[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 24, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H763-H771]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, this evening we are taking a special order
to talk about the number-one unfunded mandate from the Federal
Government to the States and to local school districts.
Twenty-three years ago, the Congress made the historic decision to
support children and families with special education needs. In passing
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Congress not only
brought Federal aid to children with disabilities but it also brought a
100 percent mandate as to how you will spend that money.
Just 2 years ago, Congress and the administration worked together in
true bipartisan fashion to reauthorize the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act or better known as special ed, so children
with special needs can have more options and services.
I might add at this point that we are still waiting, 2 years later,
for the regulations that are supposed to go with this legislation which
certainly would help local school districts to know exactly what is
expected of them. Unfortunately, the administration has again backed
away from the Federal commitment to adequately fund special education.
This is the second year in a row that the administration has cut
special education funding in the budget that they have sent up to
Capitol Hill. They have a tiny increase, they indicate, but if you talk
about the increase in inflation and the 123,000 extra students that
come into the program each year, you discover that, as a matter of
fact, 2 years in a row, the administration has cut special education.
Now, what was promised by the former majority 23 years ago was that
[[Page H764]]
the Federal Government, sending the 100 percent mandate, would send 40
percent of all the money that it would take for excess costs to educate
a special needs youngster versus educating another youngster. Let me
give my colleagues an example.
If in your district you are spending $8,000 a year per pupil and you
are spending, on the other hand, for special need youngsters $16,000 a
year, then the difference, of course, would be $8,000. If they got 40
percent of that $8,000 from the Federal Government, they would get
$3,200 extra for educating a special needs child. Well, when I became
chairman, they were sending 6 percent. In other words, they were
sending $480, not $3,200.
And in spite of the fact that the President has, in the budget that
has come up, has decreased spending for special ed, the Republican
majority in the last 3 years has been able to increase by $2 billion
the amount of money that is now going for special education. For the
first time this year, local school districts will be able to decrease
the amount of money they must spend from their budget in order to fund
our mandate from the Federal level. So there is a big gap, a big gap
here as to what should be going out from the Federal Government if we
were true to our promise of 40 percent of excess cost versus what is
going out.
As I said, in our last 3 years with a new leadership, with a
Republican leadership in the House, we were able to move that 6 percent
up to about 12 percent. Now, what does this mean to a local school
district? It means that a local school district has to raise money,
generally through property taxes, in order to support the Federal
mandate in special education. Let me give my colleagues just one
illustration.
The City of York, which is about 49,000 people, at the present time
they receive $363,000. If they received their 40 percent of excess
cost, they would receive almost $1.5 million. If you want to talk about
pupil-teacher ratio, which the administration wants to talk about, if
you want to talk about repairing school buildings, which the
administration wants to talk about, all of those things are things
that, of course, we believe are important as Republicans. But the way
to do it is fund special ed. Then they have the money locally to do all
of those things. Can you imagine how far school districts have gotten
behind in school maintenance because they have had to raise millions of
dollars as a matter of fact to fund the mandate from the Federal level?
So I hear things are improving. Yesterday, I was told that the
governors made a real point to the administration. The administration
seemed to be surprised. They did not realize this problem existed.
Now I have spoken to many members of the administration, including
the President, on numerous occasions pointing out this problem. In
fact, after we signed the higher ed bill last year, I said to the
President, we really have to tackle this special ed problem; and he
said, well, we are pouring lots of money into special ed. I said, Mr.
President, your budget cut special ed that you have sent up to the
Hill. And, of course, it happened again this year.
I have told the Secretary over and over and over again, we have to
deal with this. I just learned today that perhaps the minority leader
of the House said that this is his number-one priority. It only took me
24 years to get that to be a number-one priority on that side of the
aisle. Because for 20 years in the minority, that is all I ever said to
them over and over again: Fund this mandate before you send out any
more mandates.
So some good things take time. This apparently took 24 years. My hope
is that they are serious, because we positively have to get relief back
to the local districts so that they, in turn, can do the maintenance
things, so that they, in turn, can pour money into all the other
students that they have rather than having to raise property taxes in
order to fund a Federal mandate.
I noticed we have some others here who I am sure want to talk about
this issue. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), a
member of our committee who has heard me preach this sermon so many
times he is probably tired of hearing it.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
taking time really to hold this public discussion of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. Many people at home know it as IDEA. I
must say that when I talk to teachers back home and school
superintendents back home, this is one of the greatest topics of
concern.
In many cases, many of the younger, newer teachers think all of a
sudden in the last few years we invented IDEA, which is not the case,
of course. It was passed in 1975. When we took, the Republicans took
control of Congress, we tried to deal with some of the discipline
problems, just 2 years ago, that are occurring in IDEA, so this is sort
of new news to youngsters who are just out of college and just started
teaching.
Let me begin by stating that I doubt that there can be a more
important job in America than teaching our children. I do not know what
it would be. This is especially true of our special education teachers.
Education for those with disabilities allows all of our children to
have the opportunity to learn and succeed. Ensuring that all of our
children have a safe and orderly environment in which to learn must be
and is a top priority.
Most every teacher I have talked to about IDEA brings up the problem,
Mr. Speaker, of classroom discipline. Teachers tell me that there is a
great double standard that exists when disciplining disabled students.
For instance, a nondisabled student who brings a gun to school can face
a much stronger disciplinary action than a disabled child who engages
in that very same activity.
Mr. Speaker, we need to make sure that our teachers and students are
protected in the classroom while at the same time ensuring that
disabled students are fairly treated. This is critical if we are going
to make sure that our children, disabled and nondisabled, have a good
learning environment, a good order at their schools. Learning will soon
become a casualty if it has not already if we do not do this. And soon
enough our children will become economic casualties if they do not
learn well.
I believe that we should trust our teachers to determine who should
be in the classroom. They will know firsthand which students are
discipline problems and which students are just having a hard time
reading up to their grade level. They will know how to deal
compassionately with those students with disabilities who, because of
their disability, may be disrupting the classroom experience of others.
We can and should provide a good education for all without putting our
teachers in this untenable position.
In addition, I want to speak a minute about this unfunded mandate
that the gentleman from Pennsylvania was talking about. We have since
1975 mandated to our States that they do certain things at the school
districts. The same law that mandated what our special education
teachers have to do said we, the Federal Government, will fund that. We
will pick up 40 percent of the tab. You at home pick up 60 percent of
the tab.
That simply has not been the case. It has been only under the
gentleman's leadership over the last 4 years, Mr. Speaker, that we have
finally gotten the funding level up to 12 percent. That is a long, long
way from 40 percent. Now, what does that mean? That means people at
home who are paying property taxes that go to their schools who want to
use that money to add new teachers do not have it because they are
funding special education.
{time} 1530
If we want to use that money for bricks and mortars, which we should
do at home to build new schools, we do not have it because it is going
to special education, and the Federal Government is just simply not
keeping its word, and I will yield back after making one point:
My great State of Georgia, for example, is a perfectly good example.
We received almost $54 million as part of this mandated special
education money. But had we received what the law required, it would
have been over $276 million. We received $54 million. By law, we should
have received $276 million.
Mr. Speaker, we can fix a lot of roofs in Georgia, and we can hire a
whole lot of teachers back in Georgia if the Federal Government will do
what you are
[[Page H765]]
trying to get them to do and fund their fair share.
In 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children
Act, commonly known as P.L. 94-142. The Act built upon previous
legislation to mandate that all States provide a Free Appropriate
Public Education (FAPE) to all disabled children by 1978.
P.L. 94-142 established the federal commitment to provide funding aid
at 40% of the average per pupil expenditure to assist with the excess
costs of educating students with disabilities.
Historically, the appropriations for IDEA have not come close to
reaching the 40% level. Federal funding has never risen above 12% of
the cost. Going into the 104th Congress, the federal government was
only paying about 7% of the average per pupil expenditure.
Since the Republicans took control of the Congress, IDEA
appropriations have jumped dramatically. Since 1995, funding for IDEA
has risen over 85%. The more than $1.4 billion funding increase since
FY1996 demonstrates our continued commitment to help States and school
districts provide a free, appropriate public education to children with
disabilities.
We are now paying 12% of the average per pupil expenditure.
The Congressional Research Service estimates that over $14 billion
would be needed to fully fund Part B of IDEA. The FY1999 appropriation
for Part B was $4.3 billion, leaving States and locals with an unfunded
mandate of nearly $10 billion.
Local school districts currently spend on average 20 percent of their
budgets on special education services. Much of this goes to cover the
unpaid Federal share of the mandate.
In my district, the Richmond County School District receives
$1,176,260. If IDEA were fully funded, this school district would
receive $6,027,156, an increase of $4,850,900.
President Clinton proposes to level fund IDEA for FY2000. Under his
budget request, the federal government would cut the Federal
contribution to approximately 11 percent in FY 2000.
Considering that the number of children with disabilities is
projected to increase by 123,000 from 1999 to 2000, the President's
budget request actually cuts funding for children with disabilities
form $702 dollars per child in FY1999 to $688 dollars per child in
FY2000.
The President continues to ignore this unfunded mandate on States and
local school districts by requesting no increase in funds for grants to
States for providing assistance to educate children with disabilities.
The President has proposed creating a myriad of new Federal programs,
which all do good things.
But I think that before we create new programs out of Washington, the
Congress needs to ensure that the Federal government lives up to the
promises it made to the students, parents, and schools over two decades
ago.
Once the Federal government begins to pay its fair share, local funds
will be freed up, allowing local schools to hire and train high-quality
teachers, reduce class size, build and renovate classrooms, and invest
in technology.
We can both ensure that children with disabilities receive a free and
appropriate public education and ensure that all children have the best
education possible if we just provide fair Federal funding for special
education.
COMPARISON OF SUBSTATE IDEA GRANTS AND MAXIMUM GRANTS \1\--GEORGIA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference
between
LEA Name Reported Maximum reported
FY95 grant FY95 grant and maximum
grant
------------------------------------------------------------------------
School district:
Appling County................. 151,600 777,000 625,400
Atkinson County................ 33,100 169,400 136,300
Atlanta City................... 1,500,700 7,689,400 6,188,700
Bacon County................... 84,200 431,300 347,100
Baker County................... 25,100 128,400 103,300
Baldwin County................. 237,800 1,218,500 980,700
Banks County................... 71,100 364,500 293,400
Barrow County.................. 267,200 1,369,100 1,101,900
Bartow County.................. 412,800 2,115,300 1,702,500
Ben Hill County................ 89,800 460,400 370,600
Berrien County................. 115,900 593,900 478,000
Bibb County.................... 1,162,900 5,958,500 4,795,600
Bleckley County................ 100,500 515,100 414,600
Brantley County................ 143,000 732,500 589,500
Bremen City.................... 61,800 316,600 254,800
Brooks County.................. 111,200 569,900 458,700
Bryan County................... 130,300 667,500 537,200
Buford City.................... 63,800 326,900 263,100
Bullock County................. 321,600 1,648,100 1,326,500
Burke County................... 116,600 597,300 480,700
Butts County................... 101,200 518,600 417,400
Calhoun City................... 79,800 409,000 329,200
Calhoun County................. 50,400 258,400 208,000
Camden County.................. 262,700 1,345,900 1,083,200
Candler County................. 52,400 268,700 216,300
Carroll County................. 729,700 3,739,000 3,009,300
Carrollton City................ 12,300 883,100 710,800
Cartersville City.............. 81,500 417,600 336,100
Catoosa County................. 253,800 1,300,700 1,046,900
Charlton County................ 74,800 383,400 308,600
Chatham County................. 1,337,800 6,854,800 5,517,000
Chattahoochee County........... 25,700 131,800 106,100
Chattooga County............... 141,600 725,600 584,000
Cherokee County................ 802,600 4,112,500 3,309,900
Chickamauga City............... 33,700 172,900 139,200
Clarke County.................. 484,000 2,479,800 1,995,800
Clay County.................... 16,700 85,600 68,900
Clayton County................. 2,515,200 12,887,800 10,372,600
Clinch County.................. 76,500 391,900 315,400
Cobb County.................... 2,996,700 15,355,300 12,358,600
Coffee County.................. 323,000 1,654,800 1,331,800
Colquitt County................ 280,900 1,439,300 1,158,400
Columbia County................ 404,800 2,074,200 1,669,400
Commerce City.................. 58,500 299,500 241,000
Cook County.................... 107,900 552,800 444,900
Coweta County.................. 517,700 2,652,700 2,135,000
Crawford County................ 76,500 391,900 315,400
Crisp County................... 316,700 1,622,700 1,306,000
Dade County.................... 81,200 415,900 334,700
Dalton City.................... 311,700 1,596,900 1,285,200
Dawson County.................. 72,500 371,400 298,900
De Kalb County................. 3,129,700 16,036,600 12,906,900
Decatur City................... 127,900 655,500 527,600
Decatur County................. 196,100 1,004,600 808,500
Dodge County................... 95,200 487,800 392,600
Dooly County................... 51,800 265,300 213,500
Dougherty...................... 791,000 4,052,900 3,261,900
Douglas County................. 665,300 3,409,100 2,743,800
Dublin City.................... 129,600 664,000 534,400
Early County................... 90,200 462,100 371,900
Echols County.................. 20,000 102,700 82,700
Effingham County............... 212,100 1,086,700 874,600
Elbert County.................. 142,000 727,400 585,400
Emanuel County................. 180,400 924,200 743,800
Evans County................... 69,100 354,300 285,200
Fannin County.................. 108,600 556,200 447,600
Fayette County................. 534,400 2,738,300 2,203,900
Floyd County................... 346,700 1,776,400 1,429,700
Forsyth County................. 320,600 1,643,000 1,322,400
Franklin County................ 174,000 891,600 717,600
Fulton County.................. 1,798,600 9,216,000 7,417,400
Gainesville City............... 99,200 508,300 409,100
Gilmer County.................. 84,200 431,300 347,100
Glascock County................ 22,400 114,700 92,300
Glynn County................... 583,900 2,991,800 2,407,900
Gordon County.................. 248,200 1,271,600 1,023,400
Grady County................... 178,000 912,200 734,200
Greene County.................. 118,900 609,300 490,400
Gwinnett County................ 2,390,100 12,246,900 9,856,800
Habersham County............... 219,400 1,124,400 905,000
Hall County.................... 636,900 3,263,700 2,626,800
Hancock County................. 66,800 342,300 275,500
Haralson County................ 115,200 590,400 475,200
Harris County.................. 126,300 646,900 520,600
Hart County.................... 142,600 730,800 588,200
Heard County................... 88,800 455,200 366,400
Henry County................... 435,200 2,229,900 1,794,700
Houston County................. 592,900 3,037,800 2,444,900
Irwin County................... 90,200 462,100 371,900
Jackson County................. 237,500 1,216,800 979,300
Jasper County.................. 79,800 409,000 329,200
Jeff Davis County.............. 89,500 458,700 369,200
Jefferson City................. 56,100 287,400 231,300
Jefferson County............... 148,000 758,200 610,200
Jenkins County................. 56,400 289,200 232,800
Johnson County................. 66,800 342,300 275,500
Jones County................... 118,200 605,800 487,600
Lamar County................... 74,500 381,600 307,100
Lanier County.................. 40,100 205,400 165,300
Laurens County................. 274,200 1,404,900 1,130,700
Lee County..................... 118,900 609,300 490,400
Liberty County................. 227,800 1,167,200 939,400
Lincoln County................. 105,900 542,500 436,600
Long County.................... 41,400 212,200 170,800
Lowndes County................. 542,200 2,778,300 2,236,100
Lumpkin County................. 122,200 626,300 504,100
Macon County................... 67,800 347,400 279,600
Madison County................. 205,400 1,052,500 847,100
Marietta City.................. 282,900 1,449,600 1,166,700
Marion County.................. 55,100 282,400 227,300
McDuffie County................ 125,600 643,500 517,900
McIntosh County................ 43,400 222,500 179,100
Meriwether County.............. 187,000 958,400 771,400
Miller County.................. 42,400 217,300 174,900
Mitchell County................ 104,500 535,700 431,200
Monroe County.................. 134,600 689,700 555,100
Montgomery County.............. 45,100 231,000 185,900
Morgan County.................. 109,900 563,100 453,200
Murray County.................. 201,400 1,032,000 830,600
Muscogee County................ 1,281,200 6,564,700 5,283,500
Newton County.................. 421,800 2,161,500 1,739,700
Oconee County.................. 135,300 693,100 557,800
Oglethorpe County.............. 106,500 545,900 439,400
Paulding County................ 317,600 1,627,600 1,310,000
Peach County................... 108,200 554,500 446,300
Pelham City.................... 53,800 275,500 221,700
Pickens County................. 98,500 504,900 406,400
Pierce County.................. 96,200 492,900 396,700
Pike County.................... 54,800 280,700 225,900
Polk County.................... 196,400 1,006,300 809,900
Pulaski County................. 63,800 326,900 263,100
Putnam County.................. 93,200 477,500 384,300
Quitman County................. 22,000 113,000 91,000
Rabun County................... 72,500 371,400 298,900
Randolph County................ 56,800 290,900 234,100
Richmond County................ 1,176,300 6,027,200 4,850,900
Rockdale County................ 396,100 2,029,700 1,633,600
Rome City...................... 192,100 984,100 792,000
Schley County.................. 18,400 94,100 75,700
Screven County................. 108,200 554,500 446,300
Seminole County................ 50,400 258,400 208,000
Social Circle City............. 40,400 207,100 166,700
Spalding County................ 525,000 2,690,400 2,165,400
Stephens County................ 148,300 759,900 611,600
Stewart County................. 26,100 133,500 107,400
Sumter County and Americus City 175,000 896,800 721,800
Sumter County.................. 0 0 0
Talbot County.................. 43,100 220,800 177,700
Taliaferro County.............. 4,700 24,000 19,300
Tattnall County................ 81,800 419,300 337,500
Taylor County.................. 48,100 246,400 198,300
Telfair County................. 68,100 349,100 281,000
Terrell County................. 91,900 470,600 378,700
Thomas County.................. 408,700 2,094,000 1,685,300
Thomasville City............... 151,000 773,600 622,600
Tift County.................... 300,600 1,540,300 1,239,700
Toombs County.................. 95,200 487,800 392,600
Towns County................... 36,700 188,300 151,600
Treutlen County................ 38,100 195,100 157,000
Trion City..................... 31,400 160,900 129,500
Troup County................... 543,100 2,782,800 2,239,700
Turner County.................. 72,800 373,100 300,300
Twiggs County.................. 40,100 205,400 165,300
Union County................... 87,800 450,100 362,300
Upson County................... 157,600 807,800 650,200
Valdosta City.................. 231,100 1,184,300 953,200
Vidalia City................... 57,400 294,400 237,000
Walker County.................. 309,300 1,584,800 1,275,500
Walton County.................. 269,200 1,379,400 1,110,200
Ware County.................... 294,300 1,507,800 1,213,500
Warren County.................. 72,100 369,700 297,600
Washington County.............. 99,500 510,000 410,500
Wayne County................... 140,600 720,500 579,900
Webster County................. 11,400 58,200 46,800
Wheeler County................. 42,400 217,300 174,900
White County................... 93,500 479,200 385,700
Whitfield County............... 320,000 1,639,500 1,319,500
Wilcox County.................. 46,100 236,200 190,100
Wilkes County.................. 102,200 523,700 421,500
Wilkinson County............... 73,100 374,800 301,700
Worth County................... 140,900 722,200 581,300
Other:
Department of Education........ 1,544,400 7,913,400 6,369,000
Atlanta Area School for the 64,100 328,600 264,500
Deaf..........................
Georgia Academy for the Blind.. 163,700 838,700 675,000
Georgia School for the Deaf.... 40,100 205,400 165,300
Southwestern Hospital.......... 20,700 106,100 85,400
Brook Run Hospital............. 7,300 37,700 30,400
Gracewood Hospital............. 9,700 49,600 39,900
Central State Hospital......... 26,700 136,900 110,200
Georgia Mental Health Institute 13,400 68,500 55,100
Appalachian Wilderness Camp.... 7,300 37,700 30,400
F.D. Roosevelt Wilderness Camp. 13,400 68,500 55,100
Georgia Regional--Atlanta...... 8,400 42,800 34,400
Georgia Regional--Savannah..... 4,700 24,000 19,300
Georgia Regional--Augusta...... 1,000 5,100 4,100
River's Crossing............... 5,700 29,100 23,400
Northwest Georgia Regional 12,400 63,300 50,900
Hospital......................
West Central Georgia Regional 5,300 27,400 22,100
Hospital......................
Georgia State University....... 27,500 140,900 113,400
University of Georgia.......... 73,900 378,600 304,700
Dept. of Corrections........... 22,700 116,400 93,700
[[Page H766]]
Dept. of Children & Youth 25,400 130,100 104,700
Services......................
Central Savannah River Area 132,600 679,400 546,800
Center........................
Chattahoochee-Flint Reservation 0 0 0
Coastal Plains Reservation..... 115,900 594,000 478,100
First District Resa............ 527,300 2,701,900 2,174,600
Griffin Resa................... 116,000 594,200 478,200
Metro Resa..................... 549,400 2,815,200 2,265,800
Middle Georgia Resa............ 0 0 0
North Georgia Resa............. 131,000 671,300 540,300
Northeast Georgia Resa......... 342,800 1,756,400 1,413,600
Northwest Georgia Resa......... 424,300 2,174,100 1,749,800
Oconee Resa.................... 248,300 1,272,200 1,023,900
Okefenokee Resa................ 256,400 1,314,000 1,057,600
Pioneer Resa................... 726,700 3,723,500 2,996,800
Southwest Georgia Resa......... 0 0 0
West Georgia Resa.............. 145,000 743,000 598,000
Heart of Georgia Resa.......... 0 0 0
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 53,920,900 276,291,000 222,370,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maximum grants were calculated by multiplying reported grants by
5.124 (rounded to the nearest $100; totals subject to rounding). Data
are for FY1995; based on GEPA data.
Source: Prepared by CRS.
IDEA--PART B APPROPRIATIONS
[FY1995-FY2000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference--increase
Fiscal year President's Final under Republican
budget request appropriation Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.................................................... $2,603,247,000 $3,109,395,000 $506,148,000
1998.................................................... 3,248,750,000 3,801,000,000 552,250,000
1999.................................................... 3,810,700,000 4,310,700,000 500,000,000
2000.................................................... 4,314,000,000 ............... ....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I see one of the subcommittee chairs from
California is here, and I yield to that subcommittee chair, the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), at this particular time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman for
the leadership that he has shown in bringing this issue to the fore. I
think people are now starting to hear, and hopefully we will be able to
improve the Federal government's action on this issue. I would like to
join with you and my other colleagues in calling for the President to
fulfill our obligation to our Nation's neediest children, those with
disabilities.
Mr. Speaker, for too long Washington has shirked its responsibility
to provide our local school districts with the funds necessary to carry
out the expensive Federal mandate created with the enactment of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act more than two decades ago.
Time and again we hear that our States and our schools must sacrifice
other educational programs and services in order to serve students with
special education needs.
Nationally, on average, local school districts spend 20 percent of
their budgets on special education. 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\1/2\ percent of the total
cost.
Even more alarming is the impact of this Federal mandate on our local
school districts. For example, the Federal Government picks up only 3
percent of the estimated $7.6 million price tag for educating the
nearly 1,200 children with disabilities in the William S. Hart High
School District, the district I served on as a member of the school
board for 9 years. If they picked up the other 37 percent that they
said they would do when they created this mandate, that would mean $2.8
million to that school district. I guarantee you that would go a long
ways toward building schools and hiring teachers and doing the other
things that are now going lacking because of this Federal mandate.
And in the Los Angeles Unified School District, which covers part of
my district, if the Federal Government fully funded its IDEA
obligation, L.A. Unified would receive about $95 million more. Let me
repeat that. They would receive $95 million more.
Since 1995, this Republican Congress has worked hard to fulfill our
duty to our schools and our children to provide the 40 percent of the
average per pupil expenditure that was promised by the Congress. Prior
to the 104th Congress, the Federal Government was only paying 7 percent
of the cost. Today, we are paying approximately 12 percent. This
represents an 85 percent increase over all in the IDEA funding, but we
still have a long way to go.
Last Congress, Mr. Speaker, I cosponsored H. Res. 399 which expressed
the sense of the House that fully funding IDEA programs should be given
the highest priority when doling out Federal education dollars. I was
very pleased when the House unanimously adopted this resolution last
summer. The passage of this resolution was important because it
symbolized the Houses's commitment to fund existing education programs
at levels the law requires.
In contrast, the President has level funded, which is a cut, and
remember how we got beat up on school lunches when we increased the
funding over 4 percent? We were accused of killing the school lunch
program, and here the President has come up with just level funding,
and we know what that refers to in the way of a cut.
I believe before we look at creating new programs with new Washington
mandates, we need to ensure that the Federal Government lives up to the
promise it made to the students, parents and schools over two decades
ago, and I am not the only one who thinks so. In fact, during the
recent National Governors' Association Conference here in Washington,
Maryland's Democrat Governor, Parris Glendening, stated, and I quote:
Several of the Governors were urging, I think with great merit, that
before we start these new programs, let's make sure that the ones that
are on the board, such as special education, are fully funded.
If the President would first fund the special education mandate, our
States and local school districts would have the funds to do the things
the President proposes such as building new schools, building more
computers, ensuring accountability. All of these things could be done
without new Federal mandates if we just would live up to the mandates
that we have already made. This Congress will continue to provide fair
Federal funding for special education so in the end we can improve
education for all of our children.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Moran) is having some of the similar problems back in his district. I
yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing
me the opportunity of raising this issue. It is an important one.
For almost a quarter of a century the Federal Government has assisted
in the education of our children with disabilities, and for almost that
same quarter of a century the Federal Government has failed to meet its
obligations.
The Individuals with Disability Education Act was first enacted in
1975. At that time, Congress promised to help States and local
districts pay for special education by funding 40 percent of the
national average per pupil expenditures. Unfortunately, the Federal
Government has never even been close to meeting this mandate.
Currently, Kansas gets 10 percent from the Federal Government for
funding special education. In actual dollar amounts, this means that
while combined State and local expenditures for special education equal
$420 million, the Federal Government provides the State with only $38
million. If the Federal Government would meet its obligation, Kansas
would receive approximately $160 million from the Federal Government
level for special education costs. At least $120 million would be freed
up by that change on the State and local level, would be freed up on
the State and local level for use for other education purposes.
A Kansas school on the average uses 17 percent of it budget for
special education. In my own community, the Hays School District
receives $146,540 in Federal funds. If IDEA was fully funded, the
school district would receive $750,686, an increase of over $600,000.
Schools in my area of Kansas cannot afford to put almost one-fifth of
their entire budget into this Federal mandate, special education.
Our schools are already financially strapped. Forced to pay the
Federal government's share of special education, the burden becomes so
great that other programs and needs are pushed aside. Schools are not
maintained properly, teachers do not get hired, and classroom materials
do not get purchased.
The schools, teachers and administrators in my districts are bending
over backwards to assist students with their special needs. They are
helping these children, but the Federal Government is not. The Federal
Government is not meeting its obligation to these
[[Page H767]]
children, nor is it meeting its obligation to all students in
elementary and secondary schools across the country.
The funding of special education is important to me. I have lived
with this issue during my 8 years as a member of the Kansas State
Legislature. For each and every year, we struggle to adequately fund
the education of our Kansas children. Every time I meet with
principals, teachers and other school administrators, the concern that
always comes up is the funding of IDEA. Kansans are skeptical about new
Federal education programs, especially since we do not adequately fund
the current programs. We do not understand why year after year more and
more federally-created initiatives receive funding when already
established programs are not adequately funded.
Last year, a resolution was introduced in this House encouraging the
President and Congress to work together to fully fund our obligations
under IDEA. That legislation passed the House, signaling that Congress
is ready to meet those obligations to local school districts and their
taxpayers.
The President's budget for the year 2000 provides only a level
funding of IDEA. During this same year, the number of children with
disabilities is expected to increase 123,000, while this means that the
administration's budget will, in reality, be a cut in IDEA from $702
per child in 1999 to $688 in the year 2000.
This is not right, it is not fair, and I call upon my colleagues to
meet our obligations to the schoolchildren across the country to fully
fund IDEA.
Mr. GOODLING. I thank the gentleman, and I now yield to the chairman
of the Committee on International Relations who wants to talk about
domestic affairs.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, this is an important domestic affair, and I
thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am pleased to rise today in
support of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of our
Committee on Education and the Workforce, Mr. Goodling, in his efforts
to raise awareness about the limited funding for Individuals with
Disabilities Act, IDEA.
In passing IDEA back in 1975, the Congress required the Federal,
State and local governments to share the cost of educating children
with disabilities. When enacted, the Federal Government was intended to
assume 40 percent of the national average per pupil expense for such
children. While Congress has authorized this amount since 1982,
regrettably the appropriation amount has never come close to the stated
goal of 40 percent.
Last year, it reached the highest level ever, thanks to the efforts
of our good chairman, Mr. Goodling, highest level ever at 12 percent;
and now the President is requesting the program be cut to 11 percent
for Fiscal Year 2000. This result has been an enormous unfunded mandate
impacting our State and local school systems, requiring them to absorb
the cost of educating students with disabilities; and in doing so local
school districts have had to divert funding away from other students
and other educational activities.
Mr. Speaker, this has had the unfortunate effect of draining school
budgets, decreasing the quality of education locally and unfairly
burdening our taxpayers. Local school districts are spending as much as
20 percent of their budgets to fund IDEA. Since the Republican party
took control of Congress, IDEA appropriations have jumped dramatically.
Since 1995, the funding levels have jumped 85 percent over prior
funding and have demonstrated our commitment to help the States and
local school districts provide public education of children with
disabilities.
I say it is now time for Congress to make good on its promise to
fully fund IDEA at the promised 40 percent. We can no longer allow the
States to try to make up the difference between the funds they have
been promised and the funds they actually receive from the Federal
Government.
In my own district, the schools are strongly feeling the negative
effects of the lack of IDEA funding. East Ramapo School District in
Rockland County, New York, should have received $2 million for IDEA,
but according to 1995 figures they only receive $398,000, a difference
of $1.6 million. Similarly, my own hometown, the Middletown City School
District in Orange County, New York, was expecting $1.6 million, but
actually only received $316,000, a difference of $1.3 million.
In addition to cutting IDEA funding, the President has refused to
recognize this strain on local school districts by not requesting any
increase in funds for grants to States for providing assistance to
educate children with disabilities. Moreover, the President wants to
create new Federal programs which can do some good things for the
Nation, but should not we be worrying about the programs we already
have but have never fully funded? We cannot continue to underfund IDEA
and impose this unfunded mandate on the States at the very same time
that we want to introduce new programs.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Congress to show that we are truly
interested in our Nation's children's education. By fully funding IDEA,
Congress will simultaneously ease the burden on our local school
budgets while assuring that students with disabilities receive 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 be able to hire more teachers, reduce
class size, invest in technology and, more importantly, will be able to
lower local property taxes for our constituents.
So, in closing, I urge my colleagues to fully support our
distinguished education chairman in his efforts to provide full funding
for the IDEA program.
{time} 1545
Mr. GOODLING. I thank the gentleman for participating. I realize that
the problem is on both sides of the aisle no matter what part of the
country they represent, and I am sure the gentleman from Maine (Mr.
Baldacci) can tell us about problems he is faced with on this same
issue.
Mr. BALDACCI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Goodling) for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr.
Bass) and the other Members for coordinating the hour and for
highlighting this issue. It is a very important issue, as we see not
only from Maine but throughout the country.
I am a strong supporter of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, or IDEA, and I strongly agree that every child deserves
the opportunity to benefit from a public education. We must do all we
can to ensure that every child reaches his or her fullest potential,
but we must also 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 IDEA was first enacted, Congress committed to nearly 40 percent
of the cost. However, the Federal Government has consistently fallen
short of this goal. As special education continues to rise in cost, we
fall further behind. Currently we are funding it at a little bit under
12 percent, and it was through the chairman's efforts and the efforts
of this Congress to ensure the efforts got to that particular level.
This is having a devastating impact upon our State and local budgets.
In Maine, the share of the State of special education funding has
skyrocketed over the past decade. For fiscal year 1999, Maine has
received approximately $20 million in Federal IDEA funds. This
represents a Federal share of only about 13 percent. In fact, the State
of Maine would be receiving an additional $39 million if we were
meeting our 40 percent funding goal. Rather than sharing 60 percent of
the burden, Maine's State and local property taxpayers are shouldering
nearly 90 percent of the cost of this program.
As I travel through my district, through one end of the State to the
other, this is the issue that is being most raised by parents, by
families and by educators and school board members. The things that I
am being told that they are cutting are art programs, they are cutting
music programs, eliminating field trips and cancelling extracurricular
activities in an effort to keep the budget balanced. Property taxpayers
simply cannot bear any more, and I know that the situation is similar
throughout the rest of the country.
[[Page H768]]
The bottom line is that the Federal Government needs to step up to
the plate, to meet its 40 percent commitment of special education
costs. I realize that we must act within the constraints of a balanced
budget, but I am confident that we can reach this goal. I want to thank
the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for his
attention to this issue, my colleague and friend from neighboring New
Hampshire, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) for his work,
and other Members, on this issue.
This has been through their tireless efforts that we have gotten this
funding increase and I appreciate it. I look forward to working with
the chairman and other Members.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr.
Bass) has been picking up the mantle that I have carried for so many
years, and I am sure he can tell us about similar experiences in the
area that he represents.
Mr. BASS. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for those comments.
Nobody has worked harder for educational priorities in this country
than the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). I am
a latecomer to this process but that does not in any way dampen the
ardor with which I feel that we should address the issue of full
funding of special education.
My good friend, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) stated it so
well when he commented about all the ways that full funding of
education can affect our communities, from property taxes to parents to
teachers, to school districts, to funding priorities. It will make a
tremendous difference.
I am standing here today on this side of the aisle to demonstrate
that full funding of special education is not a Republican issue, it is
not a liberal issue or a conservative issue. It is not a Democratic
issue. It is an issue that every single Member of Congress and every
single citizen of this country, most notably property taxpayers, should
be concerned with. Indeed, depending upon what school districts decide
to do, one can say that fully funding special education can be a form
of property tax relief for every property taxpayer in this country.
It returns the decisions for local spending for education to the
local level. If we fully fund special education in New Hampshire, the
total funding for special ed. will go from $19 million, as it is today
by the way, from $17 million, thanks to the efforts of our chairman
here, to $64 million. That is an increase of $45 million. That is real
money in New Hampshire for education spending. Those are funds that can
either be spent on school improvement, it can be spent on hiring of new
teachers, it can be spent on building construction, it can be spent on
property tax relief, it could be spent on curriculum improvement,
depending upon what the local school district in that area wants to do.
Indeed, as has been said by other colleagues of mine, this special
ed. issue is the largest unfunded Federal mandate probably in the
history of this country. We make 100 percent of the rules here in
Washington for special education. Sad to say, we fund 10 percent of the
cost. Ten percent is better than 5 percent, where it was 5 years ago.
In New Hampshire now almost 20 percent on average of the funding of
every single school district goes into special education. In some
school districts, it is more than 50 percent of the total school
budget.
Take a small town, if a single family moves into that town, they
could take up half of the entire budget of the town of 100 or 150
people. Think of what that does to that poor family. Think of what it
does to the relationship between those individuals and the rest of the
citizens of the town.
What we are talking about here is a promise that the Federal
Government made many years ago and has never fulfilled.
I want to urge my colleagues, as we deal with the budget here this
year, as we deal with the appropriations, as we make important and
critical decisions with respect to what we do with this cash surplus, I
agree that we should reduce the debt, that we should save Social
Security, that we have an obligation to meet our defense needs, but we
also have an obligation to meet this unfunded Federal mandate and
provide these resources to local school districts.
So I want to thank the chairman for having taken the lead in this
issue long before I was even in Congress, and I am glad that we have
scheduled this special order and I hope we continue to spread this
message loud and clear.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham) is married to an educator who has to deal with this issue.
I think she probably has to deal with this issue every day.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. It
is nice to let an appropriator come over and speak.
When I was subcommittee chairman, when the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) was my boss, we worked through this and
actually went to the White House and had it signed. It is not just a
funding problem. Alan Bersin, who was a Clinton appointee at one time,
is now the superintendent of San Diego city schools. I met with Alan
Bersin. I think he is trying to do a magnificent job but his number one
problem is special education and he is trying to sort it out.
There is a lady named Carolyn Nunes, the director of all special
education in San Diego County. She happens to be my sister-in-law, but
she said that teachers daily are being brutalized by trial lawyers.
They are teachers. They do not go to court. They do not handle that.
Especially when the Department of Education refuses to put out the
guidelines, they do not know how to operate, what to do and they are
getting brutalized every day, and we are losing those good teachers,
those special education teachers, out of the system.
So it is not just funding. It is the trial lawyers. It is the unions,
and we need the attack dogs called off so we can get support for our
teachers in a normal setting for the special education teachers and the
families. The trial lawyers are setting up these cottage organizations
and preying on the schools.
It is a united front, both Republican and Democrat. If we want to
help the children in all areas, then we need to do something about
this.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs.
Morella), who lives right next door, has similar problems, I am sure.
Mrs. MORELLA. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right, and I
thank him for yielding time to me.
Madam Speaker, it is a district that cares very much about education,
and they do care about the funding for IDEA. I rise to add my voice in
support of increased funding for programs for special need students
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and I thank the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for his leadership through
the years.
In 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children
Act, which mandated that all States provide free and appropriate
education for disabled children by 1978. This act, commonly referred to
as PL 94-142, established a Federal commitment to provide funding aid
at 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure to assist with the
excess costs of educating students with disabilities.
Over the last 24 years, Congress has not even come close to funding
IDEA at the 40 percent level. When the 104th Congress convened, the
Federal Government was only paying about 7 percent of the average per
pupil expenditure and I am pleased to say, as some of my colleagues
have already mentioned, that since 1995, when the Republicans took
control of Congress, funding for IDEA has risen more than 85 percent.
Presently we are providing only about 12 percent of the average per
pupil expenditure.
The Congressional Research Service estimates that it would take $14
billion to fully fund part B of IDEA. Congress only provided $4.3
billion for part B in the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill, and
this means that States and local school districts are left with an
unfunded mandate of about $10 billion. Yet, our President, in his
budget for fiscal year 2000, proposes only level funding for IDEA. This
means that if President Clinton has his way, the Federal Government
would actually cut the Federal share to 11 percent next year. So in no
way should we go along with this budget request, especially
[[Page H769]]
when the number of students with disabilities is expected to increase
by 123,000 by the year 2000.
The President's budget proposal would reduce the Federal
contributions for children with disabilities from $702 per child in
fiscal year 1999 to $688 per child in fiscal year 2000. Currently, I
believe that special education is suffering a backlash in America. Many
parents and some educators believe that resources for special education
are taking away funding for general education services. Most school
districts spend about 20 percent of their budgets on special ed., much
of which covers the unfunded Federal mandate.
In my own district, the Montgomery County School System receives a
little over $4 million. If IDEA were fully funded, as the chairman
would like to see and other Members of this House, Montgomery County
schools would receive more than $21 million. That would be an increase
of over $17 million. Montgomery County schools could certainly do a lot
with $17 million. The school system could concentrate on hiring high
quality teachers, training them, putting more technology in the
classrooms.
So I would like to commend, again, my colleague, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), who has been calling for increased funding
for IDEA since he became chairman of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce. It has been a passion with him and it has become contagious.
Certainly, I have heard his message and agree that if the Federal
Government begins to pay its fair share, local funds would be freed up,
allowing local schools to use their money for much needed education
services.
As a former teacher, I remember the days when only two and a half
decades ago that disabled children were unserved and underserved. We
cannot go back to that time. Before IDEA, many children with
disabilities had no future. IDEA has created a future for these
children with real opportunities, has been a success in human terms.
Children with disabilities are part of the American family. IDEA
provides children with disabilities the opportunity to fulfill their
dreams, to be accepted by everyone in their community, attend school,
live and work in regular environments. If we provide fair Federal
funding for special ed., we can better ensure that children with
disabilities will receive the best education possible.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. Castle), the subcommittee chair, who has to deal with elementary
secondary issues. He is also a former governor who has raised funds to
take care of unfunded mandates that have come from the Federal level.
Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman very much for
yielding. I do want to join him in support of what he is trying to do
here and what he has been trying to do for many, many years. He
deserves a great deal of congratulations on this.
The chart that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has
next to him, which shows the percentage funded at about 10 percent now,
it has been as high as 12 percent, I believe, when it should be 40
percent. It shows that big gap. That big gap basically is an area that
should be filled with Federal dollars and if it is, as has been stated
here so well, then we would free up the local dollars to do the very
things that we are talking about in Washington and that they are
talking about at the States and the local school districts, to hire
more teachers in order to get smaller classrooms, to fix up our
schools, to move in to the world of technology in the fastest and best
way possible and to do all the other things we have to do in education.
I did see this on a local level. Basically, the Federal Government
has come along with the courts and they have stated that all States
must provide a free and appropriate education to disabled children.
That is a very broad classification. The gentleman from New Hampshire
(Mr. Bass) and I were just discussing the various cases and some of the
expenses we can get into with children with disabilities. Perhaps some
of that has not been managed as well as possible but some of it is
extraordinarily expensive.
{time} 1600
We are expecting our State governments and our local school districts
to pick up that cost at a tremendous burden, and well beyond what they
should be. Well beyond the 60 percent that they were supposed to deal
with, and that is a tremendous burden at the State and local level as
they look at these particular problems.
We have simply failed to do what we have to do, I believe, as a
Federal Government. And I am not one who believes we can correct it all
at once. In fact, I am not sure what those dollars are. Maybe that is
the ultimate advocacy policy. But we are now, with the leadership of
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, on a trend where we are going up.
Unfortunately, the President has not met this in his budgeting
requirements from year to year. In order to supplant what they have to
do on a Federal basis, with the gentleman's leadership, we are doing
that. We have had broad representation here from all over the country
and from both political parties there is a great deal of interest in
getting this done.
There is no better way that the Federal Government could help with
the local problems of dealing with running of our schools. There is no
issue which is more important than education. Once we get beyond health
and welfare and security of our country, we need to deal with the
education of our young people. And if we were able to do this, we could
indeed give them the opportunity to do all of those things that the
President and so many educators talk about.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania has hit upon an issue which makes
tremendous sense in terms of what we should be doing at the Federal
Government level, and for that reason I stand here with him to try to
help in this effort to try to do this so that we can help education
every way possible.
If I could throw in a good word for education flexibility at the same
time, because they are not entirely unrelated, education flexibility is
going to have a hearing in our committee tomorrow. It is going to have
its markup next week in the committee, and hopefully will be on the
floor 2 weeks from now.
That is a program that all 50 governors have endorsed. All 50
governors do not endorse anything as far as I can see. This may be the
first time, as far as I know, in the history of the Governors
Association that this has happened. This gives the flexibility to take
a lot of Federal programs and be able to make decisions on how to spend
money. Full-day kindergarten, pre-kindergarten, whatever it may be.
They still have to meet all the commitments and there are all manner
of checkbacks to make sure that they are doing their job properly, and
the Secretary has to check off, but it enhances their ability to do
this. If we were able to supply the money to do this and give them the
flexibility to take the existing Federal programs which are out there
and be able to tailor it to their own community, those would be two
tremendous steps for education. It would take us light years ahead of
where we are now.
So, we are up to some very good things in the Committee on Education
and the Workforce under the leadership of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania going on right now, and I hope that we are all paying
attention to it. I hope that Members over in their offices, everybody
in the House, is listening to what we are doing here today, because
these are two steps that will take education way ahead of where it has
been before from a Federal point of view.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity of speaking
today and I congratulate him and I hope that we can get these done as
soon as possible.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I want to make sure that anyone who is
watching the program has heard what almost every Member has said. If we
move this red line up to the 40 percent, which is up here at the blue
line, property taxes have a good opportunity of going down because
property taxes are going up, up, up because the local district has a
Federal mandate. But the Federal Government does not put the money
there, so the local district has to raise the taxes in order to fund
the special education Federal mandate.
Another Member of the committee, another Pennsylvanian also, has the
same problems down close to Philly.
[[Page H770]]
Mr. GREENWOOD. Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that it is the
wisdom of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) that has
brought us to this point. I remember 2 years ago on the floor of the
House I came up to the gentleman and said, if we could do one thing for
education that would really make a difference, what would that be? He
said, ``Fully fund special education,'' and I have been a soldier in
that army ever since.
Madam Speaker, the times that I feel best about being a Member of
Congress are the times when, first off, we take serious actions that
actually affect real people in very real ways. And secondly, it is a
time when we kind of transcend the usual partisanship that prevails so
often in the House. We transcend the notion that for one of us to win
our agenda, somebody else has to lose and we have to do battle here for
competing interests.
Fully funding special education meets both of those tests. It meets
the test of really helping Americans who need it and also we can do it
in a win/win fashion. Let me elaborate on that.
We Republicans have a tendency to talk about dollars and cents too
much and in trying to figure out how to balance the budget and we
forget sometimes to talk about the human impacts. We are talking here
about 5.8 million children. Children with mental retardation. Children
with learning disabilities who have the heartbreak of going to school
and being excited and finding out that no matter how smart they are,
they cannot quite read up to speed right away. Children with physical
disabilities and children who have difficulty hearing. Children who
have difficulties with speech.
Madam Speaker, we have the opportunity and we have the program under
IDEA to help change the lives of these precious children. By fully
funding IDEA, we get to make sure that the Federal Government and the
Congress lives up to its obligation.
But secondly, this is an issue that enables us to transcend the win/
lose scenario that often prevails. This is an opportunity for us to
share a broad agenda on education so that my colleagues in the City of
Philadelphia, who are particularly worried about school construction
and think that should be our priority, well, we say to them, just
imagine if the Philadelphia School District or the New York School
District or the Chicago or the L.A. School District has fully funded
from the Federal Government their special education mandate. They would
be rolling in millions of dollars to build schools.
My colleagues who want to focus on technology and computers for the
classroom, the same thing occurs. All of those extra unbudgeted dollars
could go to that. And for those school districts that want to reduce
class size, here is the golden opportunity. We take the special ed.
burden off of their backs and let them use the surplus for reducing
class size. And if communities want to reduce taxes in their district,
the opportunity is here to do that.
This is what my kids call a ``no-brainer.'' This is an obvious thing
to do. And the question occurs, well, then why would we not all
immediately agree and why would the President not agree? When Secretary
Riley, the Secretary of Education, was before our committee, I asked
the Secretary, ``Would you like to see us fully fund special
education?'' He said, ``Yes, I wish we could do that.'' And I said,
``Well, do you advocate that?'' He said ``No, I do not advocate that we
do that.'' He just wishes that we do it? Why is that?
Madam Speaker, I think the answer is that with a bureaucracy as big
as the Federal Department of Education, every little division in there
has to have its pet program. And I think the President is at fault to
some extent in trying to be all things to all people in the education
arena, so that he creates nine new programs, expands the plethora of
programs that we have, and now we do too many things with too little
effort. We are forcing the school districts to beg for little pots of
money, targeted money specialized with all kinds of strings attached,
instead of trusting the school districts to take the special education
funding and free their budgets up to do what is important in their
school district.
I think we can do that. I think we should do that. It is the right
thing to do for these children. It is the right thing to do to engender
a spirit of bipartisanship across the aisle and to work cooperatively
with the President. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle in the House and the Senate and the President will understand the
wisdom of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) in this
regard.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
for his cooperation. And I know that we have the same problems up
around West Point, I think, in New York. I recognize the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
Mrs. KELLY. Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) on his leadership, not only on the
committee but on this particular issue.
When I first decided to run for Congress, I want to echo my colleague
from Pennsylvania who said he asked what we could do for the schools. I
called a friend of mine, having been the local president of the local
PTA, I called a friend of mine who was active with school boards and I
said, ``Judy, what do we need to do for the schools?'' She said,
``Fully fund IDEA. That is the kind of help we truly need.''
So, Madam Speaker, today I rise to urge my colleagues in the House to
make the 106th Congress the Congress that finally lives up to the
commitment to the American people and the students and the taxpayers to
fully fund IDEA.
Over 20 years ago, Congress passed a law that pledged that the
Federal Government would provide 40 percent of the funding to assist
school districts, and we can see it there on the chart, as we can see
the big funding gap. We promised we would deliver 40 percent of that
funding.
For the last 24 years, the Federal Government has failed to live up
to this commitment. It is long past time that we correct this problem,
because it represents a major unfunded mandate on our local taxpayers.
Prior to 1995, Congress' commitment to IDEA was only 7 percent, far
short of the 40 percent commitment we needed. Since 1995, we have
boosted IDEA funding by 85 percent, which is a major step in the right
direction, but we still have a lot to do to meet our obligation to the
schools.
Unfortunately, the administration's budget tries to derail our
progress. According to the budget that was submitted at the beginning
of this month, the administration reduces funding for IDEA from the
current level of 12 percent to 11 percent, nowhere near the 40 percent
that Congress years ago promised our local schools.
As a former teacher, I am well aware of how hard it is for school
districts to make the tough choices in their budget. It is estimated
that school districts spend approximately 20 percent of their budget to
cover the unpaid Federal share of education costs. If we were able to
fulfill our obligation, that would leave 20 percent of every school's
budget in this Nation to be used for other purposes like staff
training, curriculum enhancement, hire more teachers, do the things
that we know we need to do to give our children high quality education.
As the gentleman pointed out, there is a possibility that schools can
also return that because they have to make that money up in property
taxes. The overwhelming amount of their budget comes from local
property taxes. By the Federal Government leaving unfunded the three-
quarters of the cost of the mandated program, that is a terrible burden
on all of us in every school district. With full Federal funding, those
local governments can choose.
In my congressional district in New York in one school district, the
Peekskill School District, they receive only $148,394. If IDEA were
fully funded in Peekskill, the district would receive $760,371. That is
a difference of $612,000, a burden that local taxpayers in the City of
Peekskill have to bear.
The Congressional Research Service has estimated that $14 billion is
needed to fully fund Part B of IDEA. In fiscal year 1999, the
appropriation for Part B was $4.3 billion, leaving the State and local
governments to make up $10 billion.
Madam Speaker, one of the most important issues for Americans today
is education. We all know the importance of a quality education and it
is time we do everything in our power to ensure
[[Page H771]]
that our students get the best education possible. An unfunded mandate
of $10 billion impedes the ability of the individual districts to use
their budget for other purposes.
As we move into this year's budget cycle, we have to remember the
importance of this program and hold true to the promise, our promise
that Congress made so many years ago to fully fund IDEA.
Madam Speaker, I stand 100 percent behind the commitment of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). I applaud him and I thank
him for letting me speak on this important issue.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I know that the New Jersey problems are
far greater than 2 minutes, but I hope the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Frelinghuysen) can explain most of them in that time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania for his leadership and for arranging this special order. I
met with my congressional colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats,
yesterday with New Jersey's governor, Christie Todd Whitman. She noted
that if the Federal share of IDEA was fully funded, our State of New
Jersey would receive over $300 million more a year than we do now, and
New Jersey received approximately $72 million in 1999.
To pay for IDEA, money, I think as we know, has been diverted from
other programs. Too often, many of the towns throughout our Nation,
most particularly certainly in my State, municipalities have been
forced to raise property taxes.
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be working with the gentleman
from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and
other congressional colleagues to promote full funding of the Federal
obligation. I am here today to work towards that effort and to salute
the gentleman for his leadership.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I thank all who participated. The
message for the President is very clear. Before we talk about any other
new programs which may become unfunded mandates in a short matter of
time, let us talk about funding the big Federal mandate which is
special education.
{time} 1615
If you did that, for instance, St. Louis City would receive an extra
$8 million; in California, West Contra Coast Unified, $6 million; in
Michigan, in Genessee school district, an additional $14 million; New
York City District 23, an additional $170 million; and it goes on and
on and on.
That means that the local school district must raise the funds to
support our Federal mandate for special education. That 40 percent of
excess costs means that they must pick up the tab, and, therefore, they
cannot do preventative maintenance. They cannot reduce class size. They
cannot take care of teacher preparation. They cannot buy the materials
and the supplies needed. They cannot introduce modern technology. They
cannot do reading readiness program. They must raise the money locally
to fund this special education mandate.
So, again, Mr. President, we call on you to help us, help us meet
this mandate so that local school districts do not have to continually
raise their property taxes and then can only fund a very small
percentage of their students because of the Federal mandate.
We have a big job to do. We have come a long way in the last 3 or 4
years, but we have a long way to go. I would call on every Member of
Congress. I realize it can become open-ended. I realize that we have to
make sure that there is not over identification because there is at the
present time. I realize that we have to zero in on what constitutes
special education because it could become open-ended and we could never
get to the promise land of the 40 percent.
But, boy, we have a long way to go. We have to go from 12 percent to
40 percent just to give the kind of relief that is needed back there so
all children, all children can get a quality education.
So I thank everyone who participated today and ask all Members of
Congress to join in this crusade that I have carried on for 24 long
years, to make sure we put our money where our mandate was.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I'm surprised that a
President who stresses the importance of strengthening our educational
systems has actually proposed through his FY 1999 budget to level fund
the only underfunded federal mandate in education--The Individuals with
Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). In fact, considering that the
number of children with disabilities is projected to increase by
123,000 from 1999 to 2000, the President's budget request actually cuts
funding for children with disabilities from $702 per child in FY 1999
to $688 per child in FY 2000.
Under IDEA, the federal government is to provide funding aid at 40%
of the average per pupil expenditure to assist with the excess costs of
education students with disabilities. However, the appropriations for
IDEA have not come close to reaching the 40% level. Federal funding has
never risen above 12% of the cost of educating these children. Before
the 104th Congress when Democrats controlled the House, the federal
government was only paying about 7% of the average per pupil
expenditure. We are now paying 12% of these costs. That means that
since Republicans took control of Congress, IDEA appropriations have
risen by 85%! Now, we are not up to the 40% promised; however, we are
fighting to further increase federal funds for this very important
program while the President requests no funding increases.
In his FY 1999 budget, the President does propose creating new
federal programs in education. It is my feeling that before we create
new programs we must ensure that the federal government lives up to its
promises made to students, parents, and schools by increasing funding
for a program already on the books that is terribly underfunded. When
the federal government begins to pay its fair share of IDEA costs,
local funds will be freed up, enabling local schools to hire and train
high quality teachers, reduce class size, build and renovate
classrooms, and invest in technology.
In my district, the Catawba County schools, for example, receive
$712,800 from the federal government for IDEA. If the federal
government paid its promised share, this school district would receive
$3,652,387, an increase of $2,939,600. This year the state of North
Carolina receives $58,238,500 for IDEA. If fully funded, my state would
receive $298,416,600, a difference of $240,178,100.
It is imperative that we increase funding for this program. I'm
disappointed that the President has not joined with us in this
endeavor, however, I hope that he will begin to see that increased
funding will not only help IDEA students, but all students who see
school resources diminishing daily and the quality of their education
being reduced. Let's all work together to fully fund IDEA so that out
children are not shortchanged a quality education.
____________________