[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2875-2876]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                           IDEA FULL FUNDING

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today may be just another day in 
Washington, but it is a special day in Vermont. Today is town meeting 
day, when towns throughout Vermont go over their budgets line by line. 
This includes a review of school budgets in many towns. In Vermont, 
where special education referrals grow at a rate of about 3.5 percent 
per year. With the cost of special education rising at a rate that 
Vermont's 287 school districts cannot sustain, the number one education 
issue that will be discussed at these town meetings will be Federal 
funding of special education. Vermonters, like so many Americans across 
the country, understand that these costs must be paid. All of our 
children, those with disabilities and those without, need and deserve 
the services and supports that will ensure that they meet their 
educational goals.
  In 1975, responding to numerous Federal Court decisions involving 
lawsuits against a majority of the States, and growing concerns about 
the unconstitutional treatment of children with disabilities, Congress 
passed Public Law 94-142, now known as the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act. IDEA rightly guaranteed all children with 
disabilities a constitutionally required ``free and appropriate public 
education.'' As a freshman Congressman, I was proud to sponsor that 
legislation and to be a member of the Conference Committee that 
negotiated the differences in the House and Senate bills.
  In passing Public Law 94-142, Congress recognized that education is 
not free. We recognized that children with disabilities often require 
specialized services to benefit from education. Congress assumed that 
the average cost of educating children with disabilities was twice that 
of educating other children. At that time, 25 years ago, Congress 
authorized the Federal Government to pay up to 40 percent of the 
additional costs associated with educating children with disabilities. 
That amount--often referred to as the IDEA ``full-funding'' amount--is 
calculated by taking 40 percent of the national average per pupil 
expenditure, or APPE, times the number of children with disabilities 
being served under IDEA Part B in each state.
  While some may question whether Congress made a commitment or set a 
goal, I am here to tell you, as someone who was there at the time, we 
definitely made a pledge to fully fund the Federal share of special 
education. Thanks to teachers and administrators, advocacy 
organizations, parents of children with disabilities, and the children 
themselves, I believe that together we have made tremendous strides in 
assuring that we keep that promise.
  Since I became Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee in 1997, there have been significant increases in special 
education funding. In fact, special education funding has increased by 
174 percent since 1996. For Vermont, the Federal share has increased 
from $4.5 million to $13.2 million. Even with this substantial 
increase, the Federal Government still contributes less than 15 percent 
of the APPE.
  Failure to live up to the commitment of Congress means that the 
majority of the funding for special education for 8,000 Vermont 
students, and 6.1 million students across the country, currently comes 
from the States and from local school budgets.
  Last year, I led three congressional efforts to increase special 
education funding. In April 2000, I sponsored an amendment to the 
budget resolution. This amendment would have mandated that the Federal 
Government increase spending for special education by $2 billion each 
year, for 5 years. The amendment, which would have raised Federal 
special education funding from $5 billion per year to close to $16 
billion per year, failed by three votes. In its place, the Senate 
approved, by a vote of 53 to 47, a substitute amendment that made my 
amendment a nonbinding sense of the senate resolution to fully fund 
special education. This was definitely not the outcome I was seeking. 
However, it was the second time the Senate has gone on record in 
support of fully funding the Federal Government's share of special 
education costs. After two decades in which full funding of IDEA was 
regarded as more of a pipe dream than a commitment to be honored, 
Congress finally seems to be taking its obligation seriously.
  Today, I am pleased to join my colleagues in introducing legislation 
that will provide for mandatory increases in special education funding 
at $2.5 billion a year for each of the next 6 years. This bipartisan 
effort sets the course to achieve full funding for Part B of IDEA by 
fiscal year 2007. The enactment of this bill will give relief to school 
districts, resources to teachers, hope to parents, and opportunities to 
children with disabilities. It will free up State and local funds to be 
spent on such things as better pay for teachers, more professional 
development, richer and more diverse curricula, reducing class size, 
making needed renovations to buildings, and addressing other needs of 
individual schools. To me, passage of this bill will provide the 
ultimate in local educational flexibility.
  Last week, Representative Burton, Chairman of the House Committee on 
Government Reform, held a hearing on IDEA. Every witness that testified 
identified insufficient special education funding as the number one 
barrier that prevents schools from fully meeting the needs of children 
with disabilities. Every congressional Representative who attended the 
hearing spoke to the issue. Representative Hooley and Representative 
Bass have both introduced bills in the House to fully fund Part B of 
IDEA.
  In 1975, we made a commitment to fully fund the Federal Government's 
share of special education costs. If, 25 years later, in this era of 
economic prosperity and unprecedented budgetary surpluses, we cannot 
meet this commitment, when will we keep this pledge?
  School districts are demanding financial relief. Children's needs 
must be met. Parents expect accountability. There is no better way to 
touch a school, help a child, or support a family than to commit more 
Federal dollars for special education. Personally, I do not believe 
anyone can rationally argue this is not the time to fulfill our 
promise.
  In America, education is viewed as a right. Across the country, our 
Governors, school boards, education professionals, and families of 
children with disabilities identify fully funding for special education 
as their number-one priority. The American people have a right to ask 
us, ``if not now, when?'' Six million American students with 
disabilities have a right to a free and appropriate public education. 
They deserve to participate in the American dream.
  This issue will not go away and neither will I. I intend to do all I 
can to make sure we keep our promise to fully fund the Federal share of 
special education. As we proceed with new initiatives and requirements 
for schools, let us also dedicate increased Federal funds to meeting 
our existing obligations to children with disabilities, families, and 
the State and local education agencies that serve them. I believe this 
is the most important education issue before our Nation, and I will 
continue to fight for it.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I strongly support the ``Helping Children 
Success by Fully Funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act, IDEA, Act.'' This is a bi-partisan effort to help our states 
provide a free and appropriate public education to children with 
disabilities. As I've said time and again, disability is not a partisan 
issue. We all share an interest in ensuring that children with 
disabilities and their families get a fair shake in life.

[[Page 2876]]

  Currently, the State Grant program within IDEA receives $6.34 
billion. Estimates by the Congressional Research Service suggest that 
the program needs to be funded at $17.1 billion for fiscal year 2002 to 
meet the targets established in 1975. Our amendment would obligate 
funding for IDEA annually in roughly $2.5 billion increments over the 
next six years and would put us on track to meet our goal of 40 percent 
funding.
  In the early seventies, two landmark federal district court cases, 
PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Mills v. Board of Education of 
the District Court of Columbia, established that children with 
disabilities have a constitutional right to a free appropriate public 
education. In 1975, in response to these cases, Congress enacted the 
Education of Handicapped Children Act, EHA, the precursor to IDEA, to 
help states meet their constitutional obligations.
  Congress enacted PL 94-142 for two reasons. First, to establish a 
consistent policy of what constitutes compliance with the equal 
protection clause of the 14th amendment with respect to the education 
of kids with disabilities. And, second, to help States meet their 
Constitutional obligations through federal funding. The Supreme Court 
reiterated this in Smith v. Robinson: ``EHA is a comprehensive scheme 
set up by Congress to aid the states in complying with their 
constitutional obligations to provide public education for handicapped 
children.''
  It is Congress' responsibility to help States provide children with 
disabilities and education. That is why I strongly agree with the 
policy of this bill and the infusion of more money into IDEA. As 
Senator Jeffords has said before, this is a win-win for everyone. 
Students with disabilities will be more likely to get the public 
education they have a right to because school districts will have the 
capacity to provide such an education, without cutting into their 
general education budgets.
  The Supreme Court's decision regarding Garret Frey of Cedar Rapids, 
Iowa underscores the need for Congress to help school districts with 
the financial costs of educating children with disabilities. While the 
excess costs of educating some children with disabilities is minimal, 
the excess costs of educating other children with disabilities, like 
Garret, is great.
  Just last week, I heard from the Cedar Rapids/Iowa City Chamber of 
Commerce that more IDEA dollars will help them continue to deliver high 
quality educational services to children in their school districts. 
This bill would provide over $300 million additional dollars to Iowa 
over the next six years. I've heard from parents in Iowa that their 
kids need more qualified interpreters for deaf and hard of hearing 
children and they need better mental health services and better 
behavioral assessments. And the additional funds will help local and 
area education agencies build capacity in these areas.
  In 1975, IDEA authorized the maximum award per state as being the 
number of children served times 40 percent of the national average per 
pupil expenditure, known as the APPE. The formula does not guarantee 40 
percent of national APPE per disabled child served; rather, it caps 
IDEA allotments at 40 percent of national APPE. In other words, the 40 
percent figure was a goal, not a commitment.
  As the then ranking minority member on the House Ed and Labor 
Committee, Rep. Albert Quie, explained: ``I do not know in the 
subsequent years whether we will appropriate at those [authorized] 
levels or not. I think what we are doing here is laying out the goal. 
Ignoring other Federal priorities, we thought it acceptable if funding 
reaches that level.''
  One of the important points in the Congressman's statement is that we 
cannot fund IDEA grant programs at the cost of other important federal 
programs. That is why historically the highest appropriation for 
special education funding was in FY79, when allocations represented 
12.5 percent APPE.
  Over the last six years, however, as Ranking Member on the Labor-H 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked with my colleagues across 
the aisle to almost triple the IDEA appropriation so that we're now up 
to almost 15 percent of the funding formula.
  This bill would help us push that number to 40 percent without 
cutting into general education programs.
  We must redouble our efforts to help school districts meet their 
constitutional obligations. And this increased funding will allow us to 
increase dollars to every program under IDEA through appropriations. 
Every program under IDEA must get adequate funds.
  As I said, we can all agree that states should receive more money 
under IDEA. I thank Senator Hagel, Senator Jeffords, Senator Kennedy 
and Senator Dodd for their leadership on this issue. I encourage my 
colleagues to join us in support of this bill.

                          ____________________