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
[Page: H2563] GPO's PDF---
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 84) urging the Congress and the President to fully fund the Federal Government's obligation under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act , as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Con. Res 84
Whereas all children deserve a quality education , including children with disabilities ;
Whereas Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1247 (E. Dist. Pa. 1971), and Mills v. Board of Education of the District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (Dist. D. C. 1972), found that children with disabilities are guaranteed an equal opportunity to an education under the 14th amendment to the Constitution;
Whereas the Congress responded to these court decisions by passing the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (enacted as Public Law 94-142), now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), to ensure a free, appropriate public education for children with disabilities ;
Whereas the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act provides that the Federal, State, and local governments are to share in the expense of educating children with disabilities and commits the Federal Government to pay up to 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure for children with disabilities ;
Whereas the Federal Government has provided only 9, 11, and 12 percent of the maximum State grant allocation for educating children with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in the last 3 years, respectively;
Whereas the national average cost of educating a special education student ($13,323) is more than twice the national average per pupil cost ($6,140);
Whereas research indicates that children who are effectively taught, including effective instruction aimed at acquiring literacy skills, and who receive positive early interventions demonstrate academic progress, and are significantly less likely to be referred to special education ;
Whereas the high cost of educating children with disabilities and the Federal Government's failure to fully meet its obligation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act stretches limited State and local education funds, creating difficulty in providing a quality education to all students, including children with disabilities ;
Whereas, if the appropriation for part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) exceeds $4,924,672,200 for a fiscal year, the State funding formula will shift from one based solely on the number of children with disabilities in the State to one based on 85 percent of the children ages 3 to 21 living in the State and 15 percent based on children living in poverty in the State, enabling States to undertake good practices for addressing the learning needs of more children in the regular education classroom and reduce over identification of children who may not need to be referred to special education ;
Whereas the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act has been successful in achieving significant increases in the number of children with disabilities who receive a free, appropriate public education ;
Whereas the current level of Federal funding to States and localities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is contrary to the goal of ensuring that children with disabilities receive a quality education ; and
Whereas the Federal Government has failed to appropriate 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure per child with a disability as required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to assist States and localities to educate children with disabilities : Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--
(1) the Congress and the President--
(A) should, working within the constraints of the balanced budget agreement, give programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) the highest priority among Federal elementary and secondary education programs by meeting the commitment to fund the maximum State grant allocation for educating children with disabilities under such Act prior to authorizing or appropriating funds for any new education initiative; and
(B) should meet the commitment described in subparagraph (A) while retaining the commitment to fund existing Federal education programs that increase student achievement; and
(2) if a local educational agency chooses to utilize the authority under section 613(a)(2)(C)(i) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to treat as local funds up to 20 percent of the amount of funds the agency receives under part B of such Act that exceeds the amount it received under that part for the previous fiscal year, then the agency should use those local funds to provide additional funding for any Federal, State, or local education program.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GOODLING) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. KILDEE) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GOODLING).
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, this is an old topic for me, 25 years, speaking on the same subject, trying to encourage the Congress to put their money where their mouth was 24 years ago, when school districts were promised that if they participated in the Federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act they would receive 40 percent of the excess cost in order to fund special education programs to educate a child with a disability, which may be two, three, five, ten, twenty times greater than to educate a non-disabled student.
Obviously, that was not done. We got up to 6 percent. In the last 3 years, fortunately, we have been able to get huge increases, which gets us all the way up to 12 percent. And, hopefully, by the end of this year, it will be 15 percent, and we still have a long way to go.
What does it mean when we do not fund what we promised? It means that the local school districts must raise millions of dollars in order to fund a mandate that came from the Federal level, a mandate if they decided to participate.
I realize that no matter how much money we put up, we can never fully fund even our 40 percent unless we deal with the number of people who are placed in special education programs, many of which only have a reading problem and, therefore, really should not be there.
[Page: H2564] GPO's PDF
I hope that some of the early childhood programs that we have put into effect on the Federal level will help eliminate those who get into special ed simply because of those reading problems.
So, again, I am here today asking, as I have asked every year for 25 years, for Congress and the President to put their money where their mouth was before we talk about funding new programs.
Center cities particularly stand to get all sorts of money to deal with pupil-teacher ratio, to deal with maintenance of their buildings. All we have to do is get that 40 percent of excess costs back to those local school districts and then they can help all students. That is what this is all about, helping all students, not pitting one against another.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring House Concurrent Resolution 84 to the Floor. This Concurrent Resolution urges full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) before creating and funding any new education initiatives. The co-sponsors and I believe that the Federal government cannot continue to ignore the commitment it made over 24 years ago to children with disabilities .
At the time IDEA was first enacted, Congress committed that the Federal government would provide States and local school districts with 40% of the average per pupil expenditure to assist with the excess costs of educating students with disabilities. Where are we on that commitment? We are at 12% and it is this high only because Republicans have insisted and fought for increased Federal funds for IDEA. Since Republicans took over control of Congress in 1995, funding for IDEA has risen over 85%.
Failing to live up to our IDEA funding commitment fails our students, parents, schools, and communities.
Where do we stand on IDEA spending right now? Here's what we know about the President's thoughts on IDEA funding. Under his budget request, President Clinton wants to cut spending for students with disabilities fr om $702 per child in FY 1999 to $688 per child in FY 2000. We also know Secretary of Education Ri ley's top priorities. According to an article in the Washington Post of April 20, 1999, increasing funding for IDEA does not make the top three priorities of the Department.
The Committee on Education an d the Workforce stated its funding priority quite clearly. In a bipartisan vote of 38-4, the Committee approved this resolution to give IDEA programs the highest priority among Federal elementary and secondary education pr ograms.
What will giving IDEA the highest priority in Federal funding for K-12 education pr ograms do for students and schools? It will allow schools to increase and improve services for all students, including students with disabilities.
Meeting the Federal IDEA funding commitment benefits every student by allowing the local school to fund the services needed by all students--everyone wins. Once the Federal government begins to pay its fair share under IDEA, local schools will no longer be forced to redirect local funds to cover the unpaid Federal share. Local funds will be freed up, allowing local schools to hire and train high-quality teachers, reduce class size, build and renovate classrooms, and invest in technology.
Every student will benefit, regardless of whether the student receives services under Title I, limited English proficiency programs, or IDEA.
We must fully fund IDEA before Washington creates new education pr ograms. We do not need to spend our limited education re sources on new, unproven Federal programs. Let's first live up to the promises we made over 24 years ago and fund a program that we know works.
House Concurrent Resolution 84 urges Congress to fully fund IDEA while maintaining its commitment to existing Federal education pr ograms. We do not want to take funds from the Federal education pr ograms currently serving students. However, year in and year out under both Democrat and Republican control, Congress must set priorities and we believe that funding the federal commitment to IDEA must come before funding new untested programs.
We can both ensure that children with disabilities re ceive a free and appropriate public education an d ensure that all children have the best education po ssible if we just provide fair Federal funding for special education. < p> I urge everyone to support this important concurrent Resolution. Congress must fulfill its commitment to assist States and localities with educating children with disabilities. < ul>
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the beginning of my remarks that I am going to support this resolution.
However, the resolution that is before the House today is not as simple as it may seem. Unfortunately, this resolution tends to place the needs of disabled children and nondisabled children in conflict rather than to seek to recognize our commitment to all children.
Full funding for the Individuals Wi th Disabilities Ed ucation Ac t is a goal which is vitally important to the education of the disabled children of our Nation and one that I have been committed to since I arrived in Congress 23 years ago. We need to provide 40 percent of the excess cost of educating a child with a disability, and this should be done and this should be one of our top priorities for Federal education fu nding.
In fact, as my chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GOODLING) knows, I have joined him and many other of my colleagues in demanding additional funding for special education so we can meet this goal now rather than later.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GOODLING) has been a real and long time leader for full funding of IDEA. I can recall several years ago, when we both served on the Committee on the Budget, the courage he took to be the one Member over there who joined me in trying to secure more funding for this program.
Supporting the needs of disabled children and providing them with a chance to become productive, participating members of society is extremely important, and there has been no greater champion than myself in this issue.
In fact, many years before the passage of 94-142, I, as one of its principal authors, helped enact Michigan's special education la w. My commitment and experience in this issue has spanned three decades of my career in public service, and I understand and support the need to fully fund IDEA.
However, in our desire to provide full funding for IDEA, we should not do so at the expense of other Federal education pr ograms or pit the needs of disabled children against those of nondisabled children. The resolution which we are considering today tends to do that, accentuate the politics of division rather than recognizing what has become a bipartisan goal, the full funding of IDEA.
The issue of IDEA funding is not a Democratic or Republican concern. There has been strong bipartisan support for substantial increases in funding for IDEA in recent appropriations bills, and I strongly believe this will continue.
In the past 3 years we have provided sizable increases for both IDEA and other Federal education in itiatives, recognizing the need to build a total Federal commitment to education. I DEA alone has received over $1.5 billion in additional funding since 1996. The growth and funding for all Federal education pr ograms that have a positive effect on student achievement should be the goal we set our sights on regardless of party or parochial interest.
It is my hope that we commit ourselves to the spirit of cooperation on the issue of educational funding.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. HILL).
Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of my colleagues to this headline. It says they are going to cut 60 non-tenured positions in my hometown, in my hometown paper.
The reason for that is that we are going to have to increase classroom size and reduce our gifted and talented programs because we cannot access dollars from any of the other Federal education pr ograms. Specifically, we cannot access the dollars from the President's new initiative for new teachers and smaller classes. And that is a problem with our existing school funding programs.
So what we can do? What we can do is fully fund special education, l iving up to the commitment that Congress has made. What happens if we do that? First of all, it is going to take the pressure off of local taxpayers in my home State, property taxpayers. But, more important than that, it will provide more funding for the general fund budget for education.
[Page: H2565] GPO's PDF
By underfunding special education, w e are forcing schools to go take money from their general education ac count and put it into their special education ac count.
[Time: 14:30]
By fully funding special education, w e will reverse that process. It will address the area of greatest uncertainty and the area of greatest cost to most of our school districts. I would urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. WOOLSEY).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, like so many of all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I am hearing constantly from parents and educators at home about the importance of meeting the Federal commitment to fund the Individuals wi th Disabilities Ed ucation Ac t, I DEA. Parents of children with special needs are absolutely frantic about their children's access to public education. T hey often feel like the schools are giving them the runaround, but schools are equally as worried about having the resources to do the job that they need to do. And the parents of students without special needs are more than fearful because they believe that special needs students are taking precious resources away from their children.
This cannot continue. Congress must step up to our responsibility, and we should do it this year while the economy is good and we have a surplus. If we cannot do it now, we never will.
But we should not be pitting one education pr ogram against another as this particular resolution does. When we do that, we pit students against students, parents against schools, and we pit schools against each other.
However, there is a way that we can in this Congress meet the Federal commitment to fund IDEA. We can do this while continuing our support for other important education pr ograms. We can do this by using some of the funds that have been set aside under the Republicans' balanced budget agreement for tax cuts to fund IDEA.
The balanced budget agreement sets aside $778 billion for a 10-year tax cut. We would only need $11 billion additional in funds to fully fund IDEA this year.
When this resolution was marked up in the committee, I offered an amendment that urged Congress to fund IDEA before funding tax cuts. It lost on a partisan vote. 100 percent of the Democrats voted for it; 100 percent of the Republicans voted against it.
While I realize that no amendment can be considered on the floor this afternoon, I do want to point out that we can fully fund IDEA and we can do it without taking away from other education pr ograms. Once again, I urge my colleagues to put education fo r our children with disabilities be fore tax cuts. Work with me. We can fully fund IDEA without taking funds from other important education pr ograms.
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