[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 63 (Tuesday, May 4, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H2563-H2570]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     URGING CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT TO FULLY FUND INDIVIDUALS WITH 
                       DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 84) urging the Congress and the 
President to fully fund the Federal Government's obligation under the 
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                             H. Con. Res 84

       Whereas all children deserve a quality education, including 
     children with disabilities;
       Whereas Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. 
     Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 334 F. Supp. 1247 (E. Dist. Pa. 
     1971), and Mills v. Board of Education of the District of 
     Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (Dist. D. C. 1972), found that 
     children with disabilities are guaranteed an equal 
     opportunity to an education under the 14th amendment to the 
     Constitution;
       Whereas the Congress responded to these court decisions by 
     passing the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 
     1975 (enacted as Public Law 94-142), now known as the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 
     et seq.), to ensure a free, appropriate public education for 
     children with disabilities;
       Whereas the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     provides that the Federal, State, and local governments are 
     to share in the expense of educating children with 
     disabilities and commits the Federal Government to pay up to 
     40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure for 
     children with disabilities;
       Whereas the Federal Government has provided only 9, 11, and 
     12 percent of the maximum State grant allocation for 
     educating children with disabilities under the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act in the last 3 years, 
     respectively;
       Whereas the national average cost of educating a special 
     education student ($13,323) is more than twice the national 
     average per pupil cost ($6,140);
       Whereas research indicates that children who are 
     effectively taught, including effective instruction aimed at 
     acquiring literacy skills, and who receive positive early 
     interventions demonstrate academic progress, and are 
     significantly less likely to be referred to special 
     education;
       Whereas the high cost of educating children with 
     disabilities and the Federal Government's failure to fully 
     meet its obligation under the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act stretches limited State and local education 
     funds, creating difficulty in providing a quality education 
     to all students, including children with disabilities;
       Whereas, if the appropriation for part B of the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) 
     exceeds $4,924,672,200 for a fiscal year, the State funding 
     formula will shift from one based solely on the number of 
     children with disabilities in the State to one based on 85 
     percent of the children ages 3 to 21 living in the State and 
     15 percent based on children living in poverty in the State, 
     enabling States to undertake good practices for addressing 
     the learning needs of more children in the regular education 
     classroom and reduce over identification of children who may 
     not need to be referred to special education;
       Whereas the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act has 
     been successful in achieving significant increases in the 
     number of children with disabilities who receive a free, 
     appropriate public education;
       Whereas the current level of Federal funding to States and 
     localities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act is contrary to the goal of ensuring that children with 
     disabilities receive a quality education; and
       Whereas the Federal Government has failed to appropriate 40 
     percent of the national average per pupil expenditure per 
     child with a disability as required under the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act to assist States and 
     localities to educate children with disabilities: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That--
       (1) the Congress and the President--
       (A) should, working within the constraints of the balanced 
     budget agreement, give programs under the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) the 
     highest priority among Federal elementary and secondary 
     education programs by meeting the commitment to fund the 
     maximum State grant allocation for educating children with 
     disabilities under such Act prior to authorizing or 
     appropriating funds for any new education initiative; and
       (B) should meet the commitment described in subparagraph 
     (A) while retaining the commitment to fund existing Federal 
     education programs that increase student achievement; and
       (2) if a local educational agency chooses to utilize the 
     authority under section 613(a)(2)(C)(i) of the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act to treat as local funds up to 
     20 percent of the amount of funds the agency receives under 
     part B of such Act that exceeds the amount it received under 
     that part for the previous fiscal year, then the agency 
     should use those local funds to provide additional funding 
     for any Federal, State, or local education program.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, this is an old topic for me, 25 years, 
speaking on the same subject, trying to encourage the Congress to put 
their money where their mouth was 24 years ago, when school districts 
were promised that if they participated in the Federal Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act they would receive 40 percent of the excess 
cost in order to fund special education programs to educate a child 
with a disability, which may be two, three, five, ten, twenty times 
greater than to educate a non-disabled student.
  Obviously, that was not done. We got up to 6 percent. In the last 3 
years, fortunately, we have been able to get huge increases, which gets 
us all the way up to 12 percent. And, hopefully, by the end of this 
year, it will be 15 percent, and we still have a long way to go.
  What does it mean when we do not fund what we promised? It means that 
the local school districts must raise millions of dollars in order to 
fund a mandate that came from the Federal level, a mandate if they 
decided to participate.
  I realize that no matter how much money we put up, we can never fully 
fund even our 40 percent unless we deal with the number of people who 
are placed in special education programs, many of which only have a 
reading problem and, therefore, really should not be there.

[[Page H2564]]

  I hope that some of the early childhood programs that we have put 
into effect on the Federal level will help eliminate those who get into 
special ed simply because of those reading problems.
  So, again, I am here today asking, as I have asked every year for 25 
years, for Congress and the President to put their money where their 
mouth was before we talk about funding new programs.
  Center cities particularly stand to get all sorts of money to deal 
with pupil-teacher ratio, to deal with maintenance of their buildings. 
All we have to do is get that 40 percent of excess costs back to those 
local school districts and then they can help all students. That is 
what this is all about, helping all students, not pitting one against 
another.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring House Concurrent Resolution 84 to 
the Floor. This Concurrent Resolution urges full funding of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) before creating and 
funding any new education initiatives. The co-sponsors and I believe 
that the Federal government cannot continue to ignore the commitment it 
made over 24 years ago to children with disabilities.
  At the time IDEA was first enacted, Congress committed that the 
Federal government would provide States and local school districts with 
40% of the average per pupil expenditure to assist with the excess 
costs of educating students with disabilities. Where are we on that 
commitment? We are at 12% and it is this high only because Republicans 
have insisted and fought for increased Federal funds for IDEA. Since 
Republicans took over control of Congress in 1995, funding for IDEA has 
risen over 85%.
  Failing to live up to our IDEA funding commitment fails our students, 
parents, schools, and communities.
  Where do we stand on IDEA spending right now? Here's what we know 
about the President's thoughts on IDEA funding. Under his budget 
request, President Clinton wants to cut spending for students with 
disabilities from $702 per child in FY 1999 to $688 per child in FY 
2000. We also know Secretary of Education Riley's top priorities. 
According to an article in the Washington Post of April 20, 1999, 
increasing funding for IDEA does not make the top three priorities of 
the Department.
  The Committee on Education and the Workforce stated its funding 
priority quite clearly. In a bipartisan vote of 38-4, the Committee 
approved this resolution to give IDEA programs the highest priority 
among Federal elementary and secondary education programs.
  What will giving IDEA the highest priority in Federal funding for K-
12 education programs do for students and schools? It will allow 
schools to increase and improve services for all students, including 
students with disabilities.
  Meeting the Federal IDEA funding commitment benefits every student by 
allowing the local school to fund the services needed by all students--
everyone wins. Once the Federal government begins to pay its fair share 
under IDEA, local schools will no longer be forced to redirect local 
funds to cover the unpaid Federal 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.
  Every student will benefit, regardless of whether the student 
receives services under Title I, limited English proficiency programs, 
or IDEA.
  We must fully fund IDEA before Washington creates new education 
programs. We do not need to spend our limited education resources on 
new, unproven Federal programs. Let's first live up to the promises we 
made over 24 years ago and fund a program that we know works.
  House Concurrent Resolution 84 urges Congress to fully fund IDEA 
while maintaining its commitment to existing Federal education 
programs. We do not want to take funds from the Federal education 
programs currently serving students. However, year in and year out 
under both Democrat and Republican control, Congress must set 
priorities and we believe that funding the federal commitment to IDEA 
must come before funding new untested programs.
  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.
  I urge everyone to support this important concurrent Resolution. 
Congress must fulfill its commitment to assist States and localities 
with educating children with disabilities.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the beginning of my remarks that I am 
going to support this resolution.
  However, the resolution that is before the House today is not as 
simple as it may seem. Unfortunately, this resolution tends to place 
the needs of disabled children and nondisabled children in conflict 
rather than to seek to recognize our commitment to all children.
  Full funding for the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act is a 
goal which is vitally important to the education of the disabled 
children of our Nation and one that I have been committed to since I 
arrived in Congress 23 years ago. We need to provide 40 percent of the 
excess cost of educating a child with a disability, and this should be 
done and this should be one of our top priorities for Federal education 
funding.
  In fact, as my chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling) knows, I have joined him and many other of my colleagues in 
demanding additional funding for special education so we can meet this 
goal now rather than later.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has been a real and 
long time leader for full funding of IDEA. I can recall several years 
ago, when we both served on the Committee on the Budget, the courage he 
took to be the one Member over there who joined me in trying to secure 
more funding for this program.
  Supporting the needs of disabled children and providing them with a 
chance to become productive, participating members of society is 
extremely important, and there has been no greater champion than myself 
in this issue.
  In fact, many years before the passage of 94-142, I, as one of its 
principal authors, helped enact Michigan's special education law. My 
commitment and experience in this issue has spanned three decades of my 
career in public service, and I understand and support the need to 
fully fund IDEA.
  However, in our desire to provide full funding for IDEA, we should 
not do so at the expense of other Federal education programs or pit the 
needs of disabled children against those of nondisabled children. The 
resolution which we are considering today tends to do that, accentuate 
the politics of division rather than recognizing what has become a 
bipartisan goal, the full funding of IDEA.
  The issue of IDEA funding is not a Democratic or Republican concern. 
There has been strong bipartisan support for substantial increases in 
funding for IDEA in recent appropriations bills, and I strongly believe 
this will continue.
  In the past 3 years we have provided sizable increases for both IDEA 
and other Federal education initiatives, recognizing the need to build 
a total Federal commitment to education. IDEA alone has received over 
$1.5 billion in additional funding since 1996. The growth and funding 
for all Federal education programs that have a positive effect on 
student achievement should be the goal we set our sights on regardless 
of party or parochial interest.
  It is my hope that we commit ourselves to the spirit of cooperation 
on the issue of educational funding.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of my colleagues to this 
headline. It says they are going to cut 60 non-tenured positions in my 
hometown, in my hometown paper.
  The reason for that is that we are going to have to increase 
classroom size and reduce our gifted and talented programs because we 
cannot access dollars from any of the other Federal education programs. 
Specifically, we cannot access the dollars from the President's new 
initiative for new teachers and smaller classes. And that is a problem 
with our existing school funding programs.
  So what we can do? What we can do is fully fund special education, 
living up to the commitment that Congress has made. What happens if we 
do that? First of all, it is going to take the pressure off of local 
taxpayers in my home State, property taxpayers. But, more important 
than that, it will provide more funding for the general fund budget for 
education.

[[Page H2565]]

  By underfunding special education, we are forcing schools to go take 
money from their general education account and put it into their 
special education account.

                              {time}  1430

  By fully funding special education, we will reverse that process. It 
will address the area of greatest uncertainty and the area of greatest 
cost to most of our school districts. I would urge my colleagues to 
support this resolution.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, like so many of all of my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, I am hearing constantly from parents and 
educators at home about the importance of meeting the Federal 
commitment to fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 
IDEA. Parents of children with special needs are absolutely frantic 
about their children's access to public education. They often feel like 
the schools are giving them the runaround, but schools are equally as 
worried about having the resources to do the job that they need to do. 
And the parents of students without special needs are more than fearful 
because they believe that special needs students are taking precious 
resources away from their children.
  This cannot continue. Congress must step up to our responsibility, 
and we should do it this year while the economy is good and we have a 
surplus. If we cannot do it now, we never will.
  But we should not be pitting one education program against another as 
this particular resolution does. When we do that, we pit students 
against students, parents against schools, and we pit schools against 
each other.
  However, there is a way that we can in this Congress meet the Federal 
commitment to fund IDEA. We can do this while continuing our support 
for other important education programs. We can do this by using some of 
the funds that have been set aside under the Republicans' balanced 
budget agreement for tax cuts to fund IDEA.
  The balanced budget agreement sets aside $778 billion for a 10-year 
tax cut. We would only need $11 billion additional in funds to fully 
fund IDEA this year.
  When this resolution was marked up in the committee, I offered an 
amendment that urged Congress to fund IDEA before funding tax cuts. It 
lost on a partisan vote. 100 percent of the Democrats voted for it; 100 
percent of the Republicans voted against it.
  While I realize that no amendment can be considered on the floor this 
afternoon, I do want to point out that we can fully fund IDEA and we 
can do it without taking away from other education programs. Once 
again, I urge my colleagues to put education for our children with 
disabilities before tax cuts. Work with me. We can fully fund IDEA 
without taking funds from other important education programs.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, as I go around my district in southwest 
Missouri and ask school administrators or teachers what is their 
biggest problem with the Federal Government, I always get the same 
answer, IDEA. And so now I ask what is their second biggest problem 
with the Federal Government, and I get a variety of answers, but there 
is no question their biggest challenge is in the way IDEA is funded, 
the way IDEA is administered, the way that the rules and regulations 
are set up.
  We cannot do anything today about the administration and the rules 
and regulations. That needs to be in another, bigger debate later. It 
needs to happen. But we can do something about the funding.
  In 1974, when this program was conceptualized and put into law, 
Congress said they would pay 40 percent of the cost. Twenty years 
later, we were paying 6 percent of the cost. In the last 4 years, we 
have been able to double that, to 12 percent, so we are headed in the 
right direction. But we need to keep our word.
  This is about the Federal Government, not just conceptualizing some 
new obligation but paying their share and keeping their commitment to 
make those programs work.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer) a member of the committee.
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee) for yielding me this time.
  I want to, first of all, preface my comments by indicating to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) that I intend to vote for 
this resolution. I believe that there has been a sufficient gap between 
what the Federal Government has promised with respect to funding 
individuals with disabilities and what we have actually paid for.
  When I am in town meetings in my home State of Indiana, IDEA problems 
come up over and over and over again. Concerned parents, very upset 
about getting their children a sufficient and fair education, getting 
their children opportunities to learn in the classroom and having the 
Federal Government come through with the funding. So I will support the 
Goodling resolution.
  There has also been a three-part series on the difficulties in 
special education done by the Washington Post here in Washington, D.C. 
I would ask at the appropriate time unanimous consent for these 
articles to be entered into the Record to show that we need to do more 
in special education.
  But I do have two concerns about this resolution. One is that we do 
not pay for this resolution by taking money away from other good 
education programs, that we need to fund Head Start, that we need to 
fund Pell grants, that we need to make sure that we are not taking 
money away from education. And this should come from the Republican 10 
percent across-the-board tax cut that everybody knows is not going to 
be out there, anyway.
  And, secondly, I just end on the note of, there was a battle cry in 
1988 of ``Where's the Beef?'' Where is the substance? This is a 
resolution. This does not mean anything yet. Let us get a bill. Where 
is the bill? Let us go forward with a bill that funds IDEA for our 
children and for our parents.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting sometimes that we do not 
read the legislation since it says, ``should meet the commitment 
described in subparagraph (A) while retaining the commitment to fund 
existing Federal education programs.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle), the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I also rise in support of H. Con. Res. 84, the Individuals with 
Disabilities Act.
  Let me tell Members that the meat is there now. The bottom line is 
that we are obligated by statute to pay 40 percent of the education of 
those with disabilities in this country. We have unfortunately in this 
Congress over the years not gotten anywhere near that level. In fact, 
we are probably about 11 percent right now with about a $14 billion 
deficit that we have to make up.
  Some people have gotten up and they have said, and I can understand 
it and I do not disagree with this, that we cannot do this at the 
expense of other programs. I will tell my colleagues that we will not 
do it at the expense of other programs. I am talking about Federal 
programs.
  But if we paid that money into the local governments, into the local 
school districts, then they would be able to free up the money which 
they presently have to build schools, to hire more teachers and to help 
with all of the other programs, because they are funding the deficit 
which we created by mandating that they do this. We have an obligation 
to educate everybody in America if we possibly can. This legislation 
would do it. We should pass it.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
  (Ms. RIVERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, Clement Atlee once said, ``Democracy means 
government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop 
people from talking.'' I agree.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop talking about special education 
funding. It is time to do something.

[[Page H2566]]

  In 1972, the Federal Government did the right thing by enacting a 
national guarantee for education for special needs children. Before 
this action, far too many handicapped children never saw the inside of 
a schoolhouse.
  As someone who served on a local board of education for nearly a 
decade, I know the positive impact of the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act. But as someone who struggled to pass local school 
district budgets, I also know that the Federal Government has never 
come close to funding at the promised level of 40 percent. In fact, it 
has been mentioned before, we barely reached 12 percent. In fact, the 
National Association of State Boards of Education point out that 
underfunding since the day the bill was passed totals $146 billion that 
was promised to local public schools over the last 22 years that was 
never delivered upon.
  Schools need real help, not rhetorical soothing, real help. This 
proposal, the one we have before us, will not do anything. It is a 
sense of Congress, an opinion without the force of law. A sense of 
Congress will not pay teachers' salaries. It will not buy textbooks. It 
will not put school buses on the street. In short, it will not address 
any of the very real financial pressures facing America's schools every 
day.
  This has been an issue for me from the beginning of my time in 
Congress. I have introduced bills and amendments to fully fund IDEA to 
the promised 40 percent. It is highly ironic to me that those proposals 
have repeatedly been voted down or tabled, in some cases, by Members 
who are today promoting what is no more than a reaffirmation of the 
1972 promise.
  Someone mentioned earlier, where is the real bill? Here is the real 
bill. I will soon be introducing this bill to fund IDEA at the promised 
40 percent. I would invite every Member who has taken to the floor 
today to talk about the importance of meeting this obligation to 
actually act and become a cosponsor. I would invite all Members who 
recognize the value of IDEA and the value of keeping promises to join 
me in cosponsoring this bill.
  This is real action, not soothing rhetoric, real action. Mr. Speaker, 
it is time to stop talking about special education.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman).
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this measure. I 
commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce, in his efforts to obtain full funding 
for individuals with disabilities.
  In adopting this measure back in 1975, IDEA, Congress required the 
Federal, State and local governments to share the cost of educating 
children with disabilities. When enacted, the Federal Government was to 
assume 40 percent of the national average per pupil. It was never done. 
We need to fund this properly. We are only funding it for 11 percent 
this year. It is time we acted. I urge my colleagues to support this 
measure.
  Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 84 and I commend 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the Chairman of the Education and 
Workforce Committee, Mr. Goodling and his efforts to obtain full 
funding for the individuals With Disabilities Act (IDEA).
  In adopting IDEA in 1975, Congress required the Federal, State and 
local governments to share the cost of educating children with 
disabilities. When enacted, the Federal Government was to assume 40 
percent of the national average per pupil expense for such children.
  While Congress has authorized this amount since 1982, the 
appropriation has never come close to the stated goal of 40 percent. 
Last year, it reached the highest level ever at 12 percent and now the 
President has requested that the program be cut to 11 percent for 
fiscal year 2000.
  The result has been an enormous unfunded mandate on State and local 
school systems to absorb the cost of educating students with 
disabilities. In doing so, local school districts must divert funding 
away form other students and education activities. This has had the 
unfortunate effect of draining school budgets, decreasing the quality 
of education and unfairly burdening the taxpayers. Local school 
districts are spending as much as 20 percent of their budgets to fund 
IDEA.
  Since 1995, educational funding levels have jumped 85 percent and 
have demonstrated Congress' commitment to help States and local school 
districts provide public education to children with disabilities. It is 
now time for this Congress to make good on its promise to fully fund 
IDEA at 40 percent. We can no longer let the States try to make up the 
difference between the funds they have been promised and the funds that 
they actually receive.
  In my district, the schools are definitely feeling the negative 
effects of the lack of IDEA funding. East Ramapo School District in 
Rockland County should receive $2.04 million for IDEA but according to 
1995 figures, they only saw $398,000. That is a difference of $1.6 
million. Similarly, the Middletown City School District in Orange 
County was expecting $1.6 million but actually only saw $316,000. A 
difference of $1.3 million.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Congress to show that they are truly 
committed to our Nation's children's education. By fully funding IDEA, 
Congress will simultaneously ease the burden on local school budgets 
while ensuring 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 hire more teachers, reduce 
class size, invest in technology and even lower local property taxes 
for our constituents.
  I proudly stand here today in support of H. Con. Res. 84 and I hope 
that this Congress will keep its word and fully fund the Individuals 
With Disability Act.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a member of the committee.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding me this time.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and other members of the committee 
for bringing forth legislation which will in fact put more Federal 
funding and more emphasis on education. The presentation of this 
resolution marks an acknowledgment that all aspects of government, 
Federal, State and local, must step up to the plate and support 
education.
  What is particularly notable is that the majority, which in the past 
has not been willing to do that, which has in fact been stepping back 
and saying that the Federal Government should get out of education, now 
is stepping forward and agreeing with us that, in fact, we all must 
participate.
  The Constitution is what obligates people to fund IDEA. There is not 
a Federal legislative mandate. The Constitution told States that they 
have the obligation to fund this program, and the Federal Government 
stepped forward and made an offer to assist, and we said we would do it 
to the extent that we could, hopefully up to 40 percent.
  We are moving toward that goal. This resolution entitles us to move 
even more so forward. But in no way should we be pitting one education 
program against another. We still need more teachers and smaller 
classrooms. We need more technology. And we need more teacher 
development. We need to make sure that we do this.
  I thank the chairman for accepting the language into this bill that 
says that local communities that have funds freed up by virtue of 
additional Federal funding must keep that money in educational programs 
so that in fact Federal, State and local governments all participate in 
smaller classrooms, more teachers, teacher development, technology and 
all the needs of education.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I can only say it was awful lonely for 20 years in the 
minority trying to get some funding for IDEA.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McKeon), another subcommittee chair.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker I would like to join my colleagues in support 
of H. Con. Res. 84 which calls on the President and Congress to fulfill 
our obligation to our Nation's neediest children, those with 
disabilities.
  In my home State of California, the cost of educating an estimated 
600,000 children with disabilities is a staggering $3.4 billion, but 
the Federal Government contributes only $400 million,

[[Page H2567]]

which translates to only 11.7 percent of the total cost. 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 promises it 
made to the students, parents and schools over 2 decades ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one who thinks so. I recently met with 
all of the superintendents in my district. Each and every one of them 
stated that we must increase funding for IDEA before we create a new 
Federal program. If the President would first fund a special education 
mandate, our States and local school districts would have the funds to 
do the things the President proposes.
  This Congress will continue to work to provide fair Federal funding 
for special education so in the end we can improve education for all 
our children, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), another subcommittee chair.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, in our markup we heard from the Democrats 
that this bill, if enacted, would rob Peter to pay Paul. A more 
accurate way for the Democrats to look at this resolution is from the 
perspective of paying what we promised Paul before we begin to give new 
money and make other promises to Peter. We simply cannot neglect the 
fact that we promised to help pay for the education of these special-
needs children and put scarce funds into other programs that do not 
have the same mandate.
  It is also important to note that if the Federal Government had begun 
funding IDEA appropriately, schools would have more State and local 
money freed up to handle local school demands like teacher/pupil ratios 
and school construction.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Martinez), a member of the committee.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, I was listening to 
the debate, and I had not really planned to speak on this, but I think 
we lose touch with reality here.
  Now the reality is that the responsibility for educating these 
children is really not the Federal Government's; it is the local school 
district's responsibility.
  The reason that the Federal Government got into it at all was because 
there was a court case brought that proved that the local people were 
not educating those children with disabilities because it was so much 
more expensive to do so.
  Now I understand that. So when the Federal Government got into it, 
they made a commitment that they would fund 40 percent of that extra 
cost of educating these children with disabilities. I do not like to 
call it disabilities; I think it is more challenges to them. It is 
disabilities in our mind, Mr. Speaker.
  But the fact is that when we did, we made that commitment, and, like 
a lot of people here, I have felt badly that we have never lived up to 
that commitment. But we never lived up to the commitment of full 
funding Head Start or full funding a lot of other programs that are 
doing equally responsible jobs.
  But remember this, that the responsibility for educating children 
lies at the local level. Our colleagues on the other side constantly 
remind us of that, that that responsibility lies there so the decisions 
should be made there. So how about the decisions to funding the cost of 
educating these children? They did not want to make that decision, so 
we made it for them. We said that they will educate those children.
  Then I think magnanimously we offered to fund 40 percent of it. Now 
all of a sudden that becomes a burden to us. Not that I disagree with 
the fact that we ought to live up to that commitment because we made 
it; because we do not want to be people who go back on promises as 
elected officials and leaders of the communities.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the idea, and I will vote for the 
resolution, but I am really disturbed by the constant reference to the 
fact that somehow or another this is the Federal government's 
responsibility. It is a responsibility the government has accepted for 
itself, but originally it was not. It was local.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Correcting the facts, yes, the court said all will be educated. 
However the Federal Government said: Do it our way and we will give you 
40 percent of excess costs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Bass).
  (Mr. BASS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution before us 
today which is essentially the same as one which I introduced last year 
which passed by voice vote, and I certainly hope we have a recorded 
vote on this resolution this time, and I would like to say that I 
support it for four reasons:
  Number one, it is plain good education policy to provide full funding 
for special education.
  Secondly, it is meeting the worst unfunded federal mandate that this 
government currently has, 10 percent of a 40 percent obligation. 
Bearing in mind that it is up from 5 percent 4 years ago, still 10 
percent is not acceptable.
  Thirdly, it is an issue of local control, local control of education, 
letting local school boards make decisions for themselves whether they 
are going to have new teachers, build new classrooms or spend the money 
on other areas. The Federal Government should make this a top priority.
  Lastly, this is an issue that is extremely important for disabled 
individuals, for families, for school boards, for administrators.
  If my colleagues want to do something for education in 1999, support 
this resolution, and then move forward and fully fund special 
education.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  (Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member and the 
chairman for bringing this resolution to the floor.
  I am a strong supporter of the Individuals with Disability Education 
Act or IDEA. I strongly agree that every child deserves the opportunity 
to benefit from a public education. We must do all that we can to 
ensure that every child reaches his or her fullest potential, but we 
also must 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 it was first passed, Congress committed to spending 40 percent 
of the cost. However, the Federal Government has consistently fallen 
far short of this goal. As a result, special education costs continue 
to rise, and we fall further behind. Currently we fund less than 12 
percent of the cost, leaving State and local governments to pick up the 
rest.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution demonstrates Congress' commitment to 
stand behind our promise. It shows that we recognize the impact that 
special education costs are having on our State and local budgets and 
that we are committed to providing leadership and resources for our 
schools and their students.
  Let me give my colleagues just one example of a city in Maine. 
Lewiston schools currently receive about $233,000 in special education 
funding. If we were meeting our 40 percent commitment currently, 
Lewiston schools would be receiving nearly $1.2 million, a difference 
of $1 million. Imagine the impact that freeing up $1 million for other 
educational needs could have on the education of all of Lewiston's 
young people, and then multiply that across every school and every 
district in the State of Maine, in every school district in the 
country.
  As I traveled throughout my district, this is probably the concern I 
hear most frequently:
  School budgets are rising and taking property tax rates with them.
  I am often told that schools have to cut art and music programs, 
eliminate field trips and cancel extracurricula. I know that this 
situation is the same throughout the country
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

[[Page H2568]]

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
this time to me, and I thank him for his leadership on IDEA and for his 
help to our States and the children that they are trying to educate.
  Mr. Speaker I have spoken with our Governor, Christie Todd Whitman, 
in New Jersey about what fully funding IDEA would mean to my State.
  In New Jersey alone there are over 210,000 students in special 
education programs. According to our Governor, if the Federal 
Government paid its full 40 percent share last year, the State would 
have received an additional $300 million to pay for these children's 
education.
  Our States are paying too great of an amount of our government's 
legal obligation to IDEA with money that otherwise could be spent to 
hire additional teachers, expand or maintain school facilities, pay for 
athletics or extracurricular activities. Mr. Speaker, until we pay our 
existing mandates, we should not consider paying for any new and 
expensive programs, any new entitlements.
  I support this resolution, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle).
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me, and I want to thank him and the committee for their support and 
for their work toward the fulfillment of a commitment that has been 
made by the Federal Government to fully fund special education made 
many years ago. It was a beautiful civil rights law saying every child 
ought to have access to education, and yet that beautiful law has been 
consistently underfunded ever since.
  Mr. Speaker, that puts pressure on local taxes, that puts pressure on 
local control of education. It puts pressure on local control, it puts 
pressure on other education programs, general education programs, 
talented and gifted programs, and it puts cross pressure in a way that 
is totally unintended for the very people that we are trying to help.
  For Iowa alone it would mean $80 million of additional funds for the 
kids, for the programs that make sure that Iowa's children are 
available and ready to learn, ready to meet the commitments of a 
continuing and growing economic demands for those kids, Mr. Speaker.
  Let us not have new programs, Mr. Speaker. Let us fulfill our 
commitment to the existing programs first.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have before us today is really a get well card, 
and it is a very nice get well card.
  If I have a friend who is ill, I will send my friend a get well card, 
and that is very important. It expresses my sentiment and my hope for 
him. But what my friend really needs, besides that get well card, is 
the Blue Cross card to pay the bills, and that is why the Committee on 
the Budget and Committee on Appropriations could do a much better job. 
Mr. Speaker, we will solicit our colleagues' support over there to get 
money for that Blue Cross card, send a get well card which is nice, but 
it does not do enough.
  So I am going to vote for this because it is an encouraging, hopeful 
get well card. But upon receipt of that we must do more, and I would 
hope that each and every one of my colleagues over there would 
encourage the Committee on the Budget, encourage the Committee on 
Appropriations and indeed encourage the Committee on Ways and Means to 
do its job.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Michigan aware that 
the Committee on the Budget put an extra billion dollars in the House 
proposal for special education this year to fund IDEA? I do not know if 
the gentleman voted for that, but that was an important priority from 
the Committee on the Budget. We did hear that. We were not trying to 
send just a get well card. We wanted to try and fully fund those 
programs, and we did not get a lot of support from the gentleman's 
side. That concerns us.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Iowa: I served on the 
Committee on the Budget very well. I know how the Committee on the 
Budget relates to the Committee on Appropriations. I referred to three 
committees. The real legislative committees here are the Committee on 
Appropriations and the Committee on Ways and Means, and they hold in 
their hands really the hope for any of these programs. If the Committee 
on Ways and Means cuts revenue, that makes it more difficult for us to 
fund these programs. Unless the Committee on Appropriations acts, these 
funds will not be appropriated.
  So they are the ones who really control that Blue Cross card we are 
debating.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Michigan in 
trying to answer the inquiry from the gentleman from Iowa is also 
saying that we have a billion dollars in our budget and we are really 
concerned about these physically challenged kids and their families, 
where is the bill? Where is the beef? Where is the money?
  Now we are going to vote on this side for this resolution, but where 
is the bill, the statutory authority, to follow through on what they 
said in their budget to provide funds for these families and these 
children?

                              {time}  1500

  We are going to get a Pell grant resolution, which I intend to vote 
for. We will do a resolution maybe on our teachers, which I intend to 
vote for, but I would hope that the Republican majority would come 
forward with a bill that we can debate that is fairly paid for and not 
just a resolution that does not have any money in it.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I will say where the beef is. The beef is where we put 
it the last 3 years while we were in the majority. $800 million one 
year, $600 million the next year, another $500 million the next year 
for a total of almost $2 billion over 3 years, not where it was for 20 
years prior to that when I sat in the minority where we got zero, zero, 
zero and the majority was overwhelming at that particular time.
  So we are putting the beef there. We know where the beef is, and we 
are getting it there, and we are getting it out to the children who can 
eat that beef.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Forbes).
  (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 84; and I 
would reiterate what the chairman has just said. Under the Democrats, 
we did not get any increases in this program, a valuable program that 
is working. It is working in this country. And I appreciate the 
leadership of the chairman in the last 25 years trying to raise the 
consciousness of this Congress to adequately fund this program.
  We are asking our States to come up with better standards for our 
students, and they are doing that. In my own State of New York, they 
have raised the standards, which were already high standards.
  Where are they getting the money? Where are they going to get the 
money? In New York State alone, we are $581 million short of this 
Federal mandate. This Federal mandate is asking my school districts to 
come up with the extra money. And who pays? The property taxpayer.
  This is a Federal mandate. It should be fully funded at the 40 
percent that Congress dictated over 25 years ago. In my own Longwood 
School District on Long Island, New York, in Middle Island they get 
$484,000 when they should be getting $2.4 million; $1.9 million short. 
I urge support.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  (Mr. WELDON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as an original 
cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 84 which would make fully funding special 
education one of the highest priorities in the Federal elementary and 
secondary education funding. It is imperative that we meet the 
objective of paying the 40 percent of the average per pupil expenses 
associated with educating children with disabilities.

[[Page H2569]]

  I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to not only 
support this resolution but as well to vote for the funding when we do 
the appropriations bills.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling).
  In 1975, IDEA, which mandated every child, regardless of disability, 
would be given a free public education, Congress promised to fund up to 
40 percent of the cost. Mr. Speaker, Congress and the President have 
not kept their part of the bargain. Today we fund 12 percent of the 
cost to educate children. Twelve percent is not 40 percent. Twelve 
percent is not enough.
  Mr. Speaker, there are those who would say that increased IDEA 
funding will come at the expense of other high-priority programs, but 
if we in Congress fulfill our promise by picking up the slack, these 
other educational priorities will be funded on the local level, where 
they belong. Illinois alone would receive four times more than the $103 
million we received last year.
  I urge Members to support the resolution on behalf all of our 
Nation's children.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The beauty of this resolution is, there are several, as a matter of 
fact. First of all, the resolution says that we do not take money from 
existing programs to fund this program. We heard a lot about how we 
will take money from existing programs to fund this. Well, if one reads 
the resolution, it does not do that.
  Secondly, the resolution does not say fund immediately. What it says 
is, continue the drive that we have had the last 3 years. Forget the 20 
years prior to that, where nothing was done, but continue the drive 
that we have had going the last 3 years, getting two billion over the 
last 3 years.
  Then the beauty also is we do not pit one child against another 
child. As a matter of fact, by trying to get this money for special ed, 
we make sure that we take away that battle that is going on out there 
at the present time because the local districts have to use their money 
in order to fund special ed. They must take it away from other 
students. So we are giving an opportunity to help all students.
  Yes, we are sending a get-well card, the same get-well card we sent 
last year; and that get-well card got us a half a billion dollars. The 
same get-well card we sent the year before, that get-well card got us 
$600 million. I am hoping that this get-well card, when the 
appropriators read it, will also get us another billion.
  I would say that is a pretty good investment in a get-well card. I 
wish I could get some other get-well cards going out there that could 
get those kinds of returns that our get-well cards have gotten us in 
the last several years.
  I want to make sure that everybody understands, yes, it was the Court 
who determined all children deserved an equal and a quality education. 
It was the Federal Government then who came along, as they generally 
do, and said, do it our way, do it our way, and we will give you 40 
percent of that excess cost.
  How attractive that is. Forty percent, that is better than trying to 
go it alone, but they should have known better. They should have known 
that that 40 percent was just a gimmick. It was not anything else.
  Now, in the last 3 years we have changed all of that, and we are 
going to continue to change all of that because we are going to step up 
to the plate as we have the last 3 years and put our money where our 
mouth was and help all children by helping local districts fund special 
education.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to express my 
opposition to H. Con. Res. 84, the resolution calling for full-funding 
of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). My opposition to this 
act should in no way be interpreted as opposition to increased spending 
on education. However, the way to accomplish this worthy goal is to 
allow parents greater control over education resources by cutting 
taxes, thus allowing parents to devote more of their resources to 
educating their children in such a manner as they see fit. Massive tax 
cuts for the American family, not increased spending on federal 
programs should be this Congress' top priority.
  The drafters of this bill claim that increasing federal spending on 
IDEA will allow local school districts to spend more money on other 
educational priorities. However, because an increase in federal funding 
will come from the same taxpayers who currently fund the IDEA mandate 
at the state and local level, increasing federal IDEA funding will not 
necessarily result in a net increase of education funds available for 
other programs. In fact, the only way to combine full federal funding 
of IDEA with an increase in expenditures on other programs by state and 
localities is through massive tax increases at the federal, state, and/
or local level!
  This bill further assures that control over the education dollar will 
remain centered in Washington by calling for Congress to ``meet the 
commitment to fund existing Federal education programs.'' Thus, this 
bill not only calls on Congress to increase funding for IDEA, it also 
calls on Congress to not cut funds for any program favored by Congress. 
The practical effect of this bill is to place yet another obstacle in 
the road of fulfilling Congress' constitutional mandate to put control 
of education back into the hands of the people.
  Rather than increasing federal spending, Congress should focus on 
returning control over education to the American people by enacting the 
Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 935), which provides parents with a 
$3,000 per child tax credit to pay for K-12 education expenses. Passage 
of this act would especially benefit parents whose children have 
learning disabilities as those parents have the greatest need to devote 
a large portion of their income toward their child's education.
  The Family Education Freedom Act will allow parents to develop an 
individualized education plan that will meet the needs of their own 
child. Each child is a unique person and we must seriously consider 
whether disabled children's special needs can be best met by parents, 
working with local educators, free from interference from Washington or 
federal educrats. After all, an increase in expenditures cannot make a 
Washington bureaucrat know or love a child as much as that child's 
parent.
  It is time for Congress to restore control over education to the 
American people. The only way to accomplish this goal is to defund 
education programs that allow federal bureaucrats to control America's 
schools. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to reject H. Con. Res. 84 
and instead join my efforts to pass the Family Education Freedom Act. 
If Congress gets Washington off the backs and out of the pocketbooks of 
parents, American children will be better off.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution 
urging Congress, and the President, to fully fund the Federal 
Government's obligation under the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act.
  In 1975 the Federal Government committed to provide 40 percent 
funding aid for the mandate to educate those students with 
disabilities. As most of my colleagues know, federal funding for IDEA 
has never risen above 12 percent.
  On average, local school districts currently spend 20 percent of 
their budgets on special education services. Once the Federal 
government begins to pay its fair share, local funds will be freed up, 
allowing local schools to hire and train additional high-quality 
teachers, reduce class size, build and renovate classrooms and invest 
in technology.
  In my district, the Duval County School District receives about $7 
million. If IDEA were fully funded, this school district would receive 
over $37 million, an increase of over $30 million.
  It is time for us to send a clear message that the Federal government 
must honor our commitments to help our state and local school districts 
educate children with disabilities.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act.
  When special education legislation was first enacted in 1975, the 
federal government, recognizing the extraordinary costs of inclusion, 
pledged to provide state and local education agencies with forty 
percent of the excess costs associated with educating students with 
disabilities.
  Sadly, the federal government has not come close to meeting this 
obligation, with annual appropriations never exceeding twelve percent 
of excess costs.
  The chronic underpayment of this federal mandate has left state and 
local governments with a burden of more than $146 billion in lost 
funding over the past twenty-two years--a staggering shortfall that has 
forced education agencies to shift resources our of lower-priority, but 
important necessities such as building maintenance and upkeep.

[[Page H2570]]

  Special education departments end up eating large portions of local 
and state school budgets, which creates a competitive relationship 
between regular and special education, as they vie for the same scarce 
funds. This situation is not the fault of school districts, but a 
direct result of Congress's inadequate funding of IDEA.
  Special education has received a billion dollar increase over the 
past two years. Yet even with this substantial increase, funding is 
still substantially below Congress's 40 percent promise. This means 
that states and districts will continue to be unfairly burdened by 
these excess costs.
  Congress is simply being unfair to our local school districts by not 
living up to our end of this bargain and we are taking needed resources 
away from regular education.
  I hope the Congress will live up to its obligation, and fully fund 
IDEA. If we do not, all students across this country will suffer.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 84 calls for increased funding 
for IDEA at the expense of initiatives like the Clinton/Clay Class Size 
Reduction Act. While I support increased funding for IDEA, we should 
not be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
  Achieving the goal of 100,000 new teachers will ensure that every 
child receives personal attention, gets a solid foundation for further 
learning, and is prepared to read by the end of the third grade.
  I am disappointed that the Republicans have continued their attempt 
to torpedo this critical program. On the Ed-Flex bill, Republicans 
tried to raid class size funds for other programs. We should never pit 
one program against another--we should support overall increases in 
education spending.
  I believe that reducing class sizes with well-qualified teachers is 
the single most significant action we can take to enhance student 
achievement.
  We should increase funding for IDEA, but not at the expense of class 
size reduction.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution to 
fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
  IDEA ensures that all children with disabilities receive a free 
appropriate public education. Prior to IDEA, 2 million children were 
excluded from receiving their right to a public education. Another 2.5 
million children received an inadequate education.
  IDEA has served as a civil rights initiative for our Nation's 
children for more than 22 years.
  Fully funding this educational program is important to the millions 
of learning disabled students in our districts across the country. It 
is important to our communities that benefit from the achievement level 
of all these students.
  IDEA is another example of how government support of an educational 
program provides the foundation for states and local educational 
agencies to work together. Funding this initiative for the sake of our 
children is important for the future success of our schools and 
communities.
  In addition to fully funding IDEA, Congress should also better fund 
other educational programs that are seriously underfunded. For example, 
consider Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI's).
  We have charged these institutions with ensuring the academic success 
of the Hispanic students that are at their institutions. Similar to 
IDEA, these institutions cannot fulfill their duty to the students and 
the community at large without adequate funding.
  The funding of IDEA is critical along with the funding of all our 
education programs that aim to serve every child that has the right to 
fair, and equitable access to a quality education.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight one of the most 
important issues for our nation: educating our young people. Everyone 
agrees that a good education is critical for the future success of our 
children, and yet are not providing the financial resources that make 
this possible. This is especially true for the education of children 
with disabilities.
  School districts are struggling with how to provide the best 
education possible for all children within often very tightly 
constrained budgets. I applaud their efforts. In many cases, however, 
school districts can not reduce class sizes, build needed schools, or 
hire new teachers while still providing the services so important to 
students with disabilities. In my home state of California, over 
600,000 students receive special education and related services in 
public schools at a reported cost of $3.4 billion. Without federal 
assistance, local school districts are forced to use their general 
funds to the detriment of other programs.
  This is not to say that the IDEA hasn't been successful. It has. By 
providing children with disabilities with the same educational 
opportunities as their abled peers, we now have a system supporting 
happier and more productive adults. According to the Department of 
Education, disabled young people are three times more likely today to 
attend college than prior to 1975 and twice as many of today's twenty-
year olds with disabilities are working. But we must do more to make 
sure there are more success stories than setbacks.
  I applaud my friends on the other side of the aisle for bringing to 
the floor House Concurrent Resolution 84, which urges the Congress and 
the President to fully fund the federal Government's obligation under 
IDEA. This must be more than just words in a Resolution though. I call 
upon this Congress, this year, to fulfill its pledge for full funding 
of IDEA. It is time that the federal government make good on its 
obligation to the school districts and our children across the country.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) that the 
House suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. 
Res. 84, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________