I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1564

To provide for the full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 2, 2003

Mr. ALLEN (for himself and Mr. MICHAUD) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition 

to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently 

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To provide for the full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the No Child Left Behind 

Act of 2001, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Local Property Tax 

5 Relief Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds as follows: 
2

•HR 1564 IH 

1 (1) Local property taxes are rising in many 

2 communities across the United States to meet grow3 ing education expenditures, caused in part by the 

4 need to meet requirements and standards set by 

5 Federal education policies. 

6 (2) States are facing the worst fiscal conditions 

7 since World War II as the majority of states face 

8 growing budget shortfalls. In order to meet their 

9 education budgets, many states are being forced to 

10 raise taxes. Property taxes are imposed in all 50 

11 States. It has been estimated that property taxes 

12 across the country on average will increase 10 per13 cent, and as high as 20 to 30 percent in some 

14 States. 

15 (3) With the enactment of the Individuals with 

16 Disabilities Education Act, the Federal Government 

17 authorized a commitment to provide states funding 

18 to cover 40 percent of the national average per pupil 

19 expenditure for each disabled child served. 

20 (4) The Federal Government has never pro21 vided more than 17 percent of the average per pupil 

22 expenditure under the Individuals with Disabilities 

23 Education Act. 

24 (5) With the enactment of the No Child Left 

25 Behind Act of 2001, the Federal Government prom-
3

•HR 1564 IH 

1 ised to provide full funding for programs to help 

2 schools meet new requirements to demonstrate their 

3 success in terms of each student’s achievements. 

4 (6) Since the enactment of the No Child Left 

5 Behind Act of 2001, the President has failed to re6 quest, and Congress has failed to appropriate, full 

7 funding levels authorized by the Act. 

8 (7) Fully funding the Individuals with Disabil9 ities Education Act and the No Child Left Behind 

10 Act of 2001 would provide billions of dollars to 

11 States and communities for education expenses, and 

12 relieve the burden on local property tax payers bear13 ing the brunt of increasing expenditures on schools 

14 and students. 

15 (8) Since the beginning of the 107th Congress, 

16 Congress has approved tax cuts that mostly benefit 

17 the wealthy, and will result in the loss of more than 

18 $2,000,000,000,000 in Federal revenue over the 

19 next decade, a fraction of which could be used to 

20 fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Edu21 cation Act, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 

22 or both Acts. 
4

•HR 1564 IH 

1 SEC. 3. FULL FUNDING FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABIL2 ITIES EDUCATION ACT. 

3 There is appropriated an additional $9,500,000,000, 

4 for fiscal year 2003, to fully fund 40 percent of the aver5 age per pupil expenditures for programs under section 611 

6 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 

7 U.S.C. 1411). 

8 SEC. 4. FULL FUNDING FOR THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND 

9 ACT OF 2001. 

10 There is appropriated an additional $5,165,000,000, 

11 for fiscal year 2003, to fully fund programs authorized 

12 by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 

13 107–110). 

14 SEC. 5. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON OFFSETTING REVENUE TO 

15 PROVIDE FUNDING FOR EDUCATION. 

16 It is the sense of Congress that the reduction sched17 uled to take effect on January 1, 2004, in the highest in18 come tax rate should be postponed in order to raise reve19 nues sufficient to offset the appropriations made under 

20 sections 3 and 4.

Æ