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      

I will tell you something else. As Republicans, we don't believe that folks here in Washington have more concern for those kids than their parents, teachers, and principals. That seems to be a philosophy we are hearing a lot--that in some way, somehow, because we have been granted the office of the Senate, or because we are serving in

[Page: S2252]  GPO's PDF

   So these are the fundamental differences we have, and they are joined in this debate over this amendment: One, that we as a government have an obligation to fund what we already have on the books; two, that better decisions are made at the local community level, not here in Washington; three, that we have no special portfolio or no special awareness, no higher level of concern for a child's education, than that child's teacher has, or that child's principal has, or that child's parent has.

   So this amendment says simply that, back in 1975, the Federal Government said it would pick up 40 percent of the cost of special education in this country. Well, as of 3 years ago, the Federal Government was only paying 6 percent of the costs of the special education in this country, and what did that do? What did that failure of the Federal Government to pay that additional 34 percent do to local schools?

   Essentially, what it did was it skewed the ability of the local school systems to deliver the educational efforts that they desired to deliver, because the local school districts were having to go out and use their tax base, whether was a property tax or a State broad-based tax; they were having to use their tax base to pay for the Federal share of special education. So they were basically taking dollars that they should have had available to them from their property taxes--in New Hampshire, for example--and instead of spending then on a new classroom, or a new teacher, or a new computer system, or new books, they were having to take those dollars and pay for the Federal share of the obligations to educate special ed children.

   Now, I happen to be a very strong supporter of special ed. I chaired a center for special needs children; I was president for many years. I am still on the board. I think 94-142 is one of the best laws this country has ever passed. One of the insidious aftereffects of the Federal Government's obligations to pay under 94-142--to pay its 40 percent--is that I saw

   time after time, in school district after school district, a cost to my State--and I know it happens in other States because I have heard about it from other Senators--that the special needs child was confronted with other parents in the school system who felt that because so much money was being spent on the special needs child, and because so much of the local tax base was being used to help the special needs child, their children weren't getting an adequate education and their children were being unfairly treated.

   But it wasn't the special needs child's fault. That child was just getting the education they had a right to. It wasn't the fault of the parent of the special needs child, who usually got most of the abuse at the school meetings. They were just asking for what they had a right to have. They were being put in this terrible position of being confronted by other parents who were legitimately angry about the misallocation of resources, as they saw it. Why? Not because of anything the special needs child did, or the parents of the special needs child, but because the Federal Government refused to pay its obligation of picking up the 40 percent of the cost of that child.

   So 3 years ago, under Republican leadership in this Senate, under the leadership of Senator TRENT LOTT, with a lot of effort by such people as Senator JEFFORDS from Vermont, myself, and Senator COLLINS from Maine, we made a commitment to do something about this, to pay our fair share of special needs. In fact, S. 1 in the last Congress said we were going to put ourselves, as a Congress, on a ramp that would allow us to pay special needs children the 40 percent. It would take us 10 years, but we would get there. Then we backed that up with appropriations. Senator SPECTER from Pennsylvania, 3 years in a row, has dramatically increased the funding for special needs, for IDEA --$740 million in the first year, $690 billion in the second year, and $509 billion last year. I think those are the numbers. It essentially has meant almost a doubling of the commitment to the special needs child by this Congress.

   Do you know something? The administration didn't support any of it. This administration, which is so committed to education, has not sent a budget up to this Congress in the last 3 years that has called for any significant increase in special ed. They are playing a shell game on education. What they are doing, in fact, is they are borrowing money that should be going to special ed in order to fund all these new initiatives, so that members of this administration can go across the country and say, ``I am for this new program,'' or, ``I am for that new one,'' ``We are going to put a billion dollars into that and $500 million into that.''

   Where do they get that money? They take it from the special needs child. How much did they ask for in new funding for special education in this budget? We presently spend $4.3 billion. On special education, how much did they ask for as an increase? $3.3 million. That is what the administration asked for--$3.3 million out of a $4.3 billion budget, which only accounts for, by the way, out of that $4.3 billion, 11 percent of the cost of special education. We are supposed to be paying 40 percent.

   So, under this Republican Congress, we have taken it from 6 percent to 11 percent. That is good news. The bad news is, we still have a long way to go. The bad news is that still in every school district across this country, local school leaders, principals, PTAs, school boards, are having to take money they would have otherwise used maybe to add a teacher, maybe to build a building--where have we heard that before?--maybe to do an afterschool program, maybe to put a computer in, to put an arts program in, a language program in. Instead of taking the money they would have used for those programs, they are having to take that money and having to use it to fund the gap that remains in the Federal obligation to pay for special education.

   Just yesterday, the Supreme Court in the Cedar Rapids case made it very clear that that gap isn't going to get smaller, it is going to accelerate dramatically, because the Supreme Court decided that, as a matter of education, the person had a right to health care while in the school system. Many of these children need extraordinary health care. Kids we dealt with in the center I was involved in required immense health care. So that is going to increase the cost of special education even further.

   What is going to happen for every dollar increase that comes about as a result of the need and as a result of this new Supreme Court decision? The local school district is going to fall further behind. It is going to have to take more taxes than it would have used to buy books and to add teachers and to build new buildings, more of those taxes, and have to move them and reallocate them to special education. So it is going to become worse. The situation is going to become worse. Why? Because this administration refuses to fund special education or even make an attempt to address it in any aggressive way. Instead, it comes forward with program after program after program, borrowing from special education funds to do that, and, as a result, leaves the special education child out on the street while it puts out its press releases.

   We are going to debate this, as the Senator from Massachusetts said. I look forward to that debate. If the Senator wants to filibuster the Ed-Flex bill, which has been supported in the last Congress, supported in this Congress, supported by the President, and is supported by members of both parties, a bipartisan bill, if he wants to filibuster the Ed-Flex bill, that is his choice. But the fact is that what he is really filibustering is special needs children. What he is filibustering is the ability of local communities to manage their dollars more effectively so that we take care of special needs children and the other children who are in our school system. It is ironic and I think inappropriate to filibuster. But it sounds as if that is what we are going to get. Ed-Flex, a program defended and supported in the last Congress by the majority of the Congress, a program supported by the President, a

[Page: S2253]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. President, I look forward to this debate, I look forward to a lot of it, because I do think that the American people need to learn just how irresponsible this administration has been on the funding of special education.

   Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

   Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, perhaps the good Senator didn't hear me. We are prepared to accept the amendment. So if there is no other speaker on it, we are prepared to vote on the amendment.

   Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

   Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

   Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator accept this amendment on any other initiatives, which are appropriate, which are going to have funding for the purpose of education?

   Mr. KENNEDY. We have this bill up now. The Senator has offered the amendment. In behalf of this side, we are prepared to accept it right now.

   Mr. President, we are prepared to vote.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?

   Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

   There is a sufficient second.

   The yeas and nays were ordered.

   Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the amendment offered by Senator JEFFORDS. The amendment would require the federal government to make good on its commitment to fund special education before it made any additional promises it might not keep.

   When Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1975, the federal government made a commitment to the states and to the local school districts to help states meet the cost of special education. The federal government promised to pay each state 40 percent of the national average per capita cost of providing elementary and secondary education for each student receiving special education. For the school year 1996-1997, the national average expenditure was $5,913 per student. The federal payment to the states, however, was only $636 per student or slightly more than ten percent of the total cost and about one fourth of the $2,365 promised.

   We must meet our commitment to special education and end this unfunded mandate. Maine is promised $80 million by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Yet, in 1998, it received less than $20 million toward the $200 million federal law requires the state to spend on special education. In short, special education is an unfunded federal mandate of $60 million that must be met by the citizens of Maine through already burdensome state income and local property taxes. This accounts for millions of dollars annually that can not be used for school construction, for teacher salaries, for new computers, or for any other state effort to improve the performance of our elementary and secondary school students.

   We need to increase federal spending on education, but we do not need new federal categorical programs with more federal regulations and dollars wasted on administrative costs. Rather, we need to meet our commitment to bear our fair share of special education costs. As the Governor of Maine told President Clinton last week, ``If you want to do something for schools in Maine, then fund special education and we can hire our own teachers and build our own schools.'' This is true for every state. The best thing this Congress can do for education is to fully fund our share of special education and at the same time return control of the schools to the states and local communities by passing the Education Flexibility Act.

   These two actions will empower our states and communities to meet the challenge of improving schools. Instead of presuming that we in Washington know what is best for every school across the country, let us acknowledge that each of our individual states and towns knows what is needed on a state-by-state and community-by-community basis. I urge my colleagues to give our states and local communities the financial support they have been promised and the freedom to educate our students as they see fit. We can do this by adopting this amendment to fully fund the federal share of special education and then passing the Local Control of Education Act.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont.

   Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

   Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

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