to focus funding on low-
income students, because we recognize that they are educationally at 
risk and because we recognize that the States were not addressing these 
needs. Funds must be focused on those children who are most at risk.
  But there is an exception to those who are in schools where the 
majority of the students are poor. In those schools, Title I funds can 
be used for school-wide programs, not targeted purposes. Although the 
funds are thereby diluted, the dilution is offset by the administrative 
efficiencies in the school-wide programs, rather than having to serve 
only those children who are technically eligible for services, and not 
others. This amendment will prevent schools with low poverty rates from 
diluting the funding to the point where the needy students are not 
helped at all.
  Members of Congress should be reminded of why Title I was funded in 
the first place, because States were ignoring the educational needs of 
the poor. If we trusted the States to adequately fund the educational 
needs of the poor, we would not have funded Title I in the first place. 
Therefore, I offer this amendment to avoid unnecessary dilution of 
Title I funds, and to maintain our commitment to those educationally at 
risk.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and 
I feel that this amendment is extremely important.
  When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was originally 
written in 1965, it was clear that the performance of students at high 
poverty schools was relatively low. The Federal Government decided to 
commit resources to ensuring those schools receive program funds 
specifically targeted to schools that had large numbers of children who 
lived in poverty. That program is now called Title I, and it was 
created to help improve the gap in achievement between low- and high-
income students.
  We all know that today the gap of achievement still exists. That is 
why it is important that we maintain our commitment to reaching out to 
those schools in the form of targeted assistance. But under H.R. 800, 
States are given the authority to allow schools to participate in 
schoolwide programs under Title I, regardless of their low-income child 
percentages.
  Let me give an idea of what Title I schoolwide programs do and how 
they are funded. Funds are currently given to individual schools with a 
student population that is 50 percent or more below the poverty level. 
They are able to use the school-wide funds to institute programs that 
benefit all students at a high priority school. Such examples include 
hiring more teachers, instituting reform plans.
  This bill will allow waivers to be issued to schools so they may give 
these funds to any school, regardless of their poverty level. This is 
wrong. Giving school districts the authority to use Title I funds for 
schoolwide programs at any school, regardless of the number of children 
who are low-income, dilutes the purpose of Title I. It is wrong.
  Over the years, when the program first started, we had to demonstrate 
75 percent of the students. It was dropped to 50 percent. Now we are 
saying it is unimportant about the level.
  Now we stand here today, about to vote on a bill that will give the 
States the authority to waive this poverty level requirement and allow 
schoolwide program funds to be allocated to schools that do not have 
one child who lives below the poverty level. We can argue all we want 
about the effectiveness of the Title I program over the years. But make 
no mistake about it, Title I was created to give high poverty, low 
performing schools a better chance

[[Page 4117]]

at improving student achievement. We cannot take away our commitment to 
these schools by allowing waivers to be issued to schools that have low 
levels of poverty to be eligible for Title I funds. Diluting Title I 
funds for schoolwide programs so that any school can use them defeats 
the entire purpose of the program. This amendment will simply make sure 
that only schools with over a 35% poverty rate are eligible for 
schoolwide project funds. It will keep low poverty schools from 
capitalizing on a program meant for high poverty schools. This 
amendment is consistent with the actions of the Secretary of Education 
who has only issued waivers for schoolwide programs to schools with 
poverty levels of above 35%. Without accepting this amendment, we will 
find that we have spread the funds too thin to see any real gains in 
achievement at schools using Title I funds for schoolwide programs. And 
we will most certainly find that disadvantaged schools will see less of 
the Title I funds originally created to bridge the gap between high and 
low poverty schools. The Title I program was created as a program for 
disadvantaged students. You can keep some semblance of that intention 
if you vote for this amendment.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. Let me 
explain why.
  Over the last few years, as we have taken a look at education around 
the country, we have visited a lot of different types of school 
districts, but one constant remains, that people at the local level are 
focused at meeting the needs of the kids in their schools. They want 
more flexibility. Washington has stood in the way too often of schools 
helping kids in their community.
  What Ed-Flex does is it steps back and it says, we recognize that at 
the local level the teachers, the parents, and the school districts are 
best-equipped to make the decisions to improve the lives and the 
education of their students.
  If we take a look at the facts, Ed-Flex, in the 12 States where it 
has been operating, has been helping and not hurting Title I students. 
It just reinforces the direction here that says, let local people make 
local decisions. We have had lots of cases where school-wide programs 
have been more effective at improving student performance than 
traditional targeted programs.
  In both Texas and Maryland, Ed-Flex States, Ed-Flex has enabled 
school districts in each State to improve the test scores of their 
poorest children. In return for greater flexibility, both States have 
produced solid academic outcomes.
  An example, in Kent County, Maryland, a 60 percent poverty school 
that utilizes Ed-Flex, it now has the third highest test scores in the 
State. In Texas, through the use of Ed-Flex waiver authority for 
schoolwide projects under Title I, test scores of poor and 
educationally disadvantaged students have increased significantly.
  I think these are just a couple of examples of when we empower people 
at the local level, they take that flexibility and they make the 
decisions that are right for that school district and for the kids in 
their schools.

                              {time}  1830

  We saw that over and over again. Whether we were in New York, whether 
we were in Cleveland, whether we were in Milwaukee, when we give the 
flexibility, people at the local level embrace it and put together some 
truly exceptional programs. They do focus on results, and they do focus 
on the most needy students within their school districts.
  We do not need Washington to dictate. We ought to place some 
confidence in people at the local district. I think what we have seen 
and the examples that we have out of Texas and Maryland show that that 
is exactly what happens.
  Some would argue that Ed-Flex shortchanges high poverty schools. 
Again, that is not true. Since 1994, the year that both Ed-Flex and 
schoolwide projects under Title I became law, the percentage of high 
poverty schools receiving Title I funds rose from 79 percent in 1993, 
1994 to close to 95 percent in 1997, 1998. Poor students are continuing 
to benefit under Title I.
  The question that we have is, when Governors, school administrators, 
teachers, State boards of education, local boards of education, and 
chambers of commerce, all experts at improving education, they all 
support more flexibility for the States, why is it that we continually 
see amendments here in Washington that are trying to dictate to them 
what they should do?
  We know flexibility works. Local school principals, local teachers, 
local administrators like having the schoolwide option. The national 
assessment of Title I shows that, by 1997, 1998, 82 percent of eligible 
schools were using the schoolwide option, and an additional 12 percent 
were considering implementing schoolwide programs.
  We know that this type of an approach works. We know that the 
flexibility works. We know that, when we enhance the capability of 
people at the local level within a set of parameters to improve 
education, they make the right kinds of decisions. Let us leave this 
decision making at the local level within those parameters and oppose 
this amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise at the end of this debate, when we have 15 or 20 
minutes left in this 5-hour debate, to again salute my coauthor the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who has worked so hard and with 
so much integrity on this legislation. I have enjoyed working with him 
very much on this legislation, and I hope to work with him in 
conference on this legislation.
  We have agreed virtually on everything over the last 8 months. 
Accountability and how, in the sensitivity of enhanced flexibility, but 
strong accountability, we work through that nexus and that synergy. I 
think we have accomplished that.
  We have worked through a host of other very, very difficult yet 
bipartisan issues. This is the one issue that I come down in 
disagreement with my good friend, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle). I come down on this on the side of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  When we look at this bill and we see how we must maintain 
accountability, we also have to maintain the integrity of Title I 
programs. When we look at the genesis of Title I under the SEA Act of 
1965, we look at why we formulated this program in the first place, 
that different children come to school from different families with 
different incomes.
  Some of these children come to schools where they are eligible for 
free or reduced lunch programs, where their parents or parent are 
making under the poverty line. We put together the program that tried 
to compensate some of these school districts that base their tax system 
on State and local taxes, but they may have high poverty rates and may 
have high percentages of children on free and reduced lunches.
  The Title I program is specifically designed to help these children 
that attend some schools in some of our inner cities where we do not 
have adequate access to technology and computers, we do not have 
adequate textbooks, textbooks are missing pages in algebra in science, 
where we have children walk through gang-infested neighborhoods, and we 
have to employ out of those funds in the school full-time police 
officers. What about equal access to education for these children?
  All the Scott amendment does, it says that we are going to try a new 
way of delivering Title I programs, but there should be a floor as we 
experiment here. The floor should be at 35 percent. I think the State 
of Michigan has voluntarily agreed to set that standard at 35 percent.
  We must, and I implore my colleagues on the other side, where 
Democrats have come across the aisle today on several amendments to 
join with Republicans, that Republicans join now with Democrats; that 
we look at the genesis of Title I; that we maintain the integrity of 
helping the poorest of the poor students; that we consider that some of 
these children come from very different backgrounds and very different 
incomes and very different families.
  Some of these children do not get hot lunches and hot dinners and hot 
breakfasts if it were not for our hot lunch and hot food program. They 
would not have access to the kind of education

[[Page 4118]]

that every son and every daughter should have in this country if it 
were not for equal distribution or fair distribution or the integrity 
of the Title I program.
  I encourage my colleagues not to let that floor be set any lower than 
35 percent and support the Scott amendment. It maintains that integrity 
in the Title I program. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
for offering this amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to this as sincerely as I 
possibly can. Sometimes we get awfully tangled up with numbers on this. 
I respect the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) in so many ways 
because we have worked together on a lot of different issues. But I am 
perplexed by Title I.
  I have watched Title I for many, many years in many capacities in the 
State of Delaware. Quite frankly, while money goes into the system, I 
have never seen a measurable output that would tell me that Title I is 
actually doing better. Now one could argue it is, but it is all 
anecdotal at this point.
  We are now seeing under the Ed-Flex legislation, when schools are 
going to schoolwide projects, which means that they take the whole 
school and try to have a rising tide with respect to that school, that, 
all of a sudden, the Title I kids are doing better.
  I am not going to sit here and tell my colleagues this is the best 
thing since sliced bread because it is not absolutely proven yet, but 
it seems to be working. To put a floor on this and to say, if one does 
not have 35 percent or more poverty, one cannot get a waiver in this 
case I think would be a mistake.
  I think we should let the local school district and the schools and 
the States make the decision as to which way we should go. We have this 
particular chart, which shows that Ed-Flex boosts student performance, 
Texas uses flexibility to improve reading scores. It shows statewide 
scores. Then it shows higher scores for Hispanic Ed-Flex schools, for 
African-American Ed-Flex schools, and for economically disadvantaged 
Ed-Flex schools.
  So we actually can show, we can document improvement in State reading 
scores in the State of Texas as a result of what they have been able to 
do with Ed-Flex, with the schoolwide programs, and with the waivers.
  I spent time in a school in Dover, Delaware, I guess 3 days ago now, 
and talked to the principal there. We are not an Ed-Flex State, but she 
is not sure about whether to go to something like a schoolwide program 
at this point. That is fine. That is her decision. I do not have a 
problem with that.
  In Kent County, Maryland, right over here on the Eastern Shore, if 
you go to Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, you drive through it, a 60 percent 
poverty school there that utilizes Ed-Flex has the third highest test 
scores in the Nation.
  I do not know this, but I would imagine there are not too many Title 
I programs across this country which can have documentation such as 
that. They of course are using the schoolwide projects to carry out 
what they have to do in order to help these young children.
  The people who are doing this care a great deal. These are not people 
who are trying to throw money away. As a matter of fact, in the Ed-Flex 
bill, one cannot change the money. The money goes to the school 
district. They get it, and they cannot give it away to another school 
district. But they can make decisions in their school district, just as 
Texas has done.
  Maybe a school that is a little bit higher income can do better than 
a school that is a little bit lower income, needs more help than a 
school that is a little bit lower income, and, therefore, adjusts the 
flow of their funds accordingly in order to accommodate those problems.
  The governors, the school administrators, the teachers, the State 
boards of education, the local board of education, and the Chamber of 
Commerce, among others, have all looked at this and believe that it is 
a positive step going in the right direction.
  We also have plenty of accountability in this bill now thanks to some 
of the discussion today and some of the things we were able to do in 
committee. Indeed, we can make determinations if these programs are 
working.
  But, again, I am trying to discourage any amendments today, tonight, 
that are going to, in some way, discourage flexibility. Of all the 
areas that concern me the most, Title I is the one I am most interested 
in seeing what we can do, to see if we can have documentable 
improvement of our students in those particular programs.
  The one thing that I see and which truly has worked is the schoolwide 
programs which we have talked about here today. By the way, schoolwide 
waivers and the Title I programs are almost the most sought after in 
some ways of these various waivers under Ed-Flex as well, because a lot 
of schools are seeing that opportunity.
  I personally shy away from arbitrarily putting in some sort of a 
floor and say, well, if one is below that then one cannot have the 
schoolwide program. Others might argue, well, if one gets below that 
level, one is going to have so little money one has to do it for 
individuals or whatever it may be.
  I do not necessarily believe that. I believe that educators in 
America today are beginning to really understand that people in elected 
office, parents, and people across this country are beginning to demand 
better education. That is the best thing that has ever happened.
  The next best thing that has ever happened is the fact that we are 
taking this long to discuss a bill of this importance on the floor of 
the House of Representatives. As was said at the very beginning, I hope 
we do it once a week. I am not sure the staff hopes for that. But I 
hope we do it once a week so we can improve the education of our 
children.
  I would hope, even though I want to help Title I in every way we can, 
that tomorrow, when we vote on this amendment, that we would defeat the 
amendment; after we have done that, that we would rally together to 
pass Ed-Flex.
  We have had a good debate on the amendments. I understand there is a 
good chance it will pass in the other body tomorrow. They have worked 
some things out apparently. The chairman has given strong support for 
this. This is really an opportunity for us to join together to move 
education forward.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Scott amendment and 
wish to cite improvements in the District of Columbia as one good 
reason this amendment is minimally necessary if we are really going to 
pass this Ed-Flex bill at all.
  I hope we will not throw poor children into a power struggle to get 
money, Title I money, and that is what we are doing if we do not 
safeguard this flexibility, if you will, for those who need it more.
  If one asks any parent, any child, any teacher what could the 
Congress most do that would help you, I do not think they would say 
give us flexibility. I think they would say give us results.
  I implore my colleagues to look at the question: If we are freeing up 
funds, for what and for whom? No government spends money so well that 
we should want to give it a blank check. If my colleagues do not think 
much of the way the Federal Government spends money, I hope they do not 
believe that the State governments are paragons of fairness and of 
efficiency in spending money. The problem, as usual, is that one has to 
watch government and to make sure government spends its money wisely 
where it is most needed.
  We have had an extraordinary thing happen in the District of 
Columbia, a turnaround in test scores. Every grade, test scores have 
significantly gone up. How do we do it? We did it by giving individual 
attention to the children most in need, because they are with children 
who are pulling down the test scores for everybody else.

                              {time}  1845

  We did it by our Summer Stars program, where children were in classes 
of

[[Page 4119]]

15 children to 1 teacher. We do it now with a Saturday Stars program, 
with the children most in need going to school on Saturday for special 
attention.
  We have not spread the money all around the city and said that 
whether the children needed it or not, here is some money. We do not 
need to shoot in the dark, nor do we need to say, here is the bank, 
come get it, and whichever of them are most powerful, and we know who 
they are, they will be sure to get it.
  Moreover, we have learned something finally about education. 
Essentially we have learned that if a child is going to learn to read 
at all, they had better learn to read in those early grades. It becomes 
very, very difficult afterwards.
  Who is having trouble reading? It is the 35 percent that the 
amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) would set aside 
money for. Mr. Chairman, there is a direct correlation between test 
scores and income. The evidence there is irrefutable. There is a direct 
correlation between income and IQ. So we do know that if income, which 
means access to education, goes up, that we do improve what happens to 
a child.
  The gap between the poor and the middle class is not going to erase 
itself by ``flexibility''. If we want that gap to be erased, then we 
have to make sure that at least some of the money is targeted where it 
is most needed.
  Why did we pass this bill in the middle of the war on poverty in the 
first place? We passed it because there were children who were not 
getting the attention that was needed. If we must pass this bill, and I 
have grave problems with this bill, it seems to me that the other side 
owes us some continuing guarantee that we are not simply blowing the 
lid off of Title I, telling poor children that they and their parents 
are now in the mix and may the most powerful and most outspoken win.
  We have an obligation to, at the very least, if we must pass this 
bill, to make certain that the flexibility that we all seek redounds 
especially to those most in need.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, Mr. Chairman, and 
I stand in support of the Scott-Payne amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Cummings, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Norton was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to 
yield, I stand in support of the Scott-Payne amendment. And the reason 
why, Mr. Chairman, is I would have been one who would have come under 
Title I.
  Many years ago I was placed in special education and told that I 
would never be able to read or write. And as I look at this whole bill, 
the safeguards are not there to address accountability. When the Kildee 
amendment was defeated, accountability went away.
  In my district, in many of my schools, most of the children are Title 
I children, and I am very, very concerned about them. I would just ask 
the House to support this amendment.
  Title I is the federal government's way of assuring disadvantaged 
children have the opportunity to receive the supplemental services they 
need to succeed, school as reading and math. We must continue this 
effort to close the academic achievement gap between disadvantaged 
children and their schoolmates. Unfortunately, the Ed-Flex bill does 
not include the safeguards to ensure that this happens. With the defeat 
of the Miller/Kildee amendment this bill will go forth without 
substantial accountability mechanisms in place. Moreover, the bill 
itself will allow states to waive the current 50% requirement for Title 
I. Conceivably, a school could use their Title I funds on a school-wide 
project that did not take into account special needs of poorer 
children.
  My state of Maryland is one of the 12 states that is currently 
implementing Ed-Flex, with measured statewide success. The majority of 
children in my District of Baltimore City are Title I eligible. I have 
serious concerns that with no accountability with regards to Title I 
funds, monies could possibly be diverted away from disadvantaged 
students. As my colleague Sheila Jackson-Lee pointed out in the earlier 
debate, Title I funds can account for up to one-third of a local school 
system's budget in a disadvantaged area. That is a lot of money with no 
accountability.
  That is why I stand here today to support the Scott/Payne amendment 
which would require that only schools in which at least 35% of the 
students come from low-income families may seek a waiver to use their 
Title I funds to operate their school-wide programs. We must not reduce 
targeted resources available to disadvantaged children. It is a risk we 
cannot take. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me 
in voting in favor of this amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) is 
entitled to 5 minutes, but under the rule, there is only 3 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman may have those 3 minutes.
  Mr. GOODLING. I can do it in 3 minutes, Mr. Chairman.
  I want to, first of all, indicate to the gentlewoman from D.C. that, 
as a matter of fact, they are turning it around under present existing 
law. There does not have to be a change. They are turning it around 
under the 50 percent existing law that is there now.
  Now, I have been wanting to, for many, many years, give the 
gentlewoman an extra $12 million a year. I have been wanting to give 
the gentlewoman from D.C. an extra $12 million a year. All the 
gentlewoman has to do is help me. All she has to do is get the special 
education funding that the gentlewoman's side promised 23 years ago, 
and we would give her an extra $12 million every year. Boy, could the 
gentlewoman ever reduce class size; could the gentlewoman ever do a lot 
of repairs. She could do all sorts of things with that $12 million.
  The important thing is that the changes are being made under existing 
law. All the scores that have gone up in Texas have gone up under the 
school-wide effort. That is the beauty of it. We are pulling everybody 
up. So we do not need any changes because it is now working.
  So, again, I would ask everyone to oppose this amendment, allow Texas 
to continue to raise African American students 11.9, when the State 
average is only 11.4; Hispanic students 9.4, the average is only 9.2; 
the economically disadvantaged student, 10.3, the average is only 10. 
They are doing all those wonderful things to help every youngster 
improve their opportunity for a piece of that American dream. Math, 
same story. Every one in the Ed-Flex schools have increased, and they 
have done it with school-wide effort.
  So, again, Mr. Chairman, things are improving under existing law, 
finally. Finally, after 30 years in this program and 23 years in the 
Head Start, and so on, those youngsters are finally getting an 
opportunity to get a piece of that American dream.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
Amendment, which recognizes the need to utilize flexibility to 
administer programs while protecting resources targeted to 
disadvantaged children.
  The Scott amendment would add a finding to the bill encouraging the 
use of flexibility in administering Federal Education programs while 
not reducing resources to schools with the highest concentrations of 
poor children.
  This amendment sends the message that flexibility and targeting of 
resources should be coupled together in the effective administration of 
Federal education programs. It also recognizes that the concept of 
flexibility and targeting do not have to be at odds.
  With this amendment, this body sends an important message that 
targeting of Federal resources is vital to the success of disadvantaged 
children, even in efforts to advance flexibility. Focus the use of Ed-
Flex in expanding flexibility that recognizes the need to target 
resources.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which recognizes the 
need to utilize flexibility to administer programs while protecting 
resources targeted to disadvantaged children.
  The CHAIRMAN. Time for consideration of the bill for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule has expired.

[[Page 4120]]

  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 100, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Fossella) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pease, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 800) to 
provide for education flexibility partnerships, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________