[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.

                          ____________________