Hearing: Members' Day

Statement

Hearing: MEMBERS' DAY

I would look like to thank Chairman Nussle and Ranking Member
Spratt for providing members the opportunity to testify before the
Committee today. As a former member of this committee, I am well aware
of the challenges that you face when trying to craft a budget that
meets our needs at home and abroad in a responsible manner. In this
fiscal climate we must prioritize and ensure that the programs that
have the biggest impact on our local communities and nation are
adequately funded. It is for this reason that I would like to focus on
the importance of increased special education funding and a commitment
to a comprehensive renewable energy policy.

IDEA FUNDING

Since 1975 when Congress first passed the Individual with
Disabilities Education Act, we outlined the steps communities must take
to ensure that all students, regardless of any disability, receive a
free and appropriate education. As a result of this Federal mandate, we
also promised to provide 40 percent of the national average per pupil
expenditure (APPE) for special-needs students. It has been over 30
years and we have yet to fulfill this promise.
I believe that it is safe to say that every Member of Congress has
heard from at least one community in their district regarding the
strain that rising special education costs has placed on their local
budgets. In fact, I am positive that 105 of our colleagues have heard
because they joined me in signing this letter that I will present to
you asking that we fund special education at the level we agreed to in
the 2004 IDEA reauthorization law. It was in this law that 397 members
recognized the significance of fully funding IDEA by supporting a glide
path that will allow us to reach full funding by 2011. As Majority
Leader Boehner stated on November 19, 2004--``Our bill also puts the
Federal Government on a 6-year glide path to reaching our original goal
of funding up to 40 percent of the excess cost of educating students
with special needs. And as we get closer to that goal, we are also
going to give local communities more control over how they spend their
own local dollars.''
Since I arrived in Congress, IDEA spending has increased from $2.3
billion in FY 1995 to $10.7 billion in FY 2006. While this overall
increase in funding is certainly impressive and one that we should be
proud of, the reality is the Federal share in special education costs
is actually dropping. In FY 2004, we reached an all time high of
18.6%--almost half of what we promised but an improvement--the
President's budget request would bring the Federal share to 17%. We
cannot afford to go backwards.
Giving our communities more control over how they spend their own
local dollars should be our goal when debating education funding.
Providing IDEA with the Federal funds that we promised does exactly
that. Every extra dollar that the Federal Government provides to
special education is an extra dollar that is freed up on the local
level. The local school boards do not have an option when it comes to
funding what is necessary for its learning disabled population but if
the Federal Government provides the share it promised, local funds
could be used for other equally important educational measures of their
own choosing. Increasing special education funding is my number one
education priority and I will not be asking for an increase in any
other line item under the Department of Education. Mr. Chairman, I
would request that you would assist me by establishing a clear path for
appropriators to follow in this budget with regards to IDEA funding.
I recognize that we are facing fiscal restraints and agree that we
need to reign in spending to control rising deficits but I believe that
school boards should not have to cut education budgets, taxpayers
shouldn't have to pay higher property taxes, and families with special
needs students should never feel isolated or be criticized because the
Federal Government is not paying its fair share of the cost of special
education.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

In his State of the Union just 2 weeks ago, the President declared
``America is addicted to oil.'' He continued, ``By applying the talent
and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our
environment, (and) move beyond a petroleum-based economy. We'll also
fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol,
not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass.
Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive
within 6 years.''
Mr. Chairman, the President is right. If we accomplish the goals of
the Advanced Energy Initiative, we will not only free ourselves from
the entanglement of foreign energy, we will also clean the air, water
and land we all enjoy, and we will develop new technologies and
industries that provide jobs and a higher quality of life for all
Americans. This must be among our highest national priorities.
I ask you to not only meet the President's goals, but to exceed
them. The U.S. Department of Energy Biomass Fuels Initiative funds
research, development, and technology validation on advanced
technologies that will enable future biorefineries to sustainably
convert cellulosic biomass to fuels, chemicals, heat and power. The
President has requested $120 million, up from $91 million in FY06 for
this task. I challenge this committee to support an even higher level
and to anticipate higher levels in the future until we are able to
power the automobiles we drive with the crops, forestry, and other
biomass we produce.
I also urge the Committee to recommend at least $1.42 billion for
basic energy science, which supports a substantial basic research
budget for materials sciences, chemical sciences, energy biosciences,
engineering, and geosciences.
As a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, I intend to
work toward greater support and parity for these clean and renewable
energy sources. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was the best effort yet
to pass Congress, but I know we can still do better.

ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Finally, I want to comment on the issue of including any
instructions for ANWR in the budget. We are all aware of last year's
effort and outcome and I don't see any reason why this year would be
different.
Using the budget process to open ANWR is a gimmick and must be
resisted. An instruction to create a stand-alone reconciliation bill on
ANWR would place the separate legislation containing the rest of the
reforms and savings, regardless of how valuable, in jeopardy. As a
conference and Congress, we must ask ourselves where our priorities
lie.

Source