Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations, 2004-Continued
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004CONTINUED
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Dodd-Hagel-Jefford amendment to increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA. I am pleased to join Senators COLEMAN, MURRAY, DORGAN, BINGAMAN, KERRY, MIKULSKI and others as a cosponsor of this amendment.
IDEA is based on two fundamental principles: first, that all disabled children are entitled to a free and appropriate public education. And second, to the maximum extent possible, these children should be educated along side their nondisabled peers.
To help States achieve these principles, Congress authorized funding at 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditures.
Unfortunately, this funding level has never been realized, leaving States with insufficient resources and jeopardizing the achievement of IDEA's goals.
In 1996, the year I was first elected to the Senate, the Federal Government provided only $2.3 billion for IDEA funding, about 7 percent. Last year, IDEA funding had risen to $8.9 billion, about 18 percent. While clearly we have made great strides in this area, the currently IDEA funding is still less than half of the 40 percent originally promised by Congress.
Over the years, this shortfall has placed a tremendous financial stress on States in providing these services, and in particular on small rural communities such as those in Maine.
As startling as these shortfalls are, they fail to fully convey the crushing financial blow which can result to a small community when a medically fragile, high cost child locates there. In these situations, school systems are often forced to cut back in services to all children, both disabled and nondisabled, in an attempt to meet their legal obligations. Unfortunately, this can result in resentment of these children by members of their own community.
Increased Federal support is desperately needed, and that is why I want to thank Chairman SPECTER for the substantial increase in IDEA funding he has included in the Senate base bill. He has included nearly a billion-dollar increase over last year's level.
Our amendment seeks to further boost this funding by providing an additional $1.2 billion for IDEA Part B State Grants. This increase would result in a $2.2 billion increase over fiscal year 2003 funding and will keep us on the track toward full funding. Our amendment would also be consistent with action taking during Senate consideration of the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution, which similarly provided for a $2.2 billion increase for IDEA. In Maine, passage of this amendment would result in a $10 million increase over fiscal year 2003 funding levels.
With this amendment, we would raise the Federal Government's commitment to roughly 21 percent of the costs of special education. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this amendment. Let's continue our efforts to make good on our promise and fully fund IDEA.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my colleague and friend from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, in offering an amendment that would increase the funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, commonly known as LIHEAP, by $300 million.
Before I begin my formal comments, I, too, want to pay tribute to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Specter, for his longstanding support of low-income heating assistance funding. Due to his efforts, there is in this bill a $200 million increase in LIHEAP funding over last year. Moreover, the bill would provide $300 million more in much-needed regular LIHEAP funding than either the administration's request or the House bill. So the legislation before us represents significant progress.
Nevertheless, I am joining in the effort of my colleague from Rhode Island because I think it reflects a realistic appraisal of the needs for more assistance in this program.
During the past year, the Nation has gone from energy crisis to energy crisis. In just this year alone, we have seen price spikes involving home heating oil, natural gas, gasoline, and electricity. Earlier this year, one of the largest suppliers of oil to American markets, Venezuela, ceased production as a result of political turmoil. A harsh cold snap occurred at about the same time, causing home heating oil supplies to plummet and prices to surge upward.
More recently, we have run into a shortage of natural gas that has again sent prices shooting upward. Three weeks ago, 50 million Americans suffered through the biggest blackout in American history. And finally, most recently, the price of gasoline rose with unprecedented speed to approximately $1.75 per gallon.
These energy crises impose an especially heavy burden on our low-income families and on those of our elderly who are living on limited incomes. Low-income families spend a greater percentage of their incomes on energy and have fewer options available when energy prices soar. High energy prices can even cause some families to choose between keeping the heat on, putting food on the table, or paying for much-needed prescription medicine.
These are choices no American family should ever have to make. Despite the hardship which energy emergencies impose on low-income Americans and despite the frequency with which we have all been forced to suffer through energy emergency after energy emergency, the bill before us does not provide any contingency LIHEAP funds to respond to these kinds of emergencies. Given the frequency with which we have been beset by energy crisis after energy crisis, in my view it is only prudent that we plan ahead and that we include some contingency funding to ensure low-income families can get through the next energy crisis on the horizon.
I hope we won't have to use that funding. I hope prices will be stable, that the winter will not be unusually harsh or long, and that there will be no energy emergencies in fiscal year 2004. If there aren't, if we are lucky or fortunate, then we will have no need to spend this money and we will all be much relieved. But just in case the future repeats the past, doesn't it make sense, just in case there is another shortage of home heating oil or natural gas or price spikes or heat-related crisis next summer, we be better prepared? Should we not set aside some funding to help those who will need the help the most?
I call upon my colleagues to join Senator Reed and me in supporting this amendment which will set aside an additional $300 million for energy emergencies.
I yield the floor.