Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, there is strong bipartisan support for the McKeon/ Woolsey amendment, amendment No. 10, because it guarantees that from now on, all increases in Federal IDEA funds go to local schools where they belong. My Republican colleague and I came together to offer this amendment because we want to make certain that State do not use Federal increases in IDEA funds to solve their State budget problems. We are aware of at least 4 States, including our own California, that may be considering using IDEA funding increases at the State level for other purposes. While we all here in this room are sympathetic to State budget problems, we agree that IDEA funding must not be used to solve those problems. The McKeon/Woolsey amendment ensures this will not happen by prohibiting States from keeping increases in IDEA funds for their own use. Whenever I talk to the educators in my local school districts, the first thing they bring up is IDEA, and the first thing they bring up about IDEA is funding. As we all know, the Federal government has a long way to go to fully fund the Federal share of IDEA. It is our local school districts who fulfill the responsibility of providing every child with a free and appropriate public education. And it is these school districts, not the States, who must benefit from federal IDEA funds. Local schools desperately need every penny of Federal IDEA funds, and the McKeon/Woolsey amendment makes sure that they get them. I encourage my colleagues to vote aye on the McKeon/Woolsey amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I support the gentleman's amendment and congratulate him on introducing it.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, actually the key here is mandatory funding because no matter what we authorize on this committee, no matter what we vote for today on H.R. 1350, whether it is 18 percent of the 40 percent Federal commitment, whether it is 21 percent of the 40 percent commitment, or if it is 25 percent of the 40 percent Federal commitment, the funding has to be spent. We can authorize it, but the Committee on Appropriations spends it. Unless we tell the Committee on Appropriations through changing the rules of H.R. 1350 and IDEA, unless we tell them that it is mandatory that they spend what we authorize, it will not get spent; and it is going to be the year 2035 before we even come close to reaching 40 percent. Later on today the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and I have an amendment that will pass all new funding after the year 2003, pass any new funding that is appropriated directly to the school districts and to the schools. But if we do not get any new funding because indeed the appropriators do not choose to add funding, then we pass along nothing to school districts because 100 percent of nothing is still nothing. The Federal commitment to IDEA 30 years ago was 40 percent that Federal Government would match the mandate that the States educate all kids, which is absolutely the right thing to do, and provide them a free education and equally educate all children in the public school system. That was 40 years ago. We are at 18 percent of that 40 percent today, and we are never going to get there if we do not say that it is something that must be done. And in so doing, we will be making it possible for schools to count on the funding they need, we will be removing the emotion that parents pit themselves against each other because there is so little funding available for education in the first place, and we will make sure that special education funding does not come out of the funding necessary for other programs. We make promises. We do not fulfill them. Voting for H.R. 1350 would be another broken promise unless H.R. 1350 includes mandatory full funding over the next 6-year, 7-year period. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the IDEA, I have been struck by how very emotional people are about this very issue. In fact, before me I have a stack of mail that came to the Committee on Education and the Workforce just over the last few days, and that mail is against passage of H.R. 1350. There are two things we can do in Congress to reduce the stress and the emotion that people feel about this issue. One is to fully fund it and make it mandatory; two is to make sure that children are treated fairly in the discipline process. If we fully fund the Federal share of our costs and if we make funding mandatory, we will fulfill the commitment to our schools for the special education programs that we have promised here in the Congress. Unfortunately, H.R. 1350 does not do that. Without mandatory full funding, the authorization levels in the bill are meaningless because they are subject to the many, many competitive requests included in all and every appropriations process. Amendments were offered during the committee, Mr. Chairman. Amendments were offered by the Democrats that would fully fund IDEA and make the funding mandatory. But those amendments were defeated on a partisan basis, and we do not have before us any amendment that would fully fund and allow for the debate here today to fully fund this issue of mandatory funding for IDEA. To me, a vote for H.R. 1350 is a vote against fully funding the issue, and I oppose it for that reason alone. But there is another good reason to oppose H.R. 1350. And talk about getting emotional, this is where parents and educators have a lot to say, and that is the discipline provisions in the bill. In the bill, a student with special needs can be removed from school for, and I quote, ``any violation of a school's student code of conduct.'' Now, that is different in every single school, and a child can be kept out of school for an indefinite length of time. So a student with Tourette's syndrome, for example, who may shout out in class, can be expelled. A student who does not understand the dress code and wears shorts when long pants are required, could be expelled. A student with limited muscular control could be expelled for lashing out or possibly pushing another student. There is no requirement in H.R. 1350 to determine if the child's violation is the result of his or her disability. This is going backwards. It is no way to reauthorize IDEA. Children, parents, and schools deserve an IDEA reauthorization where parents will not have to compete over education funds, where the goal will be to keep kids with special needs in school, where the legislation removes the emotion surrounding the issue, not increases it. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1350 is not that kind of reauthorization, and I will not be able to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we worked with the majority on this amendment. We do not oppose it, and would hope that it could be passed right now. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a member of the committee.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. For the purposes of legislative history, the intent of this amendment is to codify the interpretation of FAPE contained in the Supreme Court decision Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the Tancredo amendment.