[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 6028-6029]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        FLEXIBILITY IN EDUCATION

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to support the Education 
Flexibility Act. This legislation will address our continuing problem 
in education policy: too many Washington-knows-best policies and red-
tape getting in the way of States and local districts as they attempt 
to address their unique educational needs.
  Mr. President, over the past 16 years the Education Department has 
spent more than $175 billion on education programs. Yet achievement 
scores continue to stagnate and more young people than ever are 
dropping out of school. One crucial reason for this failure of Federal 
programs has been the enormous burden of Washington strings and 
mandates on the States and local school districts.
  While the Federal Government provides only 7 percent of total 
spending on education, Washington demands 50 percent of the paperwork 
filled out by local school districts. That is wrong. It is inefficient, 
it is unfair and it is not the way to improve our children's education.
  And this is why I support the Education Flexibility Act. This bill 
would give every State a chance to waive many of the cumbersome rules, 
regulations, and red-tape often associated with education programs run 
by Washington.
  The State of Michigan currently enjoys the benefits of the Ed-Flex 
program. In applying for its Ed-Flex waiver, Michigan streamlined 
several of its State regulations. Further, the very process of seeking 
waivers has brought Michiganians together to improve education. A 
working group of State and local officials, school board members, 
parents and principals was put together in Michigan to determine the 
best way to streamline regulations and deliver education services.
  I believe this legislation is moving in the right direction, and 
would like to see it move even further. I believe Congress should be 
even more flexible in new authorizations and appropriations. 
Communities are different and have different needs. Local school 
districts need to have more options on how to spend Federal education 
dollars. While some schools may need to hire additional teachers, other 
school districts may need to implement a summer school program or a 
literacy program. The point is, schools should have the flexibility and 
the resources to meet the specific needs of their students.
  A number of amendments have been offered during debate on this bill. 
My general view is that to offer new authorizations for additional 
Washington-based programs is moving in the exact opposite direction of 
the intent of this bill. This bill seeks to free up local education 
agencies from the Federal bureaucracies administering programs not to 
add to them. To the extent that these issues have been raised, I have 
supported the notion that we should first meet our current fiscal 
obligation to IDEA in addition to giving State and local education 
agencies flexibility in administering Federal education resources. I 
look forward to a fuller discussion of these issues in the proper 
context of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act.
  There has been a great deal of debate about the need to fully fund 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act provisions affecting 
education. I believe that this raises an important point, particularly 
given the President's calls for new Federal programs such as his 
request for 100,000 new teachers, money for which would then compete 
with IDEA appropriations.
  For years now parents and local schools have been expressing concern 
over the rising costs of education for children with special needs. The 
Federal Government has made a strong commitment to the education needs 
of disabled children in every way, with one telling exception: it has 
not lived up to its promise to provide its share of the funds necessary 
to educate these

[[Page 6029]]

children. The result has been an increased burden on local school 
districts, which must make a choice between hiring a new teacher or 
paying the Federal Government's share of the IDEA bill.
  Under the Republican Congress, funding for IDEA has increased 
significantly. Unfortunately, it is still not adequate to meet the 
costs imposed by federal mandates. I believe we have an obligation to 
do more to meet these previous commitments before we create new 
programs and start spending on them money which could go to fulfill our 
IDEA promise. Moreover, if Congress would actually meet the federal 
government's obligation to pay 40 percent of the costs for educating 
special needs children, it would free up millions for schools to spend 
meeting other specific, local education needs.
  For example, my state receives approximately $73 million from the 
federal government for the educational needs of disabled children. If 
the 40 percent mandate was reached, my state would receive $378 
million. By meeting the federal government's obligation to current 
programs, my state would have $305 million per year more (or one-
quarter of the amount appropriated for the new teacher program last 
year) to be used for whatever needs local school districts might have--
including hiring more teachers, after-school programs, or tutoring 
programs.
  Mr. President, I recently asked a school district in my state what 
kind of difference fully funding IDEA could make to them. Here is what 
I found: If the federal government met its obligation in funding IDEA 
in the Oakland School District, that district would have $60 million 
more to spend on educating their students.
  I think we can all agree on our commitment to elementary and 
secondary education. The main point of disagreement is over how to 
deliver federal resources to schools. I suggest that by freeing local 
school districts of regulations and redtape and by giving them more 
flexibility in how they administer federal resources, we can free local 
schools to do what they do best: educate our children.
  Education flexibility is not the answer to all our educational 
problems. But I submit that it provides the best means available to get 
at those answers: allowing the parents, teachers, and local officials 
in a position to know what their students need to make the important 
decisions involved in setting education priorities.
  This is a crucial piece of legislation, Mr. President, and I am proud 
to lend my full support behind this bill.

                          ____________________