[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 11, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1053]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      IDEA IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1996

                                 ______


                               speech of

                           HON. MARGE ROUKEMA

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, June 10, 1996

  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I am opposed to this 
bill in its current form.
  As a member of the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee 
for the past 15 years who has been involved in similar special 
education reauthorization discussions, let me begin by commending full 
committee Chairman Goodling and subcommittee Chairman Cunningham for 
their efforts to develop a compromise IDEA reauthorization bill that 
can be supported by a coalition of parent groups, disability groups, 
and school groups. In doing so, they have continued the bipartisan 
spirit that IDEA has always enjoyed.
  With that said, I must express my strong disappointment with and 
opposition to the bill's funding formula. Although the formula has been 
modified to decrease disproportionate funding losses absorbed by States 
such as New Jersey, I do not believe that it goes far enough. While the 
changes to the funding formula represent progress, the formula itself 
will continue a funding war between the States. And, the victims will 
be the children.
  The issues affecting the special education Federal funding formula 
are extremely complicated and State-specific. For example, there is 
disagreement among special education experts as to whether or not there 
is a correlation between poverty and disability incidence rate, which 
is why the administration's funding formula for new money does not 
include a poverty factor. A perfect example of this is suburban Detroit 
which, although it is the wealthiest district in Michigan, it has that 
State's highest identification level.
  These are exactly the types of reasons that the Senate Labor 
Committee passed its IDEA reauthorization bill without changing the 
current formula, and why the Washington-based coalition of parent, 
disability and school groups decided to take no position on the current 
formula despite having taken a position on all other areas of this 
bill.
  Everyone recognizes that there are problems with the current special 
education system, particularly those related to the overidentification 
of disabled students. That is why changes in current law included in 
this bill, such as placement-neutral funding, are so important. States 
and local education agencies that have experienced overidentification 
will be forced to re-evaluate their systems for identification and 
placement. However, these changes cannot take place overnight.
  Because IDEA is a tremendous underfunded mandate, we have no 
justification for taking even more of this small pot of money away from 
States like New Jersey who have done nothing but comply with the 
statutory and regulatory requirements of IDEA.
  Many advocates for IDEA reform truly believe that once children are 
classified as disabled they are committed to special education for 
life. Well, if this is the case, it does not matter how much more or 
less money flows to New Jersey, because we will still have 200,000 
children in special education. And, because the law entitles each of 
these children to a free appropriate public education, the State and 
localities will have no choice but to find this additional shortfall of 
Federal money and provide the services required under the law.
  In order to make sure that participating children receive adequate 
special education services, we must make every effort to employ 
professionals qualified to meet their needs. To that end, I have voiced 
my concerns about the bill's provisions on professional standards, and 
will continue to do so. The bottom line is that, without properly 
trained special education providers, disabled children dependent on 
such services will never obtain the education they need. When that 
happens, our special education system will have failed. However, I am 
confident that this will not happen, but that we will build on the many 
reforms of this bill by strengthening both the professional standards 
language and the funding formula in conference.
  However, until these additional changes are made, I must oppose H.R. 
3268.

                          ____________________