[Page: S3549]---
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 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.
END