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
For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and section 418A of the Higher Education Act of 1965, $8,816,986,000, of which $2,569,823,000 shall become available on July 1, 2001, and shall remain available through September 30, 2002, and of which $6,204,763,000 shall become available on October 1, 2001 and shall remain available through September 30, 2002, for academic year 2001-2002: Provided, That $6,783,000,000 shall be available for basic grants under section 1124: Provided further, That up to $3,500,000 of these funds shall be available to the Secretary on October 1, 2000, to obtain updated local-educational-agency-level census poverty data from the Bureau of the Census: Provided further, That $1,158,397,000 shall be available for concentration grants under section 1124A: Provided further, That $8,900,000 shall be available for evaluations under section 1501 and not more than $8,500,000 shall be reserved for section 1308, of which not more than $3,000,000 shall be reserved for section 1308(d): Provided further, That $190,000,000 shall be available
[Page: H4244] GPO's PDF
[Time: 12:45]
AMENDMENT NO. 192 OFFERED BY MR. VITTER
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 192 offered by Mr. VITTER:
Page 50, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(decreased by $116,000,000)''.
Page 51, line 21, insert after the first dollar amount the following: ``(decreased by $78,548,000)''.
Page 52, line 12, insert after the first dollar amount the following: ``(decreased by $158,450,000)''.
Page 53, line 5, insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(decreased by $30,765,000)''.
Page 53, line 17, insert after the first dollar amount the following: ``(increased by $1,419,597,000)''.
Page 54, line 13, insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(decreased by $900,000)''.
Page 54, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(decreased by $5,849,000)''.
Page 55, line 2, insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(decreased by $3,420,000)''.
Page 55, line 10, insert after the first dollar amount the following: ``(decreased by $36,850,000)''.
Page 56, line 13, insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(decreased by $823,283,000)''.
Page 57, line 14, insert after the first dollar amount the following: ``(decreased by $158,502,000)''.
Page 58, line 3, insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(decreased by $7,030,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. VITTER) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. VITTER).
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I bring before the House today an amendment to fully support over time our Federal commitment to IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This has been a long-running frustration in the education community and across our country, Mr. Chairman, the fact that since 1975, the Federal Government has created an enormous burden and mandate with IDEA but has not kept its commitment to adequately fund that mandate.
In 1975, IDEA was passed, and part of that passage was the notion that the Federal Government would fully fund over time that additional mandate on local government by funding 40 percent of the national per-pupil expenditure for students with disabilities. Unfortunately, we have never come close to that mark.
Now, recently, just about a month ago, we took an important vote on H.R. 4055 by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GOODLING). I was a cosponsor of that measure. That measure, which passed overwhelmingly, 421-3, said that over the next 10 years, we would increase IDEA funding by $2 billion per year, and, therefore, over that 10-year period, we would get to our full Federal commitment on the issue of IDEA, something we have promised to do but have failed to do since 1975. That was just a month ago. 421-3.
Also this year, we passed a budget resolution, the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution. That committed us to the same thing, an increase in $2 billion per year to, over a reasonable amount of time, get us to our full funding commitment. In fact, that budget resolution went further. It said that we would commit ourselves to fully funding special education before appropriating funds for new Federal education initiatives.
My amendment, which I bring before the House today, lives up to that promise, lives up to the promise of the budget resolution that we passed recently and lives up to the promise of H.R. 4055 which we passed recently by an overwhelming margin.
It is really quite simple. It would take any increases in funding on education initiatives and shift those increases, only increases in funding over last year, to IDEA, and that would fully fund our $2 billion per year commitment so that we will stay on track to get to full Federal funding of our Federal commitment over 10 years.
Now, I know some of these increases in other areas are very warranted, are very popular. But we need to keep this fundamental Federal commitment which we have just restated this year twice through both the bill of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GOODLING) and the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution before we move on to new programs and to new spending in existing programs. My amendment will do that.
In summation, Mr. Chairman, there are many good reasons to pass this amendment. Number one, we should keep our commitment, a commitment restated twice this year. Number two, we should support Federal education initiatives and our special education students. Number three, and perhaps even most importantly, we should give local systems additional flexibility, because every time we give them more special education dollars to keep our Federal commitment, we free up local and State money, and that gives more flexibility, more power to the local level where it belongs.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
There is no one in this House who would like to see funding rise for special education more than I would. I have a nephew that benefits from special education. But this amendment is a Johnny-one-note approach to education, and it ought to be defeated.
We will be offering an amendment later on in the process which attempts to add a billion and a half dollars to special education by asking the majority to consider cutting back its tax cuts by about 20 percent in size. That is the best way, in my view, under present circumstances to strengthen special education.
This amendment is opposed by the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, it is opposed by the National PTA, it is opposed by the American Association of School Administrators, the National Education Association, and the National Education of Federally Impacted Schools. Why? Because it cuts the maximum Pell grant award for every working-class kid trying to go to college $275 below last year's level. It cuts education for the poorest kids in this country who are having the most trouble getting an education, the disadvantaged, by $116 million. That means 178,000 fewer kids will be served. It cuts the increases in this bill for Even Start literacy services, comprehensive school reform and high school equivalency and college assistance for migrant students. It cuts services to the deaf and blind students at Gallaudet and at the Printing House for the Blind and at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf. It cuts Impact Aid by $78 million.
The National Association of State Directors of Special Education says as follows:
``While we support full funding for IDEA and welcome increases in funding that take us toward that goal, we are concerned that these increases are the result of cuts in proposed spending on Federal education programs that also serve the needs of children with disabilities, including title I, 21st century community learning centers, and vocational education. As a result, taking money from one education program and putting it into special education will not increase the total amount of funding available to support children with special needs. These proposed amendments demonstrate the fundamental problem with this appropriations bill. It lacks sufficient funding and support for education programs across the board. This deficiency will
[Page: H4245] GPO's PDF
I could not have said it better myself. I would urge rejection of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. ROEMER).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Wisconsin for yielding me the time. I would like to say to the gentleman from Louisiana, he has got the right idea, he is just taking it out of the wrong pot of money.
What we are trying to do with this debate in education today and yesterday and last week is say that the majority budget where they have put so much money, a trillion dollars, aside for a tax cut, we need to make sure that some of that money can go toward new ideas with accountability, with good quality, for education. Nothing is more important than the title I program for the poorest of the poor.
This bill funds it at about $8.5 or $8.6 billion. I offered an amendment with 39 Republicans on the authorization process that increased title I by $1.5 billion. This does not increase it by $1.5 billion. This amendment takes money away from the poorest kids, puts it into a good account, but we should not be forced to take it from poor kids to put it in special education programs. We should be able to do both.
I urge defeat of the amendment.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In closing on this side, I want to make two fundamental points. First of all, this amendment only involves cuts by the Washington definition of the term. In the real world, across the country, people know what a cut is, and they know the difference between a cut and a lack of increase in spending. This keeps our same level of spending on other vital education programs as last year, and it only moves what would be new and additional spending dollars to special education. So it is not a cut except in the old, stale Washington definition and Washington sense of the term.
We do this in the amendment, we move that money, those additional new funds to special education for a very good and compelling reason, because we voted twice this year, in the bill of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. GOODLING) by an overwhelming margin and in the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution to put special education and meeting our Federal commitment to special education at the top of the priority list. It is time we did that.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, there is no enterprise that is more important and no responsibility that is greater for any public official than to see to it that our public schools are our first priority, not just for some kids but for all kids. That means kids who need special education; that means kids from wealthy families. It means kids from middle-class and poor families.
The only thing you have got when you start out in life is opportunity. The question is how much you are going to be given by your society as you grow or how much is going to be taken away. This amendment seeks to give additional opportunity for some kids at the expense of others.
That is not the way we ought to be doing things in this country. We should not be making it more difficult for 178,000 kids who are most at risk of failing in education to lose help under Federal education programs. We should not be taking funding away for the National Technical Institute for the Deaf. We should not be taking it away for Gallaudet, the university for deaf and deaf/blind. We ought to be able to find a way. And sooner or later before this year is over, we will. Before this year is over, the majority will have to recognize that more money is going to have to go into this bill for education. It is $3.5 billion below the President's request.
If you want to fix this bill, take care of that and you will fix most of the problem.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. VITTER).
The amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT NO. 202 OFFERED BY MR. HOEKSTRA
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 202 offered by Mr. HOEKSTRA:
Page 50, line 11, insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(decreased by $116,000,000)''.
Page 51, line 21, insert after the first dollar amount the following: ``(decreased by $78,548,000)''.
Page 52, line 12, insert after the first dollar amount the following: ``(decreased by $158,450,000)''.
Page 53, line 5, insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(decreased by $30,765,000)''.
Page 53, line 17, insert after the first dollar amount the following: ``(increased by $383,263,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Monday, June 12, 2000, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. HOEKSTRa) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. HOEKSTRA).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, when Congress passed the Individuals With Disabilities Act in 1975, the Federal Government made a commitment to pay 40 percent of the special education budget and required States to pay the other 60 percent. The Federal Government, however, currently only pays roughly 12.6 percent toward the IDEA budget, and the States are forced to make up the rest of what is an unfunded mandate.
This amendment takes a more targeted approach by eliminating increases in four programs and moving the money into funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This amendment would move about $383 million in funding, still far short of the $2 billion in increase necessary to move IDEA funding to the target that was outlined in the budget resolution. The amendment is not a criticism of the programs where we are taking the money out of. Rather, it is a transfer of funding to a program which Congress has said should be our number one funding priority. This is consistent with the budget resolution. It is also consistent with the resolution that passed the House of Representatives identifying IDEA as our most important funding priority.
[Time: 13:00]
It is also very consistent with what educators, school administrators, and parents have said at the local level as we have gone around the country, because what this mandate does, without fully funding it, is it saps resources from local school budgets.
Governor George Ryan in Illinois: ``The support of increased Federal funding is a key element in assuring successful compliance with IDEA in the future.'' Representative Alice Seagren told us this last week in Minnesota: ``One of the most positive things Congress could do is to fund the Federal Special Education mandates before you consider any new programs.'' Bob Selly who is superintendent of the East Yuma County School District in Colorado: ``My suggestion, if it is going to be mandated by the Federal Government, figure out what is it is going to cost the schools and fully fund the Federal mandate.''
Eric SMITH, superintendent of the Charlotte Schools in Charlotte, North Carolina: ``Based on a lack of funding, there are systemwide struggles which directly affect the quality of service we can provide to our students.'' From a parent in Pennsylvania: ``I believe that a lack of funding is a major detriment to fulfilling the promise of IDEA giving children with disabilities access to a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment.''
This amendment seeks to move us in the direction that the budget resolution has said we should go, that this House has said we should go, and that Congress in 1975 said that we should go by funding 40 percent of the mandate that we imposed on some State and local schools.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim time in opposition?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. OBEY) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, again, the choice we face is this, both parties want to increase support for special education.
[Page: H4246] GPO's PDF
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