THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

But let us look at other controls. We on this side of the aisle wanted to give flexibility to the States and in this

[Page: H1120]  GPO's PDF

   I have 3 school board members that came to me along with 3 superintendents. They went to school for 8 days to see if they are in compliance just with the Federal regulations, not even the State regulations. They are going to get audited. Five phone books of regulations. They had to hire a lawyer. It costs $130,000 to see if they are in compliance. That is what we are trying to get rid of, I say to my colleagues. We want the schools to be able to have the flexibility to do it better.

   Look at Alan Bersin, a Clinton appointee, now Superintendent of San Diego City Schools. I am going to help Alan Bersin because he is sitting in there trying to clean up San Diego city schools. Look at Gray Davis, the new governor of California. He is trying to identify the schools that are not working within California. He has a big job, but I am going to do everything I can to help Gray Davis. But Federal regulations and the unions are trying to stop him. He wants to support the principals, make them the captain of their ship, so that they can fire or get rid of people that they do not think are performing. But do my colleagues know who is stopping that? Federal regulations and bureaucracy.

   Alan Bersin said, his number one problem is special education because of the regulations that are killing the schools. Trial lawyers are ripping off the money, just like they did in the Superfund, and he cannot change it. He is having a difficult time, and we need to help him.

   The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. CUNNINGHAM) has expired.

   (By unanimous consent, Mr. CUNNINGHAM was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

   Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, men like Gray Davis, our new governor, and Alan Bersin in San Diego, are trying to do the right things and get through the bureaucracy and get more flexibility into the school system. We need to support them.

   I heard the word ``bipartisan.'' The President will sign this bill as it is, and the saying is, ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Because by ``fixing it,'' in the way some on the other side want, we are going to increase the Federal regulations in the name of ``accountability.'' We do not want to do that. We want to help these kids. Let us go forward and let us do a good job.

   Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

   I think the gentleman who has just spoken and all of the people in this room will agree with me that at least 90 percent, or more than 90 percent of the funds we use to run our public schools with are State and local controlled. We are talking about less than 10 percent of the total funds. We are talking about flexibility on less than 10 percent of what we use to run our schools with, and if we have 10 percent of the funding by the Federal Government, it means the Federal Government only has about 10 percent of the control, if there is any control at all.

   So the American people should understand that the whole flexibility argument is based on a phoney hypothesis. Our schools are in bad trouble, bad shape. We are 20th in the international arena because the States and the localities have not done a good job, and the Federal Government wants to participate. They only want to participate. They are not willing to put up even 10 percent. It is less than 10 percent participation. What we are talking about here is an attempt to destroy the Federal Government's role totally. We are back to where we were in 1995 with a call to abolish the Department of Education. It is just another approach. It is a more sanitized approach to destroying the Federal role in education.

   The New York Times today has said what I said in the committee. They said it in much more succinct terms. The wise thing to do, this is an editorial of March 10, today, the wise thing to do would be to put Ed-Flex aside until later in the session when Congress reauthorizes the entire elementary and secondary education act.

   What we are doing here is stampeding. Education, there is an emergency in America on education. It deserves a serious response from Congress. What we are doing here is not a serious response. This is a stampede to push us into a political posture. We want to open the door for block grants. That is what we are doing today.

[Time: 16:30]

   It is trivializing the legislative process, because we have on our agenda for this year the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. That is on our agenda. Why can we not wait, as the New York Times says we should, and I agree? Why can we not wait?

   The New York Times editorial also says, ``The Ed-Flex expansion being debated in Congress would extend waivers even to States that have no intention of innovation and no means in place of evaluating what they do.'' Correct.

   The New York Times starts its editorial with the following: ``The achievement gap between affluent and disadvantaged children is a challenge to American education and a threat to national prosperity. Unfortunately, a bipartisan bill that is scheduled for debate and a vote today in Congress could widen that gap by allowing states to use Federal dollars targeted at the poorest students for other educational purposes. The so-called Ed-Flex proposal could damage the poorest districts, which have traditionally been underfinanced by the states and cities even though they bear the burden of teaching the least prepared students.''

   Why did the Federal Government get involved in education? Lyndon Johnson, what was his argument when he started the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965? That we would help the poorest students in the poorest districts.

   What Ed-Flex does is provide money for greedy Governors who have shown by the way they have handled the welfare reform money that they do not intend to spend money for exactly what it is intended for, they want to have the freedom to use it in various ways that do not necessarily focus on the poorest people for which the funds are intended.

   We have a continuation of an effort to destroy the Federal partnership. The Federal Government only wants a role. We want to make certain that the national security, the national interests, are protected by having the most educated populace we can have.

   What the majority in this Congress is seeking to do is what they sought to do in 1995, get rid of the Federal influence. It is only a tiny influence. The American people should understand that we are talking about less than 10 percent funding, less than 10 percent control. The States and the local governments are in control, and they have all that flexibility with the 90 percent of the funding that they put up. They have maximum flexibility.

   With all that flexibility, they have not been able to keep up with the demands for modern education. The Federal Government needs to be involved because education is our primary means of guaranteeing the national security. We have a Navy which floated an aircraft carrier, and could not find enough personnel to run the high-tech carrier because they were not available. We need an educated population. We cannot leave it up to the States. They have not done a good job. The States should at least be willing to partner with the Federal Government.

   Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

   Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

   Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind everyone that the law says that at the local level, they will use the money for the most educationally disadvantaged youngsters.

   Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment.

[Page: H1121]  GPO's PDF

   But I would simply ask that Members not confuse the idea of accountability with Federal mandates and government control. The Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 provides our teachers and our local school systems the things that they need, that flexibility within accountability to provide the education.

   As I travel through my districts in North Carolina, and I have to be careful not to go back through my own career in public education, which was delightful, so delightful I probably did not achieve as high marks as I should, but I remember those principals and those teachers that worked from morning until night to give me the chance to learn about math, about science.

   I think of Jessie Blackwelder in Concord, who took over a school that was suffering real problems. She got on the phone and called me up. She said, get a couple of dump trucks over here. We need to clean this place up. She started calling parents. She said, we need books. We need help. We need new desks. We need you over here. We need local support. We need those of you who know this community and these students to pour out your heart and soul into our education system.

   What keeps this from happening so many times is the Federal Government, with more mandates shutting down this creativity, shutting down this support, this enthusiasm, this involvement between parents, teachers, grandparents, school boards, and those that are empowered and entrusted.

   Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

   Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman give us one example of what he means by the Federal Government interfering with one's ability to be flexible with parents and run the schools?

   Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, it has been my experience as a legislator in North Carolina, and one who has run Statewide, that each time I move into a district, regardless of whether it is the east or west, time and time again a Federal mandate for paperwork, to make it in the simplest terms, takes away from that classroom teacher's time that she could be spending with her children to fill out forms and endless paperwork. This is one of the clearest examples.

   Mr. OWENS. I would ask the gentleman, classroom teachers do paperwork?

   Mr. HAYES. Yes, sir.

   Mr. OWENS. Classroom teachers do the paperwork for the grants?

   Mr. HAYES. Classroom teachers, superintendents, principals. It is just too much of their time that is spent meeting Federal requirements which are not productive, and I think this bill does a fabulous job of giving them their time back to spend it in their classrooms with the children.

   Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it is not a question of flexibility, it is a question that we need more paperwork reduction.

   Mr. HAYES. I have lost the gentleman's train of thought, but I appreciate the gentleman rising to talk about that.

   Mr. Chairman, my point is that accountability flows from local involvement. Accountability comes from parents and teachers and school boards being involved. It does not come from the Federal Government imposing itself upon our local education system.

   Again, I oppose this amendment. I vigorously support the Education Flexibility partnership. It is a commonsense proposal that will help stop the one-size-fits-all mentality that comes from Washington and the Federal Government. The bill addresses the basic fact that what works in New York City unfortunately does not always work in Rockingham, North Carolina.

   Our Nation's future rests on the quality of education that our children receive. There is nothing we can do in this Congress that is more important than ensuring the quality of education in our public school system.

   Mr. Chairman, I have spent a lot of time listening to parents and teachers in the Eighth District of North Carolina. What I have learned from these conversations is that the best new ideas and innovations come from the districts, and not from Washington. Unfortunately, it is the Washington bureaucracy that stifles the creativity at the local level.

   Mr. Chairman, we have before us today a bill that helps cut the Federal red tape which hinders excellence in public education. This amendment works against the Ed-Flex bill, requiring more Federal mandates for local education.

   The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. HAYES) has expired.

   (On request of Mr. GOODLING, and by unanimous consent, Mr. HAYES was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

   Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, the American people know that Republicans and Democrats have some differences on the issue. They accept that. But what they do not understand is why we do not move forward on the issues when we do agree.

   The Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 has the support and the endorsement of all 50 Governors, Republicans and Democrats alike, from all areas of the Nation. Mr. Chairman, it is time we passed this bill. It was intended to empower the people who are the true innovators in public education, our local folks, our parents, our teachers.

   Do not let those who are opposed to this flexibility speak out and hurt this great bill. Join me in a strong vote of confidence for our parents and teachers. Support the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 and oppose this amendment.

   Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

   Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman wanted to tell his friend, the gentleman from New York City (Mr. OWENS) that the great mandate that the gentleman really wants to tell him about, which is a 100 percent mandate, which destroys his school district from hiring new teachers, destroys his school district from reducing class size, destroys his school district from building new buildings, destroys his school district from maintaining the existing buildings, is the 100 percent mandate from Washington, D.C. called, called ``special education.''

   That is the mandate that the gentleman wants to tell the gentleman from New York City about, because oh, my, if he got that 40 percent of excess costs, he could do anything under the sun in his district. He would get millions of dollars. He would get $1 billion or more every year. That is all he needs.

   Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I just did not want to be that hard on my good friend, the gentleman from New York.

   Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

   (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

   Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, during the course of this debate I have wondered exactly where I was; whether we were really debating the reality.

   I rise in support of the Miller-Kildee amendment. I believe it strengthens the basic legislation. I do not feel enacting H.R. 800 is necessary, but I believe that the Congress is probably hellbent in moving in that direction, and if we are going to do it, then it seems to me that accepting the Miller-Kildee amendment would signal to this country that we are not prepared to abandon the very core necessity for title I, ESEA.

   I happen to be one of the few legislators here who served in 1965, when the great debate on how Federal aid to education was going to be provided to our communities and our States, led to Congress enacting P.L. 89-10. It was preceded by 25 years of agonizing debate on how to structure this kind of federal assistance to our public school systems.

   From that time to now we are still struggling with this issue with mounting frustration coupled with our agony that our school systems still cannot produce quality education where all of our children achieve, based upon reasonable standards and assessments,

[Page: H1122]  GPO's PDF

   PL 89-10, which is Title I of ESEA is part of this Ed-Flex legislation. Title I is geared to the idea that the very poor in our society live in districts that cannot afford to educate their children as they are able to in wealthier, richer districts in our country. We need to understand that the strength of this Nation, indeed our national security, is dependent upon lifting the educational performance of all children, wherever they live, whatever their economic background. And if we do this as a Nation, we rise and we achieve, and our society can accomplish all of the complex exercises that we have to engage in in order to prosper as a Nation, to be the leader of the world. So we fashioned Title I.

   I want this body to understand that the Title I allocation of funds is based upon a head count, a census, a determination of where the poor children are located. We have a count that is provided to the Federal Government, and based upon this head count of poor children, of the poverty children of America, a formula is created and the money is distributed to the States and local agencies based on the number of poor children that live in a school district.

   This money belongs to the poor in these communities. It belongs to the poor children in our communities. We have no right to count the poor children in this country, base a formula for distribution on the poor, and then when it comes time to determine how to spend this money, which is based upon a computation and calculation of these poor children, allocate it in ways that are flexible and could exclude the poor. This is pure manipulation, exploitation of the children for whom this legislation was designed. That is my basic difficulty with the legislation that is now called ``flexibility''.

   We want to be flexible. We do not want to engineer all this heavy bureaucracy on the local communities. But remember, the Federal funds are something less than 7 or 8 percent of the total amount that is spent in our school districts. Ninety-three percent of the funding for education in our school systems is locally raised by the local communities or by the States. The Federal Government only puts in 7 or 8 percent. There is no monstrous bureaucracy here engineering the public educational system to the detriment of our children. It is a small contribution, and because it is so small, the Congress is determined to make sure that that small amount is spent for the benefit of the poor children for whom it was legislated. That is the heart of this debate.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents