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
Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop talking about special education fu nding. It is time to do something.
[Page: H2566] GPO's PDF
In 1972, the Federal Government did the right thing by enacting a national guarantee for education fo r special needs children. Before this action, far too many handicapped children never saw the inside of a schoolhouse.
As someone who served on a local board of education fo r nearly a decade, I know the positive impact of the Individuals wi th Disabilities Ed ucation Ac t. B ut as someone who struggled to pass local school district budgets, I also know that the Federal Government has never come close to funding at the promised level of 40 percent. In fact, it has been mentioned before, we barely reached 12 percent. In fact, the National Association of State Boards of Education po int out that underfunding since the day the bill was passed totals $146 billion that was promised to local public schools over the last 22 years that was never delivered upon.
Schools need real help, not rhetorical soothing, real help. This proposal, the one we have before us, will not do anything. It is a sense of Congress, an opinion without the force of law. A sense of Congress will not pay teachers' salaries. It will not buy textbooks. It will not put school buses on the street. In short, it will not address any of the very real financial pressures facing America's schools every day.
This has been an issue for me from the beginning of my time in Congress. I have introduced bills and amendments to fully fund IDEA to the promised 40 percent. It is highly ironic to me that those proposals have repeatedly been voted down or tabled, in some cases, by Members who are today promoting what is no more than a reaffirmation of the 1972 promise.
Someone mentioned earlier, where is the real bill? Here is the real bill. I will soon be introducing this bill to fund IDEA at the promised 40 percent. I would invite every Member who has taken to the floor today to talk about the importance of meeting this obligation to actually act an d become a cosponsor. I would invite all Members who recognize the value of IDEA and the value of keeping promises to join me in cosponsoring this bill.
This is real action, not soothing rhetoric, real action. Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop talking about special education.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. GILMAN).
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this measure. I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Committee on Education an d the Workforce, in his efforts to obtain full funding for individuals wi th disabilities.
In adopting this measure back in 1975, IDEA, Congress required the Federal, State and local governments to share the cost of educating children with disabilities. W hen enacted, the Federal Government was to assume 40 percent of the national average per pupil. It was never done. We need to fund this properly. We are only funding it for 11 percent this year. It is time we acted. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 84 and I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the Chairman of the Education an d Workforce Committee, Mr. GOODLING and his efforts to obtain full funding for the individuals Wi th Disabilities Ac t (I DEA).
In adopting IDEA in 1975, Congress required the Federal, State and local governments to share the cost of educating children with disabilities. W hen enacted, the Federal Government was to assume 40 percent of the national average per pupil expense for such children.
While Congress has authorized this amount since 1982, the appropriation has never come close to the stated goal of 40 percent. Last year, it reached the highest level ever at 12 percent and now the President has requested that the program be cut to 11 percent for fiscal year 2000.
The result has been an enormous unfunded mandate on State and local school systems to absorb the cost of educating students with disabilities. I n doing so, local school districts must divert funding away form other students and education ac tivities. This has had the unfortunate effect of draining school budgets, decreasing the quality of education an d unfairly burdening the taxpayers. Local school districts are spending as much as 20 percent of their budgets to fund IDEA.
Since 1995, educational funding levels have jumped 85 percent and have demonstrated Congress' commitment to help States and local school districts provide public education to children with disabilities. I t is now time for this Congress to make good on its promise to fully fund IDEA at 40 percent. We can no longer let the States try to make up the difference between the funds they have been promised and the funds that they actually receive.
In my district, the schools are definitely feeling the negative effects of the lack of IDEA funding. East Ramapo School District in Rockland County should receive $2.04 million for IDEA but according to 1995 figures, they only saw $398,000. That is a difference of $1.6 million. Similarly, the Middletown City School District in Orange County was expecting $1.6 million but actually only saw $316,000. A difference of $1.3 million.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Congress to show that they are truly committed to our Nation's children's education. B y fully funding IDEA, Congress will simultaneously ease the burden on local school budgets while ensuring that students with disabilities re ceive the same quality of education as their nondisabled counterparts.
Once the Federal Government begins to pay its fair share, local funds will be available for school districts to hire more teachers, reduce class size, invest in technology and even lower local property taxes for our constituents.
I proudly stand here today in support of H. Con. Res. 84 and I hope that this Congress will keep its word and fully fund the Individuals Wi th Disability Act. < ul>
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. TIERNEY), a member of the committee.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time.
I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GOODLING), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. KILDEE) and other members of the committee for bringing forth legislation which will in fact put more Federal funding and more emphasis on education. T he presentation of this resolution marks an acknowledgment that all aspects of government, Federal, State and local, must step up to the plate and support education.
What is particularly notable is that the majority, which in the past has not been willing to do that, which has in fact been stepping back and saying that the Federal Government should get out of education, n ow is stepping forward and agreeing with us that, in fact, we all must participate.
The Constitution is what obligates people to fund IDEA. There is not a Federal legislative mandate. The Constitution told States that they have the obligation to fund this program, and the Federal Government stepped forward and made an offer to assist, and we said we would do it to the extent that we could, hopefully up to 40 percent.
We are moving toward that goal. This resolution entitles us to move even more so forward. But in no way should we be pitting one education pr ogram against another. We still need more teachers and smaller classrooms. We need more technology. And we need more teacher development. We need to make sure that we do this.
I thank the chairman for accepting the language into this bill that says that local communities that have funds freed up by virtue of additional Federal funding must keep that money in educational programs so that in fact Federal, State and local governments all participate in smaller classrooms, more teachers, teacher development, technology and all the needs of education.
[Time: 14:45]
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I can only say it was awful lonely for 20 years in the minority trying to get some funding for IDEA.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. MCKEON), another subcommittee chair.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker I would like to join my colleagues in support of H. Con. Res. 84 which calls on the President and Congress to fulfill our obligation to our Nation's neediest children, those with disabilities.
In my home State of California, the cost of educating an estimated 600,000 children with disabilities is a staggering $3.4 billion, but the Federal Government contributes only $400 million,
[Page: H2567] GPO's PDF
Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one who thinks so. I recently met with all of the superintendents in my district. Each and every one of them stated that we must increase funding for IDEA before we create a new Federal program. If the President would first fund a special education ma ndate, our States and local school districts would have the funds to do the things the President proposes.
This Congress will continue to work to provide fair Federal funding for special education so in the end we can improve education fo r all our children, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. BALLENGER), another subcommittee chair.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, in our markup we heard from the Democrats that this bill, if enacted, would rob Peter to pay Paul. A more accurate way for the Democrats to look at this resolution is from the perspective of paying what we promised Paul before we begin to give new money and make other promises to Peter. We simply cannot neglect the fact that we promised to help pay for the education of these special-needs children and put scarce funds into other programs that do not have the same mandate.
It is also important to note that if the Federal Government had begun funding IDEA appropriately, schools would have more State and local money freed up to handle local school demands like teacher/pupil ratios and school construction.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. MARTINEZ), a member of the committee.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, I was listening to the debate, and I had not really planned to speak on this, but I think we lose touch with reality here.
Now the reality is that the responsibility for educating these children is really not the Federal Government's; it is the local school district's responsibility.
The reason that the Federal Government got into it at all was because there was a court case brought that proved that the local people were not educating those children with disabilities be cause it was so much more expensive to do so.
Now I understand that. So when the Federal Government got into it, they made a commitment that they would fund 40 percent of that extra cost of educating these children with disabilities. I do not like to call it disabilities; I think it is more challenges to them. It is disabilities in our mind, Mr. Speaker.
But the fact is that when we did, we made that commitment, and, like a lot of people here, I have felt badly that we have never lived up to that commitment. But we never lived up to the commitment of full funding Head Start or full funding a lot of other programs that are doing equally responsible jobs.
But remember this, that the responsibility for educating children lies at the local level. Our colleagues on the other side constantly remind us of that, that that responsibility lies there so the decisions should be made there. So how about the decisions to funding the cost of educating these children? They did not want to make that decision, so we made it for them. We said that they will educate those children.
Then I think magnanimously we offered to fund 40 percent of it. Now all of a sudden that becomes a burden to us. Not that I disagree with the fact that we ought to live up to that commitment because we made it; because we do not want to be people who go back on promises as elected officials and leaders of the communities.
So, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the idea, and I will vote for the resolution, but I am really disturbed by the constant reference to the fact that somehow or another this is the Federal government's responsibility. It is a responsibility the government has accepted for itself, but originally it was not. It was local.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Correcting the facts, yes, the court said all will be educated. However the Federal Government said: Do it our way and we will give you 40 percent of excess costs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. BASS).
(Mr. BASS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution before us today which is essentially the same as one which I introduced last year which passed by voice vote, and I certainly hope we have a recorded vote on this resolution this time, and I would like to say that I support it for four reasons:
Number one, it is plain good education po licy to provide full funding for special education.
Secondly, it is meeting the worst unfunded federal mandate that this government currently has, 10 percent of a 40 percent obligation. Bearing in mind that it is up from 5 percent 4 years ago, still 10 percent is not acceptable.
Thirdly, it is an issue of local control, local control of education, l etting local school boards make decisions for themselves whether they are going to have new teachers, build new classrooms or spend the money on other areas. The Federal Government should make this a top priority.
Lastly, this is an issue that is extremely important for disabled individuals, f or families, for school boards, for administrators.
If my colleagues want to do something for education in 1999, support this resolution, and then move forward and fully fund special education.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. BALDACCI).
(Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member and the chairman for bringing this resolution to the floor.
I am a strong supporter of the Individuals wi th Disability Education Ac t or IDEA. I strongly agree that every child deserves the opportunity to benefit from a public education. W e must do all that we can to ensure that every child reaches his or her fullest potential, but we also must recognize the tremendous cost of this endeavor.
In fact, the cost of educating a disabled student is on average more than twice the cost of educating a nondisabled student. If our schools are truly to serve all students, the Federal Government must increase its commitment to IDEA funding.
When it was first passed, Congress committed to spending 40 percent of the cost. However, the Federal Government has consistently fallen far short of this goal. As a result, special education co sts continue to rise, and we fall further behind. Currently we fund less than 12 percent of the cost, leaving State and local governments to pick up the rest.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution demonstrates Congress' commitment to stand behind our promise. It shows that we recognize the impact that special education co sts are having on our State and local budgets and that we are committed to providing leadership and resources for our schools and their students.
Let me give my colleagues just one example of a city in Maine. Lewiston schools currently receive about $233,000 in special education fu nding. If we were meeting our 40 percent commitment currently, Lewiston schools would be receiving nearly $1.2 million, a difference of $1 million. Imagine the impact that freeing up $1 million for other educational needs could have on the education of all of Lewiston's young people, and then multiply that across every school and every district in the State of Maine, in every school district in the country.
As I traveled throughout my district, this is probably the concern I hear most frequently:
School budgets are rising and taking property tax rates with them.
I am often told that schools have to cut art and music programs, eliminate field trips and cancel extracurricula. I know that this situation is the same throughout the country
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I thank him for his leadership on IDEA and for his help to our States and the children that they are trying to educate.
Mr. Speaker I have spoken with our Governor, Christie Todd Whitman, in New Jersey about what fully funding IDEA would mean to my State.
In New Jersey alone there are over 210,000 students in special education pr ograms. According to our Governor, if the Federal Government paid its full 40 percent share last year, the State would have received an additional $300 million to pay for these children's education.
Our States are paying too great of an amount of our government's legal obligation to IDEA with money that otherwise could be spent to hire additional teachers, expand or maintain school facilities, pay for athletics or extracurricular activities. Mr. Speaker, until we pay our existing mandates, we should not consider paying for any new and expensive programs, any new entitlements.
I support this resolution, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. NUSSLE).
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I want to thank him and the committee for their support and for their work toward the fulfillment of a commitment that has been made by the Federal Government to fully fund special education ma de many years ago. It was a beautiful civil rights law saying every child ought to have access to education, a nd yet that beautiful law has been consistently underfunded ever since.
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