Matt Salmon

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. SALMON. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

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

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It requires the NASA Administrator to consult with the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to place antidrug messages on NASA Internet sites. The NASA Internet site is the most popular Government Web site, receiving hundreds of millions of hits. For example, the Mars Pathfinder Web site logged roughly 750 million hits during its mission to Mars. John Glenn's return to space generated 732,000 Web pages being downloaded from NASA's server, and each week about 250,000 Web pages are downloaded from NASA's server. Many of these hits on the NASA site are from children, our young people. Thousands of schools around the country have incorporated the NASA Web site into their science curriculum. Furthermore, NASA has targeted students with interactive Web sites designed to engage young minds. In an era where our children are constantly bombarded and surrounded by the influence of drugs and where more than half of all high school students are found to have dabbled with illicit drugs by the time they have graduated, now is the time to step up our prevention efforts to protect our children from the scourge of drugs. The NASA Web site is an excellent and cost-free way to send these antidrug messages to our young children. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. SALMON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. SALMON. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I'm recorded as having voted ``nay'' on House rollcall vote No. 107. I intended to vote ``yea.''

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for having the courage to stand up in a very tumultuous time and risk I think some very, very nasty accusations about playing games and trying to create this academic discussion in the face of a very, very tumultuous time. I congratulate him, because he understands that our duty as Congressmen of the United States of America is to uphold the law of the land and the law of the land, as passed in 1973, under the War Powers Act requires this kind of action. Many of us believe this very strongly. It is not just an academic discussion. It is the law of the land. And we take that very seriously. I opposed this mission from the get-go for three very important reasons. Number one, I believed that there were no national security interests at risk, there was no clear objective, and finally, there was no clearly delineated exit strategy. While I do believe that the intentions are good, to stop the ethnic cleansing or to try to stop the ethnic cleansing, to try to stop war crimes from occurring in that region of the world, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. When the President stood up the day before the bombing campaign began, he said one of the goals was to stop Milosevic's ability to prosecute atrocities against the ethnic Albanians, and another goal was that every ethnic Albanian be allowed to return to their home. What we have seen since the bombing began painfully shows us that the objectives have not been met. In fact they have been exacerbated. While there were 1.6 million ethnic Albanians in Kosovo before the bombing, now there are somewhere between 500,000 and 700,000. Anywhere from 100,000 to 500,000 are missing and may be dead. We have not achieved these goals by any stretch of the imagination. I have to look at this from a father's perspective. I have a son who is 17. If I am not comfortable sending my son over there with such an ill-defined mission, how could I be comfortable sending other sons and other daughters of my constituents into harm's way?

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for sponsoring this resolution. In the time that I have been here in Congress, the 4\1/2\ years that I have been here, I do not think I have met a gentleman with more compassion, more love or more care and concern than the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) has shown me in the last few months since his election. What a sad thing it is to have to engage in this kind of a discussion on the floor at a time so short in his tenure in the House. Words cannot express, they are completely inadequate to express, I think, the sorrow and the feelings that many of us here feel. So many of us who ran for this office did so because we wanted to come and we wanted to change the world. We wanted to be able to come and address all of the heartfelt problems of the people that we represent. We really wanted to make this a better place to live. As so often happens when a tragedy like this occurs, we look at ourselves in the mirror through tear-stained eyes and we try to come up with answers that we can pose that will solve these problems. But they also seem so inadequate. So I looked into the faces of my two high school students before I left, and I gave them an extra tight hug and I tried to place myself in the situation of these parents, and try as I might, I cannot. Our hearts go out to them. Mr. Speaker, I know that all too often we try to use things like this as a way to move forward our issues. We try to use these senseless tragedies as points in a debate for gun control or for this or for that. In fact, I was even going to try to reference some of them in a written speech that I had, and I have thrown it out because frankly I think the most important thing that we as a Nation can do right now is to pray. Pray to God Almighty that his compassion and love will be sent down on us and those families will feel his arms of mercy wrap around them. Because frankly, that is the only respite that we have. I offer my prayers and my condolences, and I hope they feel the love emanating from this body.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, every year we debate a constitutional amendment to limit Congress' ability to spend other people's money, and every year the tax-and-spend caucus comes down to the floor to tell us such an amendment is unnecessary and that it is dangerous. Dangerous for whom? Working families that are requiring two incomes to pay for their taxes? Overtaxed single mothers who cannot afford to feed and clothe their children? How about family businesses that must be liquidated to pay the death taxes? Do these people have any reason to fear a constitutional amendment? Of course not. Even more laughable is the notion that this amendment is unnecessary. The American family currently pays over 25 percent of its income to the Federal Government in the form of taxes. This figure is up from just 2 percent 40 years ago. In fact, taxes have been become the single largest expenditure for the American family. More is spent on taxes than housing, food and clothing combined. Yet despite this, opponents of this amendment want us to believe this amendment is unnecessary. Give me a break. Of course, the real reason for the tax-and-spend caucus opposing this amendment is because limiting taxes would limit their power. If government confiscates less of the taxpayers' money, it will be harder to spend money, which is the sole reason for their existence. I freely admit I support this amendment because I believe the Federal Government taxes too much and spends too much. It would be nice to see similar candor on the other side. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank Congressman Bud Shuster, Chairman of the Transportation Committee, for moving H. Con. Res. 48 through the Committee and to the Floor so expeditiously. The resolution we are considering today will permit the organizers of Sunrayce 99 to sponsor a public event, with solar-powered cars, on the Capitol Grounds on June 20, 1999, or on such other dates as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate may jointly designate, to conduct opening ceremonies for Sunrayce 99. As the Chairman and co-founder of the House Renewable Energy Caucus I appreciate the innovation necessary to identify and utilize alternative forms of energy. As we move into the 21st Century, one of the critical environmental challenges facing us is the need to discover the possibilities of sustainable energy development, so that our children, and their families will be able to enjoy the clean air and environment that is so important to the health of our nation. From June 20-29 the world will watch as up to 40 teams participate in Sunrayce 99 and demonstrate good-spirited competition and innovation at its best. The teams will race through five states, from the start in Washington, DC, to the finish at Epcot at Walt Disney World Resort near Orlando, Florida in the nation's premier solar powered vehicle event. Sunrayce 99 showcases the imagination, ingenuity and teamwork of graduate and undergraduate teams from North America in the development of highly efficient vehicles powered solely by a viable, renewable and sustainable energy source--the sun. I am proud to note that the University of Arizona has registered a team. General Motors, Electronic Data Systems and the U.S. Department of Energy are the sponsors of this biennial intercollegiate competition. The top three finishing teams will receive trophies and cash awards. Scholarship achievement awards will also be granted for technical innovation, engineering excellence, artistic talents, teamwork and good sportsmanship. Sunrayce 99 not only demonstrates the possibilities of sustainable energy development, but also the importance of public/private partnerships. This approach will allow companies to work hand in hand with government in successfully tackling the environmental challenges ahead. I applaud the participants of Sunrayce 99--sponsors, applicants, universities, and administrators--for making innovation a reality.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Federal Prisoner Health Care Copayment Act, which would require Federal prisoners to pay a nominal fee when they initiate certain visits for medical attention. Seventy-five percent of the fee would be deposited in the Federal Crime Victims' Fund and the remainder would go to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the Marshals Service for administrative expenses incurred in carrying out this Act. Each time a prisoner pays to heal himself, he will be paying to heal a victim. The U.S. Department of Justice supports the Federal inmate user fee concept, and has worked on crafting the language contained in this bill. Most law-abiding Americans pay a copayment when they seek medical attention. Why should Federal prisoners be exempted from this responsibility? This reform on the Federal level is overdue. Health care costs for Federal prisoners has risen considerably over the past several years. Only a handful of states exceed the Federal system in the cost of care per inmate. Establishing a copayment requirement would exert an immediate downward pressure on prison health care costs. States have recognized he value of copayment programs, and they have proliferated in recent times. Now, well over half of the states (at last count 34) have copayment programs on a statewide basis, including Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Additional states are considering implementing copayment programs. Moreover, at least half of the states--some of which have not enacted this health care reform on a statewide basis--have jail systems that impose a copayment on inmates seeking certain types of health care. Copayment programs have an outstanding record of success on the State level. In June 1996, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care held a conference that examined statewide fee-for-service programs. Dr. Ron Waldron of the Bureau of Prisons concluded that ``inmate user fees programs appear to reduce utilization, and do generate modest revenues.'' Evidence of the effectiveness of copayment programs continues to surface. Tennessee, which began requiring $3 copayments in January 1996, reported in late 1997 that the number of infirmary visits per inmate had been cut almost in half. In August, prison officials in Ohio evaluated the nascent State copayment law, finding that the number of prisoners seeing a doctor had dropped 55 percent and that between March and August the copayment fee generated $89,500. And in my home state of Arizona, there has been a reduction of about 30 percent in the number of requests for health care services. Copayment programs reduce the overutilization of health care services without denying the indigent of necessary care. In discouraging the overuse of health care, prisoners in true need of attention should receive better care. Taxpayers benefit through the reduction in the expense of operating a prison health care system. And the burden of corrections officers to escort prisoners feigning illness to health care facilities is reduced. The Federal Prisoner Health Care Copayment Act provides that the Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall assess a nominal fee for each health care visit that he or she--consistent with the Act--determines should be covered. The legislation also allows state and local facilities to collect health care copayment fees when housing federal prisoners. The Federal Prisoner Health Care Copayment Act prohibits the refusal of treatment for financial reasons or appropriate preventative care. Finally, the Act requires that the Director report to Congress the amount collected under the legislation and an analysis of the effects of the implementation of this legislation on the nature and extent of health care visits by prisoners. Congress should speedily enact this important prisoner health care reform bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Department of Justice to pass this proposal.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, this resolution we are considering today is clear-cut but critical. It expresses congressional opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and urges the President to do the same. As far as the comments that were just made regarding the intentions of the sponsor or the cosponsors, I am glad that the gentleman did not question the motives of this cosponsor since it would implicate over 280 Members of the House and 98 Senators in the Senate who voted for this resolution who believe that this is an idea whose time has come, who believe that rather than spout rhetoric it is time to be ahead of the curve and make sure that the Palestinian authority understand that our intentions are clear so that we can avert bloodshed. The consensus on the need for this resolution is clear. As I mentioned, over 200 Members of the House have cosponsored H. Con. Res. 24. I worked diligently with Democrats as well on this bill. I believe that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and some of my other friends on the other side of the aisle can attest to this. Language that criticized the administration was removed, even though we all know that the administration, had the administration reacted sooner against the possibility of a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, Chairman Arafat would probably not be meeting with President Clinton this week to discuss the matter. There is also no reference in the resolution about the First Lady's damaging comments on the subject which may have encouraged a belief with many in the Palestinian Authority that the U.S. might support and recognize such a unilaterally declared state. We must act now. The Palestinian Authority plans to unilaterally declare parts of Israel, including Jerusalem, as their own state as early as May 4 of this year, the target date the Oslo Accords set for a permanent accord to be reached. Doing so would obliterate Oslo and would mark a repudiation of the commitment of Chairman Arafat to negotiate all permanent status issues. At the start of the Oslo process, 4 days before the famous September 13, 1993 White House lawn ceremony that publicly launched the peace process, Chairman Arafat wrote a letter to then Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, in which he pledged that ``The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two states and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.'' Clearly, if Arafat plans to declare as his own land land that belongs to another country outside of the Oslo process, then he is inviting war upon the region. The President himself has suggested that such a move would be catastrophic, and Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Martin Indyk, warned in October of dire consequences of unilateral declaration of independence: In the process of the Palestinians seeking to assert the sovereignty of their so-called independent state and the Israelis seeking to deny it, a clash would seem inevitable. I can see a movement from a kind of declaration of independence to a war of independence that would be the absolute antithesis of the peace process. Arafat has been planning for many months now to declare unilaterally a Palestinian State and reject the Oslo process. In late February, Arafat said we assure the whole world that the establishment of the independent state of Palestine with holy Jerusalem as its capital is a sacred and legitimate right of the Palestinian people. It is a goal that our people will not accept to advocate or to give up no matter what the difficulties and the challenges. Other Palestinian leaders have been echoing Arafat's announcements. As recently as Sunday, this last Sunday, a senior adviser to Chairman Arafat said, quote, the Palestinian position is still that May 4 is the fixed date on declaring statehood, but he also added that the Palestinian leadership will study all proposals and ideas. Another key Palestinian official said in late February that we are moving forward in our preparations for the day, May 4, the date of declaration of Palestinian state. More specifically, on September 24 Chairman Arafat's cabinet announced that at the end of the interim period the Palestinian authorities shall declare the establishment of the Palestinian state on all Palestinian land occupied since 1967, which Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Palestinian state. The provocative statements by Arafat and his ministers show that his intentions are real and imminent. However, Arafat knows that he cannot simply choose to declare another country's land as his own so he has been trying to gain the support of other countries. Arafat has already visited with leaders of several other countries including Muammar Kadafi, the terrorist leader of Libya, in his worldwide tour to gain acceptance. Arafat's courting of Kadafi should in itself make clear to the U.S. policymakers that a unilaterally-declared Palestinian state could result in the development of an alliance that is detrimental to the U.S. interests. Let us also remember that Arafat supported Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War, and many Palestinian citizens took to the streets a few months ago to burn American flags in protest of America's bombing campaign of Iraqi military targets. In any event, on March 23 Arafat will be visiting President Clinton to press the United States to support his move, and the United States must not succumb to his tactics. When President Clinton and the administration confront Arafat on this issue, they must be firm that the United States will never recognize a unilaterally-declared Palestinian state. This is timely. I hope that we can receive cooperation. The bulk of the people in this body, Republican and Democrat, support this measure. Let us move forth in a good faith effort of bipartisanship to get this done.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond to a couple of the things that have been said on the other side. First of all, I think as the debate goes forward we will see clearly that this is a bipartisan measure. It looks as though it is becoming a polarization between the Republicans and the Democrats with the Republicans favoring this measure and the Democrats not. Nothing could be further from this truth. In fact, we have well over 280 cosponsors, 100 of those Democrat Members, courageous Members, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), many, many, congressmen on the other side, who believe that this is an idea that will strengthen the peace process and not harm it. I also might suggest there have been those who have said suggest that this might be irresponsible, not well timed, would harm the peace process. I might remind Members that just a few short days ago, 98 members of the Senate and one against voted for this exact same measure word for word, and I really think that it is getting kind of a misrepresentation today as something that is kind of out there on the limb when really it is not. It is a very responsible measure. I might also say that it is intended to protect the peace process because if the Palestinian Authority did declare unilateral statehood it is tantamount to war, and the consequences would be extremely dire. To my knowledge, the Israelis have not proposed any unilateral measure outside of the negotiations, and so if they had proposed and if anybody on the other side can come up with just one unilateral action that the Israelis have proposed that is outside of the Oslo Accord, please bring it forward and we will add it to a resolution and bring it up next week. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes). (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds).

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. I might also congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I had no idea he was reregistering as a Republican, obviously, if he is going to be the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. I think that is a great move. I would also like to thank the people who have tirelessly worked on behalf of this resolution. I would like to thank on our side most of all the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) for his tireless efforts. He introduced the legislation last year and has been working on it for a long, long time. I also owe a great debt of gratitude to the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for making H. Con. Res. 24 a foreign policy priority in the 106th Congress. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the lead Democratic sponsor, has been an enormous help in moving the resolution forward. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) have also contributed both in front and behind the scenes. Moreover, the help of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes) and the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) in gathering cosponsors is greatly appreciated. Last, I would really like to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) for making this a priority of the Committee on International Relations and bringing it to the floor. I think many have spoken about this resolution in ways that I think really do not grasp the essence of what we are trying to accomplish. But there have been a few that I think have very cogently delineated what exactly this bill does. I think of the comments of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and I think of the comments of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman). They understand what this is all about. What this is about is to strengthen the peace process. Many times here in the Congress we have tried to be ahead of the curve, not to cause problems, but to make sure that it is clear in the minds of those that we are negotiating with, that we deal with in good faith, that they are clear of our intentions. I recall when we were dealing with China, and they started lobbying missiles in the Taiwan Strait, that Congress was very forceful in communicating to China what our intentions were and what our relationship with Taiwan is and will be in the future. Those statements were not harmful to our relationship with China. They were clear statements of a purpose, of what we stand for, of what we are about. As was mentioned, there is nothing in this resolution that denounces anything that the Palestinian Authority has done. All it does is denounce what they might possibly do and let them know, with due process and clear intention, that if they declare unilaterally a Palestinian state, that the United States will not recognize that, end of story. There is no beating up on them. There is no beating our chests. It is simply a clear delineation of what we stand for and what we believe. As far as the peace process is concerned, we are all committed. Those who have suggested that this might somehow thwart the peace process, I think they know better. I think that sometimes their rhetoric gets a little reckless and out of control, but, frankly, I think they know better. They know what the intentions of this resolution are, and that is why it passed the Senate 98 to 1. That is why there are 280 cosponsors, because it is very plain, straightforward, and to the point. It reiterates what the American people and the Congress have believed for a long, long time, and that is that the peace process cannot proceed if reckless action such as declaring unilaterally a Palestinian state goes forward. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) aptly pointed out, it would completely obliterate, explode the peace process. That is not what we are about. For those who have suggested the intentions are somewhat different, I ask them to please don their reading glasses and take another look at it, try a little harder to understand it. It is not that difficult. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution that we are considering today, which underscores three important and timely points: (1) The final political status of the territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority can only be determined through negotiations and agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority; (2) any attempt to establish Palestinian statehood outside the negotiating process will invoke the strongest congressional opposition; and (3) the President should unequivocally assert United States opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, making clear that such a declaration would be a grievous violation of the Oslo Accords and that a declared state would not be recognized by the United States. The resolution is forward thinking. Its intention is to prevent bloodshed. The Palestinian Authority must understand that it cannot break away from peaceful negotiations and receive support and recognition from the United States. Before I close, I would like to thank Representative Saxton for all of his work on this effort. And I owe a debt of gratitude to the Majority Whip, Tom DeLay, for making H. Con. Res. 24 a foreign policy priority in the 106th Congress. The lead Democratic cosponsor, Representative Eliot Engel, has been an enormous help in moving the resolution forward. Representatives Rothman and Sherman have also contributed both in front and behind the scenes. Moreover, the help of Representatives Forbes and Berkley in gathering cosponsors is greatly appreciated. And lastly, I thank Chairman Gilman for his commitment to bring this resolution to the floor.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Education Flexibility Partnership Act (H.R. 800). This legislation, as the title implies, empowers states with greater flexibility in administering certain federal education programs. When one considers that federal dollars represent only about seven percent of total primary and secondary education funds, but 50 percent of the time districts spend on paperwork, common sense demands a more flexible process of distributing federal resources. Federal education programs have been more successful in creating jobs for bureaucrats--over 25,000 a year--than in improving the educational performance of America's children. The results of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), released last year, emphasize this point. TIMSS revealed that U.S. 12th-graders scored next to last in advanced math and dead last in physics. Reading scores, which were not measured by the international tests, were equally disappointing. Forty percent of fourth graders can't even read at the basic level. Unfortunately, the increased federal contribution in education over the past 30 years has not resulted in a corresponding improvement in the quality of the education our children receive. Hopefully, passage of Ed-Flex will mark the first of many steps taken by the 106th Congress to reform antiquated federal education programs. Only 12 states currently participate in Ed-Flex. As constructed, Ed- Flex provides greater state and local flexibility in utilizing federal dollars. The legislation before us provides for the expansion of this program to all 50 states. In a letter to me dated March 9th (which I will have included in the Congressional Record) Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Lisa Graham Keegan expressed support for H.R. 800 and stated that Arizona will apply for Ed-Flex status. There is one potential glitch that needs to be resolved so that Arizona can participate. A November 1998 GAO report on Ed-Flex concluded that Arizona did not qualify for this program because the state did not have the authority to waive state statutes or regulations--a prerequisite to participate in the program. I have been assured by the Education Committee that report language to accompany the bill will clarify that Arizona is eligible to participate in Ed-Flex. Passage of Ed-Flex marks progress in the effort to loosen the federal strings that have strangled innovative and effective education programs. We've taken a positive step today and I look forward to working on additional legislation that will remove administrative burdens so that schools can spend more time teaching kids. Department of Education, Phoenix, AZ, March 9, 1999. Hon. Matt Salmon, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Salmon: Later this week, the U.S. House of Representatives will begin its debate on H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. While this legislation still falls short of giving State and local education agencies the full flexibility they need to deliver the best education to children, it is, nevertheless, a step in the right direction. For this reason, the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) urges you and your colleagues to support this legislation. Given the opportunity afforded by this legislation, Arizona will apply for Ed-Flex status. According to the General Accounting Office's November 1998 report on Ed-Flex, Arizona did not qualify for the Ed-Flex program because the State did not have the authority to waive State statutes or regulations. While the Arizona State Board of Education has never asserted its right to waive State statute, Arizona Administrative Code R7-2-801 clearly gives the Board the authority to issue waivers from administrative rules. I have enclosed a copy of this rule for your reference. We are uncertain if whether upon review of Arizona's administrative structure it was determined that the State Board of Education's authority to waive regulations did not sufficiently meet the Ed-Flex Act requirement that the ``State'' have such waiver authority. As our State Board has the authority to act as the ``State'' when it comes to accepting federal dollars, we feel its ability to waive state regulations should also clearly mean that the ``State'' has such an authority when it comes to meeting the requirements of Ed-Flex. We therefore support including report language to clarify that, in states where a State Education Agency is defined as the State Board of Education, the authority of the State Board to waive regulations should be considered adequate authority to qualify for Ed-Flex. While ADE will, as mentioned above, apply for Ed-Flex status, I must bring to your attention one provision of this legislation that is still of serious concern to Arizona Under Section 4(c)(1)(E) of H.R. 800, States are prohibited from waiving any statutory or regulatory requirements relating to the distribution of funds to States or to local education agencies. There are a number of reasons this explicit prohibition will directly obstruct our efforts to improve the quality of education in Arizona. As you know, Arizona is home to more charter schools than any other state in the nation, with 311 schools serving more than 30,000 students across our State. New charter schools are being created and chartered regularly, and it is our policy to provide to the charter school the federal funding that its attending students generate as soon as the charter school comes into existence. This is what we call ``real time'' funding. We do not wait for the charter school to report is student data to us at the end of the year, and then fund the school based on prior year data. However, in order to ensure that we will have funding on hand to provide to these charter schools that crop up, it is ADE's policy to reserve a portion of its Title I funding at the State level to be used specifically for this purpose. The federal government recently changed the way it allocates Title I funding, so that these dollars now flow directly to the existing LEAs. In most circumstances, I strongly support efforts that leave the SEA out of the equation and provide as much funding as possible to the local level. However, this allocation method does not take into account any charter schools that might come into existence at a later date. That means that these new charter schools, and the children attending them, are left holding the bag without any funding--and that, I can tell you, I do not support. For this reason, ADE would like the flexibility to continue with its unique policy of reserving funds at the State level for the sole purpose of funding newly-created charter schools. However, even Ed-Flex, with its explicit prohibition on waiving requirements related to the distribution of funds, will not allow us to do this. The current proposal will not allow us to fund charter schools in a way that is consistent with our state policy and which aligns itself with our philosophy of sending funding directly to the school where that student is being taught as quickly as possible. I find it ironic, and a bit discouraging, to know that even as the President and the Administration are encouraging the creation of 3,000 charter schools by the year 2000, they are, at the same time, impeding the efforts of states to fund them. Nonetheless, even with the prohibitive language included in this bill, we plan to include a request to waive some restrictions on the allocation of federal funds in our Ed-Flex proposal. As I understand it, flexibility and accountability are at the heart of Ed-Flex. It is our intention, then, to allocate dollars in a manner consistent with Arizona's philosophy of funding students while at the same time remaining fully accountable for these funds. I know we can count on your support for these efforts, and I hope we can count on the Congress' support as well. The Arizona Department of Education prides itself in helping educators across our State concentrate on the task of teaching students, not conforming with burdensome regulations and reporting requirements. For this reason, we are supportive of any efforts by the Congress to give schools and State and local education agencies the flexibility they need to do their jobs well. H.R. 800 is a good start, and deserves the support of Congress. I urge swift passage of this legislation. Sincerely, Lisa Graham Keegan, Superintendent of Public Instruction.