[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 78 (Tuesday, June 16, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4599-H4603]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
URGING CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT TO FULLY FUND GOVERNMENT'S OBLIGATION
UNDER INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the resolution ( H. Res. 399) urging the Congress and the President to
work to fully fund the Federal Government's obligation under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 399
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 authorizes 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 7, 9, and
11 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 ($12,002) is more than twice the national
average per pupil cost ($5,955);
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, if the appropriation for part B of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.)
exceeds $4,100,000,000 for a fiscal year, a local educational
agency may reduce its local spending on special education for
such fiscal year by an amount equal to 20 percent of the
amount that exceeds the prior year's appropriation so long as
the local educational agency is not failing to comply with
the requirements of part B of such Act, as determined by the
State educational agency;
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; and
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: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives urges the
Congress and the President, working within the constraints of
the balanced budget agreement, to give programs under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400
et seq.) higher priority among Federal education programs by
working to fund the maximum State grant allocation for
educating children with disabilities under such Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Martinez) 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.
The Committee will now consider H. Res. 399, a resolution urging the
Congress and the President to fully fund the Federal Government's
responsibility under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
This resolution was introduced by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr.
Bass) and I am pleased to be an original cosponsor.
I would like to start out by recognizing the efforts of my friend and
colleague the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood). He has been
a leader in helping move this resolution through our committee in a
bipartisan manner. He has been a strong voice for providing fiscal
relief to local communities, which not only pay their share of special
education costs but most of the Federal share as well.
For those who may not be aware, in 1975, when the original
legislation was passed, the Congress of the United States indicated
that over several years they would fund 40 percent of the excess costs
for special education. Up until 3 years ago, they were funding about 6
percent. I am happy to say that we got about a 77-percent increase in
the last 3 years. But it is still a long, long way from the 40 percent
that was promised for the excess costs of educating a special education
child.
This unpaid Federal share means that the local school district has to
do the funding. It also then means that the local school district has
to take that money from all other programs in order to fund our share
of special education. In many districts that is 55 percent of their
entire budget. And so, I am hoping that we will continue the trend that
we have had in the last 3 years.
Unfortunately, when the President sent up his budget, he level funded
special education. But what level-funding really means is a dramatic
cut. Because if you consider inflation and then, above all, consider
the new children who will be coming into special education through
increased enrollment, it means that we are going to fall way short if
we would follow his budget.
I am hoping that with the program that came from my committee,
dealing with literacy, with family literacy particularly, that in the
long run we can find a way to eliminate an awful lot of people from
ever getting into special education. Because, unfortunately, many of
our special education students today are there simply because they have
a reading difficulty. There is no reason for that to happen.
We know now that most youngsters can learn to read. With the family
literacy program that we are including in our legislative initiative
from our committee, hopefully we can eliminate an awful lot who would
normally fall into special education.
[[Page H4600]]
But now is the time where we thank Mrs. McCarthy, who testified with
the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) at our hearing on this a
few weeks ago. I look forward to bipartisan effort to make sure that we
eventually get to that 40 percent of excess cost coming from the
Federal Government.
This year we should be able to get, for the first time ever, at the
level where the local schools will be able to reduce their spending on
special education. When we meet that magic figure, and this year I
believe we need $300 million to get to that figure, they then can, for
the first time, reduce their spending on special education. It does
not, however, allow the state to reduce their spending on special
education.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to start out by saying that I am pleased to rise in strong
support of this resolution which is before the House. H.Res. 399 is a
truly bipartisan bill and should meet with the approval of Members from
both sides of the aisle.
The chairman a moment ago was I think commendable in commending the
Members on his side of the aisle that worked very hard for this. But I
do not think it is any secret that there is no one that has worked
harder for the full funding of IDEA than the chairman himself, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
Mr. Speaker, full funding of IDEA is a goal which has been around
with us for a long time. It has the strong support of all Members in
this body. As many Members here know, presently the Federal Government
provides only 11 percent of the excess cost of educating a child with
disability.
The goal that we set for ourselves, as the chairman has alluded to in
1979, in 1975, when Congress first passed IDEA's predecessor, the
education for all handicapped children, it was to provide 40 of the
excess cost of educating a child with disability. Unfortunately,
Congress has been unable to meet this goal despite the hard work of
many Members from both sides of the aisle.
With this goal in mind, I believe the strong statements that this
resolution make is vitally important. Clearly, the needs of children
with disabilities and the costs associated with ensuring that they
receive a free and appropriate public education are important factors
in determining if we are to have a society where all those with
disabilities and those without have a chance to succeed and become
economically contributing adults.
In closing, I want to salute the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Goodling) again, the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) and along
with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for their long-
standing efforts to increase funding for this very important bill and
for the valuable work during the committee process.
I also want to thank especially the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Greenwood) for his hard work on fashioning the resolution, which I
believe gained bipartisan support. I urge all Members support this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) the author of the resolution.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of House
Resolution 399, a resolution that would make the full funding of
special education a high priority of this Congress.
I want to thank the distinguished chairman and gentleman from
California for making this a truly bipartisan resolution.
{time} 1615
The idea came to me as I listened to the State of the Union address
in January that the President delivered, and he talked about the
importance of education. And as one who comes from a State like New
Hampshire which depends on funding for education, 98 percent of the
funding coming from the property tax base at the local level, nothing
hits the property taxpayers worse in New Hampshire than special
education. It really should not be that way, because special education
originally was mandated to be paid for at the rate of approximately 40
percent.
As we heard the chairman and the ranking member mention in their
speeches, that has been chronically underfunded. Indeed, funding of
special education has been the mother of all unfunded mandates of this
government for the last 25 years. I think this resolution is way
overdue and it should be passed today.
Let me just point out that in some towns in my State, special
education costs make up half of the entire education budget for a given
town. This puts pressure on school district administrators, on
students, and perhaps most unfortunately on the parents of
developmentally disabled students in a small community.
I believe that as Congress sets its priorities for new education
spending, that fully funding the existing mandates that we have
outstanding today should come ahead of new education funding for new
programs in education. Fully funding special education in New Hampshire
alone would increase funding from $17 million a year to $68 million a
year. That, Mr. Speaker, would make a significant impact on the whole
education picture in New Hampshire. I am sure the same is true in every
other State in the country.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that today the House will pass this resolution
which has been introduced by me, supported by the committee, amended to
make it as bipartisan as possible, because we all recognize the
importance of special education firstly; and, secondly, the importance
of fully funding the Federal Government's commitment to this important
program.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) who is a strong, strong supporter
of everything that benefits all the young people of our country.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Martinez) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, as one of the strong supporters of IDEA, I am pleased to
support this resolution. I want to thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs),
the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Clay), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood)
and the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) for working on this
resolution. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act represents
this country's commitment to ensure that all children, including
children with disabilities, are entitled to a free and appropriate
public education. I support IDEA and I support more funding for this
program. This resolution, unfortunately, does not include two
provisions that I think need to be addressed. Although I support the
resolution and will vote for it, I wish that it could have addressed
two issues.
The most important principle missing in the resolution is that we
should not take away from other educational programs in order to fully
fund IDEA. The needs of our public schools remain high and we should
not rob Peter to pay Paul. In the past, we have seen efforts to shift
funding from other educational accounts to IDEA without changing the
bottom line.
The second principle missing from the resolution is that we should
urge the localities once the $4.1 billion appropriation mark is
triggered to spend their 20 percent of relief on education. Under
current law, localities may use 20 percent of any increase in IDEA
funding above the trigger to offset their current effort on special
education. However, this relief can be used for roads, jails, tax
relief and so forth. There is no guarantee that any of the local offset
would be used to recycle the money to other educational programs.
Even more of a concern is that transferring funds from other Federal
education programs to increase funding for IDEA could actually result
in a net reduction in total spending for elementary and secondary
education. If we pursue a strategy of reducing the funding of other
education programs to fully fund IDEA, we will risk a 20 percent net
reduction in our investment in elementary and secondary education
programs at the expense of children, both disabled and nondisabled,
that these programs serve.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the bipartisan resolution and hope
that we can continue a bipartisan effort to
[[Page H4601]]
fully fund IDEA without jeopardizing our investment in other
educational programs.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon), one of my great subcommittee chairmen.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.Res. 399 which calls
upon Congress and the President to fulfill our commitment to some of
our Nation's neediest children, those with disabilities.
For too long, Washington has shirked its responsibility to provide
our local school districts with the funds necessary to carry out the
expensive mandate created with the enactment of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act.
In my home State of California, the cost of educating an estimated
610,000 children with disabilities is a staggering $3.3 billion. But
the Federal Government contributes only $413 million, which translates
to only 12.5 percent of the total cost. This, after saying that they
would fund 40 percent of the cost.
Even more alarming is the impact of this Federal mandate on our local
school districts. For example, the Federal Government picks up only 5
percent of the estimated $7.6 million price tag for educating the
nearly 1,200 children in the William S. Hart High School District, the
district I served on the local school board in my congressional
district.
To make matters worse, the President level-funded IDEA in his fiscal
year 1999 budget while calling for $20 billion to fund a laundry list
of new Federal education pet projects.
If the President would first fund the special education mandate,
which was the responsibility of the Federal Government years ago when
this bill was passed, our communities would have the funds to do the
things the President proposes, such as building new schools, hiring
more teachers, reducing class size and buying more computers. I say the
first thing that we should do is fully fund the IDEA bill, and I urge
my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), the gentleman who helped shepherd the
bill through the committee.
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that here in Washington sometimes
education becomes a subject of controversy, when most Americans would
look at us as politicians and say, what could be controversial about
education.
We all know that there is nothing more important in the world than
that our precious children receive the best education that they can so
that they can make the most of themselves in every way and that we can
compete as a nation against every other country in the world as they
educate their children.
Of even less controversy, if that is possible, is the notion that
children who have particular challenges, whether they are children with
mental retardation or they have social or emotional problems, whether
they have learning disabilities, speech impediments, what have you,
that we as a society want to go overboard and do more for those kids
than we do for other kids, if that is possible, because of the
challenges that face them. None of that is controversial. We are all in
support of that. What does get controversial is when we talk about
whether it is the Federal responsibility or the State responsibility or
the local responsibility to support certain aspects of education, and
that is in fact very controversial.
Most Republicans feel very strongly that the States should determine
the curriculum, should determine the basics of education and that the
localities should run the schools and make the decisions about hiring
and firing and how they want to run their local school districts. But
the President has proposed Federal responsibilities that would be new.
He has proposed that the Federal Government get involved in school
construction, that the Federal Government get involved in hiring
teachers.
Back to what is not controversial, IDEA is not controversial. The
Congress 23 years ago said we have got to give these kids everything we
can give them, the school districts are mandated to do that, and just
last year, I believe it was, we reauthorized IDEA, I think with maybe
one negative vote, if not unanimously, I think it was one negative vote
out of 435 of us. This proposal, the Bass proposal, says let us put all
the controversy aside and let us do what we agree on, let us finally
fully fund special education, take this enormous burden that we have
imposed on the States and shoulder our fair share as the Congress, and
then the beautiful part of it is that every school district in America,
so relieved of this burdensome Federal responsibility, has the
opportunity to make a specific local decision what to do with the money
it would have otherwise had to dedicate to special education and if
they need a new roof, put a new roof on; if they need to hire new
teachers, do that; if they need computers, do that.
This, I think, is a complete win-win proposal, that we help the kids
in America who need special education, who need special attention, help
them the most and then at the same time free up every locality, every
local school district in the country to then tailor-fit its budget to
its particular needs.
I urge support of the Bass resolution.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the gentleman from Pennsylvania who
just spoke. I want to make it very clear here why the Federal
Government is involved in this. I do not think the Federal Government
has ever in any of the legislation we have passed tried to set
curriculum for local schools. In fact, we very much have stayed away
from that.
The fact is that local schools and local school districts were not
educating these disabled children. There was a court case that went to
the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court found that there were
millions of young children throughout this country that were disabled
who were not receiving a vital education; more importantly even unequal
education. They were being pushed into back rooms and basement
classrooms, sometimes not even being dealt with at all. As a result,
the court found that these children were entitled to a full and
meaningful education.
And so then Congress acted, because the local districts and school
districts would not. But they did not set any curriculum. What they did
was tell the local schools that they would have to educate these
children. But in doing so, they recognized one of the main reasons why
a lot of these local school districts and local jurisdictions did not
educate these young people was because it was much more costly to
educate them.
The Federal Government, in recognizing that it was much more costly
to educate them, then developed the idea that there was a certain
burden, a responsibility, you might say, that the Federal Government
had, not putting a burden on the local school district other than that
they were mandated by the Supreme Court action that they had to educate
these children. That was the burden, not what the Federal Government
did. The Federal Government then decided that they would fund 40
percent of this.
Now that becomes the crux of the situation we are in today and why we
need legislation that decries the lack of funding on the part of the
Federal Government for this particular program. We are only trying to
get to that 40 percent that was initially agreed to that has never been
attained, and, as many of the speakers here today have said, there has
only been 11 percent ever reached in totality for that funding; I think
that that is why we are here today.
But I want to make it very clear, the Federal Government is trying to
alleviate, or we as Members of Congress through this resolution are
trying to alleviate a problem that was created basically initially by
the lack of education of these young people in those local districts.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Snowbarger).
Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
[[Page H4602]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for House Resolution
399. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this responsible
legislation. In 1973, Congress created the original special education
program that mandated States to provide equal education for all
students. Congress then pledged to pay 40 percent of the increased
costs incurred for complying with this new Federal law and promptly
reneged on its end of the bargain.
Since the inception of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act more than 20 years ago, Congress has paid for less than 10 percent
of the costs we promised we would assume. It is high time for Congress
to correct this problem and ease the burden this mandate places on
States and local school boards.
{time} 1630
Over the past 20 plus years more than $115 billion should have been
provided to the local schools to pay for this unfunded mandate. This
$115 billion would have provided necessary funds to cover increased
special education costs and would have allowed our locally-elected
school board members to direct their State and local funding to pay for
local priorities instead of unfunded federal mandates.
While I cannot do anything to reverse decisions made before I became
a Member of this body, I believe we now have the opportunity to act
responsibly to remedy this negligence. The failure of Congress to live
up to our end of the bargain is a disgrace. Passage of this legislation
is a good start toward correcting this problem.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 399.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Riggs), another one of our subcommittee chairs.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
yielding this time to me, and I want to join the gentleman and several
other colleagues in rising to support this important resolution that is
more than symbolism. It is critically needed and, I think, very urgent
legislation, and I want to salute my good friend, classmate of sorts,
the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) for his leadership on this
particular issue.
I can tell my colleagues that as one of the principal authors of last
year's IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
legislation, the so-called IDEA amendments of 1997, that I believe that
this resolution, the Bass resolution, is the next logical step in
fulfilling the promise of these amendments which were intended to
improve the educational opportunity and the educational outcomes for
children with disabilities, and I regret to say, because this
legislation is very much bipartisan in nature, it was approved and
advanced to the committee process on a voice-vote basis beginning in
the subcommittee that I chaired, that I just regret that this
legislation is at least necessitated in part because of the President's
budget proposal to the Congress to level fund the IDEA program at a
rate that I do not think will keep pace with inflation. And not wanting
to read too much into the President's budget proposal, but I have to
wonder how he can justify level funding or nominal increase in funding
for IDEA on the one hand with his proposal for a host of new programs,
additional categorical programs funded by Federal taxpayers on the
other hand, particularly when the latter, the proposal for all these
new programs, and I know they all sound well, and I am sure they have
all been focused grouped and that they are in part politically or poll
driven, but that proposal assumes this windfall of Federal revenue
resulting from settlement of the tobacco class action litigation, and I
do not think that there is any Member in this body who can really make
that assumption because that legislation at the present time is
obviously problematical.
But back on the point, IDEA works. It is not some new untested
program like so many of the ones that the President has proposed. As
the gentleman has pointed out, since IDEA was enacted in 1975 the
number of children with disabilities who have gone on to college has
tripled, and the unemployment rate for individuals with disabilities
who are now in their 20s is almost half that of other individuals who
do not benefit from IDEA.
Other speakers have testified about the fact that IDEA remains a
largely underfunded federal mandate, sort of the mother, if my
colleagues will, of all unfunded mandates imposed by the Congress on
state and local educational agencies, and we need to address that
problem, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) spoke of the
trigger or threshold of 4.1 billion, and that figure is reachable this
year, and it would in turn free up local and State education funding
for other worthwhile activities.
So I say let us support the Bass resolution, let us make good on that
long overdue promise to State and local educational agencies. Let us
tell the President, no, we will not turn back on school children with
disabilities, and we will not leave local taxpayers to foot the bill
for special education.
Support the Bass resolution. Make IDEA funding a top and not the top
priority for education.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I am proud to say that Pennsylvania was ahead of the
Federal Government when it came to IDEA. However, that too was a court
decision, before they got around to making that decision on the Federal
level. But for 20 years I sat in the minority asking the majority both
in the Committee on Education and Labor and on the Committee on the
Budget along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) to please
fund the 40 percent promised. We've got to make sure we understand we
are talking about the 40 percent of excess costs. We are not talking
about 40 percent of the costs for special education. We are talking
about 40 percent of the excess costs to educate a special education
student in relationship to a student in general education. It is the
only curriculum mandate from the Federal level. It is important that
everybody out there listening understands that, because we get blamed
for every curriculum problem that they may have in a local district.
The only federal mandate as far as curriculum is concerned is special
education.
I told the President on several occasions that if he wants a legacy--
if he wants a positive legacy in education--the way to get it is to
make sure that he works with us to fully fund that 40 percent of excess
costs.
I am happy to say that we are here in a bipartisan effort. Everybody
wants to make sure that we not only help the special education child.
What I do not want to see happen, and what is beginning to happen
because parents of students that are not in special education are
beginning to say ``Where is our money going that we want for this and
that?'' The school district has to say, ``Well, we have to fund what
the Federal Government mandated.'' So it is a bipartisan effort to make
sure that we carry our share of the special education financial burden.
I am happy to support Congressman Bass' resolution, I would hope that
we could get a hundred percent of the entire Congress supporting this
resolution, since it is a bipartisan effort.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res.
399, a resolution urging Congress and the President to fully fund the
Individuals with Disabilities Act, or IDEA. I want to commend the
gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Bass, for all his hard work and
efforts in bringing this important resolution to the floor today.
In 1975, when Congress passed the original IDEA bill, it made an
historic commitment to support children and families with special
education needs. At that time, Congress also committed the Federal
government to providing 40 percent of the funding for the IDEA mandates
on local communities. Today, the Federal government provides a mere 9
percent of the necessary funding. And for Fiscal Year 1999, President
Clinton's budget flatlines IDEA funding. This is shameful.
It is incumbent upon us here in Congress to maintain our financial
commitment to IDEA, and to provide the money our schools and
communities need to provide services to individuals with disabilities
and their families. If the President provided IDEA with the full 40
percent in Federal funding, local schools would have more money to
spend on other initiatives, including school construction, hiring new
teachers, decreasing class sizes and buying more computers.
By passing this bill today, we reinforce our commitment to providing
the means to educate the students who need our help most. I urge my
colleagues to vote for this bill, and
[[Page H4603]]
when the time comes, to support full funding for IDEA.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my
opposition to H. Res. 399, the resolution calling for full-funding of
the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). My opposition to this act
should in no way be interpreted as opposition to increased spending on
education. However, the way to accomplish this worthy goal is to allow
parents greater control over education resources by cutting taxes, thus
allowing parents to devote more of their resources to educating their
children in such a manner as they see fit. Massive tax cuts for the
American family, not increased spending on federal programs, should be
this Congress' top priority.
The drafters of this bill claim that increasing federal spending on
IDEA will allow local school districts to spend more money on other
educational priorities. However, because an increase in federal funding
will come from the same taxpayers who currently fund the IDEA mandate
at the state and local level, increasing federal IDEA funding will not
necessarily result in a net increase of education funds available for
other programs. In fact, the only way to combine full federal funding
of IDEA with an increase in expenditures on other programs by state and
localities is through massive tax increases at the federal, state, and/
or local level.
Rather than increasing federal spending, Congress should focus on
returning control over education to the American people by enacting the
Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 1816), which provides parents with a
$3,000 per child tax credit to pay for K-12 education expenses. Passage
of this act would especially benefit parents whose children have
learning disabilities as those parents have the greatest need to devote
a large portion of their income toward their child's education.
The Family Education Freedom Act will allow parents to develop an
individualized education plan that will meet the needs of their own
child. Each child is a unique person and we must seriously consider
whether disabled children's special needs can be best met by parents,
working with local educators, free from interference from Washington or
federal educrats. After all, an increase in expenditures cannot make a
Washington bureaucrat know or love a child as much as that child's
parent.
It is time for Congress to restore control over education to the
American people. The only way to accomplish this goal is to defund
education programs that allow federal bureaucrats to control America's
schools. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to reject H. Res. 399 and
instead join my efforts to pass the Family Education Freedom Act. If
Congress gets Washington off the backs and out of the pocketbooks of
parents, American children will be better off.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 399, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the resolution, as amended, was
agreed to.
The title of the resolution was amended so as to read:
Resolution urging the Congress and the President to work to
fully fund the Federal Government's responsibility under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________