[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4186-4201]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 EDUCATION FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 280, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Jeffords amendment No. 31, in the nature of a substitute.
       Jeffords (for Lott) modified amendment No. 60 (to amendment 
     No. 31), to express the sense of the Senate regarding 
     flexibility to use certain Federal education funds to carry 
     out part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act, and to provide all local educational agencies with the 
     option to use the funds received under section 307 of the 
     Department of Education Appropriations Act, 1999, for 
     activities under part B of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act.
       Feinstein/Dorgan/Bingaman amendment No. 61 (to amendment 
     No. 31), to assist local educational agencies to help all 
     students achieve State achievement standards, and to end the 
     practice of social promotion.
       Wellstone amendment No. 62 (to amendment No. 31), to 
     provide for local and state plans, use of funds, and 
     accountability, under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and 
     Technical Education Act of 1998, except to permit the 
     formation of secondary and post-secondary consortia.
       Bingaman amendment No. 63 (to amendment No. 31), to provide 
     for a national school dropout prevention program.
       Bingaman (for Murray/Kennedy) amendment No. 64 (to 
     amendment No. 31), authorizing funds for fiscal years 2000 
     through 2005 to provide for class-size reduction in the early 
     grades and to provide for the hiring of additional qualified 
     teachers.
       Bingaman (for Boxer) amendment No. 65 (to amendment No. 
     31), to improve academic and social outcomes for students and 
     reduce both juvenile crime and the risk that youth will 
     become victims of crime by providing productive activities 
     during after school hours.
       Jeffords (for Lott) amendment No. 66 (to amendment No. 31), 
     to provide all local educational agencies with the option to 
     use the funds received under section 307 of the Department of 
     Education Appropriations Act, 1999, for activities under part 
     B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
       Jeffords (for Lott) amendment No. 67 (to amendment No. 31), 
     to provide all local educational agencies with the option to 
     use the funds received under section 307 of the Department of 
     Education Appropriations Act, 1999, for activities under part 
     B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
       Jeffords (for Lott) amendment No. 68 (to amendment No. 31), 
     to provide all local educational agencies with the option to 
     use the funds received under section 307 of the Department of 
     Education Appropriations Act, 1999, for activities under part 
     B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and

[[Page 4187]]

     to amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act with 
     respect to alternative educational settings.

  Mr. TORRICELLI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, under the previous order, I yield 
myself 10 minutes on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, there is understandably much 
discussion in our country about the ways and means to continue the 
rather extraordinary economic prosperity that has been visited upon our 
generation. Theories abound about how to maintain this economic growth 
that is providing employment, a growing Federal surplus, and a rising 
quality of life in America.
  It is one thing upon which I suspect we can all agree, as we think 
about continuing the current economic expansion, that this prosperity 
is built upon a foundation of quality education. Indeed, I would argue 
that it is the investment of our parents' generation in quality 
schools, rising standards of excellence, attraction of good teachers, 
30 and 40 years ago, that we are now reaping in dividends of 
prosperity. There is no question that in those years our parents 
understood that the security of our Nation and our prosperity would be 
no stronger than the investment we made in education.
  I believe that as our parents recognized the opportunity and made the 
investment and that investment yielded these dividends, the problems of 
American education now stand like a dagger at the heart of our economy. 
Too many of our children are now attending schools that would be a 
source of embarrassment for any Member of this institution. I have 
visited schools across New Jersey where children meet in hallways, in 
gymnasiums, because there are no longer classes available. The very 
schools that our parents provided for us that helped build this 
prosperity are crumbling around our feet.
  The GAO has reported that one-third of all schools in America, 
serving 14 million students, are in serious need of repair. Teachers, 
no matter how hard they try, no matter their level of effort, can only 
do so much with old textbooks and with the dearth of modern technology. 
All the inventions and services on the Internet in the world won't make 
any difference in American education when only 27 percent of public 
schools are even connected to the Internet. Far too few communities can 
any longer afford the extra curricular activities, the extra hours of 
instruction that we enjoyed as students ourselves.
  Across America, school districts are canceling sports activities. The 
club activities, the tutoring activities, the activities where students 
excelled a generation ago are being lost, leaving between 5 and 15 
million students left alone at home after school. The reality of the 
two-wage-earner family means that millions of these students not only 
do not have supervision in school or activities but are left alone. 
Even if they did not need the instruction, even if they did not need 
the socialization or activities, these students are going home, where 
we are laying the groundwork for drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, 
truancy, with a direct correlation between students who do not have 
activities after school and failing grades and dropouts.
  Local schools are so overwhelmed with these social problems, the 
overcrowding, the crumbling schools, sometimes they have no choice but 
social promotion, take a student who is failing and send them through 
the system and on to the streets. The reality of this education debate 
is, there are a lot of good answers, and they are represented by many 
Senators on this floor--efforts to help local communities deal with the 
cost of reconstructing our schools, dealing with the problems of social 
promotion, the problems of rising standards, the problems of getting 
better teachers, retaining good teachers.
  What is unique about this education debate is--everybody is right--
there is no one good idea. There are no two good ideas. This is a 
problem of such complexity that is so central to quality of life and 
economic opportunity in America that succeeding requires everybody's 
best efforts. What is most important is that it is a debate that 
requires a competition of the best ideas between Democrats and 
Republicans and liberals and conservatives.
  There is no monopoly on creative thinking in dealing with the 
problems of education in America. Indeed, the underlying legislation, 
the Education Flexibility Partnership Act, is a good idea, it is a 
sound idea, but it is one idea that in and of itself does nothing about 
overcrowding or rising standards or new technology. It is one idea. I 
will vote for it, and this Senate should enact it. But at the end of 
the day it leaves us with this question: What do we do about these 
varieties of other problems?
  Indeed, can this Senate say at the conclusion of the 106th Congress 
that we have dealt with educational flexibility, but that is all we 
have done, and seriously argue that we have dealt with the issue of 
education in America?
  Last year, in this Senate, I joined with Senator Coverdell in the 
belief that we should establish savings accounts to help fund private 
and public education. I believed it was a good idea. But even then, I 
argued, in answer to my own legislation, that if that is all that we 
have done, we haven't begun to address the problems of education in 
America. I return to that argument today.
  Consider the dimensions of the problem, if you are to disagree and 
argue that educational flexibility alone will deal with this national 
dilemma. Forty percent of fourth grade students are failing to obtain 
basic levels of reading; 40 percent of eighth graders fail to obtain a 
basic level of mathematics. High school seniors across the Nation are 
ranked 19th out of 21 industrialized nations in math and science. Of 
course, I support legislation for educational flexibility, but I am 
also here to support the Murray amendment to hire more teachers and 
reduce class size, because we know, according to the Department of 
Education in their 1998 May report, that one element most directly 
relating to improved student performance is a reduction of class size 
in the early grades. The Murray amendment is the one answer we know 
will improve student performance in early grades. The Murray amendment 
would finish the process we began last year of adding 100,000 new 
teachers in America to reduce class size.
  Indeed, I would have liked to have today added to the efforts of 
Senator Murray with an amendment of my own, and that would have been to 
give signing bonuses to people who will become teachers. Where our best 
college graduates will go to schools most in need, I would have offered 
them a signing bonus to get them into the classroom immediately.
  It confronts the reality of the fact that a starting teacher in 
America today could hope to earn, in a public school, $25,000. For a 
software engineer, our leading high-tech companies are offering $50,000 
to the same person, with a signing bonus. Teachers are prepared to make 
sacrifices because they are dedicated, but how much of a sacrifice? We 
know they are our most important asset in dealing with the issue of 
educational quality.
  So, my colleagues, I urge that we all come together to support 
educational flexibility. But I would have liked to have offered my 
amendment, which will not be allowed today. I urge my colleagues to 
consider Senator Murray's amendment, and also Senator Feinstein's to 
end social promotion in our schools--the passing of the problem along 
to the streets because we will not deal with it in the classroom--and 
Senator Bingaman's amendment to help stem the tide of dropouts. 
Unfortunately, one of the most important problems of all--deteriorating 
schools--we won't be able to vote on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank you for yielding me the time. 
I support the underlying legislation but also the amendments being 
offered.
  Mr. VOINOVICH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

[[Page 4188]]


  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I stand before you today in strong 
support of Senator Frist's Educational Flexibility Partnership Act. But 
then again, most of the Senate, and all 50 Governors, Secretary Riley, 
and even the President want this wonderful piece of legislation to pass 
today.
  It is a big day personally for me. Some people are not aware of the 
fact that this effort for flexibility started in Ohio in 1981, when I 
commissioned a private-sector audit of the department of education to 
make it more friendly to our school districts. At the same time, it was 
command and control. The private-sector management audit came back and 
said it was riddled with paperwork, and the shocking thing was that 
half the paperwork the department had to do and the schools had to do 
was as a result of Federal regulations, and we were only getting 6 
percent of our money from the Federal Government.
  I recall going to Washington at that time and sitting down with 
Secretary Lamar Alexander and asking him if he could do something about 
it. Unfortunately, he could not. Later on when President Clinton became 
President and Dick Riley, a former Governor, became Secretary of 
Education, in the Goals 2000 legislation he provided for States to take 
advantage of some flexibility.
  I want to underscore that a State cannot take advantage of this 
program unless they agree themselves to waive their regulations, and in 
some instances--for example, in Ohio--even waive statutes. This 
provided an opportunity for school districts to get waivers that, prior 
to Ed-Flex, had to go directly to Washington in order to get a waiver. 
It allows them to go to their superintendents of public instruction in 
their respective States.
  I am proud that we have had an opportunity to take advantage of this. 
In Ohio we have 186 schools using a title I waiver, with over half of 
these schools increasing their proficiency test scores in math and 
science. Those school districts have taken advantage of waivers in the 
Eisenhower grants. As you know, in the Eisenhower grants, 85 percent of 
the money is supposed to be used for math and science. But in the 
elementary schools, how can a kid learn math or science if they cannot 
read? So as a result of the waiver program, we were able to get waivers 
to allow the money to be spent on reading, and today in those schools 
we have seen a dramatic increase in the math and science scores as a 
result of the fact that those schools were able to take advantage of 
the waiver.
  There are some people who would argue that we need more 
accountability. I argue that we have accountability in most States. In 
Ohio, for example, we have our report cards, not only by districts but 
by individual buildings. With Ed-Flex, a building or a classroom that 
takes advantage of a waiver has to agree that within a year they will 
report back on how they are taking advantage of that waiver and whether 
it is making a difference in the classroom.
  I would say that if I could get every title I school in the United 
States of America to become an Ed-Flex waiver school, we would have a 
lot more accountability with that title I money that is going into 
those districts--for those that are concerned about title I.
  I think this idea is so overwhelming that last year, as chairman of 
the National Governors' Association, I made Ed-Flex one of my top 
priorities. I recall going to the White House and talking to President 
Clinton about it and his indicating that he thought it was a good idea. 
Last year, we almost got it done with the help of Tom Carper, the 
Democratic Governor of the State of Delaware. Again, we are bringing it 
back to Congress for their consideration.
  To my Democratic colleagues I say this: There are a lot of ideas that 
have been proposed here on the floor. My attitude is that they all 
involve money. This is not a money bill. Ed-Flex does not require one 
additional dime from the Federal Government. What it does do is that it 
allows school districts to save the paperwork and the redtape so their 
administrators can spend time on education, and the teachers can, and 
they can take more of the money that is coming in from the Federal 
Government and put it in the classroom to improve the education of our 
children.
  And if you want to talk about priorities: Rather than 100,000 new 
teachers, I would rather put the money in funding the Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Assistance Act or, in the alternative, my 
favorite: If I had the choice, instead of 100,000 teachers, I would put 
the money into 0 to 3, or conception to 3, a time in a child's life 
that is being, quite frankly, neglected in this country, not only by 
the Federal Government but by the local governments. We can prove that 
if you put money in during that period of time, when it is most 
important to the development of a child's ability to learn, you can get 
the best return on your investment.
  So let's debate how we want to spend this Federal money and where we 
ought to be spending it, but let's not make that part of the debate on 
Ed-Flex. We will get to that. We will have that debate. We will look at 
what is available and decide how it is to be spent.
  So today I ask the Members of the Senate to support Ed-Flex. Let's 
have a clean Ed-Flex bill. Let's get it done. It has made a great 
difference for the people of Ohio and those States that have taken 
advantage of it. I think it is long overdue to give the other 38 States 
of this Nation the same opportunities that we have.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I first thank the Senator from Massachusetts for yielding me time 
but, more importantly, thank him for his tremendous efforts on the 
floor of this Senate for the last several days. Hour upon hour, he has 
been battling to ensure that this education flexibility bill is not 
simply a blank check to the States but it also has the kind of 
accountability that will be necessary to ensure that this flexibility 
will result in improved student performance. In fact, it is a battle 
the Governors urged us to take up because they are as concerned as 
anyone else to ensure that this flexibility is accompanied by 
accountability.
  He has also taken up the fight on two important issues of unfinished 
business. Last year, we appropriated significant amounts of money over 
the next several years to ensure that we could reduce class size by 
hiring additional teachers. It is now imperative that we authorize that 
appropriation, that we give a sense of continuity, stability, and 
assurance to the local communities that this money, this program, will 
be in place over time. Second, last year we also went a long way toward 
developing programs to prevent students from dropping out of our 
schools. Senator Bingaman has been the champion of this program and 
that is unfinished business that we want to take up.
  What has happened in the course of this debate is we have moved 
beyond both Ed-Flex and accountability and some unfinished business to 
embrace other issues. The positive value of that is any debate about 
education, I believe, is inherently healthy, and I am pleased to do 
that, but we have taken some steps away from the main topic.
  There is one issue I particularly want to concentrate on and focus 
on. That is an amendment I introduced that would go directly to the 
issue of educational flexibility, directly to the issue of 
accountability. I had hoped to have the opportunity to offer the 
amendment as a stand-alone, that I could debate it and engage in a 
principled discussion, but because of the parliamentary condition of 
the floor, because of the unanimous consent, the only opportunity I had 
to have the amendment offered was to do so in conjunction with one of 
Senator Lott's amendments.
  I am in the awkward position of supporting my amendment and grateful 
that Senator Lott included it in his

[[Page 4189]]

amendment, but respectfully differing with Senator Lott on his proposal 
with respect to IDEA. What Senator Lott is essentially providing to the 
school districts of America is a Hobson's choice, a choice between 
decreasing class size or additional resources for IDEA, the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act. I don't think we should present that 
choice to school districts. I think we should do all we can to ensure 
that we properly fund IDEA and at the same time we are able to reduce 
class sizes throughout the country.
  In fact, I argue that a reduction in class size will materially 
benefit the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act programs 
throughout the country because the reality of many schoolrooms is that 
there are IDEA students in large classrooms. They are not getting the 
attention they need and deserve. At the same time, the other students 
aren't getting that type of attention. By reducing class size--and this 
is an amendment that Senator Murray has championed and I salute her--we 
will help both programs, but ultimately we should be able to find the 
resources to fund both reduced class sizes and also keep up our 
commitment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act program.
  Let me speak specifically about my amendment that goes to the heart 
of Ed-Flex. It goes to the heart of accountability. What it would do is 
involve parents, which I think is a topic we have not paid enough 
attention to. I hope in this oncoming reauthorization of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act, we would put a special emphasis on 
innovative ways of involving parents in the educational process. We 
know it works. We know it is important. We know that good schools are 
schools not only with robust and intellectually curious children and 
good teachers, they are those schools that have strong parental 
involvement.
  My amendment would simply require the States to have a comment period 
with respect to their proposals for educational flexibility. 
Specifically, ask that parents and other interested parties be allowed 
to comment. These comments would be taken pursuant to State laws. We 
are not trying to create a special unique procedure. We don't want to 
add to the burden of States, but we want States to listen to the 
parents in their communities when they talk about educational 
flexibility.
  More than that, we want these comments to be incorporated in the 
application to the Secretary of Education so that the Secretary 
understands not just the perspective of the Governor, but just as 
importantly--in fact, one might argue more importantly--the perspective 
of parents in the communities of that State.
  I am pleased to say after spending a great deal of discussion with 
Senator Frist, particularly, we have reached an accommodation 
acceptable to both sides. In fact, it represents a movement on my part 
from the amendment I suggested last year which would have required a 
formal 30-day period of comments that would require an evaluation of 
the comments by the States in terms of their goals for educational 
flexibility and incorporating that in the application. We have decided 
to move closer together in terms of a more streamlined process.
  I point out that just a few days ago the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce in the other body, by an overwhelming vote of 30-9, 
passed my amendment of last year requiring a much more rigorous 
parental involvement, a more heavily regulated, if you will, approach 
to the issue.
  In order to have a position in conference that will give us the 
opportunity to discuss this and discuss this with a principle proposal 
already on the table, I am extremely pleased that this amendment, the 
Reed amendment, has been incorporated into Senator Lott's proposal. 
This Reed amendment is going forward.
  It also, I might add, follows precedents we established last year 
with respect to parental involvement, in particular with respect to the 
Workforce Investment Act and the Reading Excellence Act. I hope this is 
the beginning of a trend to involve parents directly with the issue of 
educational reform at the local level.
  I hope it also represents an opportunity that we will follow up in 
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to think about ways we can 
get parents more involved in the education of their youngsters. I also 
add that the Parent Teachers Association of America supports my 
amendment, the Education Trust supports it, the American Federation of 
Teachers and the Center for Law and Education supports this. Also, this 
was one of the provisions that was pointed out specifically in the 
statement of administration policy dated March 3 as part of their 
review of the underlying Ed-Flex legislation.
  I say with some regret I cannot support Senator Lott's proposal 
because I do think it is presenting a Hobson's choice. I think we can 
do better. I don't think we have to choose between some children versus 
others. I think we have to recognize that class size will help all 
children. It may, in fact, be additionally beneficial to children with 
special needs.
  Again, I think as we all recognize that we have a special 
responsibility to put our money where our noble words are when it comes 
to the issue of individuals with disabilities and their education in 
the United States, that requires looking for additional resources 
rather than simply trying to play one off the other in terms of some 
children versus other children.
  I thank, again, Senator Kennedy's leadership and certainly Senator 
Frist and Senator Wyden who have been doing a remarkable job on the 
floor. I hope at the end of the day we will have a bill we can all 
support. There are some provisions, as I outlined, that I opposed, but 
I conclude by strongly supporting my amendment which would give parents 
a real say in the educational flexibility plans that emanate from the 
States.
  With that, I yield back any time I have to Senator Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will be managing the time on our side 
until Senator Jeffords arrives. I yield myself 6 minutes and then I 
will yield to the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. President, first, I rise in strong support of the Education 
Flexibility Partnership Act. I begin with a brief quote:

       An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest.

  Benjamin Franklin stated that in the early years of our Republic.
  Building upon this statement, I say it is a simple fact--which the 
occupant of the Chair, as a distinguished Governor in a State that has 
seen great economic growth and prosperity and better jobs and more 
opportunity--it is a simple fact that the future is prejudiced in favor 
of those who can read, write, and do math.
  A good education is a ticket to a secure future in this United 
States. And obviously, the opposite is equally true. As the earning gap 
between brains and brawn grows even larger, almost no one doubts that 
there is a link between education and the individual's prospects, even 
in this great land of opportunity.
  Today, the Senate is taking a first step to improve our Nation's 
educational system, because everyone acknowledges that our children are 
the future of this country and we must make every effort to provide 
them with the tools to succeed. Our action provides States with 
increased flexibility to ensure that our students have an even better 
opportunity to succeed. I submit that because we have so many programs 
at the national level, small and large--and I will allude to the number 
shortly--that if you are looking for a place to reform, maybe you ought 
to start right here.
  Maybe we ought to look at the whole package of targeted educational 
programs at the national level and see how far off the mark they really 
are when it comes to helping children in the United States. This takes 
some of our programs and says that one size doesn't fit all, and 
Washington bureaucrats and interpreters of these various laws don't 
always know best, so we are going to give local teachers and 
administrators who know the problems the opportunity to create 
flexibility in

[[Page 4190]]

terms of how these various programs are used in the field for our 
children.
  I want to move ahead to a summary that was given to us by the GAO 
that, in conjunction with the Budget Committee staff and under the 
leadership of Senator Frist, looked at a whole myriad of U.S. Federal 
programs to see just what we were doing and what we were not doing. And 
so, Mr. President, I want to inform you that your concern when you were 
Governor of Ohio of all the bureaucracy and paperwork and missing the 
target by Federal programs, if you wondered why, this is why. Our 
National Government has funded over 86 teacher training programs in 9 
agencies and offices; 127 at-risk and delinquent youth programs in 15 
agencies and offices; and over 90 childhood programs in 11 Federal 
agencies and 20 offices.
  Now, it is quite obvious that the U.S. Government, our committees, 
and our Secretary, are not the know-all and end-all of good education 
occurring in Ohio, New Mexico, Arizona or Massachusetts. How could we 
be the end-all and the know-all when, essentially, we contribute less 
than 7 percent of the funding? Now, it almost makes us, standing on the 
floor speaking so eloquently about what the Federal Government is doing 
with its money on education, to some extent, borderline unreasonable in 
terms of credibility, because how can you change this big education 
system--and I am going to estimate that we are spending $427 billion a 
year on kindergarten through 12 in all our sovereign States and all the 
school districts. You tell me how that $200 million or $300 million 
targeted in some way--Mr. President, a former Governor, tell me how 
that $200 million or so spread across this land can have a real impact 
on a system that is as diverse as America and into which we are 
spending $417 billion and we can't get the job done. It can't be that 
the million dollars is going to help. It is only that we make it appear 
as if it is going to help. We invent the amendments and the bills, and 
sometimes we even take a poll before we invent them to see what it is 
the people want.
  Who can be against more teachers? But if you fund the States with 
more money for IDEA, the disabled children, which we are already 
obligated to do, it relieves an equal number of dollars for them to use 
for teachers if they would like. Some are frightened, however, that the 
States and the schools might not use it for more teachers. They might 
use just a little piece of it for that because they already might have 
sufficient teachers.
  It is not a new thing in education that we dreamt up here in 
Washington that we need more teachers in our schools, although it is 
still not unequivocal as to whether reducing the size to the level we 
contemplate nationally is what every school system thinks would do the 
job best for their children. That is not decided yet. That is still out 
there feverishly being tossed around with many other concepts in terms 
of education.
  So, Mr. President, this is just the beginning--this flexibility--of 
what I hope is a real effort by the U.S. Government to reform its own 
education commitment to our States. We are all saying we want the 
States to reform, we want them to be more accountable. Well, when the 
bill comes up this year on primary and secondary education, it is my 
hope that we will not do more of the same. It is my hope that we will 
seriously consider a total reform of those programs, because if we are 
asking the States to do better, it is pretty obvious that we can do 
better also. As a matter of fact, I believe it is borderline these days 
as to just how much the Federal Government's assistance is really 
raising the education level of our children.
  I repeat, if I had my way, and we could focus it into the right 
channels, I would be for more Federal aid to education, not less. But I 
guarantee you, with the myriad of programs, as I have described them, 
spread throughout Government with no accountability, one program to 
another, I would not be for spending more money to feed that kind of 
educational assistance when I have very serious doubts as to whether it 
has contributed significantly to helping our young people.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JOHNSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator from South Dakota was here 
before I was. Does he wish to have time on the Democratic side?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we were rotating. I will take the 
privilege of saying that Senator Kennedy would yield to Senator 
Johnson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I will be brief.
  I ask unanimous consent that Susan Hansen of my staff be permitted to 
be on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues, Republican and 
Democrat, in expressing support for the underlying Ed-Flex legislation 
that we are taking up today. This legislation recognizes that the final 
thought in how to prioritize educational needs in our school districts 
and our States does not reside exclusively here in Washington. It will 
commit to a level of innovation that I think is needed in the 50 
States, and with the proper accountability, provide for many different 
strategies designed to improve student achievement all across this 
country.
  However, I think Congress would be remiss if it stopped there. I 
think there are a number of very constructive amendments being offered 
relative to this legislation, not least of which is the afterschool 
program amendment being offered by the Senator from California, Senator 
Boxer, to provide for what I believe is a commonsense kind of Federal, 
State and local partnership, to provide for an enhanced ability to deal 
with afterschool programs for children K through 12.
  This is not a new idea and it is not the province of either 
particular political party. There has been a tremendous amount of 
effort through the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program 
across some 46 States today that have afterschool programs of one kind 
or another, in 800 different schools, involving some 190,000 students. 
This amendment would create the kind of partnership that would not 
involve Federal bureaucracy or Federal micromanagement, but would 
provide some additional resources for our States and our schools to 
expand afterschool efforts to 1.1 million additional students in the 
United States.
  Our school budgets are strapped. Property taxes that fund school 
districts in many of our States are already too high.
  It is apparent to anyone who has had any discussions with school 
leaders and community leaders and child advocacy leaders that they 
simply cannot go it alone, that this kind of effort requires a new form 
of partnership.
  Not least of all, one of the great gains that we have already seen 
demonstrated by effective afterschool programs in this country has been 
a significant reduction in juvenile crime. At a time when we see crime 
rates going down nationally but yet crime rates among children, among 
young juveniles, in too many instances going up, there is a need for an 
additional strategy, an additional partnership to address that crisis.
  Every study we have presented to the Senate indicates that most 
juvenile crime occurs between 3 o'clock in the afternoon and 
dinnertime. That is when experimentation with drugs, with alcohol, with 
sexual activity, and with gang participation most often occur, it is 
when it is initiated, and it is the time when we most need this kind of 
partnership not just with our schools but with other community 
organizations and civic organizations to provide alternative kinds of 
activities for young people.
  The studies have already shown that to the degree we have these 
effective programs in place, they have cut juvenile crime by anywhere 
from 40 to 70 percent. That is why we have such broad-based support 
from national law enforcement and police groups across this country. 
And it is why we can make a contrast between the modest expenditure 
required to significantly increase these afterschool programs

[[Page 4191]]

and the alternative cost of incarceration. The cost of keeping a young 
person in a juvenile facility and ultimately in a prison equates 
roughly to the cost of sending them to Harvard for a year. For a much 
more modest expenditure, we can keep whole communities intact, have the 
kind of responsible adult supervision, and have the kind of focus in 
these young people's lives that they so badly need.
  I have been holding meetings all across my home State of South 
Dakota, meeting with parents, with teachers, with law enforcement 
officials, with child care providers, and the need for expanding after 
school programs is obvious. More and more families are working. Both 
spouses are in the workplace, neither of them at home, because of the 
economic necessity of having a two income household. South Dakota has 
one of the highest ratios of two-spouse incomes in the Nation. More and 
more single-parent households as well find themselves confronting the 
latchkey option with their young people in the family.
  As a consequence of this very apparent reality, South Dakota. Has 
struck a bipartisan level of cooperation and understanding about the 
need for these programs. My Governor, Republican Governor William 
Janklow, has been one of the more forceful advocates of an expanded 
State-local partnership on afterschool programs. I applaud his 
leadership on the issue. He has secured the services of Loila Hunking, 
the state coordinator for child care services and a long-time Democrat 
activist, to head up his afterschool program. It has been a model in 
many ways and reflects what States in other parts of the country have 
been doing to bring both sides together to set aside political 
polarization and, instead, to focus on what in fact is in the best 
interest of our kids and our communities.
  But it is all too apparent--even though we have been building 
facilities and afterschool program facilities that can be used for 
afterschool programs, and day-care centers, even though we are scraping 
to find private funds to match local school funds and State funds--that 
the resources simply are not there, and all too often the communities 
where the need is the greatest are the communities that have the least 
financial capability of providing for these kinds of programs.
  So, again, if we can come up with this amendment to authorize 
adequate funding for an afterschool program, we will, make a long 
stride forward not only to anticrime strategy but a pro-education 
strategy and one that both political parties can rally around. I think 
it compliments our Ed-Flex legislation. It compliments everything else 
that we are doing here on the floor today.
  I want to again applaud Senator Boxer, Senator Kennedy, and others 
who have worked hard to promote this afterschool amendment and the 
underlying Ed-Flex legislation as well.
  Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six and one-half minutes on your side.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I retain my time and yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first I will yield 10 minutes to the 
Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont. I want to 
congratulate the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Tennessee, 
Senator Frist, for having brought this bill finally to a vote after 
what was considerable resistance from the other side and what amounted 
to essentially a blocking of this bill as initiative after initiative 
after initiative was brought forward from the other side.
  I think you have to look at the context of this bill in the context 
of those amendments from the other side that were offered. The concept 
of this bill is to give local communities, local teachers, local 
principals, and local school boards the ability to apply the Federal 
funds and to be released from the burden, the cost, and the 
interference of Federal regulations. That is what Ed-Flex is all about.
  Thus, it is with some irony and significant inconsistency of the 
proposals that we have seen thrown at this bill from the other side do 
just the opposite. They create new program initiatives, almost all of 
which have been subject to no hearings, no disclosure in the sense of 
the congressional process, almost all of which create brand new, 
federally mandated, programmatic initiatives which tell the local 
communities, you must do this in order to get these Federal dollars: 
You must do this in order to get these Federal dollars. And the 
directive comes from here in Washington. It says that some group of 
bureaucrats sitting in the Department of Education, or at the White 
House, or maybe just the leadership on the other side of the aisle, is 
going to tell some school district in New Hampshire, or Vermont, or 
Missouri, or wherever, how to manage their day-to-day activity of 
managing the education of children.
  Those proposals, which are being put forward--whether it is the 
100,000 teachers, the afterschool program, the school building 
program--are all fundamentally inconsistent with the underlying purpose 
of this bill, which is to free up the local communities from the burden 
of Federal regulation.
  More significantly than that, every one of those proposals suggests 
as its funding mechanism taking money from the special education 
accounts, money that is due the special education children of this 
Nation under the law that was already passed by this Congress--taking 
that money and using it for a brand new Federal program instead of 
putting it where it is supposed to be, which is with the special 
education child through 94-142.
  Let's review that issue for a second, because it is so critical to 
this whole debate.
  We have put forward an amendment on our side that says: Before you 
start a new program, before you create a new panoply of Federal 
regulations, let's do the job that we said we were going to do for the 
special education kids in this country; let's pay, or begin to pay, a 
higher percentage of the cost of special-education education.
  When the special education bill was originally passed, the Federal 
Government said it was going to pay 40 percent of the cost. It dropped 
down to where the Federal Government was only paying 6 percent of the 
cost 3 years ago. And that difference, that 34 percent, was having to 
be picked up by the local taxpayers. The Federal share was having to be 
paid for by the local taxpayer. So that skewed education at the local 
community.
  So, if the local teacher needed some assistance in their classroom, 
maybe a teaching assistant, or, if a principal needed an addition onto 
the school, or needed some new computers, they couldn't buy those kinds 
of things, they couldn't hire that new teacher. Why? Because the 
Federal Government wasn't paying its fair share, its obligated share, 
of the cost of special education. And the local community was having to 
take local dollars to support the Federal obligation for special 
education.
  So what did the other side come forward and suggest? We are not going 
to pay any more money to special education. We are not going to 
increase that money at all. This administration set up a Federal 
budget. Instead of new money for special education, it essentially 
flat-funded that program and took the money that was supposed to go to 
special education and put it in all these new programs they created.
  What does the local school district do now? They get hit twice: 
First, they get hit by the Federal Government, which refuses to pay for 
the special education children to the tune of the 40 percent they are 
supposed to. Then, they get told, if you want to get the dollars from 
the Federal Government, which is supposed to be coming to you for 
special education, you have to follow one of these brand new, great 
ideas that the President has held a press conference on. You have to 
follow one of these press conference initiatives, whether it happens to 
be more teachers, more classroom size, or more afterschool programs.

[[Page 4192]]

  So the local school district, in order to get this money, first loses 
it, and then it is told, ``Oh, but we will give you the money that we 
just took from you, but you are going to have to follow what we want 
you to do here in Washington.''
  How arrogant can we get? At what point does the arrogance of this 
administration stop in the area of education?
  I do not believe that there is one person in this administration who 
can name more than maybe one child at Epping Elementary. I do not 
believe they have any idea what the child in the Epping Elementary 
School needs for education. When that teacher in the Epping Elementary 
School walks into that classroom and that teacher knows every child at 
every desk and knows what the child needs for education and knows that 
they need more books or more computers or maybe they need another 
teaching assistant, it should be that teacher who makes the decision as 
to what is used to help that child's education. It should not be here 
in Washington that that decision is made. And yet, that is exactly what 
these proposals suggest: Don't give the local school districts the 
flexibility to spend their own money on special ed, to spend their own 
money on general education activities. Instead, force the local school 
districts to take up the Federal share of special education costs and 
then tell the local school districts that because we want you to have 
more teachers in order for you to get the money which was supposed to 
go to special ed, you have to apply and take on this new Federal 
program.
  It is total hypocrisy. It is total arrogance. And yet, it is these 
proposals that are coming forward. Fortunately, the people in this 
Congress, at least in the Senate, are going to have a chance to make a 
choice. They are going to have a chance today, because we are going to 
give them the option. We are saying that the money last year which was 
appropriated for the teachers' program, $1.2 billion, let's free that 
money up so that local school districts can make the choice: Do they 
want a new teacher or do they want the money to come to the special 
education accounts?
  That is the simple choice that comes on the Lott amendment which was 
drafted by the Senator from Vermont and myself and the Senator from 
Tennessee, and it is really an excellent idea. We will find out what 
the local school districts need more. Do they want the dollars for 
special ed, or do they want the dollars for teachers? It is a perfectly 
reasonable proposal, and it is flexibility in the tradition of Ed-Flex.
  So this amendment, this underlying amendment, about which I have 
heard people on the other side get up and say, oh, I can't support that 
because it pits one group of students against another group of 
students, well, ladies and gentlemen, the people who are pitting one 
group of students against the other group of students is the 
administration and the people who support these administration 
initiatives, because what they have done is to say we are going to pit 
the special ed students, who we are supposed to be funding, against our 
programs coming from Washington because we are going to take their 
money and use it.
  That is where the real conflict comes. So we are going to give you an 
opportunity. We are going to give you an opportunity to live up to the 
obligations which the Federal Government put on the books back in 1976 
and has refused to live up to. And we are going to give the communities 
the option of choosing whether they want a teacher, a program directed 
from Washington, designed by Washington, told to them how to operate by 
Washington, or whether they want to free up their local dollars by 
getting more special ed dollars that the Federal Government was 
obligated to pay in the first place and use those local dollars to 
either, one, hire a teacher; two, buy books, add new computers, add a 
new classroom, whatever they want to do with it. That is the ultimate 
flexibility.
  The choice is going to be pretty clear here today as to how you want 
to manage education in this country. You can vote for all these 
directives from Washington, all these programs which are made for the 
creation of press conferences but give the local communities no 
flexibility and no opportunity to make their choices as to how they 
spend the money, or you can vote to give the local communities true 
flexibility by funding an obligation that has been on the books since 
1976 and thus freeing up the dollars for the local community to either 
hire teachers, buy books, add classrooms, or create afterschool 
programs. I opt for the side of giving local communities, teachers who 
know their kids, principals who know their schools, parents who know 
their children, the opportunity to make decisions on dollars rather 
than the Federal bureaucracy or even an American President.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time back to the floor 
manager.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 9 minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair.
  I appreciate the work Senator Jeffords has done.
  Mr. President, I would like to share just a few thoughts. I have been 
involved in education with my children. I have taught, my wife has 
taught in public school. We care about education. We have school boards 
all over America that care about education. I know one of the school 
board members in my hometown of Mobile, AL, exceedingly well. His 
abilities and talents will match any Member of this body. He knows a 
lot more about the education going on in his area than we know in this 
body. Who is to say what is the best way to expend money to improve our 
children's education? The thing that counts is that magic moment in a 
classroom when learning occurs and children are motivated and inspired 
to do better.
  I do not believe this Congress has the ability or has a proven track 
record of improvement. We now have a host of amendments. We have 788 
Federal programs--788. We had an amendment offered yesterday that would 
mean the 789th; it would create a dropout czar for America.
  I have been involved in local programs to deal with dropouts. 
Programs like that are happening all over America. It is not going to 
be solved by some Federal dropout czar.
  This legislation is precisely what we need. It needs to go out of 
here clean, not as an appropriation, big Government spending bill, but 
a bill that gives flexibility to the schools.
  The Presiding Officer was Governor. He knows how much benefit was 
gained when welfare reform was accomplished and we gave flexibility to 
Governors. I think it is time we give flexibility to our State and 
local school systems to improve education.
  I thank the chairman, the Senator from Vermont, for his leadership. 
This is good legislation. It is time for us to pass it, and we can 
debate these issues about how further to help education when the 
elementary and secondary education bill comes up, which the Senator 
will be leading later this month.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today the Senate debates an important bill 
designed to facilitate education administration and free more resources 
for our students. The ``Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999'' 
would extend the ``Education Flexibility Partnership Demonstration 
Program,'' otherwise known as ``Ed-Flex.'' Ed-Flex allows eligible 
local school districts to forgo Federal red tape that consumes precious 
education resources. In return, States must have sufficient 
accountability measures in place and continue to make progress toward 
improving student education. States must also comply with certain core 
Federal principles, such as civil rights. The concept of Ed-Flex is 
simple, yet the benefits would be significant. In other words, let's 
put more money into educating our kids in the classroom rather than 
lining the pockets of bureaucrats.
  The Ed-Flex demonstration program is currently in place in 12 States. 
The ``Ed-Flex Act of 1999'' would allow all

[[Page 4193]]

50 States the option to participate in the program. With good reason, 
the program has been very popular. Unnecessary, time-and-money-
consuming Federal regulations are rightly despised by school 
administrators. Did you know that the Federal Government provides only 
seven percent of local school funding, but requires 50 percent of all 
school paperwork? That is ridiculous. Again, let's put money into the 
classroom instead of bureaucracy.
  Ed-Flex is a step toward allowing more localized decisionmaking 
authority--the power to decide when the Federal regulations are more 
troublesome and expensive than they are worth. Today, there are simply 
too many regulations which are despised by school administrators.
  Giving more decisionmaking authority to States and local school 
districts is good common sense. Naturally, those who are closest to our 
students are in the best position to make the most appropriate and 
effective decisions concerning their education. One-size-fits-all 
legislation may work well in other areas, but not in education. Some of 
the most successful classrooms across our Nation vary tremendously in 
their structure, functioning, and appearance.
  In my home State of Minnesota, for instance, we have very rural 
communities, urban communities, and everything in between. We have got 
farm kids, suburban kids, and city kids. And all of these kids are 
students. And I know this sort of rural-to-urban community-mix is 
typical for most States. How much sense does it make then, to require 
local school districts and classrooms--all with their own particular 
strengths and weaknesses--to follow, in lock-step, the homogenized, 
uniform routine of Federal bureaucracy? Not much.
  We have some opportunities before us to do something meaningful for 
our children's education. A complementary possible amendment to Ed-Flex 
which promotes local decisionmaking power is Senator Gorton's block 
grant amendment, as well as Senator Hutchinson's Dollars to the 
Classroom Act. Under these proposals, many federally funded K-12 
programs would be consolidated and the dollars sent directly to states 
or local school districts--free from the usual Washington red tape. 
This helps to ensure that our education dollars go to students, as 
opposed to bureaucrats.
  Similarly, Senator Coverdell's Education Savings Accounts and School 
Excellence Act is an important step forward in restoring decisionmaking 
authority to parents and families--where it is needed. The bill simply 
allows families to save for their children's education, without tax 
penalty. It would expand the college education savings accounts 
established in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 to include primary and 
secondary students. It would also increase the annual contribution 
limit from $500 to $2,000 per child. The money could be used without 
tax penalty to pay for a variety of education-related expenses for 
students in K-12, as well as college expenses.
  This is a simple, straight-forward initiative for families and 
students. Common sense would have had us pass the Education Savings 
Accounts bill long ago. Unfortunately, tired, groundless attacks 
continue. The charge I hear most frequently is that ``education savings 
accounts and tax breaks for parents would shift tax dollars away from 
public schools.'' That is simply not the case.
  More education dollars under parental control would promote education 
by encouraging parents to save, invest in, and support programs and 
materials that facilitate and provide the right option for a child's 
education.
  We all want the best education available for our children, and to 
improve the state of American education and schools for all children. 
It would be nice to think that we could solve the problems of education 
by spending more and more money. Unfortunately, that doesn't work. The 
United States is the world leader in national spending per student. Yet 
our test scores show that our system is failing our children.
  Test results released last year show that American high school 
seniors score far below their peers from other countries in math and 
science. We are at rock bottom. It is going to take more time and 
effort to solve these problems--and the most important work will be 
done by those in the best position to do so: parents, teachers, and 
local administrators. We must give them the freedom they need to 
accomplish the job. This freedom comes with the authority to make 
decisions based on a variety of specific needs. I will continue to 
support measures like the Ed-Flex legislation that return money and 
control--from Washington--to parents, teachers, and local school 
districts. After all, they know best how to spend education dollars.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S. 
280, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, which would 
free all fifty states from many of the costly and burdensome federal 
regulations which are imposed on them by the federal government. These 
unnecessary regulations prevent their schools from providing innovative 
and effective academic opportunities for millions of young Americans. I 
am proud to be an original cosponsor of this measure which would expand 
the current Ed-Flex program to all fifty states.
  One of the most important issues facing our nation is the education 
of our children. Providing a solid, quality education for each and 
every child in our nation is a critical component in their quest for 
personal success and fulfillment. A solid education for our children 
also plays a pivotal role in the success of our nation; economically, 
intellectually, civically and morally. We must strive to develop and 
implement initiatives which strengthen and improve our education 
system, thereby ensuring that our children are provided with the 
essential academic tools for succeeding professionally, economically 
and personally.
  The most exciting aspect of this bill is that it brings teaching back 
to our classrooms and frees our schools from excessive filing, 
correlating, faxing and shuffling of paper. It would allow schools like 
Barbara Bush Elementary School in Mesa, Arizona to focus on helping 
children learn essentials like reading and using a computer. It would 
allow Barbara Bush Elementary School to focus on teaching its students 
rather than wasting its valuable educational resources for filing, 
typing, refiling, and faxing paper to the bureaucrats in Washington, 
DC.
  It is important to note that all states which obtain an Ed-Flex 
waiver must adhere to basic Federal principles, including the 
protection of civil rights, educational equity and academic 
accountability.
  Like many Americans, I have grave concerns about the current 
condition of our nation's education system. If a report card on our 
educational system were sent home today, it would be full of 
unsatisfactory and incomplete marks. In fact, it would be full of 
``D's'' and ``F's.'' These abominable grades demonstrate our failure to 
meet the needs of our nation's students in kindergarten through twelfth 
grade.
  Our failure is clearly visible throughout the educational system. One 
prominent display of our nation's failure is seen in the results of the 
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Over forty 
countries participated in the 1996 study which tested science and 
mathematical abilities of students in the fourth, eighth and twelfth 
grades. Tragically, our students scored lower than students in other 
countries. According to this study, our twelfth graders scored near the 
bottom, placing 19th out of 21 nations in math and 16th in science, 
while scoring at the absolute bottom in physics.
  Meanwhile, students in countries which are struggling economically, 
socially and politically, such as Russia, outscored U.S. children in 
math and scored far above them in advanced math and physics. Clearly, 
we must make significant changes in our children's academic performance 
in order to remain a viable force in the world economy.
  We can also see our failure when we look at the Federal Government's 
efforts to combat illiteracy. We spend over $8 billion a year on 
programs to

[[Page 4194]]

eradicate illiteracy across the country. Yet, we have not seen any 
significant improvement in literacy in any segment of our population. 
Today, more than 40 million Americans cannot read a menu, instructions, 
medicine labels or a newspaper. And, tragically, four out of ten 
children in third grade cannot read.
  Another clear sign of our failure is displayed by the inadequate 
preparation of many students when they exit the system. The number of 
college freshmen who require remedial courses in reading, writing and 
mathematics when they begin their higher education is unacceptably 
high. In fact, presently, more than 30 percent of entering freshman 
need to enroll in one or more remedial courses when they start college. 
Equally dismal is a Wall Street Journal report that two-thirds of job 
applicants for a division of the Ford Motor Company ``fail a test in 
which they are asked to add fractions.'' It does not bode well for our 
future economy if the majority of workers are not prepared with the 
basic skills to engage in a competitive global marketplace.
  I am also disturbed by the disproportionate amount of federal 
education dollars which actually reach our students and schools. It is 
deplorable that the vast majority of federal education funds do not 
reach our school districts, schools and children. In 1995, the 
Department of Education spent $33 billion for education and only 13.1 
percent of that reached the local education agencies. It is 
unacceptable that less than 13 percent of the funds directly reached 
the individuals schools and their students.
  My home state of Arizona receives approximately $420 million each 
year in federal education funding. These funds account for seven 
percent of Arizona's education budget, yet it takes almost half of the 
staff at the State Department of Education to administer the numerous 
rules and regulations which accompany the federal dollars. This means 
that half of the Arizona Department of Education staff is busy working 
on Federal paperwork rather than developing improved curriculum, 
helping teachers with professional development skills and working to 
improve the quality of education for Arizona children. This is a sad 
commentary on the current structure of our educational system.
  Much of the Federal Government's involvement in education is highly 
bureaucratic, overly regulatory, and actually impedes our children's 
learning. Clearly, we need to be more innovative in our approach to 
educating our children. We need to focus on providing parents, 
teachers, and local communities with the flexibility, freedom, and, 
yes, the financial support to address the unique educational needs of 
their children and the children in their communities. This is precisely 
what the Ed-Flex program does. It removes the obstacles for innovative, 
productive and successful educational initiatives in our classrooms and 
frees our schools from the choking grip of federal bureaucrats.
  Mr. President, it is absolutely crucial, as we debate this and other 
proposals to reform our educational system, that we not lose sight of 
the fact that our paramount goal must be to increase the academic 
knowledge and skills of our nation's students. Our children are our 
future, and if we neglect their educational needs, we threaten that 
future.
  I am gravely concerned that goal is sometimes lost in the very 
spirited and often emotional debate on education policies and 
responsibilities. Instead, this should be a debate about how best to 
ensure that young Americans will be able to compete globally in the 
future. I believe the key to academic excellence is broadening 
educational opportunities and providing families and communities both 
the responsibility and the resources to choose the best course for 
their students.
  Ed-Flex is an important step in our journey to improve our nation's 
education system and better prepare our children so that each of them 
has much more than their individual dreams of becoming an astronaut, 
fire fighter or pilot. The bill is an important step towards ensuring 
that our children not only dream but have the capacity to make their 
dreams a reality. This is what education is all about--providing an 
endless realm of possibilities through knowledge. But it is just the 
first of many steps which we need to make to ensure that the best 
interests of our children, our future are being realized. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues as we continue this journey 
towards a strong and successful educational system.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have long been concerned about our 
nation's education system and the many problems that individual classes 
across the country grapple with every day. When I reflect on my days in 
a two-room schoolhouse, I have fond memories of my teachers and 
classmates, and, most importantly, my learning experience. The students 
were disciplined, my teachers were serious about their work, classes 
were small and well-kept, and students thrived on learning for 
learning's own sake. We did not have the kinds of problems so common in 
schools today.
  I do, however, recognize that with each passing year, educating our 
nation's children becomes an even more formidable challenge. I am 
pleased that we were able to address a few of the many concerns facing 
parents, students, and educators as part of the Senate's debate on this 
bill, S. 280, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. With 
classrooms bursting at their seams with students, there is a definite 
need for smaller class size. Students do better when they have the 
individual attention of a teacher. Moreover, I believe that this kind 
of environment provides teachers and students with a setting truly 
conducive to quality instruction. We, as a nation, need to do more in 
this regard.
  But, Mr. President, there are also other pressing education 
priorities for states, including funding for the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which remains underfunded to date. 
Disabled children deserve the same opportunity to receive a good 
education as those without a disability. I am hopeful that we in 
Congress will continue to build toward the forty-percent funding 
commitment that was established as part of the IDEA legislation. I 
believe, however, that reducing class size and providing for the needs 
of disabled children are both worthy goals that are not mutually 
exclusive, and I am troubled that efforts to provide sufficient 
resources to achieve one of those goals may have the effect of 
undercutting the other. The notion of pitting these two worthy goals 
against one another to score partisan political points is embarrassing. 
Certainly, both can, and should, be accomplished.
  While many important education programs and new initiatives have been 
discussed during the Senate's debate of S. 280, I believe that the 
underlying legislation offers some benefits in the form of flexibility. 
I do have concerns that there is little substantive performance data on 
the impact of Ed-Flex in the states now operating with it. I would have 
preferred to see some positive results on student achievement levels 
prior to making this type of expansion. But I am hopeful that the 
education accountability built into this legislation will hold states 
to a higher standard and serve as an incentive to all states seeking 
Ed-Flex status. I am also somewhat comforted by the fact that the bill 
contains a sunset provision, which will force the Congress to revisit 
this issue, and, I hope, live up to its oversight responsibilities.
  Mr. President, it disturbs me greatly to witness the political divide 
in this body on such an important issue which affects us all, whether 
it be our own child's education, that of a grandchild, or a neighbor's 
child. We are all for education--it is the country's number one 
priority, and with many problems to solve, it is time for us to work 
together to make every child's educational experience a rewarding one.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, during the consideration of S. 280, the 
Education Flexibility (Ed-Flex) Partnership Act of 1999, several new 
education proposals have been advanced by my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle. In particular, an issue that has received prominent 
attention is an

[[Page 4195]]

amendment that would authorize federal monies for the hiring of 100,000 
new teachers.
  Like my colleagues, I am strongly committed to improving K-12 
education and ensuring that the unique needs of our nation's schools 
are addressed. While the federal government provides only a fraction of 
our nation's total K-12 education spending, the amount that it does 
provide is critical to ensuring that our nation's children receive the 
quality education that they need and deserve.
  Mr. President, as I look at the various challenges and issues facing 
our nation's schools, it is clear that every state and every community 
has different needs, even if some of these needs are fairly pervasive. 
While one community may feel that its greatest need is the hiring of 
more teachers, another may feel that buying new textbooks or purchasing 
computers for the classroom may be the most pressing need.
  Over the years, various federal education programs have been created 
to assist state and local governments in addressing their disparate 
needs, including programs that are designed to address issues that 
demand national oversight. For instance, more than 20 years ago, the 
federal government appropriately demanded that individuals with 
disabilities receive a quality education, and the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was enacted accordingly.
  Unfortunately, even as the federal government appropriately mandated 
that disabled children be educated at the local level, it has continued 
to fall woefully short in fulfilling its promised commitment to cover 
40 percent of the associated cost. In fact, as several of my colleagues 
have emphasized, the federal government only funds approximately 10 
percent of the cost today--and that paltry percent has only been 
achieved through Republican-led efforts over the past three years to 
increase funding for IDEA by 85 percent!
  As a result of the ongoing federal shortfall, state and local 
governments are not only forced to cover the 60 percent share that was 
agreed to--but they also pick-up the missing 30 percent federal share.
  Mr. President, this broken promise on the part of the federal 
government must not continue. Not only does it represent a failure on 
the part of the federal government to meet an important obligation to 
our nation's disabled children, but it also forces states and 
communities to divert their scarce resources for this unfunded 
mandate--resources that could otherwise be used to address a wide 
variety of local needs, including the hiring of new teachers.
  To demonstrate the impact of this unfunded mandate, consider that in 
my home state of Maine, the federal government currently provides 
approximately $20 million for the education of the disabled, while the 
state and local governments are forced to shoulder more than $200 
million of the cost. Therefore, if the federal government were to 
fulfill its 40 percent commitment, an additional $60 million would flow 
to the state.
  That's $60 million now spent by Maine's state and local governments 
to cover a federal commitment--$60 million that would otherwise be 
freed-up to address distinct and pressing local needs. Sixty million 
dollars.
  Needless to say, this shortfall has not been overlooked by officials 
at the state or local level. During a recent meeting with 
representatives of the Maine Municipal Association, local officials 
emphasized to me the need for the federal government to fulfill its 
commitment to fund 40 percent of the cost of educating the disabled 
because of the substantial budgetary impact it is having on their 
communities.
  And during the recent gathering of the National Governors Association 
(NGA), the Governor of Maine, Angus King, interrupted President Clinton 
during his presentation on education issues to hammer home the need for 
special education funding. As quoted in a March 1, 1999, article in the 
Portland Press Herald, Governor King ``raised his hand and 
interrupted'' the President saying:

       Mr. President, I'm bringing you a report from Franklin, 
     Maine, and a lot of other places in Maine. What I'm telling 
     you is that if you want to do something for schools in Maine, 
     then fund special education and we can hire our own teachers 
     and build our own schools.

  Mr. President, I don't believe the thoughts and comments by the 
Governor of Maine are unique to our state. This is a national problem 
that requires federal action. Paying ``lip-service'' to this funding 
commitment is no longer enough. We cannot simply brush off the comments 
of governors and local leaders by expressing support for the full-
funding of education for the disabled and not achieving it--rather, 
it's time to actually deliver on the promise made more than 20 years 
ago.
  For this reason, I believe Congress should ensure that the federal 
share of education for the disabled is fully-funded before new programs 
are created. Not only will this ensure that a long-standing federal 
promise will finally be met, but it will also ensure that distinct 
local needs--which may include the hiring of new teachers--can be 
readily addressed.
  During the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education (ESEA) Act, there will be countless opportunities to reform 
and improve federal education programs that are intended to address 
distinct needs. But the time to create truly new federal education 
programs--and to devote federal resources to these new proposals--
should not occur until we have met our outstanding federal obligation 
to disabled children and to the states and communities that educate 
them.
  Mr. President, the time to fully-fund the federal share of education 
for the disabled is now. I urge that my colleagues vote to ensure that 
any new K-12 education monies be used to meet this commitment, and to 
finally fulfill a federal promise made to state and local governments 
more than 20 years ago.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my intention to vote 
for final passage of the Education Flexibility Act. Although this bill 
is far from perfect, I support the underlying principle of flexibility 
in education, and believe we should move this bill forward.
  Despite my support for giving local school districts more flexibility 
in improving education, I have serious concerns about this bill. Last 
year, we passed a new initiative to hire 100,000 teachers to reduce 
class size in the early grades. We approved this program on a 
bipartisan basis, recognizing that research has shown that smaller 
classes give teachers more time to spend with individual students and 
improves student achievement.
  School districts in Wisconsin are already putting together their 
budgets and planning to use this Federal money to hire teachers. They 
are looking to Congress to send them assurances that the teachers they 
hire today will receive Federal support over the next six years. I am 
extremely disappointed that the Senate failed to adopt Senator Murray's 
class size amendment, which would authorized the program for six years 
and given our school districts that assurance. I am hopeful that we can 
still address this important issue later this year.
  In addition to the Senate's failure to authorize the class size 
initiative, I am also concerned that the bill, as amended, pits 
students with special needs against other students in fighting for 
education funding. This is inexcusable--and unnecessary.
  I agree that the Federal government must live up to its obligation to 
pay for 40% of the costs of special education. It is a responsibility 
we have failed to meet for far too long, and I will continue to fight 
for full funding of special education. However, I believe it is time 
that we make education of all our children--including those with 
special needs--our top priority. There is no reason why we cannot fully 
fund all of our educational needs in this country. We should fully fund 
special education, and we should fully fund class size, and after-
school programs, and school construction. We can do all of these 
things--and we should not pit any of these vital programs against one 
another as some have tried to do here today.

[[Page 4196]]

  I am extremely concerned about the amendments that were added to this 
bill today. Although I recognize that school districts need additional 
resources for special education, I believe these amendments wrongly 
force them to choose between special education and hiring teachers--
another essential need they face. We should not force them to make this 
choice--we should provide enough funding to fill both needs.
  Although I am deeply troubled about these amendments, I will vote for 
final passage of the bill because I believe in the original intent of 
providing more flexibility to States and local school districts. I am 
voting for it now because I think we need to move this bill forward. 
However, I strongly believe these amendments should be dropped in 
conference. If this bill comes back from the Conference Committee with 
these amendments still included, I will be forced to oppose the bill.
  Mr. President, I still hold out hope that these problems can be 
worked out in conference, and that we can move this bill, which was 
originally a bipartisan bill, forward expeditiously.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 280, 
the Education Flexibility Act. This legislation will give greater 
responsibility, flexibility, and control to local schools. That's where 
the students, parents, and teachers are. That's where the education 
happens.
  That's where the control ought to be. I have been fighting for our 
teachers and local school administrators for many years, and I think 
one of the most important things we can do for them is liberate them 
from Federal red tape--so they can do what they do best: Teach our 
kids.
  In offering this bill, our distinguished colleague from Tennessee, 
Senator Frist, is striking a blow for freedom in American education.
  This bill would expand an existing pilot program to all eligible 
states. It is a good deal for the states--in this bill we offer to free 
the states from the burden of unnecessary, time-consuming Federal 
regulations. In return, all states have to do is comply with certain 
core principles, such as civil rights, and establish a system of 
accountability. The bill also would require states to have a system of 
waiving their own regulations.
  My own home state of Ohio has been one of the pilot programs and has 
provided over 200 waivers for local schools. For example, the 
Eisenhower teacher training program only supported math and science 
training. Using Ed-Flex, Ohio waived this requirement--and today 
schools can use this program for training teachers in other subjects 
such as reading and social studies.
  The Ohio Department of Education, in its annual report to the 
Secretary of Education, reached the following conclusion, and I quote: 
``The greatest benefit to having Ed-Flex authority is that it, combined 
with the ability to waive State rules and statutes, establishes a 
school-planning environment unencumbered by real or perceived 
regulatory barriers. This environment encourages creativity, thoughtful 
planning, and innovation.''
  Mr. President, that's as true everywhere else in America as it is in 
Ohio. And that's why this Ed-Flex bill has such strong bipartisan 
support.
  But I should note that while Ed-Flex is an important step forward, it 
is just a single step. We need to do more. Over the next year, the 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, on which I serve, 
will be working on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1999--
which will deal with almost all of the federal programs that impact K-
12 grade education. When the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was 
passed in 1965, it was 30 pages long, today it is more than 300 pages 
long. As a member of that committee, I will be looking to empower 
parents, support local control, promote effective teacher training 
programs, recognize and reward excellent teachers, and send more money 
back to the states and local schools with no strings attached.
  Remember: The Federal Government provides only 6 percent of local 
school funding, but demands 50 percent of the paperwork that burdens 
local teachers and administrators. That burden demands nearly 49 
million hours each year--or the equivalent of 25,000 school employees 
working full time--on paperwork, not kids. There are over 700 separate 
federal education programs spread across 40 separate federal 
bureaucracies.
  Mr. President, I am concerned about the quality of our children's 
education. The Third International Math and Science Study recently 
reported that out of 21 countries, the U.S. ranked 19th in math and 
16th in science, barely ahead of South Africa. Verbal and combined SAT 
scores are lower today than they were in 1970. Businesses spend more 
than $30 billion annually in retraining employees who cannot read 
proficiently. Nearly 30 percent of college freshmen need remedial 
classes.
  Mr. President, these are disturbing statistics. As we move forward to 
improve our children's education, I urge my colleagues to remember that 
the most important education tool in any classroom is a qualified, 
highly trained teacher. After parents and families, America's teachers 
play the most important role in helping our children realize their 
potential. Our current teachers are doing a good job--indeed, a great 
job--given the resources they have to work with. Clearly, it's time to 
change the way we allocate resources. It's time that today's teachers 
get more support and training and less paperwork from the federal 
government.
  I want to thank the sponsor of the Ed-Flex legislation, Senator 
Frist, for his work with all members to improve this bill. The 
manager's amendment that we accepted last week addresses many of the 
concerns that have been raised about this legislation. Without going 
into the details of the amendment, I would simply point out that it 
will strengthen accountability measures currently in the bill, require 
states to coordinate their Ed-Flex applications with state 
comprehensive plans, emphasize school and student performance as an 
objective of Ed-Flex and add additional provisions for public notice 
and comment regarding Ed-Flex proposals.
  Ultimately, our children's success in education depends on the 
support they receive at home and in the classroom. Our focus in 
Washington should be to take every opportunity to empower parents and 
then free local schools from regulations that prevent improvements and 
innovations in local schools.
  Mr. President, that's why I strongly support this bill.


                       prevention of truancy act

  Mr. DODD. In the 105th Congress, I offered my legislation, the 
Prevention of Truancy Act, as an amendment to the Ed-Flex bill during 
the Labor and Human Resources Committee's consideration, where it 
failed on a tie vote. It was my intention to offer it on the floor on 
this bill. However, I am pleased instead to be on the floor with my 
colleague from Alabama, Senator Sessions, to discuss our common 
interest in assisting communities address this real and serious problem 
and express our intent to offer legislation similar to the bill I 
offered last year soon. We will also be working with Senator Bingaman 
who offered similar legislation last Congress and Senator Collins who 
supported my amendment in Committee last year.
  Senator Sessions, a new member to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee's 
Subcommittee on Youth Violence, believes as I do that truancy is a 
gateway offense, and that this legislation would present us with an 
opportunity to catch good kids before it is too late. The Senator from 
Alabama has worked hard for the duration of his career on finding 
solutions to difficult issues such as truancy. I believe this 
legislation will truly make a difference in the lives of many children 
and, at the same time, prevent juvenile crime. I also believe that our 
working together will produce strong, solid legislation that we should 
all be able to support.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be working with the 
Senator from Connecticut on truancy legislation. I am struck by the 
alignment of our interests here. I believe this is a national problem 
and one that deserves federal attention. I am pleased that

[[Page 4197]]

Senator Dodd and I have been able to work out an agreement here that 
avoids an amendment to the Ed-Flex bill on this subject, which would be 
a concern for me and a number of my colleagues who very much want to be 
supportive in this effort to address truancy. I look forward to working 
with the Senator to bring forward a strong bill from my committee to 
support efforts to assist local governments in their efforts to reduce 
truancy.


                            afterschool care

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I'd like to thank my colleague from Vermont 
for his cooperation in working out an agreement to address the need for 
afterschool programs as part of the Health and Education Committee's 
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act later 
this year.
  As my colleagues know, I was planning to offer an amendment to the 
Education Flexibility Act, that I offered when this bill was in 
committee, to increase funding for programs serving children during 
out-of-school hours through the Child Care and Development Block Grant 
and the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program.
  I know that my colleague from Vermont shares my strong interest in 
ensuring that children have safe alternatives during the hours they are 
not in school. He has been a leader for years on this specific issue as 
well as a tireless advocate for many other critical concerns of 
American families.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. This is a very important issue for me, but not nearly 
as important as it is to the parents of the nearly 24 million school-
age children who need care while their parents work. The issue of how 
best to meet the needs of school-aged children and youth will be 
addressed--not just in the context of one program, like the 21st 
Century Community Learning Centers Act, but within the framework of a 
comprehensive, cohesive review of Federal public education policy.
  Mr. DODD. Out of consideration for the Senator's interest in moving 
this bill forward expeditiously, I have agreed to withdraw my 
amendment. I am pleased that Senator Jeffords has agreed instead to 
take up this issue as part of ESEA and to hold comprehensive hearings 
on the issue of afterschool care this year.
  I am particularly pleased that Senator Frist shares our concern about 
the documented rise in juvenile crime that we see in the hours 
immediately after school. I also appreciate his pledge to work with us 
to increase support for afterschool programs.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I want to thank Senator Dodd for helping us move the 
educational flexibility legislation along. I want to assure him and my 
Senate colleagues that the withdrawal of Senator Dodd's amendment does 
not signal the end of the Senate debate on school-aged child care, but 
the beginning of our work.
  Senator Dodd has been a leader on child care and other youth issues 
for his entire congressional career. He has continually worked to craft 
effective legislation that will help children and their families, and I 
appreciate his tireless efforts.
  By working together, I have little doubt that we can greatly improve 
the Federal Government's response to the needs of school-aged children 
and their families.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the 
Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. I am pleased to join 
with a bipartisan group that includes thirty-three of my colleagues and 
almost all of the nation's governors, to ensure that all states have 
the flexibility to encourage education reforms of the highest standards 
in our schools. This legislation enjoys the support of the National 
Education Association, the National School Board Association, the 
National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Governors' 
Association.
  As many of my colleagues know, the Ed-Flex Program was established in 
1994 under the Goals 2000 Program. It originally authorized 6 states to 
participate in a demonstration program that would allow States the 
ability to waive certain Federal regulations and statutes for local 
school districts and schools in return for high standards and 
accountability. In 1996, Congress expanded the Ed-Flex Program in the 
Omnibus Appropriations Act to include six more states. While this 
waiver authority may seem broad, Ed-Flex States may only grant waivers 
for selected Federal programs. Most importantly, these states may not 
waive Federal requirements relating to health, safety, civil rights, 
parental involvement, allocation of funds, participation by pupils 
attending private schools, and fiscal accountability.
  With over 14,000 school districts in this nation, there cannot be one 
education reform plan that fits every community. Ed-Flex allows states 
and local education agencies to commit to common goals and purposes and 
yet allows them to choose the best path to achieve these results. Ed-
Flex is not a cure-all for education reform. It is just a common-sense, 
practical tool that allows local school districts and schools to get 
back to the business of educating our youth and away from the business 
of filling out forms.
  Most waivers granted under Ed-Flex have dealt primarily with the use 
of Title I funds on a school-wide basis and the allocation of 
Eisenhower Professional Development Funds for teaching disciplines 
other than math and science. These are common sense changes that have 
allowed local school districts and schools to use Federal dollars in a 
smart and efficient manner. Ed-Flex has also encouraged several states 
to streamline their own regulations and statutes, thus providing their 
schools with better guidance and clarity on state requirements.
  Some of the requirements of Federal programs have produced 
nonsensical results. For instance, in my home state of Indiana, the 
town of Elwood operates two separate elementary schools. One of these 
schools meets the 50 percent threshold for Title I so it can implement 
Title I programs school-wide. However, the other school just misses 
this threshold and must restrict Title I resources to only Title I 
students. That particular elementary school in Elwood, Indiana would be 
cited by the State Board of Accounts if they were to allow non-Title I 
students the use of their computer lab which was paid for with Title I 
funding. These Federal requirements have not only produced two systems 
of elementary education for this town, but has created confusion over 
what sort of educational programs can be implemented. This kind of 
strict regulation is not only absurd, but counterproductive to school 
reform. As long as Title I students are being targeted for additional 
assistance, there is no reason a school should be prohibited from 
sharing its resources with all of its students. In twelve states, Ed-
Flex has allowed local education agencies and schools to operate Title 
I programs on a school-wide basis thus equalizing the standard of 
learning for all students.
  Some have raised the issue that Ed-Flex does not address the major 
concerns of our nation's school districts. While Ed-Flex will not on 
its own solve our education problems, it can spur our States and 
schools to creatively approach old problems in a new way. As a former 
Governor, I know first-hand how easing strict Federal requirements can 
help states achieve positive results. Any school teacher will tell you 
that there is no one lesson plan from which to educate all of our 
nation's students. Just as each child is unique in his or her capacity 
to learn and grow, so too our are nation's school districts unique. No 
matter how well-intentioned, the Federal Government cannot continue 
down the path of a one-size fits all educational system for our 
nation's children. Education is now and will continue to be the primary 
responsibility of local communities and states. Educators, community 
leaders, and parents are the best judges of what is good education 
policy for their schools. Each community has different needs and by 
expanding the Ed-Flex Program, we can allow them to partner with the 
Federal Government to achieve some truly outstanding results.
  For example, a Maryland school district was able to identify a trend 
in

[[Page 4198]]

math and science performance of middle school students who came from 
two elementary schools. After looking at the assessment results and the 
demographic make-up of the student population, they were able to use 
the waiver authority to implement comprehensive planning and greater 
resource coordination. The result has been improved reading and math 
instruction for this school district's elementary and middle school 
students.
  Our nation's schools will face many challenges in the next century. 
Dilapidated school buildings, overcrowding in the classrooms, and a 
shortage of qualified teachers will place great demands on our 
country's educational systems. While Ed-Flex alone will not solve all 
of these problems it can ease the burdens placed on our educators so 
they can rise to meet the challenges of the future. I am pleased to 
vote in favor of final passage of the Education Flexibility Partnership 
Act which expands this successful program so that all states, not just 
twelve, have the opportunity to waive Federal requirements that present 
an obstacle to innovation in their schools.
  I thank Senators Frist and Wyden for re-introducing this effective 
tool of reform. I believe this bipartisan approach is a step in the 
right direction towards helping our nation's schools achieve positive 
results.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999, better known as Ed-
Flex. This bill will help to restore the proper respect for the ability 
of states and local communities to educate our children. I applaud the 
work done by my colleagues, Bill Frist and Ron Wyden, and I am pleased 
to join them as a cosponsor of this bill. Ed-Flex is a common sense, 
bipartisan, cost-effective approach that empowers states and local 
communities to put their focus where it belongs--on educating our 
children, not on complying with federal mandates.
  The principle of federalism is vital to our democracy. This principle 
holds that the Federal Government has limited powers and that 
government closest to the people--states and local communities--is best 
positioned to serve the people. Our Founding Fathers had serious 
concerns about the tendency of our government to centralize power and 
to encroach on a state's ability to improve the lives of its citizens.
  This federal encroachment has been particularly pronounced in the 
area of education. The U.S. Constitution assigns Washington no 
responsibility at all for education. Indeed, for its first two 
centuries, America's Federal Government understood that the 10th 
amendment left responsibility for education to the states. America's 
education system works best when parents, teachers, and local school 
officials, who know our students best, make the decisions about where a 
school spends its money. But as federal involvement in education 
increased since the 1960's, Washington began to regulate how our 
schools spend their funds. Even after all these new regulations, 
America's dropout rates are near 40 percent in many urban areas, three-
fourths of all 4th graders in high-poverty communities cannot read at a 
basic level, and our most disadvantaged communities remain in need of 
real education reform.
  Americans understand that Washington can't possibly know what is best 
for a particular student in Memphis or in Los Angeles or in Miami. 
Patrick Jacob of Germantown, TN, wrote to me earlier this month to 
remind me that when the Federal Government tells our schools how to 
spend their money, it reduces the community's ability to take 
responsibility for educating our children.
  There are real solutions in education and they are coming from states 
from Texas to North Carolina and Arizona and from cities from Milwaukee 
to New York. However, federal regulations often prohibit states from 
expanding these reforms. Ed-Flex will give state and local school 
officials greater freedom from burdensome requirements of federal 
education statutes or regulations that impede local efforts to improve 
education. For example, if the parents, teachers and leaders of a 
particular school district decide that additional money is needed for 
reading instruction, that school district should not be precluded from 
shifting its resources to achieve that goal. Ed-Flex will free our 
schools to make more of these critical choices for themselves. Ed-Flex 
costs American taxpayers nothing. And instead of sending another 
unfunded mandate down from Washington, it provides our states with what 
governors from both parties asked us for when they came to Washington 
last week--flexibility.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
legislation.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of final passage of S. 
280, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 and would like 
to take a brief moment to describe my reasons for supporting this 
legislation. Despite serious concerns about the amendments that will be 
offered here on the floor today, I am voting for this legislation as a 
strong supporter of both increased federal flexibility and additional 
federal funding for special education.
  First and foremost, I am in favor of making federal education 
programs as flexible as possible. Over the years, requirements and 
regulations in many areas have crossed the line from responsible 
monitoring to redundant paperwork. Much has been done in recent years 
to lessen administrative burdens and eliminate federal regulation. 
However, I strongly believe that federal education programs need to go 
farther in to set clear goals and then provide as much flexibility as 
possible to local policymakers, as well as principals and classroom 
teachers.
  To that end, this bill will allow schools in all 50 states to apply 
for waivers from a set of state and federal education laws. I voted for 
expanding Ed-Flex in 1998, and I am proud to have supported creation of 
the demonstration program that gave New Mexico this flexibility three 
years ago.
  I am also supporting this bill because I am a strong advocate of 
increased funding for special education. Special education provides 
specialized services to students that can require significant 
additional costs to schools and local school districts. These services 
are essential to these students, and the federal government should do 
its part to support these efforts.
  During the past 3 years, I have worked with my colleagues in the 
Senate to help increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act by billions of dollars. My goal, as stated in the IDEA 
statute, is that the federal government meet its commitment to IDEA 
funding by providing 40 percent of the costs of educating special 
education students. And this bill sends a strong signal that additional 
funding in FY2000 and beyond is required for IDEA grants to states.
  For these reasons, I am voting in favor of final passage. However, I 
will carefully watch the final legislation that is produced by the 
conference committee on S. 280 before deciding how to cast my final 
vote before this bill is sent to the President.
  For example, in my view it is unfortunate that the final version of 
this legislation could have the unintended and unnecessary effect of 
diverting funding from the new class size reduction program started 
last year. Under this program, New Mexico is slated to receive $9.6 
million in FY99, which would allow schools around the state to hire 
more than 250 teachers.
  There is no reason that the Senate cannot support this program as 
well as increased funding for IDEA. In fact it would have been 
preferable to have extended the authorization for the class size 
reduction program so that these efforts could continue into the future. 
I am concerned that, by merging two viable streams of funding into what 
is in effect just one source, the overall amount of funds awarded for 
education may not increase as much as is needed.
  Because of these concerns I voted against several amendments to S. 
280 that would make schools decide between the special needs of 
disabled students and the clear imperative to lower class size in the 
early grades. Ideally, there would be two strong programs that would 
both receive the funding they deserve.

[[Page 4199]]

  I am also concerned that the Senate version of this legislation may 
not have sufficient accountability measures to go along with the 
expanded flexibility that is in the Ed-Flex bill. The taxpayers expect 
us to account for the roughly $15 billion per year that is sent to 
local schools, and in my view there should be stronger measures of 
performance and review in the final conference report.
  Finally, it is extremely unfortunate that this version of the bill 
does not create the national dropout prevention program that I had 
offered as an amendment. This amendment, which passed last year by 74 
to 26, would address the fact that 500,000 students drop out of school 
each year. There is no funded program to help lower dropout rates. And 
yet students in too many schools have just a 50-50 chance of 
graduating. Those that don't will earn less, be more likely to need 
public support, and more likely to get involved in crime. That affects 
all of us, not just the individual students.
  It is my hope that some of these concerns can be addressed during the 
conference between the House and Senate.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment on 
the important education bill which we are about to pass on its 
substantive merits, and also to speak briefly on the politics, where 
the bill might have appeared at some points to be partisan, with three 
votes on amendments being cast along party lines. I am convinced that 
we will have a very strong bipartisan vote on final passage. At the 
same time that the Senate will pass this Education Flexibility 
Partnership Act, the House of Representatives is working on similar 
legislation, so it will be presented to the President for his 
signature, which we are optimistic of obtaining.
  I think it is important to note that there were important provisions 
in amendments offered by Members on the other side of the aisle, where 
there were good programs which can be taken up in due course. The 
program for new teachers I think is a good idea. The program for 
dropout prevention is another good idea. The program for afterschool 
provisions I think, again, is sound and can be taken up at a later 
time. But had they been pressed on this bill, we would have had 
gridlock and this bill would not have been enacted.
  Last year, the President proposed $1.2 billion as a starter for 
100,000 new teachers. That was accepted by the Congress. Before the 
President came forward with that proposal, in the subcommittee of 
Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education which I have the privilege 
to chair, we had put provisions in for some $300 million which would 
have provided for as many new teachers as could have been hired during 
fiscal year 1999. The President came in with a bigger figure at a later 
date. That was ultimately accepted by the Congress.
  But I do think the idea for new teachers is a good idea. The question 
of how to fund it is always the tough issue. Similarly, the proposals 
for dropout prevention and afterschool programs again are sound and it 
is a question of finding the adequate funding for these kinds of 
important programs.
  I believe the Senate spoke very loudly and very emphatically on the 
question of giving local school districts the choice as to whether to 
use the money for special education, or whether to use the money for 
new teachers, or what to use the money for. The local education 
agencies were given that discretion on a vote of 61 to 38, where 6 
Democrats voted with 55 Republicans on that choice issue. Funding 
special education is a very major problem in America today. The Federal 
Government has imposed a mandate on the States, and the Supreme Court 
in a recent decision has broadened the terms of that mandate.
  In the subcommittee that I chair, which funds education, we have 
provided very substantial increases for special education, but the 
Federal Government has made a commitment for 40 percent funding and we 
are nowhere near that. So when you talk about the priorities of more 
new teachers or money for special education, that matter was put to the 
Senate for a vote and, not strictly along party lines, the Senate voted 
to have the option with the local education agencies; with the vote 
being 61 to 38, some 6 Democrats joined the 55 Republicans.
  When the choice issue was articulated along a slightly different 
line, the vote was 78 to 21, with some 23 Democrats joining 55 
Republicans. That amendment also had provisions to keep the guns out of 
schools, which was doubtless an incentive to make that a stronger 
bipartisan vote than on some of the others.
  Two of the other amendments were 59 to 40, with 4 Democrats joining 
the Republicans and, 57 to 42, 2 Democrats joining--and although we did 
have 3 votes along party lines, 55 to 44, there was a very definite 
bipartisan flavor to the votes on this matter.
  It is always difficult when we have votes which are 55 to 44, 
strictly along party lines, with the question being raised: Isn't there 
any independence among 55 Republicans or the 44 Democrats? But the 
party line was adhered to in order to get the bill passed, even though, 
as I say, in voting against new teachers, against dropout prevention 
programs, and against afterschool programs--those are good ideas, and 
on another day we will be able to take them up. But if we were to 
maintain these programs, I think this bill could not pass if we do not 
draw the line to focus on Ed-Flex in this bill.
  The flexibility I think is a very good idea. The Federal Government 
funds some 7 to 8 percent of the total funding. Last year, again in the 
subcommittee, we increased the funding by about $3.5 billion, about 10 
percent, bringing the total Federal share to about $34.5 billion. But 
the principle of federalism continues to be sound, and that is that we 
ought to leave as much to the States as we can and we ought to leave as 
much to the local education agencies as we can, with the people at the 
local level knowing best what their needs are. So if there is a limited 
amount of funding, let them make the choice among special education or 
new teachers or dropout prevention programs or afterschool programs; 
leave it to the people who are closest to the problems.
  So, all in all, there was a bit of partisanship here but I think it 
was justified to get the bill passed--not too much, with only three 
votes being along party lines--and deferring to another day the 
important programs which were not enacted today, but maintaining a very 
important point of flexibility to allow local education agencies to 
have the dominant voice in meeting their needs as they see them, being 
closest to them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time do I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes 24 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 6 minutes, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, in the last 3 or 4 weeks, we have heard our majority 
leader on three different occasions indicate that the most important 
issue we are going to address in the early part of this session was 
education. Over the period of the last 6 days, we have tried to debate 
a number of the ideas that we have on this side of the aisle, and 
certainly there ought to be the opportunity to debate amendments from 
the other side of the aisle as well.
  We have tried to do that, but have been effectively closed out from 
that opportunity.
  I would like at this time, to read a statement by Senator Patty 
Murray, who, because of a death in the family, will be unable to be 
here to make this representation in the final few minutes of 
consideration before we go into a series of votes--the most important 
being the time-sensitive issue of smaller classes for grades K through 
3. This is what Senator Murray says:

       Mr. President, I want to express how deeply disappointed I 
     am. The Senate had a tremendous opportunity to work together 
     to make a tangible difference in our children's lives and 
     their futures. But instead, Republicans have chosen the path 
     of partisanship and division.
       Last October, the Senate reached a bipartisan agreement to 
     reduce class size and improve teacher quality. Republicans 
     and

[[Page 4200]]

     Democrats worked together to reach a compromise that is 
     sending funds to local school districts this July. We did it 
     because we knew it was the right thing to do. That simple 
     fact has not changed in the last 5 months.
       So I am absolutely baffled about why we could not reach 
     this agreement again. The Senate's failure to pass this 
     amendment was irresponsible and inexcusable.
       The Senate Republicans have broken their promise to 
     teachers, to parents, and worst of all, to children in the 
     first, second, and third grades across the country.
       The Senate Republicans are hoping that this issue will just 
     fade away, but the education of our children is far too 
     important for me to allow that to happen. I will be back for 
     as long as it takes to get them to recognize they cannot 
     continue to stall. Until they take real steps to reduce the 
     class size, Mr. President, the Republicans owe the children 
     of this country an explanation.

  This is what we heard last fall. At that time, leading Republicans in 
Congress hailed the class size agreement. House Majority Leader Dick 
Armey said, ``We were very pleased to receive the President's request 
for more teachers, especially since he offered a way to pay for them,'' 
effectively supporting the first year of getting smaller class sizes. 
Republican Congressman Bill Goodling, Chairman of House Education 
Committee, declared that the Class Size Reduction Act was ``. . . a 
real victory for the Republican Congress but, more importantly, a huge 
win for local educators.'' Senator Slade Gorton said the same thing 
about the Class Size Reduction Act, representing the Republicans in 
negotiation on education, ``On education, there s been a genuine 
meeting of the minds involving the President and the Democrats and 
Republicans here in Congress. . . .''
  Now before the Senate we have the amendment of the Senator from 
Washington, to fulfill that commitment--which Republicans were taking 
credit for 5 months ago--and we are being denied this opportunity.
  We will have a chance this afternoon to vote on it. This is the time, 
today is the day, where the U.S. Senate can go on record for smaller 
class sizes in grades K-3. Today--today is the day to do it.
  I say to my good friend from New Hampshire, all of us are very 
concerned about our nation's children. We, on this side, do not yield 
that there is anyone who is more concerned about those needy children 
in our local communities. The fact of the matter is that his battle is 
not with us--it is with the Republican leadership that supported this 
program 5 months ago.
  Special ed educators all over this country are supporting the Murray 
amendment. Why? Because they think you can serve special needs children 
in many different ways, not just in targeting money for a particular 
funding program, but in smaller classes. We put that in the record. So 
we reject this idea that we are pitting one group of children against 
another, which effectively is what the Republican amendments are doing.
  Mr. President, today in just 8 minutes we will start a series of 
votes. They are on amendments that can make a major difference in 
student achievement. They are supported by parents, local school 
boards, principals, and teachers all across this Nation for smaller 
class size, expanding after-school programs, reducing drop out rates, 
and ending social promotion. We have a chance on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate, to take votes and declare that we want action in those areas. 
That is what we are trying to do. We have been trying to do it for 6 
days and have been denied that through parliamentary mechanisms of our 
Republican friends.
  I hope those Americans who care so deeply about those issues know how 
important it is to the children of this country. It is intuitive. Every 
parent knows if you have a child in a smaller class the child is going 
to do better. We have an opportunity to do something about that and I 
hope this afternoon we will have a strong vote in support of the Murray 
amendment--the children in this country deserve it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Tennessee, the sponsor of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, it is an exciting day because education in 
the United States is off to a fresh start. The underlying bill, which I 
am hopeful and confident will be passed later today, does something 
that previous bills out of this body did not do, and that is cut 
redtape. It combines flexibility and allows local innovation, local 
creativity to emerge, with strong accountability built in to give our 
students--and that is the purpose--to give our students the best chance 
to receive a solid and a strong education to prepare them for the 
millennium which is just around the corner.
  Ed-Flex is not a panacea. We have been very careful, as sponsors of 
this bill, to point out it is not a panacea to our Nation's educational 
systems' woes, but it is a strong bipartisan, bicameral first step. It 
is a first step to unshackle the hands of our teachers, to unshackle 
the hands of our administrators, of our principals--all who are working 
hard every day to educate our children. You look around at the success 
of Ed-Flex, whether it is just around the corner in Phelps Luck School 
in Maryland where waiver authority was granted to reduce class size, or 
in Kansas where Ed-Flex has made it possible to implement all-day 
kindergarten, or in many of the States that have access to Ed-Flex now 
to reduce paperwork. After today, coupled with the passage in the House 
of Representatives just a few hours ago, and ultimately to be signed by 
the President, we can give these opportunities to all States, to all 
children, to all schools in this country.
  I am proud to have been an original author and original sponsor of 
this particular bill. I am very appreciative of the manager and his 
conduct of the floor proceedings over the last several days, and I 
especially want to thank the Governors with whom I have worked very 
closely over the last several weeks to accomplish passage of this bill. 
I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Maine 2 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and again commend 
Senator Frist, chief sponsor of this legislation, and the chairman of 
the committee. I am pleased to join with them in this effort.
  Mr. President, the question before us is simple. This is not a 
question of who is for better schools; this is not a question of who is 
for putting more Federal resources in education; because both Democrats 
and Republicans alike share those two goals. The question before us is 
whom do you trust to make education decisions? Should education 
decisions be decided in Washington? Should every Federal dollar be 
attached to a string? Or should we trust the people at the local 
level--our school board members, our teachers, our parents, to make the 
best decisions for the students in local schools? To me, the answer is 
clear. We should increase the Federal commitment to education, but 
empower local school boards, teachers and parents to make the best 
decisions in keeping with the needs of their communities. That is the 
question before us.
  The second question before us is, Is the Government, is Congress, 
going to keep its promise with regard to funding special education? I 
say the answer to that should be yes. Let's keep the promise that was 
made more than 20 years ago when Congress passed the legislation 
mandating special ed. Let's keep our promise. Let's fully fund that 
important program before creating a whole lot of new categorical grant 
programs with strings attached. That is the debate.
  Everyone here is for better schools, better teachers, but that is not 
the issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 50 seconds.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the remainder of my time to myself.
  I have noticed over the years with my good friend from Massachusetts,

[[Page 4201]]

that the weaker his arguments, the louder the volume. He exceeded all 
my expectations today.
  My Democratic friends have a number of amendments that will be coming 
up for votes shortly. As I have pointed out this week, we will be 
considering the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act this Congress. The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions has already held several hearings on the ESEA, and many 
more are in the works. I will oppose all amendments that are relevant 
to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I will do this, not 
because I am callous to these issues, in fact, I ve championed them, 
but because these amendments should be discussed in the normal 
committee process. I will, however, support amendments that are 
designed to let local educators direct more money to special education. 
The reauthorization of special ed occurred last year, and it is open to 
have more money. The amendment I introduced on behalf of Senator Lott 
and others will provide local communities with a choice regarding how 
much they will use their share of the $1.2 billion included in last 
year's omnibus appropriations bill for education.
  Under our amendments, a school system may use the funds either to 
hire teachers or to support activities under the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act. What fairer system can you have under the 
circumstances? That is all we are doing. We are saying give them an 
option, give the locals an option: More teachers or more money for 
special ed. Our amendment will permit local school officials themselves 
to decide whether they need more money to educate children with 
disabilities or whether they need funds to hire more teachers.
  In Vermont, I am betting the funds will be used for IDEA. Time and 
again, Vermonters have made clear to me that special education funding 
is far and away the most pressing need of our communities. And time and 
again, Vermonters have pressed me to find out whether the Federal 
Government will honor its promise to pay 40 percent of the costs of 
special education. We are fortunate in Vermont to have already achieved 
the small class sizes which the President is trying to promote with his 
teacher hiring program. We do not need more. We need more money for 
special ed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 24 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
concurrent resolution.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Is it appropriate or is it in order to ask for the yeas 
and nays on all of the amendments this afternoon? I ask unanimous 
consent that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the Senator's 
request? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second on the amendments 
en bloc?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered en bloc.

                          ____________________