Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 159 (Wednesday, November 5, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 159 (Wednesday, November 5, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H10429-H10434]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2660, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2004

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Ms. DeLauro moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the bill, H.R. 2660, be instructed to insist on the
Senate level for part B of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Regula) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer the motion to instruct that I presented
yesterday. This motion will instruct House conferees for the fiscal
year 2004 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations
bill to insist on the Senate funding level for part B of the special
education funding, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, or
IDEA. IDEA part B is the main vehicle with which the Federal Government
provides its contribution to States toward educating children with
disabilities.
Twenty-eight years ago, Congress made a promise to students, families

[[Page H10430]]

and communities around this country, a promise that said that the
Federal Government would do its part to ensure that the more than 6.5
million children with disabilities and special needs in this country
would have the same educational opportunities as every other child. It
is a promise that this body has never lived up to, a promise quite
honestly that this body has never even attempted to live up to.
This shortfall creates a huge burden on local communities and denies
full opportunity to all students, with or without disabilities. And
today in a time of unprecedented deficits at the State and Federal
level alike, special education becomes just another in a long line of
unfunded mandates that the Federal Government has passed on to the
States. But we have an obligation to fund special education for
children who have special needs. It is a moral obligation.
With the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
of 1975, Congress agreed that it would pay 40 percent of that bill.
Only, it never has. What that has meant for the last 28 years is that
the burden of meeting the mandates of special education has been placed
largely on the shoulders of local communities. As the cost of educating
students with disabilities continues to rapidly increase, there is
little doubt that these increased costs are being paid for at the
expense of other student services and programs. Moreover, this
Republican majority cannot even keep the commitments they made earlier
this year, both in the budget resolution and during the vote on the
reauthorization of IDEA in April to provide a $2.2 billion increase for
special education over fiscal year 2003. Sadly, the House Labor-HHS
bill only provides a $1 billion increase which is demonstrated on this
chart, promises made and promises broken.
In my State of Connecticut, which faces a billion-dollar budget
deficit, school districts are paying $409 million more for special
education than they did 10 years ago, a 76 percent cost increase.
During the 2000-2001 school year, nearly 19 percent of the total
education expenditures in the State were directed to special education
students with some individual districts exceeding 25 percent, meaning
one out of every four education dollars was going to special education.
This is a situation not unique to my district or my State. Right now,
47 States are experiencing budget deficits. If you ask virtually any
municipality in the Nation what their number one budgetary concern is,
they will tell you, without hesitation, special education. They simply
cannot bear the strain the Federal Government is putting on them year
after year. The strain will continue should Congress adopt the special
education funding levels included in the House Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. That bill
fell $1.2 billion below what is needed to even put IDEA on the path to
full funding by 2010. In my opinion, an abdication of our
responsibility to our States and our children alike and a situation in
which no one wins.
What is needed here is leadership. Our States are crying out for it.
Parents are crying out for it. I wish we could call on the President to
intervene on behalf of children with special needs. But President
Bush's special education request would have amounted to the smallest
increase for special education in 5 years.

{time} 1845

So the responsibility falls to us to rise to the occasion, match what
the other body has done by meeting our commitment once and for all to
our children and our States and provide that extra $1.2 billion. The
time for using the issue of special education as a political football
is over. As I said before, it is a game in which no one wins. And as
representatives for 50 States and the more than 6\1/2\ million children
who need our help, the Congress is obliged, obliged to provide this
$1.2 billion in funding in this bill and obliged to promote the
capacity of our country to act together on what are indisputably shared
values.
Mr. Speaker, the Congress reneged on its commitment to children with
special needs in 1975. We cannot allow it to renege on that commitment
again. We must meet our obligations. That is what this motion to
instruct is about. And I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting point. Promises made, 1975,
the Democrats were in control. They made promises. Here is the
performance. Look at that, barely increased over 19 years. Barely
increased over 19 years. Republicans take over, and we kept the
promises. Here it goes, up, up, up, up, up, up. We can see the
difference. This clearly shows us the difference between the Democrat
Party, make the promises, do nothing. Republicans deliver.
On top of that, just recently the Members of the Democrat Party voted
against a bill to increase special education by $1 billion. And I think
it is interesting that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
seeking to instruct conferees to adopt the Senate funding levels for
IDEA when just 3 months ago they voted against a $1 billion increase.
They did not seem to want that. We strongly support funding for special
education and the hope it gives millions of families every day.
In fact, since fiscal year 1996, the first year Republicans
controlled the House, funding for special education has tripled; and
under Republican control the percentage of per-pupil expenditures that
the Federal Government contributes toward special education has
increased to nearly 20 percent. By way of contrast, when the Democrats
were in charge from 1975 until 1995, 20 years, the percentage of per-
pupil expenditures was never more than 9 percent.
There are the facts; and I say to those who are looking at this
situation, do not go on what I say. Go on what the chart shows happened
when the Republicans took control. They made the promises; we
delivered.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican commitment to funding special education
cannot be questioned. The bill passed by this House in July continued
the investment in IDEA by increasing the program by another $1 billion,
representing the largest dollar increase in the entire Labor, Health
and Human Services Education appropriations bill ever.
As most of my colleagues know, the original bill reported by the
Committee on Appropriations in the other body provided a slightly
smaller increase for this program. That is the bill that they reported
out of committee. It was less than we have done. On the floor the other
body adopted an amendment that would have added $1.2 billion to the
program.
One little problem, however. This amendment was offset by the use of
a customs user fee. Basically, this is a tax, and as we all know,
increasing taxes is something that is not within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Appropriations to decide. And tax policy is also
something which the United States Constitution says must, and I
emphasize must, originate in the House, not in the Senate. Therefore,
this provision must be dropped by the other body in order for us to
complete our conference on this bill. So we are talking about an
instruction that cannot happen under the Constitution.
If we accept the gentlewoman's motion, it will have the effect of
cutting $1.2 billion out of every other program in this bill. It will
mean we will have to make cuts in funding for biomedical research that
is seeking cures for cancer or diabetes or Parkinson's disease. Or
perhaps the gentlewoman would suggest we take the funding out of
programs under No Child Left Behind, such as programs to teach children
to read or improve teacher quality. Or should we take the funding out
of that provided for colleges and universities, or funding to produce
textbooks for blind students? Or should we reduce the Pell grants? That
is the effect of this motion.
We are not going to disagree with it because we are for IDEA. Here is
the evidence: it says clearly which party cares about these children;
and, therefore, we want the conference committee to do as much as
possible. We did it on the bill that passed here in July. We raised
IDEA by $1 billion, and the Democrats for whatever reason chose to
oppose this.
Mr. Speaker, this motion is nothing more than a vain attempt to
divert the

[[Page H10431]]

public's attention from the fact that my colleagues on the other side
of this aisle voted against the $1 billion increase for children with
special needs earlier this year.
The bill passed by this House was a balanced approach to addressing
the needs of all of our citizens, including those with special needs.
It gives hope to children and families across this Nation. And I say
once again here are the facts, just look at the chart. It tells us the
story eloquently. They make the promises; the Republicans deliver.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Let me be very quick, and there are others who will respond to what
my colleague has said, and I appreciate his comments. I said in my
remarks that the commitment to children with special needs was reneged
on in 1975. We cannot let that happen again. In this current year, the
Republican majority committed to $2.2 billion. They have reneged on
that promise. No, in fact, we should not cut back on Pell grants, on No
Child Left Behind, not any of the other education programs.
What, in fact, we ought to cut back on is that $93,000 a year that we
are giving in a tax cut to the 184,000 millionaires in this country.
That is why we are short on this effort. That is why we are short-
changing children with special needs. The fact of the matter is that
the Republicans would have cut IDEA in 1996 by $88 million; 1997 by
$279 million; in 2003, $500 million below the President's budget. They
have every single year worked at cutting the amount of money for
children with special needs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the DeLauro
motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2660 to fully fund the Federal
commitment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA.
What an idea, taking the funding out of the tax cuts for the wealthiest
1 percent of Americans, not funding this program from other deserving
programs.
Whenever I talk to educators or school administrators in my district,
the very first thing they bring up is IDEA, special education. The
first thing they say about IDEA is that we need to have it funded. The
Federal Government must meet its commitment for 40 percent of the cost.
In fact, if the Federal Government fully funded its share of IDEA,
schools in Sonoma County, in my congressional district, would have
received almost $20 million to help educate students with disabilities,
students with special education needs. Instead, Sonoma County schools
received just under $6 million, or about 15 percent of their costs.
Every Member here could tell the same story about their school
districts. If the Federal Government fully funded its share of IDEA,
schools nationwide would receive almost $20 billion to help pay for the
cost of educating students with special needs. H.R. 2660 falls far
short of this needed funding; and when we do not fully fund IDEA, we do
not just take needed resources from students with disabilities. We
shortchange all students.
If school districts had their full share of IDEA funds, they would be
able to use their own funds for improvements that benefit all students
such as increasing teachers' salaries, reducing class size, building
new schools, renovating old schools. When we underfund IDEA, we pit
children with disabilities against other children, schools against
parents, parents against parents. We must fully fund the Federal share
of IDEA. Vote for the DeLauro motion to instruct conferees to include
full funding in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill to cover
the Federal share of IDEA.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the original IDEA bill authorized this Congress to give
up the 40 percent of the additional cost of educating a child with
special needs so that communities would have some help with that burden
even though it was their constitutional obligation to educate every
child to 100 percent of that. For years Congress did not fulfill that
commitment. They were at 9, 10, 11, or 12 percent. What were those
years? Those years were the Reagan-Bush years. We were running deficits
of incredible amounts, building up on our debt in this Nation; $295
billion of deficit in 1992 accumulated since 1980 to a point where we
had a debt of almost $5 trillion. Congress could not do more. They were
busy trying to pay off those bills.
From 1993 to 2000 with a Democrat in the White House, Congress
started to pay down those deficits, started to pay those bills; and
around 1997 where the yellow number is upticking on that chart that the
gentleman from Ohio was showing, that was when we finally got a grip on
the deficit, and we finally were able to start putting some money
towards the obligations of IDEA. In fact, we did it almost every year
over the objections of the Republican majority and had to fight every
year. This is the type of issue the Republican majority almost brought
the House to a standstill on. But we managed to tick it up. We managed
to bring those numbers up, with the objections of the Republicans in
many instances, and started to do better.
Now we have an opportunity in 2000, with a $5.6 trillion surplus
projected over 10 years, to really reach that 40 percent level; and
instead the Republican majority and the White House decided that is not
where they want to spend the money. Despite the fact that the
Republican ``Contract on America'' in the mid-1990s promised this was
one of their 10 items, they have never come close; and we have had
resolutions in this House where every single Democrat voted to fund
IDEA and not a single Republican voted to do it. And when we had the
chance with a $5.6 trillion surplus projected over 10 years, the
majority in this House, the Republican majority, and the White House
walked away from it and did not do it.
And why does the gentlewoman from Connecticut come up with the number
of $2.2 billion? Because it is the amount that Republicans promised.
They put it in their budget very disingenuously as if they were going
to do it. They put it in their authorization bill as if they might do
it. And when Democrats on the Committee on Education and the Workforce
tried to make that mandatory so they would have to do $2.2 billion, the
Republicans would not vote for it. And now we know why they would not.
They had no intention of doing it. 2.2 billion was the number they held
publicly out in both the budget and their authorization; $1 billion is
the amount they finally come in with in the end. And they claim it
might be more than last year. Yes, a paltry amount more than last year.
And again we are back to pushing, pushing, pushing, trying to make them
meet their obligation.
Why can we not do it? It is not because we would have to cut from
every other part of the budget. It is because there is not much in
every other part of the budget because the Republicans decided to give
$1.3 trillion away in three rounds of tax cuts.

{time} 1900

The choices that were made, the Republican majority and the President
and the White House decided money is not going to go to special
education. They decided money is not going to go to No Child Left
Behind. They decided no money is going to go to fix our roads and
bridges, nor for the myriad of obligations the Federal Government has
made to cities and states and towns. It is going to go, instead, to the
wealthiest people in this country.
That, my friends, is what is happening here. It is a canard to say we
do not have the money. It was an intentional misappropriation. We need
to do better in this Congress.
Mr. REGULA. Mr Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees,
insisting on increasing funding for the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, or IDEA.
Full funding of IDEA has been one of my priorities since I have been
in Congress. When Congress first addressed

[[Page H10432]]

this issue in 1975, we made a commitment that we would provide children
with disabilities access to a quality education, but not once in the
past 28 years has Congress lived up to its obligation to fund the
services it requires States and school districts to provide, despite a
commitment that we would do so.
My home State of Oregon, like so many States across this country, is
suffering from tremendous budget shortfalls. When the Federal
Government does not pay its share, the remaining costs just do not go
away. The States and school districts are forced to pick up the
additional costs, putting additional strain on our education funding.
In 2003, we appropriated $8.9 billion for Part B of IDEA. While this
is a small increase over past years, it is still leaving States and
local school districts with an unfunded Federal mandate of over $10
billion. That is $10 billion that our States and school districts could
be spending to alleviate State budget crises, reduce class sizes and
build and modernize our schools.
Funding IDEA is not just about educating disabled students, it is
about relieving the school funding crises that States across this
Nation are facing.
It is high time we renew our commitment to all of our Nation's
children and pay our fair share of the cost of IDEA. I urge my
colleagues to support funding for IDEA and support the DeLauro motion
to instruct conferees. This is a promise the Federal Government made.
This is a promise, for the sake of our children, we need to keep.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
DeLauro motion to instruct conferees, and I commend the gentlewoman
from Connecticut for introducing it.
H.R. 2660, the appropriations bill for the Department of Labor,
Health and Human Services and Education, is underfunding our Nation's
education system. Although this Congress made the promise to increase
funding for education by $2.2 billion in the FY 2004 budget resolution,
and then again in H.R. 1350, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, these promises do not appear in the appropriations bill.
Instead, special education falls $1.2 billion short of the budget
promise.
Due to the insufficiency of funding for local education, our local
communities will need to absorb more of the costs for providing special
education to 6.7 million school children. Ultimately, schools will be
forced to cut essential programs or raise local taxes. That is why I
voted against the appropriation resolution and why I voted against the
IDEA reauthorization.
During discussion in the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I
spoke to the need to fully fund IDEA, and even voted in favor of an
amendment which did in fact fail. Now I am asking my colleagues in the
House to follow suit with our Senate colleagues and fulfill the promise
from the budget resolution and the Senate-passed bill, which included
the bipartisan amendment to increase IDEA funding by $2.2 billion.
I believe that we have no greater responsibility as legislators than
to fully fund education; to make sure that we have adequate buildings,
schools, teachers, textbooks; and to help those children who have the
greatest amount of need. No children have greater needs than those with
disabilities. I ask that we support the DeLauro motion and support our
children who need help the most.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the DeLauro amendment.
Many decades ago, our country did a great and noble thing. We made a
commitment as American people that every child in this country,
regardless of his or her disability, would get a good education. At
that time, the Federal Government promised that it would pick up 40
percent of the costs of providing that education to youngsters with
disabilities. But as we are gathered here today, the Federal Government
is only paying 19 percent, and the result of that is not only that
children with disabilities are not getting the Federal resources that
are required for education, but also children without disabilities are
suffering, as we are pitting one against the other.
Now, we can talk about decades of who is to blame or who promised
what, but let us just look at this year. This year we already have a
story of sordid, broken promises.
I serve on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. This year
the chairman of the committee came forward with an authorization bill
that would increase the authorization from last year's levels
originally by $1.4 billion, to $10.3 billion. Then we in the Committee
on Education and the Workforce had a discussion where we, Republicans
and Democrats alike, agreed that in order to meet our commitment, we
had to increase that authorization.
So the chairman of the committee went back to the Committee on the
Budget and, very proudly, as he should, came back to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce and said, ``Look, I have talked to my
colleagues, and they have agreed we are not going to increase it by
just $1.3 billion; we are going to increase it by $2.2 billion.'' That
is what the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
announced.
Many of us were skeptical about whether that would be delivered on.
We said, ``Let's make that mandatory.'' We had a vote in committee. The
chairman of the committee said to The Members, ``Let's not take a vote
to make it mandatory, because I have talked to my colleagues on the
Republican side on the Committee on the Budget and we have a commitment
here. Let us not make this binding.''
We had a vote. It was 10 to 9. Democrats voted in favor in the
subcommittee of making it binding, Republicans did not. The same story
in the full committee.
Well, look where we are today. It turns out that we should have had a
binding vote. That would have been the only way to hold the Committee
on the Budget and the Republican leadership to its word on this issue.
The chairman of the committee said, ``Don't worry about it. Trust us.''
Well, look where that has gotten us.
The fact of the matter is, we have let down the American people. We
do not need to go back with broken promises for decades. We have
multiple broken promises just this year, promises broken to American
children.
Let me just end by talking about priorities, because what we are
seeing here is the budget that was passed at the beginning of the year,
that set the road map. Everything after that was on automatic pilot.
That budget was premised on huge tax cuts for the very wealthiest
Americans.
Now, I do not have any problem if people want to say ``I am for tax
cuts,'' and it is okay that for some economic theory that they should
go to the wealthiest Americans. But do not say you are for that, and,
at the same time, go back to your districts and say, ``We are for full
funding for special education,'' as Republicans and Democrats alike do.
They all go out and say they are in favor of it. Because you cannot do
everything. You cannot have big tax cuts for the wealthiest and come
back to this body and fully fund special education.
We have to make choices. That is what leadership is all about. If you
want to choose higher tax cuts for the wealthy, that is a fine choice.
Stand up for it. But do not at the same time come and say we really
wanted to do this, but we just could not do it, because we can do it if
we make the right choices. We should make the right choices for the
America's children. That is why we have got to support this motion.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), a very valued member of our subcommittee.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to
instruct, and I do it with a lot of history.
For many of the years, about 15 of the years that the Democrats
controlled this House, I was a school board member in Tunkhannock,
Pennsylvania, and I know what it means to not have enough IDEA funding.
We worked

[[Page H10433]]

very hard to make the choices to balance our budget, to do what the
Federal law required with the amount of money that was given to us.
At that time, the highest that we ever got was 9.9 percent. When the
Democrats controlled this House, the most money we ever got was 9.9
percent. This year, we are giving the schools 20 percent. That is
double what we ever got when the Democrats were in control.
Now, what is this disingenuous discussion about? We do have choices
to make. We made choices to give more funding this year than we have
done in the past. There is an extra $1 billion in this bill, and we are
halfway to full funding the 40 percent of IDEA. That is much more than
we have done in the past, and it will go a long way toward helping
school districts with these major challenges.
I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) for his
leadership on this bill. He always gives us fair and balanced
leadership, and this is a fair and balanced bill that lives within
realistic priorities and shows that the majority is trying very hard to
leave no child behind, to do the right thing for American education.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), also a very valued member of our
subcommittee.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment
the chairman on this bill. The bill that we presented increased special
education funding by over $1 billion, and I believe those who are
offering this motion to instruct tonight all voted against it.
Now, you cannot have it both ways. When you look at the chart that we
had up here a little bit ago, the big chart, in 9 years under
Republican leadership we went from a little over $2 billion to almost
$10 billion. That is just under $8 billion.
Now, the 9 years preceding that, under Democrat leadership, you
increased funding $1 billion in 9 years. We increased it $1 billion
this year. We increased it almost $8 billion in the 9 years that we
have been in control. Just count them, 9 years. Come back here 9, just
a little bit over $2 billion. $1 billion in 9 years.
Now, the interesting part is it is easy to say they want to fully
fund it. The other body put in a tax provision to fund it that cannot
stay there. It is illegal. It cannot be there. So if you are really
serious about this, your motion to instruct will say we are going to
take it from Pell Grants, or we are going to take it from basic
education, or we are going to take it from higher education, because
that is how you have to do it.
You are making no choices. When we look at the record, the choices
you made for 9 years previous to the 9 years that we have been in power
were not for special education. In 9 years, a $1 billion increase.

{time} 1915

Just a few days ago, we passed this bill with $1 billion of
additional money in it, and they vote ``no.'' I think the American
public understands showmanship. I think the American public understands
a sham motion, because that is what this one is.
Now, I do not think there is anybody here that does not think we
should not fully fund special education, and we are on track today to
do it. We have the record. There has been a game plan of when we are
going to reach it. Now, that is reasonable, because we will be taking
new money and new dollars. But if you are serious, tell us where it
comes from, because the other body's tax provision cannot remain to
fund it. If you are serious, show us where the cuts are. Is it Pell
grants? Is it higher education? Is it No Child Left Behind? Because it
has got to come from one of them.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the record, and I am proud of our
chairman's leadership on this issue, and his predecessor, John Porter's
leadership on this issue. Because this is their record: getting us to
where we ought to be as fast as we can.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just make one or two comments about what my colleagues have
said.
First of all, and this is not my commentary, but CRS's commentary,
that if we continue to go in the direction that we are going in with $1
billion, we are never going to get to full funding. I commend the CRS
data and material to my colleagues.
Secondly, the fact of the matter is, as my colleagues have said
before, the issue is about choices. It is not only about choices, but
it is about priorities; and those priorities in terms of our budget are
fundamentally determined by where our values are on these issues.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to my colleagues that when the choice, the most
important and fundamental choice was made in this body about trillions
of dollars of tax cuts, $93,000 a year to the 184,000 millionaires in
this country, that was a choice. It is the choice, the fundamental
choice which is starving the Federal Government of the resources that
it needs to meet its public commitments; not willy-nilly commitments,
but commitments where we have said we are going to put up so much money
for special education, and, you, State of Connecticut, Minnesota, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, you put up so much money.
We are reneging on those commitments because of the fundamental
choice that was made by the Republican President of the United States,
by the Republican House majority, by the Senate House majority to fund
the tax cuts. That is the priority, not special education, not Pell
grants, not let no child be left behind, not any of the education
programs that we view as critical to the opportunities that young
people have in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out the facts: promises made by the
Democrats, very little increase; promises delivered by the Republicans.
The chart tells more eloquently than words what it is all about. I
simply say that we believe in special education, and we have put the
money there to back up our beliefs.
This motion to instruct is a sham because the Senate money is not
there. They did something proposed, and I would again emphasize that
the bill that came out of the Senate committee had less, less in IDEA
than the House bill. They had a floor amendment that said we are going
to raise taxes to pay for it. Unconstitutional. So let us get on with
it.
I would point out one other fact, and that is that the Democrats
voted against $1 billion for IDEA in the July bill for labor, health
and human services.
So I submit to my colleagues that the record is clear. Republicans
deliver; the Democrats promise.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
There is no doubt in my mind that tonight what we were going to hear
from the other side of the aisle is about how much funding for special
education has been increased in the past years. But there is no denying
the fact that the Republicans broke their promises to the Nation's 6.7
million special needs children this year when they denied the promised
$2.2 billion increase in the Republican fiscal year 2004 Labor-HHS
bill.
Let me just say that it is true that promises for IDEA part B State
grants, the main Federal program for which the Federal Government
finances special education, have increased from $2.3 billion in fiscal
year 1996 to $8.9 billion today, an increase of $6.6 billion. But it is
equally true, equally true, and understand this, that if the Labor-HHS
bills put forth by House Republicans over that period of time would
have been enacted into law, the $6.6 billion increase actually provided
for IDEA would have been cut nearly in half, because if House
Republicans had had their way, they would have spent $2.8 billion less
on special education between fiscal years 1996 and 2003.
I am going to briefly, briefly read my colleagues the facts in these
years and the Republican activity on these issues.
In 2003, the majority failed to pass a Labor-HHS bill because they
wanted to avoid voting on the Bush education cuts. However, the HHS
bill, H.R. 246,

[[Page H10434]]

was introduced by the very fine chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor,
Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies. The chairman
offered the bill, and it was the House position for the purpose of the
conference negotiations. That bill included $8 billion for IDEA part B
State grants, $500 million less than the Bush IDEA request and $846
million less than the amount ultimately that was enacted into law.
In 2002, we had a bipartisan year. Democrats and Republicans
supported a healthy increase for special education: $186 million over
the final conference level of $7.5 billion.
In 2001, the House Republican Labor-HHS bill was a shocking $850
million below what was the $6.3 billion included in the grants and in
the conference agreement.
In 2000, the House Republican bill was $179 million below the final
conference level of $5 billion for special education.
In 1999, the House bill provided the same amount, $4.3 billion, which
was ultimately enacted into law.
In 1998, another bipartisan year, House Republicans initially
proposed $3.4 billion for IDEA grants, $375 million below the final
amount secured by the Democrats in the Labor-HHS conference agreement,
which provided a total of $3.8 billion.
In 1997, the House Republican bill would have frozen IDEA at $2.3
billion, $279 million below the request, and a whopping $784 million
below the final conference agreement.
In fiscal year 1996, House Republicans proposed to freeze the special
education grant at $2.3 billion. That was the amount ultimately enacted
into law, a cut of $88 million below the Clinton request.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, a careful examination of the Republican
record on IDEA funding paints a less rosy picture than my colleagues
would like to portray. In 5 of the last 8 years, the House Republicans
have provided less than the amount actually enacted into law for IDEA
part B State grants.
Democrats insisted that we provide those increases. Democrats want to
fulfill our commitments to the 6.7 million special needs children
before we begin to provide super-sized tax cuts to the Nation's well-
off and wealthiest citizens.
Under a funding scenario of $1 billion per year, as is in the
Republican Labor-HHS bill, we will never, never meet the goal of fully
funding for IDEA. It was the majority party, once again, that promised
a $2.2 billion increase this year for IDEA. 216 Republicans voted for
the increase in the 2004 budget resolution; 217 Republicans voted again
for the increase in the IDEA reauthorization bill.
Democrats say this evening, on the issue of special education for our
youngsters, a moral obligation which we have committed to, which we
have committed our States to, what Democrats say this evening is keep
your promises to those 6.7 million children who, without the proper
funding, will not ever realize their dreams, their aspirations for
opportunity for their future and a way in which they can hold on to the
American Dream of education.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to
instruct.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, it would be disingenuous, and plain false,
for anyone to suggest that this Congress has not been dedicated to the
needs of our nation's special education students. In the past year we
have recognized the importance reform has on the program when we
reauthorized IDEA. Rather than to throw money at IDEA this body passed
a reauthorization bill that will enhance efficiencies ultimately
resulting in increased services for special education students. In the
past year we have also voted to increase funding for IDEA, at a record
level. There should be no doubt that this Congress is consistently
focused on the needs of these students.
In the past eight years we have more than tripled funding for special
education. In 1975 the Congress said it would pay 40 percent of the per
pupil cost to educate special education students. We are making great
strides toward meeting the 40-percent goal. Since 1996 we have
increased this contribution from 7.3 percent to almost 20 percent this
year. We all deserve to be proud of this and we all should be dedicated
to continuing this progress.
Having said that, we must not forget that we have also seen historic
increases in funding for all of our education programs. Last week we
passed a motion to support funding increases for programs under the No
Child Left Behind Act and today we could potentially be taking those
away. Look at the big picture. For fiscal year 2004, with the guidance
of Chairman Regula, this House is continuing our efforts in providing
unprecedented increases for No Child Left Behind, Head Start, Higher
Education and especially IDEA. This year's $1 billion increase for IDEA
represents the single largest dollar increases in the bill and one of
the largest funding increases for IDEA ever. This Congress and this
Administration are without a doubt dedicated to all students.
I have always prioritized adequate funding for education programs as
well as fiscal conservatism. Given other expenses we have across the
country and the world, I believe the House Labor, Health and Human
Services and Education Appropriations Act represents a delicate balance
between increased funding for federal education programs and fiscal
restraint. I encourage Members, on both sides of the aisle, to take an
unbiased and honest look at what we are doing for students, and
particularly our special education students.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pearce). Without objection, the previous
question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. 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, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

____________________