SUNUNU COMMENDS SENATOR GREGG’S WORK
ON SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING
WASHINGTON, DC – United States Senator John Sununu (R-NH)
commended Senator Judd Gregg’s (R-NH) work on special education
funding in the following speech, delivered May 12, 2004, on the
floor of the United States Senate:
“Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gregg amendment and
in opposition to the Hagel-Harkin amendment.
“I begin by commending the leadership of my State’s
senior Senator, Mr. Judd Gregg, on this issue. IDEA and special
education funding is an issue that has been a hallmark of the leadership
provided by Senator Gregg in New Hampshire and across the country.
“In New Hampshire we still fund education locally. That is
one of the reasons we have had historically such a strong school
system. That means people really understand the shortfalls, the
problems associated with education funding.
“In New Hampshire people have recognized we have not done
our job as a Congress and as a nation in funding the original commitment
made well over 20 years ago to support IDEA and special education.
“Since 1996, we have made enormous steps forward, again, under
the leadership of Senator Gregg, Senator Jeffords, and others in
this body, Congressman Charles Bass in the House, working on the
Budget Committee, where I was privileged to serve as well. We have
increased funding $8.7 billion for IDEA since 1996, increased funding
$4.7 billion since 2001. That is the kind of leadership on meeting
a funding obligation that had not been seen in this Congress in
20 years under Democratic support. I think that, to use a phrase,
is putting our collective money where our mouth is, recognizing
that IDEA funding needs to be a priority for American education.
“The President's leadership on this issue has been outstanding.
Those on the other side of the aisle might not like to admit this,
but it is hard to argue with the budgets that President Bush has
sent up where IDEA funding is concerned. There have been historic
increases year after year since President Bush took office, increases
in commitments in funding for special education that put the prior
administration’s budget requests to shame. That needs to be
recognized as well as part of the debate.
“We have a lot more work to do. Senator Gregg has outlined
the need to continue these funding increases and, in the 2005 budget,
that commitment is there, continuing the fight to meet our funding
obligations. But putting the spending on autopilot, creating a new
area of mandatory funding is not the solution.
“Even more to the point, to the Harkin amendment, this new
idea where only the increases are mandatory is effectively a shell
game, where current funding is left as discretionary, only the increases
are mandatory. Under our current budget resolution and the 2005
budget resolution, these mandatory funding increases would require
a dollar-for-dollar cut in other discretionary programs, of course,
that are not specified in this legislation. That is simply wrong.
“Placing funding on autopilot rarely, if ever, is the answer
to the problems that we wrestle with in Congress. Even more problematic,
this amendment falls short on oversight. Throwing the funding on
autopilot removes Congress from its oversight responsibility. Most
everyone who has followed the debate on this program recognizes
that more needs to be done to make sure the program works better
for those parents and children who are truly in need of the program’s
benefits.
“Second, the Harkin amendment enables Congress to avoid setting
priorities. That is simply wrong. It enables Congress to put the
funding on autopilot, this mandatory spending idea, and then not
have to make sometimes very tough but important choices around funding
priorities. I ask my colleagues on the other side whether they have
ever voted for amendments that actually reallocate appropriations
from other programs in the Department of Education or anywhere else
in the Labor-Education bill and put it into additional discretionary
special education funding, much less offered such an amendment?
It is not always an easy vote to take, but it is a vote that I have
taken in the House to actually stand up and say: Given a current
level of spending, whatever our budget is, I am willing to vote
to take funding from one program and put it into special education
because we recognize that it is the most important funding priority
we could have at the Federal level where education is concerned.
I am willing to stand up and take that vote.
“I am anxious to see whether the authors of this amendment
bring other amendments to the Senate floor in the appropriations
process that reallocate those funds. It is always easy to come to
the Senate floor with an amendment that adds $2 billion or $3 billion
or $4 billion or $5 billion, increasing the deficit without regard.
It is a lot tougher to come to the floor with an amendment that
moves funding from one area to another and show that we are willing
to set priorities and make sometimes difficult choices we are elected
to make when we come to serve in the Senate.
“I believe putting this spending on autopilot takes us away
from that commitment to make tough choices and set priorities. That
is why I will not support the Hagel-Harkin amendment and will stand
with Senator Gregg and the important work he is trying to do as
chairman of our Education and Health Committee.”
# # #
|