Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 5, the Individuals with Disabilities Reauthorization Act of 1997 [IDEA]. I oppose this bill as strong supporter of doing all possible to advance the education of persons with disabilities. However, I do not think that a huge bureaucracy is the best way to educate disabled children. Parents and local communities know their children so much better than any Federal bureaucrat, and they can do a better job of meeting a child’s needs than we in Washington. There is no way that the unique needs of my grandchildren, and some young boy or girl in Los Angeles, CA or New York City can be educated by some sort of ‘Cookie Cutter’ approach.

At a time when Congress should be returning power and funds to the States, IDEA increases Federal control over education. According to the Congressional Budget Office Federal expenditures on IDEA will reach over $20 billion by the year 2002. This flies in the face of many Members’ public commitment to place limits on the scope of the Federal bureaucracy.

H.R. 5 imposes significant costs on State governments and localities. For example, the new bill requires one regular education teacher to take part in each individual education plan [IEP]. According to certain education experts, this could require as many as 10 to 15 teachers be present at each IEPO meeting. This bill also requires States to include disabled students in all statewide assessments by 1998 and develop alternatives for students unable to participate in the regular exams by the year 2000. According to the National Association of State Boards of Education [NASBE], this mandate will increase assessment costs by 12 percent.

NASBE’s May 9 letter to Congress identifies several other provisions in H.R. 5 that will impose new financial burdens on the States. I ask that the letter be read into the Record.

As I see Members of Congress applaud the imposition of more mandates on States, I cannot help but think of a letter I received from the high school principal asking for some relief from Federal mandates imposed on her by laws like IDEA. I would ask all my colleagues to consider whether we are truly aiding education by imposing new mandates or just making it more difficult for hard-working, education professionals like this principal to properly educate our children?

The major Federal mandate in IDEA is that disabled children be educated in the least restrictive setting. In other words, this bill makes mainstreaming the Federal policy. Many children may thrive in a mainstream classroom environment, however, I worry that some children may be mainstreamed solely because school officials believe it is required by Federal law, even though the mainstream environment is not the most appropriate for that child.

On May 10, 1994, Dr. Mary Wagner Testified before the Education Committee that disabled children who are not placed in a mainstream classrooms graduate from high school at a much higher rate than disabled children who are mainstreamed. Dr. Wagner quite properly accused Congress of sacrificing children to ideology.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop sacrificing children on the alter of ideology. Every child is unique and special. Given the colossal failure of Washington’s existing interference, it is clear that all children will be better off when we get Washington out of their classroom and out of their parents’ pocketbooks. I therefore urge my colleagues to cast a vote for constitutionally limited government and genuine compassion by opposing H.R. 5.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 13th, 1997 at 3:14 am and is filed under Speeches and Statements. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.