[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.

                          ____________________