[Page: E421]
---

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 800) to provide for education flexibility partnerships:

• Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I take this time to state for the record my reasons for voting against H.R. 800 the Ed-Flex bill.

• Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the idea of flexibility in education. I laud my colleagues for their desire to work on the education issues facing our country. Ed-Flex has the potential to be a workable program that provides states and local school districts with the flexibility to improve academic achievements and the quality of education for their students.

• However, I believe that we need to protect those students who come from families in need. The intent of Congress, through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary School Act, was to target funds toward low-income students, in order to help them have a chance at success in life. I could not vote for Ed-Flex unless I was sure that students from low-income families are not going to lose their funds through waivers. This is why I supported the Scott-Payne amendment, which would have required that only schools in which at least 35% of the students come from low-income families may seek a waiver to use their Title I funds to operate a school-wide program. For my New York City District, this provision is especially important. We have many students coming from low-income families in the Bronx and Queens, and I cannot support a program that does not have provision to prohibit funds being taken away from those needy students.

• I am also concerned about the timing of this legislation. In the coming year, we need to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It does not make sense to me that we pass legislation to waive the requirements that we have not even written yet! The best solution would have been to consider Ed-Flex and ESEA together. Then, we could have worked to alleviate my concerns, and those of my colleagues, regarding the targeting of ESEA funds under the provisions of the Ed-Flex program.

• Finally, I would like to express my dismay that the majority did not allow class-size reduction and school construction initiatives to be attached to H.R. 800. Public schools are working hard to raise academic standards and improve student achievement, but in many schools their efforts are hampered by overcrowded classes and inadequate and deteriorating facilities. Smaller class sizes improve student learning and are effective in improving student achievement. But we cannot reduce class size without considering the condition and lack of space in school facilities. These issues go hand-in-hand. This is why I feel Ed-Flex should not have been considered now, but rather considered along with ESEA and school construction.

• I strongly support bipartisan efforts to strengthen our school systems and help our students. I look forward to working with my colleagues on school construction legislation and on reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It is with regret that I had to vote against the first education bill on the floor of the House in the 106th Congress and I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to outline my reasons for my opposition to H.R. 800.

  END