Expressing the sense of Congress that the Nation should strive to prevent teen pregnancy by encouraging teens to view adolescence as a time for education and growing-up and by educating teens about the negative consequences of early sexual activity.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the opening statements by the two managers, Senator Harkin be recognized to offer his amendment regarding funding. I further ask that immediately upon the reporting of that amendment, it be temporarily set aside and the I be recognized to offer a first-degree amendment regarding funding; provided further, that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two managers, or their designees, to debate both first-degree amendments concurrently. I ask also that following that debate, the Senate proceed to a vote in relationship to my amendment, to be followed by a vote in relationship to

the Harkin amendment, with no second-degree amendments in order to either amendment.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that no further amendments relating to funding be in order to the bill, and that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between the votes, and that the votes begin at 1:45 p.m.

Mr. President, I join the senior Senator from Massachusetts. I specifically thank the senior Senator from Massachusetts for his cooperation and the cooperation of the entire committee.

This is a bill that is 90 percent agreed to. There are some public policy issues we are going to debate on the floor, specifically on the process of funding this bill. It is a very strong step forward in the area of addressing the needs of children who have special needs, basically focused on making sure there is less bureaucracy and more care, that teachers have more flexibility and parents have more involvement, and that there is less litigation and more results.

Kids who have special needs, rather than just being put through a process of checking off boxes, are actually given the opportunity to learn, and we have accountability standards for that learning.

It is a very good bill. We will get into more depth on its substance as we move forward. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Iowa for moving expeditiously his amendment, along with one of the amendments I will be offering, one of the primary issues that needs to be addressed on the floor. I look forward to him offering his amendment. I will offer mine, and we will get into the substance of that debate.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is a landmark civil rights law that has had a powerfully positive impact on millions of Americans.

Before moving to the substance of my remarks, I would like to thank the chairman of our committee, the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, and the ranking member, my friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, for their dedicated work on this bill. The reauthorization of a bill of this size is a considerable undertaking, and I want to recognize the excellent work of Annie White of Senator Gregg's staff, and Connie Garner of Senator Kennedy's staff, along with many other committee staff who have worked so hard on this reauthorization.

Let me take a moment to put the Individuals with Disabilities Act in historical context. IDEA was passed almost three decades ago, in 1975, the year after I was first elected to the House of Representatives. So I have watched the progress of this law since its inception. I am proud of what IDEA has achieved. No question, we have further to go to achieve equal educational opportunity for children with disabilities. But we have made tremendous progress since 1975.

We must not forget that, prior to the early 1970s, children with disabilities were routinely kept out of school. More than 1 million children were excluded entirely from their local public schools, and more than half of all children with disabilities in the United States did not receive appropriate educational services. If they did get an education, it was often in segregated schools or institutional settings.

But in the early 1970s, that began to change. Two landmark cases, PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1971, and Mills v. Board of Education in 1972 established that children with disabilities had the right to an equal opportunity for education under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.

In 1975, Congress wrote IDEA for two reasons. First, we fleshed out the substance and details of what was required to achieve equality for children with disabilities. Congress specified critical protections for parents and children to transform the constitutional requirement into a practical reality throughout the country. While we still have further to go, I believe that we have made major progress since the days when 1 million children were entirely excluded from school. The latest figures available indicate that some 6.6 million children are receiving services under IDEA.

A second important purpose of IDEA was to help States meet their constitutional obligations. And here we have fallen far short of our goals. When IDEA was passed, the Federal Government pledged to help with 40 percent of the excess costs of special education. At the present time, we are funding less than 20 percent of these costs. I will have more to say about this later when I offer an amendment along with my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Nebraska.

I think it is important to keep fixed in our minds these two historic purposes of IDEA, because these purposes must inform our discussion over the next few days here in the Senate. The protections that we wrote into the law to ensure opportunity for all continue to be critical today. And the need for Federal help to meet states' obligation also continues to be critical to realizing the full promise of this law.

These matters are vitally important because the education that a child receives has a profound impact on his or her future. This is true for all children, whether or not they have disabilities.

IDEA is a critical cornerstone of the Federal Government's commitment to ensuring equality for individuals with disabilities. When we passed the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, we said that this Nation's four great goals for individuals with disabilities are equal opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic self-sufficiency. These same goals are referenced in IDEA. Obviously, a quality education is essential to achieving all four of these goals.

These may be broad goals, but they are not abstractions. To the contrary, they have enormous practical, nitty-gritty consequences for individuals with disabilities. They have the power to transform individual lives.

On that score, I want to tell you about my good friend, Danny Piper from Ankeny, IA. Tragically, Danny died in a car accident more than a year ago, but he left behind a legacy of friends, family, and personal achievement.

From an early age, Danny's parents insisted that he be educated with his peers. He was an integral part of his school community, performing in the school play and active in a variety of school activities. Once, after he testified before my subcommittee on the ADA, I asked him how testifying before Congress compared to being in the school play. He answered, ``Not so bad.''

Danny went on to finish high school and get a job. I spent one day with him on the job at Osco drugstore, where he worked everyday. He showed me the ropes--how to correctly stock the shelves, how to load the cardboard box machine to avoid getting hurt, and so on. We had lunch together, too. It was a day I will always cherish.

Danny had what we want for all of our children--a fulfilling life of independence and dignity. He lived with a friend in an apartment. He worked every day. This is what IDEA is all about. It is why I strongly support the protections this law provides--and why it is time for the Federal Government to fully fund the act.

We have a long way to go to ensure that all children have access to a quality education, and the opportunities that come with it. This reauthorization correctly emphasizes enforcement of the act. I thank my friend from Massachusetts for his leadership on this issue. This bill contains provisions that require states to meet compliance benchmarks. It specifies that the Secretary and the States must take action if there is a consistent failure to provide an appropriate education to children with disabilities.

The bill also ensures that a child's individualized education program, known as an IEP, provides services up front to ensure that a child succeeds. So each child will have access to the behavioral health services that will ensure a good experience for the child and his or her classmates. Getting that plan in place in the first place, rather than after any problems occur, is critical to making this law work for everyone.

The bill has several important provisions to assist deaf children get the education that they need to succeed. It specifies that interpreters are a related service required under the act, and it preserves critical access to captioning for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. These provisions are very important to me because, as many of you know, my brother Frank was deaf. These are the kinds of services that would have made a huge difference for Frank. So I am especially proud to support these provisions in the reauthorization.

This bill also maintains all of the early intervention and preschool education programs that get children off on the right foot so they can achieve in school.

As we debate this reauthorization, let's be guided by the vision that IDEA is an investment in children's lives and futures. We are investing money at the front end--with early intervention, with interpreters, with behavioral health and other related services. And the return on that investment is productive, independent, taxpaying citizens. We get individuals who are prepared to go on to higher education, to gainful employment, and to independent living in our communities.

But we have to make investments in order to get the results we want. We have to ensure that schools provide the appropriate education required by the law. And we have to meet our commitment to help local public schools by, at long last, providing them with full Federal funding IDEA. As I said, IDEA was passed in 1975. It has been almost three decades, and we are not even half way toward meeting our original commitment to pay 40 percent of the excess costs of special education.

I will be offering an amendment later with my friend, the senior Senator from Nebraska, to remedy this longstanding failure of the Federal Government. Over the years, we have talked again and again about full funding. I say to my colleagues that its time for us not just to talk the talk, but to walk the walk. It is time to make good on the critical investment of federal funds that we pledged over 30 years ago.

I will have more to say on this later. For now, I conclude by noting that IDEA is about the kind of country we want America to be. We must fully fund the act, and we must renew our commitment to its cornerstone protections. Only then will every child in America have the opportunity not only to dream, but to make his or her dreams a reality.

Mr. President, I ask that my amendment be called up.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need.

Mr. President, first of all, I, once again, thank the members of the committee for assisting in pulling together a bill which is a very positive piece of legislation in the area of special education. We all understand the historical development of special education. It has been outlined quite adequately and well by the Senator from Massachusetts, the fact that for many years these children were put in special rooms or put in the basement and left there to basically be warehoused, for all intents and purposes.

Then, with the passage of the special education law back in 1976, that all changed, and these kids ended up having an opportunity, a shot at decent education, and, where mainstreaming came into play, we tried to get them into the classroom, and to the extent they could not be in the classroom, they would get high-quality care.

I have had a personal involvement in this issue for a long time. I chaired, was the president of, and a member of the board of directors, of a very excellent center for special needs children, which is an educational facility, not a hospital, called the Crotched Mountain Rehabilitation Center, in New Hampshire. I was basically very active in that center for many years, until the mid to late 1980s. So it is an issue that concerns me a lot.

I want to make sure these kids get adequate care and adequate education. This bill makes giant strides toward addressing some of the problems that have evolved over the years relative to special needs students, especially as we attempt to reduce the amount of bureaucracy and paperwork that teachers for special needs children specifically have to handle.

It is estimated that some teachers for special needs children-- probably even a majority--spend almost a day and a half of every week essentially doing paperwork to maintain the lesson plans and the planning process and making sure all the different regulatory activity is addressed relative to their jobs, instead of actually being with the child and doing the classroom work that is so important. So this bill tries to address that.

It also tries to address the excessive litigiousness that has occurred over the years relative to special needs children, trying to reduce that, and getting us out of the courtroom and back into the classroom with these kids. It is a very important factor.

It also addresses the question of discipline. This has been a problem. It tries to give teachers and school officials a little more control, significantly more control, in how they manage their classrooms and dealing with children who are, unfortunately, disruptive, but does it without uniquely penalizing a child whose disruption is a function of their problem which they may have which gives them special needs. So I think we reach a balance that is very constructive.

The bill is a positive step forward in trying to make the special education laws more responsive to the outpouring of concerns we heard from school teachers, administrators, and parents across the country, but especially, in my case, from New Hampshire. So we are trying to address and improve the law to make it more efficient and effective.

We focus it now more on accountability. We want to make sure these children learn to the extent they are capable of learning. Rather than just going through a series of checking off boxes because this has been done and that has been done, what we want to know is, are there results? We try to adjust the process to focus on results versus bureaucracy and input. So that is the goal of this bill.

It is a good piece of legislation. It is bipartisan, as has been mentioned. The issues which remain are significant, but they are not the core of the bill. The core of the bill is how it addresses the needs of that child.

One of the major issues, obviously, that remains is how we fund this legislation. This has been a primary concern of mine since I was elected. When I had the good fortune to serve as Governor of New Hampshire, I believed that the single largest unfunded requirement the Federal Government was putting on us, outside of some of the environmental requirements, was this issue of how we paid for special education. I did come here with the intention, and have, I believe, had reasonable impact on getting those dollars up, getting the Federal dollars up, the commitment up. It has been a long and very difficult road, but it has been a road where significant success has been accomplished also.

I do not think we should ignore the fact that we have dramatically increased funding in the special education accounts. In fact, if you look at the special education funding accounts, I believe you will find they are, as a percentage--obviously, not in gross dollars, but as a percentage--the fastest growing funding area in the Federal Government, and have been in that arena for the last 4 years during this President's time, and even prior to that since the Republicans took over the Senate.

I think it is important we refer to some of the history of what was happening, and how we have increased funding in these accounts. First off, in 1996, when we Republicans retook control of the Senate, myself and other Members of the Senate, including Senator Lott and Senator Specter, decided to make it an absolute priority.

In fact, it became S. 1 at that time, the first bill we introduced, that we would increase the funding for special education programs.

We started a process of increasing the commitment to funding to those programs, which was significant. This chart reflects that increase. We have gone from $2.3 billion--and each one of these increases represents very substantive and dramatic increases. By the way, almost $1 billion a year, since 1996, on a compounded basis, has been going into the special education accounts. So we went from $2.3 billion, when we started this aggressiveness--and I would like to think I was one of the initiators of this, as was Senator Jeffords at the time--and have now moved it up to $11.3 billion.

As a percentage, in 1996, when we started, the Federal Government was paying maybe 6 percent of the cost of special needs children. Now we are paying about 20 percent of the cost of special needs children.

I think it is very important in the context of the debate to put this in perspective relative to what the commitments made by the Clinton administration were during this time because what happened during this period was that, actually, President Clinton did not send up any budgets which increased special education funding until the last 2 years of his administration. In fact, he was flat-funding special education throughout his administration, for all intents and purposes. It was not until the Republican Senate insisted that dollars be put into special education, and we increased the funding by $1 billion a year, as I mentioned, starting in 1996, that President Clinton actually responded to that, and in the last 2 years of his administration started to put funds into this account.

If you look at it by year, you will notice essentially the Clinton administration's funding levels were basically flat. If you look at our funding, you will see that it increased dramatically during this period. In fact, in gross terms, over the 8 years of the Clinton administration, his commitment to special education was $29 billion. In the first 4 years of the Bush administration, the increase is $38 billion. So just in a period of 4 years, President Bush has dramatically increased--almost by 50 percent--the total increases which were made to special education funding during the 8 years of President Clinton's administration.

This reflects the fact that once the Presidency changed, and President Bush came into office, there was actually even an acceleration of funding into the special education accounts beyond what was occurring when we had a Republican Senate and a Democratic President and the Republican Senate was pushing the issue. Now we had an actual President who was in agreement with accelerating special education funding, and we accelerated that funding rather dramatically.

President Bush, in every budget he has brought forward since becoming President, has proposed an increase of at least $1 billion--and that is a compounded number--so that we have seen this rather dramatic increase in funding from the administration over this period of time which has led to this huge increase--significant increase--which, as I said, is one of the fastest growing percentages in the Federal budget, if not the fastest growing percentage in the Federal budget of funding for any account. And that has occurred in the special education accounts.

In fact, when I looked at Senator Harkin's chart, I found it interesting that at least he gave credit to the fact that the President was increasing funding $1 billion a year--$1 billion a year; $1 billion on top of $1 billion. That was not enough to reach the goals that we had hoped to reach. But it was those big increases that he was reflecting there. And it is ironic that that would be attacked, that the President would be attacked for only increasing funding $1 billion a year--``only,'' using the term from the other side--only increasing funding $1 billion a year and $1 billion the next year which is $2 billion, and a billion dollars the next year which is $3 billion, that he would be attacked for that. When the Democrats controlled the Senate and the Democrats controlled the Presidency, they flat-funded this account. When President Clinton was President and we controlled the Senate, we had to really pull teeth to get the funding up. Now we have a President who has been actively promoting the expansion of funding in these accounts, aggressively and rather dramatically expanding it, and what do we hear from the other side: You are only doing $3 billion, $1 billion 1 year, $1 billion on top of that, $1 billion the next year. It is a little inconsistent, to say the least, if not a touch hypocritical to make that statement in the context of the last time the budget was actually under their control.

In fact, if you go back to the last time Senator Harkin was the appropriating chairman--there was a period here where the Democratic Party did control the Senate, while President Bush was President, has been President. During that period Senator Harkin brought forward an appropriation, when he had control over the appropriations accounts that deal with special education, which did not come anywhere near the number which he now claims should have been funded. He is claiming the funding increase should have been $2.2 billion a year under his own chart. That is what he is saying.

Under his budget, as he brought it out--actually he never brought it at the floor of the Senate. It was passed through committee. They never actually brought a budget to the floor and they never brought an appropriations bill to the floor. Under his appropriations bill as it passed out of his committee, I believe his number was $875 million that he had for an increase in the account. It might have been $1 billion. Whatever it was, it was less than the full funding he now says has to be given or should have been given, even during that time under his own charge, to special education.

So there is a disconnect. When they are in charge, when they control the Presidency, when they control the Senate, they flat-fund special education. When they control the Presidency and we control the Senate, we have to pull teeth to get their President to send up a budget that increases special education. When they control the Senate and we control the Presidency, they send out an appropriations bill which is at least $1 billion less than what they claim we should be doing. There is, to say the least, a disconnect.

The fact is under this President we have seen the fastest growth in special education funding that has occurred in the history of the accounts. We have seen growth in special education funding in 4 years of $38 billion by President Bush as compared with $29 billion over 8 years of the Clinton administration.

I believe when we make the case on this side of the aisle that we are committed to special education funding, that we are doing what we think is reasonable and capable within the context of this budget process-- remember, we are running a deficit--to fund special education, where we are giving it the single biggest increases of any account in the Federal Government year after year after year on a percentage basis, that we come to this argument with significant credibility on our commitment to fund special education and fund it aggressively.

That brings us to the substance of the debate on the amendment today. What Senator Harkin has proposed is we take prospective payments to special education accounts and make them mandatory. Remember, this creates a whole new concept of how we fund things around here. This is a brand new idea--and not a very good one--which suggests we create a new highway where you are going to have discretionary accounts funding the vast majority of the spending, and then you are going to put on top of the discretionary accounts, like a layer cake, a mandatory account. This creates some pretty significant problems.

The first problem it creates is it creates a new mandatory account. Mandatory accounts are not a good idea when you are running a deficit because they basically mean you do not set priorities. We as a government, when you are running a $300 billion deficit, maybe more, $400 billion--according to Senator Kennedy, we are going to save $100 billion this year, so maybe we are down to $300 billion or we may be at $400 billion--but when you are running this type of deficit, we as a government have some responsibility to our constituents to be responsible and to make choices, to prioritize needs.

We, as the Senate, have historically prioritized special education very highly, at least whenever the Republicans have controlled the Senate. And we have asked for what would amount to a pathway to full funding by 2010. We have put in Senate proposals that have represented that approximately $2.2 billion in annual increases. We have done it the right way. We have, when we have done that, cut other accounts. When we have passed these increases in our budget proposals that have been at $2.2 billion, we have reduced other accounts to offset those increases. That is the priority we should set as a government.

But when you set up a mandatory account, you basically ignore priorities and you essentially say, let's add the money to the deficit, which is exactly what the Senator from Massachusetts is suggesting. That is a different approach. It doesn't happen to be our approach on this side of the aisle.

We think fiscal responsibility requires, especially in a time when we are running a deficit, that you set priorities. We believe we have shown, beyond any question on the facts, with these dramatic increases in special education funding, which we have done under Republican Presidents, under a Republican Senate, that in a competition for funds, special education wins and has won and will continue to win.

So to set up a mandatory account is a mistake, especially when you are running a deficit. It also creates a couple of other problems. One is that under the rules of the Senate, when you set up a mandatory account, you must reduce discretionary accounts dollar for dollar for that mandatory account. That is our budget rule. So as a practical matter, it is very possible that unless we decide to waive that budget item, we will actually end up reducing the discretionary spending that is committed toward special education, the $11 billion, in order to fund the mandatory spending. And we will probably end up or we potentially could end up, because this bill calls for $2 billion of mandatory spending, with a $2 billion reduction in discretionary spending so you would level-fund the mandatory. You would level-fund special education if the budget rules kick in the way they are written.

The practical effect would be there would be no net gain for special education funding, or it would be very limited. So this becomes a bit of an illusory term, when you are using mandatory and you merge it with discretionary accounts. If it were pure mandatory, I guess you could argue the funding would occur. But under our rules, it is not going to be pure mandatory. It is going to be this new hybrid, this layer cake, half mandatory, half discretionary.

The practical implication under our rules is you have to reduce dollar for dollar the discretionary accounts by the mandatory increase. What does that mean? Zero increase for special education, if these rules are applied in their present form.

There is another problem this creates, this new hybrid animal. For example, if we accept the fact the mandatory money is coming through and that the discretionary accounts are not reduced--in other words, say we waive this budget rule--we will create a scenario where the appropriators--of which I happen to be one and am very proud, and we do a wonderful job, but as an appropriator, I will tell you what I am thinking. I am thinking I just got $2 billion I don't have to spend on this discretionary account. I can put it somewhere else. Basically you are not guaranteeing this money at all. What you are doing is you are creating more dollar availability for the appropriator who has that discretionary account to use in some other area.

That is the distinct potential here because there is no--let us call it ``maintenance of effort'' language in this amendment for the Appropriations Committee. So as a practical matter, you don't resolve the problem this way. The only way you resolve the problem is to do it straight up, which is to say we should fund this account on a glidepath toward full funding, which is what the Senate has said.

We should use our appropriations authority and keep that discretion within the appropriations authority to accomplish that. We should set the priorities so that special education gets fully funded. That is what my amendment does. It sets up the authorization levels to allow the Appropriations Committee to proceed down that path.

Why do I think it will occur? Well, primarily because of the history here, which is that when we as Republicans control the Senate--and now we have a Republican President--we are making these huge increases in the special education accounts. So the alternative that we presented here is the more fiscally responsible way to do this. I think it is the more practical way to get to the ends at which we are aimed.

You can throw out this term ``mandatory.'' When you go home to your town meetings, it resonates well. I don't deny that for a second. But it is illusory when it is used in conjunction with the discretionary funding accounts and when used in conjunction with the budget rules as presently structured in the Senate. It literally means nothing. The only thing that is going to accomplish full funding for special education is the willingness of the Senate and the House, hopefully, which has not joined us in the past, to assert the $2.2 billion increase and move down that road and protect ourselves in conference with the House.

To pass the Harkin amendment may make us feel good politically, but it creates bad policy and doesn't accomplish our goals, which is to get full funding of special education. That is why I have put forward this alternative, which I think is a much more constructive approach.

I reserve our time and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I presume the Senator from Iowa wants to close.

I have no problem with that.

We have talked a lot about, and I think debated rather extensively, the issue of what the proper way to fund this bill is. Again, I think our track record on funding is strong and reflects a very deep and aggressive commitment to getting the money that is necessary to address special needs children.

While we are discussing this bill and there is some attention on the bill, I did want to, however, mention--and I know we are going to discuss it later on--this commitment in this bill. There are a couple of items which are very important. The first is the commitment to go to basically an accountability system which looks at what a student learns versus what the procedure may have been to teach them. Rather than checking inputs, we are interested in outputs. We are interested in whether a special needs child is actually improving their academic ability.

This bill changes the focus of how we view the plans that are developed for children. It eliminates the very burdensome and unreasonable 813 procedural checklist that States have to follow in order to be deemed in compliance with IDEA. This type of checklist, in our opinion, was excessive bureaucracy and counterproductive to the basic goal, which is to get a child in the classroom and teach them to the fullness of their capabilities. So I think it makes significant progress in that area.

It also addresses a number of other issues, but specifically the overidentification of children into special needs. This is a real problem, excessive coding of children. It is especially a problem in minority communities where quite often children simply get coded because they do not have the skills when they get to school to be competitive with their peers and make a presentation on an IQ test which is adequate. This bill takes the IQ test and deemphasizes it as a way for coding these children and rather allows a variety of different proposals which came out of an extensive study in this area, the Commission on Excellence in Special Education, to be used for the purposes of deciding whether a child should be moved into the special education classification.

It is critical that we get control over this coding area because in some school systems upwards of 30 percent of the kids are being coded, and this is clearly inappropriate. It means the resources which should be focused on the children who really need assistance are being spread to a lot of kids who maybe are being coded because it is the easiest way to handle them and to move them through the system, not necessarily for their benefit but for the benefit of the administration of the school system. So we have tried to address that issue.

I happen to see that specific issue of overcoding as probably being the biggest problem we have in the whole structure of special education because not only does it mean that resources are spread too thin, but equally important, it means kids end up being stigmatized unfortunately early on with a special education status which affects their educational experience for the rest of their schooling, and that is not good for them if they did not need that sort of assistance.

Thirdly, it basically continues to move the goalpost. It is virtually impossible for us to get the full funding if every time we start to move toward full funding the goalposts of what full funding means get moved down the field further. That is what happens when there is this excessive coding.

So it has a debilitating effect not only relative to the child's experience

but also on the ability of the school system to get the funds where they need to be and also on the basis of how we are going to get enough funds into the school systems to meet our commitments. So this is a big issue. I think it is one that we have tried to address. We obviously have not solved the problem, but we have at least moved down the road toward addressing the issue in a constructive and bipartisan way in this bill.

So with those two points being made, I will reserve the remainder of my time and turn to the Senator from Iowa to close. If the Senator from Iowa is the last speaker, we will simply run the clock until we get to the time for the vote.

I ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to a vote. I ask for the yeas and nays, and we will yield back the remainder of our time.

I intend to make a point of order on the second amendment. That will not be of prejudice to us?

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3144

Mr. President, this Congress and this President have an exceptional track record on increasing funding for special education-- over $1 billion a year, on a cumulative basis.

The issue of how you fund special education is a priority, and we have shown a commitment to that priority. It should be done within the context of setting priorities. Putting it into a mandatory account would take it out of the ability of this Congress to have the priority- setting process which is appropriate.

Furthermore, the way this amendment is structured, it might actually end up leading to a cut in discretionary funding in the special education accounts because of the uniqueness of our budget rules.

But, in any event, I make a point of order against the amendment. The pending amendment No. 3144, offered by the Senator from Iowa, increases direct spending in excess of the allocation to the HELP Committee under the most recently adopted budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 91, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the Budget Act.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the amendment would call for the inclusion of the United States Department of Education in a consortium of Federal agencies that are working on a study regarding environmental influences on children's health and development, which may result in developmental disorders in these children.

This consortium, which is to be headed by the Director of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, also includes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Environmental Protection Agency.

This amendment ensures that, should any collection of information from the study involve student education records, parents must provide prior consent before the information is released. This ensures compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974) (20 U.S.C. 1232g) (FERPA) and comports with the federal policy of preserving parental consent.

Quite simply, information in records maintained by schools about individual children should not be accessible by the CDC, or Federal agencies, or their contractors without the knowledge and prior consent of those children's parents.

We appreciate the amendment of the Senator from New York. It is constructive and positive and we are willing to accept it.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment of the Senator from New York be agreed to.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Through all this IDEA litigation, the school district has never been able to collect its attorney's fees in defending any of these cases.

And because there is no disincentive or negative consequences of filing complaint after complaint, making call after call, flooding the district with thousands of pages of documents, Mrs. X has continued her actions against the district.

Now, we know that this example is the rare exception--however, we need to do something to help protect schools against frivolous, egregious behavior, which drains resources away from providing special education and related services to children with disabilities.

The District writes:

The purpose of IDEA is to protect the interests of special

education students. It would be in this interest to guard

against the egregious and vexatious behavior of a very small

minority of parents whose actions negatively impact the

ability of a school district to provide service to all

special education students.

Mr. President, that is exactly what this amendment is designed to do.

Will the Senator yield?

It is clear something was wrong, because DC has accounted for 40 percent of all IDEA administrative due process hearing requests in the country but has less than one-quarter of a percent of the U.S. population. During 2000-2002, DC public schools received 7,883 due process hearing requests, more than the entire State of California, and the vast majority of hearings have been for procedural and implementation issues, which often could be handled outside of the hearing process.

I thank the Senator from Texas for her work on this issue. I agree that the District of Columbia is a unique situation and understand it has required unusual actions to ensure the rights under the IDEA law are not abused.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. President, we have agreed to accept this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for his extraordinary leadership in the Senate, especially with the extremely difficult issues in our country today. We are very fortunate to have him as chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

We are fortunate to have him on our committee also. That is an extra plus. But his leadership on issues protecting our Nation is second to none.

Amendment No. 3149

Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Santorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following morning business on Thursday, May 13, the Senate resume consideration of the pending IDEA bill and there then be 30 minutes equally divided with respect to the pending Santorum amendment No. 3149; provided further that there be one relevant second-degree amendment in order to the amendment and it be offered by Senator Bingaman; further, that the amendment be limited to the same time limitation of the first degree. I further ask unanimous consent that the only other amendment in order be a Gregg-Kennedy managers' amendment to be agreed upon by both managers.

I further ask consent that following disposition of the above amendments there be an additional 20 minutes of debate equally divided between the two managers for closing remarks, and following that time the provisions of the previous order remain in effect.

Mr. President, I have tried to be very cooperative with the Senator from New Mexico and certainly he has tried to be cooperative with me. This has been an issue that has involved not only our body but the House and the White House. I have actually agreed that this language not go through our committee, which I think is a very generous act on our part, not

having it to mark up in committee and allowing it to move directly to the floor. Of course, before we can draft our amendment we actually have to see the language of the Senator from New Mexico. We have not seen it.

As soon as we get his language, we will be able to probably put together our amendment. The understanding is we are going to move promptly at that time because I understand Senator Domenici wants this moved, and I respect him. He certainly has made a huge commitment in this area and I want to try to expedite it and be constructive in this initiative.

Mr. President, if we could add the confirmation of some of the judges who have been waiting for months, that would make this a good week.

Unless there is further business, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I see my friend and colleague from Iowa, who will be offering an extremely important amendment dealing with the funding issue for the special needs education program. As he is gathering his papers, I want to say to our colleagues in the Senate that this legislation represents the best effort of our committee, which is truly bipartisan.

I pay tribute to Senator Gregg, our chairman, for his leadership in helping bring all of the members together on this legislation. We virtually have a unanimous committee recommendation. We have a few public policy issues, which appropriately the Senate will address, and then we will move ahead.

Many times around this institution we wonder how it functions and works. I think recognizing the extraordinary challenges that so many of these children are facing has sort of brought out the best of our Members.

I thank our chairman, and I thank all of my colleagues on my side who took great interest and great involvement in this issue. I will go into greater detail as we go through the process.

I always pay tribute to my friend and colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who has had a special leadership role in issues involving the disabled and handicapped since the time he has been in the Senate. I always thank him, as well as the rest of our colleagues.

As we move through the course of the morning, we will have a more detailed description of what is in the legislation and the importance of the support of this institution.

Mr. President, I yield at least 7 minutes to the Senator from Vermont, my friend and colleague who has spent a great part of his life and career in the Senate on educational issues, and especially on this particular issue. It is important that we hear his voice. I yield 7 minutes--more time if he so desires.

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. President, we have a number of other speakers. I yield myself 6 minutes.

First of all, I congratulate the Senator from Iowa for his perseverance in ensuring that this issue would be brought to the floor of the Senate so the Senate can have an opportunity to vote on this very important question that makes an enormous difference to hundreds of thousands--millions--of our fellow citizens, primarily the parents but certainly the children who will also be affected. I commend him for his doggedness and perseverance in pursuing what is basically a fundamental civil right.

The holdings by the courts of this country have said under the equal protection laws that these children need to have the kind of necessary and reasonable accommodation they are entitled to under our Federal Constitution; therefore, we have the responsibility to make sure they are going to be protected and they are going to receive these kinds of educational opportunities.

As my good friend from Vermont pointed out, he has made special education one of his real priorities in this institution. Over the course of his very distinguished career, he has added immeasurably to the scope and understanding of the realization of the education for needy children with special needs in this country. But he remembers, as I do, when we were trying to provide--going back to 1965 when we passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--some funding for special needs children. Over a period of years, we enhanced that funding to try to provide some help for special needs children. But all of that changed dramatically after we had the court decisions that interpreted the Equal Protection Clause to ensure that we were going to have to make sure children with special needs were going to be able to have educational opportunities.

We passed the IDEA bill. What was the rational here in the U.S. Congress? What was the rational with the President at that particular time? It was a general recognition that to educate a special needs child, it was going to cost effectively double what it costs to normally educate a child in this country. It is going to cost double that--double of that in my State of Massachusetts. It varies slightly from different States, but, nonetheless, we recognized that it was going to be effectively doubled. That was the best estimate. That was the testimony cited. It was the judgment and the decision that the Congress was going to help and assist the States and local communities. We ensure over 80 percent of the funds provided in this program go to the local community. There is some money that can be retained at the State level in terms of training programs and coordination of various services, but this program was driven to the local level to help offset the additional burdens that taxpayers would have in local communities.

As we all know, one of the extraordinary demands we have seen in small and large communities is when a family has a special needs child who takes the extra services. They go to those town meetings and we find out who is going to end up paying for those needs. In my own State, even with the IDEA, it only offsets 8 percent of the education program. We will come back to that later. However, it is only 8 percent. The greatest percent, 50 percent, is raised at the local level in local taxes. So we have services that will be necessary for special needs children, causing particular hardships on small communities because of these additional expenditures.

When we fail in the Senate to provide that 40 percent, so often, particularly now when we have scarce resources, we see the kind of tension that is taking place between parents who have children who do not have disabilities and want to see the educational opportunities enhanced and those who have special needs and want to make sure their children are going to be covered. It brings enormous tension in local communities, neighbors struggling against neighbors.

We made the judgment and decision in 1979 when we passed the first IDEA act. At that time, we were only covering 2 million of the disabled children. Generally, it was considered to be 4.5 million children. The States were covering 2 million children. There were 37 States that had IDEA-type legislation, but by and large, we were not providing help and assistance to these children, even though too often we saw the situation where these children were effectively being warehoused, pushed off into basements, pushed off into attics, pushed off into remote areas.

The idea they were getting a benefit of any education defied the imagination.

We decided we were going to encourage the States, and the way to encourage the States was to indicate that we at the national level were going to be in partnership with the States, and most importantly, in partnership with local communities. That is where this commitment lies, with the local communities, the local towns. They pay the greatest percent of this burden. We were going to work with those local communities to help offset the expenditures.

We made a commitment that it was going to be 40 percent of that additional cost. That is the basis of the argument for the 40 percent-- why it is 40 percent and not 50 percent, why it was not 100 percent. We wanted to be a partner. This is what the decision was. That was a decision and a judgment relied on by States and by local communities all across this country. That is a commitment and pledge that has not been kept.

As result of the fact we have not kept that commitment, local communities have been making up the difference and seeing their taxes rise to try to offset the challenges that local communities will face when they have special needs children. That is the issue we are trying to address today.

Today, we know we are fulfilling 19 percent of the challenge. The Congressional Research Service says, under the President's program, the way the administration is going, it would never be reached with increases of $1 billion a year. It will never be reached.

Senator Harkin and Senator Hagel have said we have committed ourselves to doing this. We ought to meet our responsibilities and provide these resources which are so necessary and can make such an important difference.

With the legislation before the Senate, with all of the changes--and I will wait to go over those various changes

made in the legislation, that we now will support and the contrast from 1997--we have brought this legislation up to where it can make an extraordinary difference, will make an extraordinary difference for those special needs children.

Now, people can ask, Where are you going to get the resources and where are you going to get the money given the kinds of challenges we are facing?

I just saw on the business page of the Washington Post, on Tuesday, May 4, ``The Federal Deficit Likely to Narrow by $100 Billion.'' That is this year alone. The Harkin amendment would take $2.2 billion out of that $100 billion that they expect this year over the other predictions. That is the responsible way.

I will not take the time now to go through the favorable comments that those in the Treasury and the Budget Committee have made in terms of what they are expecting regarding the windfall. It is a matter of priority. It seems to me, if we will have a $100 billion windfall that will come over the course of the summer, we ought to be able to afford $2.2 billion to meet our responsibilities to local communities all across this country that are trying to meet their responsibilities to educate children who have special needs. That is the issue.

I have great respect for my colleague and friend, the chairman of our committee. I am going to vote in favor of his amendment that will increase the authorization. If we increase the authorization, we are able to get the funding for that program, we would get to that 40 percent over a 7-year period, but, unfortunately, in terms of the authorization with the No Child Left Behind Act, we have seen what is actually appropriated and what is authorized are going in different directions.

It seems to me, if we are serious in trying to meet the needs of special needs children, we have the ability with this legislation, which will make the greatest difference in the world to special needs children in this country, that understands the importance of early intervention, understands the importance of transition, has brought into place changes in terms of the discipline, brings in other kinds of agencies so they will involve themselves. It involves the local school community to a greater extent, with greater flexibility, but still has strong accountability.

We have a very important piece of legislation. This can make an extraordinary difference. I hope our colleagues and friends will pay heed to the opportunities we have with the Harkin-Hagel amendment. It can make a very important difference. This is an obligation we have. We ought to meet the obligations we have made to families across this country. They are being hard pressed and particularly hard pressed now when many of the States are cutting back their support in terms of education funds. The burden is falling increasingly on these families.

We have an opportunity. With this positive news that is coming, we ought to make sure we support the Harkin-Hagel amendment and meet our responsibilities to special needs children.

I withhold the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

How much time is on the other side?

Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, I understand we have 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I yield myself 4 \1/2\ minutes.

I join with my friend and colleague, Senator Harkin, in making sure that this body understands, and our friends all across the country, that this really isn't a partisan issue. I, quite frankly, commend the fact that we had an increase in IDEA funding, and I give tribute to the Senator from New Hampshire for that increase in funding. It is true that under President Clinton we had the expansion, moving toward smaller class size, afterschool programs. We had enhancement of teacher training and other kinds of factors in terms of the previous administration. But there is no question that there has been an increase in IDEA funding. We grant that.

As Senator Harkin has pointed out, the issue is what are we going to do in the future. This discussion is really at a rather significant time in our American history because next Monday we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, one of the most important judgments in terms of knocking down walls of discrimination in our country, recognizing that we were going to knock down the walls of discrimination on the basis of race.

Now for 29 years we knock down the walls of discrimination on special needs children, but we still have not fulfilled the requirement and the opportunity that presents. That is what the Harkin amendment is all about.

Pass the Harkin amendment and we meet that responsibility, and we meet that obligation in 6 years. That is what we do.

I am going to vote for the Gregg amendment that says he will increase the authorization. I am for it. If that is what passes, I will be there with Senator Harkin and with Senator Hagel battling to get the increased appropriations, but let's do it right. Why have we held these families up?

I have four books here, a foot and a half tall, with individual life stories that represent families and special needs children who are trying to make it in the United States. The question is, are we going to meet our responsibility? We have from newspaper reports now that we are going to have a bonus of $100 billion this June, $100 billion more. The Harkin amendment says, let's take $2.2 billion of that and commit it to these families right here who are struggling and trying to make it every single day.

Let me read from a typical letter, and it is replicated by the thousands. This is from Carla Leone of Arlington, MS:

I have a 15-year-old son with Tourette Syndrome and

associated disorders who is on an IEP,

--an individual education program--

as well as a daughter in ``regular'' education. I had to quit

my job in order to obtain special education services from the

school district for my son--it was a full-time, complex job.

First, the school didn't want to identify him as needing an

IEP, then there was a several-year battle over what services

he needed, and then once they agreed to services, there were

a lot of problems with the school failing to provide the

services (a common problem with implementation of IEPs).

The basis for the problem is lack of funding, which pits

regular education against special education, and gives the

school major impetus from keeping the kids from being

identified as needing special education . . . and most

importantly fund this heretofore unfunded mandate.

That could not be any more clear or compelling. We ought to not only think of the children but of their mothers and fathers. That is what this is about. Certainly, this is a question of priority. We in this country cannot afford to not meet what we committed. This body committed to this. The House of Representatives committed to it. A previous administration committed to help those families all over the country. We are only reaching half of that commitment now.

The Harkin amendment will make sure we meet our responsibilities to all of them. What could be a better opportunity, a better priority? Money isn't everything, Mr. President, but it is an indication of a nation's priorities. That is what we have the opportunity to have in the Senate. That is why I believe the Harkin amendment should be approved.

I withhold the remainder of our time.

How much time do I have remaining?

I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Iowa.

Could we ask consent that be for both of the amendments?

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3146

Mr. President, I will take a moment to thank the Senator from New York for offering this amendment. She is quite right. This longitudinal study that will be done with regard to children's health will be the most important work outside the Academy of Sciences' work that will be done on the development of children's brains and what early intervention means, in terms of their educational capabilities.

There are a lot of different factors such as bus fumes, asbestos in the schools, lead paint in the playgrounds, let alone lead paint in the walls. There are a series of different issues regarding mental health and a wide range of different areas affecting children and children's health.

The fact the Department of Education was not included was a major oversight. The amendment of the Senator from New York addresses that. It is very welcome. It will make that study a much more comprehensive and accurate reflection of where children are in our society. I thank her for offering it.

We all know that what happens during a child's early years can mean the difference between lifelong success and lifelong struggle. Good nutrition, a nurturing home, a healthy and safe neighborhood, and countless other factors provide children with the foundation from which they grow into a productive adulthood.

But for too many children, the basic elements of a healthy start are missing. Children whose environments are lacking or even dangerous are at much higher risk of developing disabilities--disabilities that can be prevented if we understand more about the factors at play. That is why the Children's Health Act of 2000, and its study on child development, is so important.

But, as the Senator from New York has pointed out, the study has a major flaw. It is incomplete because the Department of Education is not included as a partner and school experiences are not examined. This study cannot put together the puzzle of child development when this crucial piece of every child's life is missing. The Senator from New York's amendment puts the final piece into place.

Including the Department of Education in this study is just common sense. School is a child's primary environment outside the home. From early childhood through adolescence, children spend a majority of their day in a classroom.

In fact, the school environment may be even more important for children with disabilities. Most disabilities are diagnosed in school, and most special education services are provided there. What happens for disabled children in schools has a tremendous lasting effect.

The Department of Education has data to share with the study's other partners that is critical to capturing every aspect of disabled children's development. When this data is being shared, the amendment is careful to protect children's educational privacy rights.

The more we know about how a child's environment impacts developmental disorders, the more we can do to prevent them and ensure that all children grow to be healthy adults. This study, and the Department of Education's participation in it, will provide us with important information for years to come.

I applaud the Senator from New York for her advocacy on this issue and on so many other issues concerning the health of our Nation's children. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Washington for her attention to this issue that can make a major difference to many families with special needs children, recognizing the increased mobility of our population, and, most particularly, the needs of those in the military who are moving through the school systems in different parts of our Nation in increasing numbers, and also giving special focus and attention to the too many Americans and American families who are homeless and have some special needs.

So I rise in support of this amendment because it will ensure that the disabled children who change schools will continue to get the services they need.

America is increasingly a mobile society. The demands of our economy and shifts in our culture mean Americans will move to new communities during their lives. Today, it is unlikely that a child will stay in the same school district or even the State, for that matter, throughout their school years.

Families and schools do all they can to make the transition easier for children when they move from place to place, but many children still have a difficult adjustment to make in their new home and school. This is especially true for students with disabilities.

Disabled children are extremely likely to have problems when they leave one school for another. Sometimes they have difficulty with change because of their disability, but more often it is because their new school does not provide them with the services they need. Because each State and school district does things differently, disabled students who move often wait months for their new school to provide them with special education.

In the life of a disabled child--in the life of any child--missing a few days, let alone a few months, of instruction is a huge loss. Many disabled children actually lose skills they have already gained when they go without the services they need for any length of time. These children are already struggling in school and fall further and further behind.

Imagine what it is like, then, for a disabled child with a parent serving in the military. Imagine what it is like for a disabled child who is homeless or in foster care. It is one step forward and two steps back every time they change schools.

The amendment offered by the Senator from Washington will help solve this problem by guaranteeing that disabled students who move do not have to wait. It guarantees that disabled students do not go without special education during the time it takes for the

school and the parents to decide how best to meet the child's needs.

Will this be difficult for some schools to do? Certainly. Every school does it differently, and the flexibility in this amendment recognizes this fact. There will be times that a student moves to a district that is not ready to provide all of the services he or she needs. But a disabled child's education--a disabled child's future-- should not suffer because the school needs time to get prepared.

As the Senator from Washington has explained, this amendment also makes numerous changes to the IDEA that will improve special education for disabled children who are homeless or in foster care. Although children who are homeless are four times more likely to have delayed development than other children, they have a more difficult time accessing special education. These children are truly more vulnerable. They are the vulnerable of the vulnerable. I applaud the Senator for her tireless efforts on their behalf.

This amendment will make it easier for schools to provide disabled homeless and foster children with the services they need, and will smooth the transition for all disabled children who move to new schools.

Mr. President, this recognizes the reality; that is, we are in a mobile society. Children are moving. Families are moving. In a bill that is dealing with special needs children, not to recognize that issue would be an omission. I think the Senator has made some excellent recommendations.

We still have some work to do in terms of working through this issue, but it does seem to me that she has identified an extremely important area of need, and one to which we should attend. So I thank her for bringing it to the attention of the Senate.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Hagel and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I am joined by my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, and many others to offer an amendment that will ensure at long last the Congress meets its commitment it made almost 30 years ago. At that time, we told children with disabilities, their families, schools, and States that the Federal Government would pay 40 percent of the extra cost of special education. We have never lived up to that commitment. In fact, we are not even halfway there.

This is really about the credibility of the Congress. It is about the credibility of each and every one of us. We tell our children all the time to keep your promises, do what you say you are going to do. We teach them if they do not follow through, other people will be hurt. Yet the Congress has not kept its word. We have not done what we have told children, parents, schools, and States we would do, and people have been hurt as a result.

People are harmed every time parents of children with disabilities are pitted against parents with children without disabilities for a limited pot of funds. They are harmed every time a family opts not to ask for what their child truly needs because they have been told it costs too much and other children will suffer. They are harmed every time a school district struggles to provide educational opportunities for all its students.

Congress had two purposes when it passed the predecessor to IDEA in 1975. First, we wanted to codify the constitutional obligation to provide education to all children, including those with disabilities. There had been several Federal court cases, including the PARC case in Pennsylvania and the Mills case in DC, that challenged the exclusion of kids with disabilities from public schools. These cases held that if schools do provide for public education of their kids, then they must educate all children. So Congress passed a law, and we spelled out what schools have to do to meet these constitutional obligations.

The other purpose of the law was to provide financial support for the education of children with disabilities. Congress recognized that serving additional students would cost substantially more money, and it committed to paying 40 percent of the excess costs of special education, which is known as the full funding amount.

Almost 30 years later, we are reauthorizing this bill, and I say to my friends and colleagues that we need to think about what we originally wanted to do and promised to do. We wanted to show Federal support for the principle that all children deserve a quality education, and we wanted to help State and local governments meet the costs involved. The amendment of Senator Hagel and I will help us at long last to achieve these goals.

Recent history leaves no doubt that discretionary increases will not get us to full funding. The charade is over. Educators, parents, children, and State and local government officials all know that we need mandatory increases. Promised increases on the discretionary side will not get us to full funding. They have not worked for 29 years; they will not work now.

If Members of this body are still not convinced that we need mandatory full funding, they only have to look at the past 2 years. This chart shows that, in 2003, President Bush proposed a $1 billion increase for IDEA. The Senate increased it to $2.3 billion. And the final tally was $1.3 billion.

Last year, it was the same story. President Bush wanted a $650 million increase. The Senate went up to $2.2 billion, and we came down to $1.2 billion, actually less of an increase than we had the year before.

Again this year President Bush asked for $1 billion, and we do not know how it will come out next year. We can look at the last 2 years and say probably the same thing will happen again.

The reason is simple, there are a lot of other important education programs that also need money. The President has consistently shortchanged the No Child Left Behind Act, especially title I. There simply has not been enough discretionary money to meet our obligations on IDEA while also funding programs to help schools meet the mandate of the No Child Left Behind Act. So special education funding gets squeezed.

Again, we are on track for a similar situation this year. The President, as I said, has proposed $1 billion for IDEA. The Senate budget resolution includes the same amount. So, according to the Congressional Research Service, we will never reach full funding if we increase IDEA at the rate of $1 billion a year under current law.

Under the revised funding formula in S. 1248, we will not reach full funding until fiscal year 2028, nearly a quarter century from now, 53 years after Congress first committed to that goal and made that promise. A child born today would not see full funding of IDEA during his or her entire education. That is unacceptable.

Fully funding IDEA within 6 years, as we do in our amendment, takes $2.2 billion a year, not $1 billion as the President has proposed.

Where is the additional money from IDEA going to come from this year if we do not use mandatory funding? Do my colleagues want to cut title 1? Do we want to cut afterschool centers? Do we want to cut teacher training? The money simply is not there in the President's budget to find $2.2 billion a year for special education unless we use mandatory funding.

My colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, and I have been trying to meet this goal for a long time now. We came close once before.

When the No Child Left Behind Act passed the Senate, this body agreed unanimously to mandate increases for IDEA until we reached full funding in 6 years. But strong opposition from the President and the House leadership thwarted the will of the Senate. At that time, we were told in conference to wait until reauthorization of IDEA took place. Well, here we are. We are reauthorizing IDEA.

So again I want to make this point very clear. Two years ago, this Senate unanimously approved mandatory funding for IDEA. It was only taken out in conference. It was taken out saying we have to wait until the reauthorization of IDEA. Well, as I said, we are on the reauthorization of IDEA right now and that is why Senator Hagel and I and others are proposing this amendment.

We have waited long enough; children with disabilities and their parents have waited long enough; schools have waited long enough and, quite frankly, our property taxpayers have waited long enough.

Back home, I have heard from parents, school administrators, teachers, State legislators, chambers of commerce, taxpayers' associations, and others about the need to fully fund IDEA. I am sure every Senator in this body has heard the same thing from his or her own constituents. These voices are unanimous in support of mandatory full funding because they know that is the only way we are ever going to reach that.

Mandatory funding is also widely supported by all of the national disability and education groups. During this reauthorization, the education and disability communities disagreed on a

lot of issues, but they are unanimous and united on mandatory funding.

This chart shows a list of all of those who are in support. There are 36 organizations that are members of the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities Education Task Force, plus 38 organizations that are part of the IDEA Funding Coalition.

The National Governors Association also has a clear position supporting mandatory full funding. To quote the joint policy of the NGA and the Council of Chief State School Officers:

Mandatory full funding of the Federal share of IDEA is

essential.

They further state:

Congress should do the following: Provide mandatory full

funding at the federally committed level of 40 percent of the

average per pupil expenditure.

The Governors support mandatory full funding because they know how much it will mean to each of their States. I have a chart that shows how much more each State will get under the amendment Senator Hagel and I are proposing as compared to what they would get if it is not supported. Again, I am not going to run through every State, but it is here for Senators to look at it if they would like. I urge each of my colleagues to look up their own State.

My own State of Iowa stands to gain $2 billion over 10 years under this amendment, an increase of $460 million over what they would get with the annual $1 billion increases.

I will talk for a minute about the investments IDEA funding pays for. It pays for the teachers who help children learn. It pays for occupational and physical therapy to help children grow stronger. It pays for interpreters and captioning for deaf and hard-of- hearing students, and Braille materials that allow blind children to read their textbooks. It pays for the behavioral health services that allow children with mental health needs to succeed. It pays for assistive technology, for example, software that helps a blind child use the classroom materials, or augmentative communication devices that help kids with cerebral palsy communicate with their teachers and their peers.

IDEA is an investment in children's lives and in their future. We are investing money at the front end with early intervention, with interpreters, with behavioral health and other related services. The return on that investment is productive, independent, taxpaying citizens. We get individuals who are prepared to go on to higher education, to gainful employment, and to independent living in their communities.

The unemployment rate for people with disabilities right now is about 70 percent. That is right, 70 percent. IDEA is critical to ensuring that we bring that rate down and increase the number of individuals with disabilities who are working.

Our House colleague, former Congressman Tony Coelho, always liked to say people with disabilities are the one group that really wants to pay taxes. They want to work. They want to have the opportunity to contribute to our society and economy.

IDEA has also cut down on the number of children who have to live in institutions. Dr. Charlie Lakin of the University of Minnesota estimates $6.5 billion a year is saved on institutional costs by making it possible for children with disabilities to live in their own homes and communities. The true value of this is impossible to measure in dollars. How does one measure the value of keeping a family together?

In closing, when Congress first passed this law in 1975, we created a beacon of hope for children who previously had none. We said to children with disabilities and their parents that all children deserve educational opportunity, all children deserve to take part in the American dream, all children deserve to look forward to having a home and a job when they grow up. To that end, we made a pledge to these children and their parents. We promised the Federal Government would pay its fair share of the costs, up to 40 percent on average per-pupil expense, to ensure this dream becomes a reality.

Today, nearly three decades later, it is time for Congress to make good on that commitment. So I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment offered by Senator Hagel, this Senator from Iowa, and so many others.

I see my colleague and cosponsor of the amendment, Senator Hagel. He is a great leader on this issue. I yield to him at this time.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I respond by saying to my friend from Vermont that I appreciate his question. I want to assure him that, as he knows, I am committed to fully funding IDEA. This amendment--I know I can speak for my colleague from Nebraska also--presumes that the discretionary rates will remain dedicated to special education, and I am fully confident that will be the case.

I have been on the Appropriations Committee now for 20 years and on the subcommittee that funds IDEA. My experience in 20 years is that it has never been cut. Maybe it has not been added to much, but I have never known anyone to try to cut it. Right now, Senator Specter is the chair of that subcommittee. I want to assure the Senator that no one has any intention of cutting IDEA. Those of us on committee would resist that. Again, Senator Gregg is also on the subcommittee, and I assume he doesn't want to cut IDEA either. There has not been a cut in IDEA funding in 25 years. There will not be any now on the discretionary account.

Mr. President, I did not hear that. The Senator from Massachusetts yielded me?

I thank the Presiding Officer. I did not hear that.

Mr. President, first, I would like to respond to my friend from New Hampshire who was in the Chamber earlier, and maybe some others, who talked about the GOP record. He had a chart that said Republicans have done more any way you slice it, and then went on to say that President Bush is attacked for increasing spending by $1 billion a year.

I want to address that with my friend from New Hampshire in the Chamber. I never attacked President Bush for this. I have not heard anyone on this side attack Republicans or President Bush for this. In the 30 years we have been discussing, amending, and fashioning disability policy in the Senate and the Congress, it has never been a partisan issue. It was not when we first did IDEA. It was not when we did the Americans with Disabilities Act. We may disagree on funding and stuff and how we do it, but I have never known it to be a partisan issue. I have purposely not attacked the President, the Republicans, or anyone else for this. No one on our side has on this point, and we are not attacking anyone.

So I refuse to look upon this as any kind of partisan issue. You can go back and look at who did what when, and all that, but what I want to focus on is the here and now. Where are we now? What did Congress promise? What kind of situation are we in? Let's look at the future.

I am sorry somebody is trying to put this in a partisan framework. It has never been that way. It has always been a bipartisan issue. We ought to continue on that approach. Yes, we can disagree on whether or not it would be discretionary or mandatory, but not on a partisan basis.

I want to talk also about the mix of mandatory and discretionary. There has been some talk that this is some kind of--I heard it said-- ``weird mix'' of mandatory and discretionary money. We have done that before. We have the childcare block grant. We have safe and stable families. We have some NIH funding. I have come up with this right now. There are probably a lot more programs for which we have both mandatory and discretionary funding.

Also, my friend from New Hampshire said there is some kind of budget rule--I did not get this clear--that means our amendment would result in a reduction in discretionary spending. That is absolutely not so. It is only so if you move money from discretionary to mandatory.

That is not what we are doing. We are adding money over and above discretionary. So there is no cut in any discretionary funding. So what the Senator from New Hampshire says is just not so.

I responded earlier to a question from Senator Jeffords that on the discretionary side we have never cut funding for IDEA, and we are not going to do so in the future.

Now, the Gregg amendment before us simply authorizes more money. But we have been doing that for 30 years--30 years--and we are still only at 19 percent of the 40 percent we had promised. The Gregg amendment does not change one thing. It does not change a thing--nothing. Kids, families, and schools will still be sold short.

Now, if anyone wants to know what authorizations mean around here, I would just use a statement from the Senator from New Hampshire that he made last September on a Byrd amendment. The Senator from New Hampshire himself said:

Now, let's go to another issue, this concept that the

authorized level has to be funded. This is a very unusual

concept for Congress because for all intents and purposes

Congress does not fund anything to the authorized level.

The Senator then went on to say: Authorizations simply are statements of intent, purpose, and good will.

Well, that is exactly what the Gregg amendment is. It is a statement of intent and good will, but it does not do anything. The Senator from New Hampshire himself said we do not fund to authorized levels. And that is all he has done, just raised the authorized level. It does not do one thing. If we want to meet our obligations and fulfill our promise, we have to adopt the Hagel and Harkin amendment to provide for mandatory funding.

Mr. President, let's get off all this talking about money and stuff and shifting it around. Listen to what Julie Reynolds said. She runs the Parent Training and Information Center in Iowa. She said to me that families and kids with disabilities are unfairly blamed for the shortfalls in schools. Parents are told not to ask for what the child needs because it costs too much. Parents are told their children with disabilities take away resources from other kids.

Families with kids with disabilities are not to blame. If there is anyone to blame, it is us in Congress for shirking our responsibilities for 30 years and not meeting that 40-percent level.

I am hopeful the Senate will step to the plate. I repeat, 2 years ago, this Senate unanimously--unanimously--adopted the same amendment that the Senator from Nebraska and I are offering today to provide for full mandatory funding up to that 40-percent level. Unanimously we adopted it. It was cut out in conference, and we were told we should come back when IDEA is reauthorized. Well, reauthorization is here. I hope the Senate will speak again with that same forceful voice.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the time I may have.

Yes.

I thank Senator Gregg for his generosity in letting me close the debate. I also thank the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Massachusetts for putting together a good bill. This is a good bill, except for the funding. There is a lot of good in this bill, and the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from Massachusetts have worked together, as we all have, to come together with a nonpartisan approach.

As I have said, this is the way we ought to deal with disability issues. We have in our long history, and we have continued that again in this bill, too.

When this Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act 14 years ago, we stated four goals. For people with disabilities we wanted equal opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency. Those were basically the same goals of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. We now see people working more in our society, people with disabilities being employed on jobs, but the basis of it all is education. That is where it starts.

If families with kids with disabilities are not getting the supportive services and the kind of teacher training that is needed to be able to teach kids with disabilities, if they do not have the materials, say, in Braille for kids who are blind, or interpreters for kids who are deaf, or if they do not have some mental health providers who can help kids who have perhaps mental problems in school, then all of the promises of the Americans with Disabilities Act is for naught because these kids will not get the education they need that will give them equal opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.

The occupant of the Chair, my colleague and cosponsor of this amendment, Senator Hagel, stated in his comments earlier about this being an unfunded mandate. This is one of the largest unfunded mandates that we have in our country. We hear about it all the time from the schools, from the parents, from the school boards. We have mandated that they must provide these services and then we said we are going to provide up to 40 percent. That was 30 years ago, and we are only at 19 percent.

So we have to ask ourselves about our priorities. This is an unfunded mandate. We made a promise; we have not kept the promise. Some say but the Harkin-Hagel amendment will add to the deficit. Well, it will add $2 billion on a budget next year of $2.3 trillion--less than one-tenth of 1 percent. When one looks at the whole national debt of $8 trillion, we are talking about a minuscule amount. For that minuscule amount, it means kids will get the services they need.

It means we will have more Danny Pfiffers, the young man I knew in Iowa who went to school, who was mainstreamed, the manager of his football team, acted in a school play. Danny suffered from Downs Syndrome. He got out of school. He got a job. He lived by himself. He was a taxpayer. This is what we want. It saves our society countless dollars in the long run, but even more important than that it enriches Danny Pfiffer's life, and it will enrich more kids' lives.

We have waited too long to make good on our promise. Now is the time to do it. It has to do with priorities. It has to do with integration. It has to do with all of us living together, sharing and caring about one another. We are all better off as a society when kids with disabilities are educated and mainstreamed in our public schools.

Lastly, the Gregg amendment will be the first vote. I do not see anything wrong with the Gregg amendment. It is authorization as a statement of intent, purpose, and goodwill. To quote my friend from New Hampshire who used the words to describe authorization last year, there is nothing wrong with it.

The Senator from New Hampshire is authorizing more money. That is fine, but it does not add one nickel to this unfunded mandate.

So the Gregg amendment is fine as a statement of purpose and good will and intention, but statements of purpose and intention and good will do not get the funds out to meet our obligation.

We said 30 years ago we would provide up to 40 percent. We are at 19 percent. This is the vote that will say to the families of kids with disabilities, we are going to meet our commitments and fund this unfunded mandate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Pryor as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, we just voted--I did, and so many of us-- to say

we want to get more money into special education. That is what the Gregg amendment says, that we want to increase authorizations.

Right now, under present law, we can do whatever we want because it authorizes such sums as necessary. The Senator from New Hampshire put in there specific amounts, but it does not add one nickel to special education.

The next amendment, the Hagel and Harkin amendment, does that. It adds real money in mandatory spending, $2.2 billion a year for 6 years to get to that 40-percent level we promised 30 years ago.

This is one of the biggest unfunded mandates we have in our country. It is time that Congress lives up to the promise we made 30 years ago to help fund special education.

I ask for an aye vote on the Harkin-Hagel amendment.

Mr. President, I move to waive the relevant portions of the Budget Act to permit the consideration of my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, we are going to hear a lot of rhetoric today. I want people to know exactly what it is about.

I will be opposing Senator Harkin's amendment. I will be supporting Senator Gregg's amendment. Senator Gregg's amendment will actually work us toward achieving the goal of full funding for IDEA. It is not a political statement. We have been having this debate for some time. There hasn't been the kind of progress any of us would like to have on it, but there has been steady progress. There has been more steady progress since this President and Senator Gregg have been working on this issue.

During the 8 years President Clinton was in office, the increase in part B funds was $1.4 billion. Under this President--a much shorter time--it has been $3.7 billion. That is reality versus rhetoric.

I want to make a few comments about the bill as a whole because we haven't had a chance to actually debate that. I want to point out how bipartisan the reauthorization was that came out of committee, how well people worked on it, worked on it together, resolved differences and made it possible for it to come to the floor and now to pass the floor in a relatively short time, I hope, so we hopefully can have a conference committee and work out any differences with the House and get this legislation into place.

This reauthorization is past due. I am pleased the Senate has begun consideration of S. 1248, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2003. There are few issues as important as the education of our Nation's youth. Making sure all children receive a good education has been a longstanding goal of this body. I am pleased the committee was able to reach unanimous support of the underlying bill, and I hope this body will act

quickly to agree to this important legislation and send it to conference.

Since Congress first began providing State grant funding for the education of disabled students in 1966, the process for ensuring every disabled student receives a free, appropriate public education has been refined and improved from one reauthorization to the next. I believe this legislation is another important step in that process.

While there are many improvements to the law in this legislation, I want to highlight four changes which I feel are most important to my home State of Wyoming.

First, there is an increased emphasis on early identification and intervention. Wyoming currently uses the model that identifies students as disabled once they fall more than two grade levels behind. Many States use the same method, or a method called the IQ discrepancy test. Both of these models tend to limit the positive effects that timely services will have on a student's growth. Unfortunately, States are compelled to use these models because of the requirements that exist in Federal law.

This bill provides for a set-aside of part B funds that can be used for services such as tutoring or other special assistance to students who are at risk of being identified as needing special education. That will help these students meet their potential.

Research by the President's Commission on Special Education and the National Research Council has identified important benefits to providing early educational intervention. They suggest early educational intervention can reduce the number of children referred to special education.

That research also shows students receiving early educational intervention and who are referred to special education frequently require less intensive services.

I believe this is an important step toward ensuring that other disabled students receive the services they need without placing children in the special education programs unnecessarily. By using funds for early intervention services, schools will be able to provide services in a very seamless fashion to students with disabilities or students who may be unnecessarily referred to special education programs.

Second, this legislation addresses the needs of rural States by clearly defining what is a highly qualified teacher. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, which received large bipartisan support in Congress, all teachers in public elementary and secondary schools must meet the highly qualified teacher standard.

In rural States such as Wyoming, many teachers, including special education teachers, are responsible for multiple subjects. In my home State, they are sometimes responsible for multiple grades as well. The legislation we are considering would work hand in hand with the No Child Left Behind Act to help address the concerns of teachers in this challenging position.

This bill requires every disabled child to be taught by a highly qualified teacher, but it also maintains State flexibility to determine what constitutes highly qualified. The only requirement is that special education teachers have an undergraduate degree and be fully certified as special education instructors, and that the students have a chance to be taught by an instructor who is highly qualified in the subject area. The bill does not even require that be the same person.

In many schools, disabled students are placed in classrooms with their non-disabled peers, and they receive instructions from more than one teacher. Students with disabilities would be instructed in the appropriate subject area by a highly qualified teacher who has demonstrated mastery of the subject, but they would also receive support from a teacher who meets the highly qualified standard for special education. It is a very important distinction.

For teachers who are responsible for both the special education and the content area, this legislation preserves the flexibility of the State that was created under No Child Left Behind to define what constitutes a highly qualified teacher.

I continue to be impressed that more than 95 percent of Wyoming teachers meet the highly qualified teacher standard, including its special educators.

This legislation will support the commitment of States such as Wyoming with a 95-percent rate to place a highly qualified teacher in every classroom, whether it is a special education classroom or not.

The third point of the bill, that I want to address is that this legislation makes improvements to the disciplinary system that operates under current law. A concern I have heard from parents and educators is that the discipline of students with disabilities has led to the creation of a two-tier disciplinary system. Students with disabilities are treated differently from their peers because it is required by law.

I don't believe that is in the best interest of these students when we are asking, for academic purposes, that we place them in the least restrictive environment. It is inconsistent to say we would treat disabled students as we treat their peers until they are in need of discipline. Disabled students are able to learn responsibility just like their peers. We should give them a chance to learn the same kind of responsibility we expect of other students.

Many parents I talk with about discipline are concerned that we not allow teachers to discipline disabled students too harshly. I agree. I think everyone agrees. I support the bill we are considering because it preserves protections for disabled students, like the protection that schools must abide by the manifest determination standard, which requires schools to determine if the student's disability led to the behavior--that is a key--if the student's disability led to the behavior.

This bill also preserves the rights of parents to question the school's decision. I also believe this legislation makes significant improvements in permitting teachers and school administrators to properly discipline students with disabilities when a need is identified.

Schools are given a margin of flexibility to remove disabled students from their classroom when a dangerous situation presents itself. The school is still accountable to the parent, however, and must make every effort to return the student to the classroom as soon as possible.

Finally, I wish to highlight the issue of State flexibility. For years, local educational agencies have been permitted to use flexibility with their funding. As the Federal Government increases its commitment to funding special education programs, local districts in most States are able to shift funding into other priorities. Traditionally, their funding has not even been limited in its use to educational purposes.

This flexibility has never benefitted Wyoming. That is because Wyoming has decided to use an alternative financing method for its special education programs.

Instead of the State passing Federal funding on to the local districts, Wyoming retains the bulk of the funding at the State level and reimburses districts for their special education expenses. Part of the reason for this approach is we do not pay for our education with property taxes as most States do. We use mineral taxes, which come from a few spots in the State. This system has worked in Wyoming for several reasons, including the help it provides to shield local districts from the cost of services for severely disabled students.

Some of the districts in Wyoming are so small that a single student with a severe disability would require all of the funding available to that district to be spent on a single student. That would threaten the services to other children with disabilities and subject the district to due process hearings under the law.

Instead, Wyoming has elected to use its allocations under part B of the special education program as reimbursements. Even very small districts can confidently provide services to students with disabilities with the understanding that the State will reimburse them for those services.

Even though the system is much more effective at providing services to students with disabilities, the lack of flexibility in the use of Federal funding has tied the hands of the State's administrators who would like to use the funding for early identification and other educational programs. The irony

is, if Wyoming were to operate their special education programs differently, and less effectively, they would enjoy much more flexibility with their funding. Right now in Wyoming, families of students with disabilities are moving from other States to enroll their children in Wyoming schools because we have done so well at meeting their needs. Even though our programs are among the best in the region--and, I argue, among the best in the country--Wyoming is penalized for doing a good job just because we do it differently than Federal law suggests we do it.

The phrase ``one size fits all'' has been used a lot in the Senate lately on the subject of education. But at the risk of abusing the term, this is a perfect example of a one-size-fits-all program that does not fit Wyoming. If Wyoming were to pursue a less effective model of providing services to students with disabilities, the State could use more flexibility. Instead, because the State decided to use a system that places the needs of the students first, we are denied the same flexibility provided every other State.

The legislation we are considering now would address this concern. It would allow States that are responsible for the largest share of non- Federal special education funding to enjoy more flexibility at the State level. It is important to note that this flexibility is only applied to educational programs so no State can drain funding away from its educational programs for other purposes. The funding has to be used in conjunction with State educational efforts.

This is a critical piece of legislation, and one I feel strongly about retaining both in this legislation and the bill that is produced by the conference process.

Those are the four main points of the actual legislation. That is legislation, again, that we unanimously supported out of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee--that is no small achievement. It is important we move forward in the process. That is what we are doing now.

Of course, we are debating two amendments, the Harkin amendment and the Gregg amendment, which will each be voted on this afternoon. I will make a few comments in support of the Gregg amendment to fully fund the IDEA program.

According to assumptions in the Senate budget resolution this body passed earlier this year, we will have increased spending by 75 percent from 2001 levels. The Gregg amendment builds on those increases and sets us on a path to reach full funding by 2011. That is a very realistic path, one that we can do, one that we can slightly accelerate. It is not just a statement but something that can happen.

I have heard colleagues comment that we can do anything with statistics. That is a common perception. But if my colleagues would rather look at the real dollars, we spend more now on education than we ever have in this country at the Federal level. Right now, under the assumptions of the fiscal year 2005 budget, we will be at 20 percent of the share of Federal special education. The Gregg amendment would take us to the 40-percent mark in 7 years. That is the mark we have in the original legislation.

I have mentioned, again, that happened in 1966. We are at a higher level now than we have ever been. It is pretty remarkable since it took over 30 years to get to 20 percent, but most of the progress that has occurred has occurred under this President in the past 4 years.

I want to make it clear, we are closer to full funding now than we ever have been in the history of this IDEA program. To get there within 7 years is within reach, but we should not be confused that mandatory spending is the right solution. I can hear the Members who made previous speeches saying: No, no, this is not mandatory. The way I read it, it is mandatory. But even if it were not mandatory, I am not aware of a program, particularly not this program, where we reduced spending. Whatever level we take it to at this moment is where it will stay. Then we will fight to show we are more concerned than anyone else in raising the revenues in the future.

So we need to have a rational, realistic, and regular approach to raising the level of IDEA funding until we can come in compliance with the 40 percent that we promised.

We have made significant progress in the past 4 years toward full funding under the current administration and congressional leadership. There is no reason to assume we will not continue to make significant progress in the near future.

I want to mention again that under the previous President, during his 8 years, we increased part B funding $1.4 billion. Under this President, in 3 years we have increased it $3.7 billion.

I have to point out, under the previous administration we were funding during a surplus. We were funding in period of growth, not a recession. We were not funding during a time of terrorism. We were not funding during a time of war in Afghanistan. We were not funding during a time of war in Iraq. We were funding during a surplus, and we did not meet that 40-percent goal.

Now, when we have severe budget constraints, there is a political statement that says: Give it all to them. And then there is a balanced approach that Senator Gregg has that says: Let's grow it and really get it done and quit making the political statements on it.

We have an opportunity to advance IDEA and to advance the funding on it. I know we will take advantage of both.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Gregg on attorney's fees. I am concerned about the effect frivolous lawsuits are having on the ability of our schools to provide services to special education students. Schools with limited resources, particularly small or rural schools, are especially vulnerable to the financial impact a frivolous complaint can have on scarce resources and limited funds.

I believe an important part of the debate on this amendment should focus on the practical impact that frivolous complaints have on the provision of services to students with disabilities.

When Federal funding was originally established for services to students with disabilities it was meant to be used for services, not for legal fees. I believe that is still the case. Unfortunately, some frivolous lawsuits against schools are having the effect of diverting funds from necessary services.

There are documented cases where schools have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars battling frivolous complaints that were filed under IDEA. As my colleague from New Hampshire has pointed out, there is one instance of a school spending $154,000 over a 2-year period to address seven complaints from the same parent. Another school spent $195,000 on complaints from one parent.

In Wyoming, $154,000 is more than some school district's entire special education administrative budget. It is very difficult to imagine successfully providing services to children with disabilities when faced with this kind of legal obligation to defend frivolous lawsuits.

The piece of the puzzle that get overlooked is that school districts do not have unlimited funds. If a school district spends $154,000 on legal fees defending a frivolous lawsuit, that is $154,000 that does not get spent on educational purposes.

I do not want to leave anyone with the impression that I think all complaints filed under IDEA are frivolous. We are talking about a very small minority of complaints, probably less than 1 percent.

Still, even though the number of frivolous complaints may not be significant to the big picture, but the cost to schools can be very significant.

A second major point I would like to make is that frivolous complaints undermine the effort of Congress to ``fully fund'' IDEA.

The issue of ``full funding'' for IDEA has received a lot of attention and we have been discussing it on the floor in this body as it relates to the underlying bill. I have never understood ``full funding'' to mean that the Federal Government should fully fund the legal fees for schools to resolve complaints under IDEA.

The ``full funding'' of IDEA that I am familiar with is the Federal goal of providing 40 percent of the cost of special education services to students. No one that I hear speaking of full funding talks about lawsuits, they talk about services to children.

Unfortunately, schools do not have the luxury of ignoring complaints, however frivolous they may be. They must assume that every complaint filed with be upheld and prepare accordingly. That diverts funds from other educational services.

Once the complaint is filed, the school must find a way to pay for the legal services it will require, and local education funding is the only pool of resources available to school districts.

This means local education will suffer when a frivolous lawsuit is filed, because the school will have to divert funds away from other priorities, even special education services, to pay for the cost of resolving the complaint.

This body should not overlook the fact that frivolous lawsuits are diverting limited resources away from services, eroding the effect of increased Federal appropriations.

This amendment would create a simple protection to defend schools from frivolous lawsuits and help retain Federal funds in proper streams to provide services for disabled students.

Parents filing legitimate complaints would not be liable for attorney's fees. The standard set by this amendment is higher than the standard currently followed by the courts in civil rights cases.

Some will argue that this amendment infringes on the rights of parents to pursue a complaint against a school district. That is not the case at all. This amendment simply provides a means for school districts to avoid the unnecessary costs of defending themselves from a frivolous lawsuit.

Legitimate complaints under IDEA would not be affected. Even complaints that could be considered marginally frivolous would not be affected. Only those complaints that meet a high standard of frivolity would be met with approved sanctions by the courts.

I believe this is a reasonable approach to an important issue and one that the Senate should be able to accept without objection.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I will speak on the underlying bill for 15 minutes.

I wanted to take this opportunity to come to the floor and speak for a minute about the important subject of education and, in particular, special education, which we refer to around here as IDEA. We authorize this very important piece of legislation every 5 or 6 years. In the midst of all that is going on with Iraq and with our debate over tax policy regarding the economy, some would not consider this the most important issue before us. But for our students, our families, and for our educators, in particular, it is a very important issue.

I say on the eve of our commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, it is appropriate that we would spend a couple of days in the Senate and in Congress speaking about an issue that really does affect millions of our families. I know people in Louisiana are very concerned about special education.

I commend the chairman and the ranking member for bringing us a bill that, in the midst of all of this rancorous debate and gridlock--some of it, from my perspective, deserved because there are some things that our side doesn't want to move forward, so we appropriately stop those actions. Nonetheless, in the midst of all of this, we should take some time to work in a bipartisan way to move the agenda of special education and make some very needed improvements. I also commend the administration and the commission that worked very hard to try to outline for us a focus regarding special education. Some of the findings of the recent study that was concluded are worth repeating. They were mentioned earlier on the floor.

I want to say again how important I think the work of this commission was when they noted that we as a Congress, as the educational leaders, should focus more on student outcomes. We have been, since we created this provision of the law in 1975, in my mind--and I think the Chair shares this opinion--too much focused on the process of making sure that each of our special needs students and their families and schools were following things step by step, paper trail by paper trail, and taking our eyes off the outcomes. What do we want these students, who are called special needs students--but they are just students who need special attention. Every student needs special attention, and some students because of where they start, with challenges or disabilities, need extra attention. I know that is true in Louisiana.

We have been, for these 30 years or so, too wrapped up in the process and not focused on the outcome. Are we, in fact, teaching children to read at grade level? Are we, in fact, intervening in the case of gross neglect or abuse to make sure that the proper outcome is that the abuse and neglect is stopped and children are placed in an environment that is more suitable to their needs, or are we focused on process, such as if the pink slip was turned in on time to match the yellow slip, or if the money was appropriately recorded. I am proud that study is moving up toward outcome and results.

I also want to say that the study has been good about suggesting to us--and this bill outlines some of the new thoughts--that we should be focused on prevention. Yes, we want to identify our students who need special attention, but if we could put in place better teaching techniques, early intervention strategies that would prevent young children from being labeled as special education, not only would that be better for the student, it would be better for the parents, the school districts, and it would also save the taxpayers some money. Today, taxpayers would like to save money where and when they can.

The third finding I thought worth noting was that we should begin to embrace more fully the concept that we only have one educational system for all of our children. We don't have, and should not have, a two- tiered system or separate system--one for ``regular'' children and one for ``special needs'' children. They are all our children. They all need special attention. But special education, or IDEA, is to give added resources--we, in Louisiana, call that ``lagniappe,'' a little extra--to a certain group of students who might need it because of their physical or emotional or mental circumstance.

Those are the three very important findings of the commission. I commend our leadership for helping us to focus on that. Let us not focus so much on the process, let us focus on the outcomes. Are we succeeding with these children? Let us not just continue to label children as the need arises, but let's focus on preventing the labeling at the earliest stage. Let us stop talking about two separate systems and realize that we are talking about one system and embrace that notion.

There are four other short points I want to make regarding the underlying bill and, in general, they are positive comments.

There has been great concern in Louisiana about the issue of discipline in our schools, and I think rightfully so. We want to support our teachers and our administrators. We want to empower them to make good choices about maintaining an atmosphere of discipline in a school so all children can learn.

If 1, 2, or 3 children are disruptive--it only takes 1--but if 1 child is disruptive in a classroom, it wrecks the opportunity for those other 25, 20, 18, 15--whatever the number is--children to learn, and it robs them of an opportunity to have a full and productive day.

Because our laws have been perhaps not as carefully written as possible, maybe our regulations have been too onerous, and perhaps some court decisions have led us to a place where in America today--and I know in Louisiana because my teachers and superintendents tell me: Senator, we are afraid to discipline a child. We are afraid of a lawsuit. Or we don't know where to stand on this issue.

As an example, as hard to believe as this is--and I am going to submit for the Record information to document it--we actually had an incident a couple years ago where two students--I know those listening will find this hard to believe--actually burned down a school, and because they were labeled

special education children, the actions taken against them were not what you and I would think would be appropriate in that they were basically allowed to go to a temporary school because they burned down the original school. People of that community did not think they could take appropriate action because they were prevented by some Federal law or regulation.

I am happy to say, in large measure that discipline issue is addressed in this bill. That is why I am happy to support it. We can now, under this new bill, suspend or expel a child with no questions asked and no hearings necessary for bombs, guns, drugs, or bodily injury to another student or a teacher. Then for issues that are not as clear as bombs, guns, drugs, and bodily injury to a student or teacher, there is a more streamlined process that does not get everybody tied up in legal knots and provides discipline in the classroom, in the hallways, in the gym, and in other places in the school environment so that learning can take place. I commend this leadership.

Perhaps we do not go as far as I would have liked on this issue. I know the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, and I have talked about even going further than this bill. But at least this is a step in the right direction to return discipline and empower our teachers to take appropriate actions.

Let me be quick to say, we do not want any child who is suffering from a physical injury or disability, particularly if a child is deaf or visually impaired, to suffer in any inappropriate way by disciplines that might come. But it has gotten out of hand in the sense that our regulations have tied the hands of our principals, superintendents, and teachers. We have addressed that situation.

On the labeling issue, we have made some progress. I am going to put up a chart in a few moments to show that we have a long way to go.

One of the other issues is funding. This bill gives us a new authorization level. It does not give us a funding level. This is where I want to express some disappointment.

We just had a vote to authorize this bill at $13.5 billion for 2002, $16 billion for 2003, $18.5 billion for 2004, and $20.5 billion for 2005. But the numbers appropriated are $20 million for 2002, 11.69 for 2003, 12.34 for 2004, and 13.3 for 2005.

There is a difference between authorized levels and appropriated levels. For No Child Left Behind and IDEA, authorized levels are promised levels. Authorized levels are what we promise to fund; appropriated levels are actually what we do.

For today, this is a serious issue, and there is a serious differential. If we were truly funding IDEA the way we promised when we initially created it and the way we continue to promise each time we authorize it, Louisiana, just our State, would be getting an additional $240 million a year.

With 15 percent of our total population labeled as ``special education,'' and with one out of every four children in poverty and with two out of three African-American children in poverty in our State, this $240 million would go a long way to helping us correct the inequities, to close the achievement gap, and to provide a quality education for all of our children.

When we add the shortfall in IDEA with the shortfall in No Child Left Behind, it comes to an astonishing $440 million shortfall for Louisiana alone. I have not calculated the shortfall for Maine. I am sure the Presiding Officer, because she is a leader in this issue, is familiar with what that number would be. For the large States, such as California, Florida, and Texas, it would have to be millions of dollars short because Louisiana, with only 4 percent of the Nation's population, is short $450 million.

With $440 million, we could do a lot better job helping every child in Louisiana learn to read at an early age and live up to the call of the special education report that says an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If we could prevent the labeling and teach children to read at age 6, 7, or 8, it would go a long way to preventing the labeling of ``special education.''

Let me go to this chart that will show my point. There are almost 3 million children who are identified around the country as special education children. I am almost getting uncomfortable using that term because the more we use it, the more people get the idea that these children are damaged goods, that there is something wrong with these children. They have special needs. I think it was the Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, who said it so beautifully: That might be true, but what these children really need is special attention.

I give my daughter special attention every night. I read to her for almost 30 minutes, and I try to do it every night. She needs special attention, and I try to provide that because she is at a critical stage of learning to read.

Most of these children who are in special education, as you can see, the vast majority of them, have speech or language disabilities. That is not to say there is something wrong with their God-given, innate intelligence. There is nothing wrong with the way God made their brain or fashioned it. He actually did a magnificent job. But we have not done our job as they grow to be little humans teaching them speech or language. So they come to school underprepared. Not mentally retarded, not visually impaired, not deaf, not autistic, but they just have difficulty speaking and with language.

Madam President, as you know, we are learning so much about the early brain development of children from 0 to 3. We understand how critical it is as parents raising our own children to look directly in the eyes of a child, to speak with clear diction, to actually show them how to speak and to talk to children, and to have a conversation with them, even if they are unable to speak but just hearing the language.

So many of our children from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds and some children from actually wealthier backgrounds who are neglected, but in large measure from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds, come to school not hearing the language properly, not having been spoken to in a direct way. So they start out at a tremendous disadvantage.

In criticism of this administration and our actions here, if we would put our money where our mouth is and start funding early childhood education, which could be done through either funding No Child Left Behind fully so States have choices about where to spend their money-- in large measure, they could spend it on early childhood education--or fully funding IDEA, we could eliminate 80 percent of the children because we could catch their speech or language earlier with effective programs.

How do I know this? Because we are doing it in Louisiana. Our superintendent, even being short of Federal dollars, even after the years we promised to give the money and we have not, has taken the bull by the horns with our Governor and our board of elementary and secondary education and with State dollars are creating what we call Louisiana Four, LA Four.

We are trying to identify every 4-year-old in our State who needs help, who wants help. It is voluntary. Children are not forced to go to school at 4 years old, but for the parents who do want to enroll their child in a quality education, with parental involvement, we are providing our own State money. Just think what we could do with $440 million. The results are astonishing.

Children who are taught to read at the earliest ages and given the basics of phonics and language avoid being labeled as special education. So then we could focus our attention on those children who really are challenged by things that, in large measure, are out of our control.

The jury is still out on autism. We are not sure what causes autism. We do not believe, with all the studies I have read, that it is anything that is caused by human activity or inactivity. It seems to be a brain malfunctioning or a nerve malfunctioning. As I said, we are not clear yet on the research. Such a small percentage of the children who are in special education are autistic and that is an appropriate place for them to be, because autistic children have real special needs. It takes skill to educate and deal with them.

Deafness and blindness, obviously, bring their own challenges.

Traumatic brain injury, our children are sometimes in accidents, sometimes it is a birth defect, but we can hardly even see this graph because it is such a small percentage of children.

If we could take care of children coming to school unprepared, which is

in our power to do, if we could take care of speech and language impairment, and if we would properly diagnosis mental retardation--and I am convinced, because I have seen studies that indicate we are not accurately identifying or overidentifying children who are mentally retarded, in other words saying they are mentally retarded but they are not really; we are just testing them in that way or making that judgment when really they have been grossly neglected and abused and their IQ is perfectly fine. Our testing measures are just not what they need to be. If we could take care of speech or language ability, which is in our control, we would dramatically reduce the number of children who would need this special intervention and therefore do a better job of educating them, reducing labeling, reducing the cost to the taxpayer, and making our children and their families much more satisfied. We would not be labeling them and putting that moniker on their back for their life.

When children are labeled and told they are special education, most children receive that as there is something wrong with them. They lower their own expectations for themselves.

I will conclude on a couple of points. I guess having low expectations from your parents is very difficult to deal with. If one has a notion about themselves and their parents did not go to college or they did not finish high school, they set low expectations. Also, having low expectations from one's teachers is difficult, but the most difficult expectation to overcome is if someone has low expectations of themselves. That is almost impossible to overcome.

When we put labels on our children unnecessarily at an early age, thinking we are helping them but we are actually hurting them, those children lower their own expectations for themselves. That is very damaging to them and to our society.

So let us do a better job of intervening early. The best way to do that is to better use the funding we have and to demand of ourselves full funding for special education and No Child Left Behind.

The final point I wish to mention is this bill again focuses on outcomes. Leave No Child Behind also attempts to focus on outcomes. That is where we have to stay the course.

There are some who are suggesting that testing is too high stakes. Well, I say to them that life is a pretty high stakes game and nothing we do is worth doing if it cannot be measured.

All action that we undertake, in almost every aspect of our life, is measurable. So schools, in their outcomes, in their processes, can be measured. We are on the road and let us stay the course. Of course, it would be helpful, and I think imperative, that we fund these efforts.

In conclusion, we have made great progress with this bill. We have taken some good steps in the area of stronger discipline. We are trying to address the discrepancy in funding, although we are still short in this effort. We still are overlabeling our children when early prevention would do so much.

I thank the Members for allowing me to speak on behalf of the thousands of teachers in Louisiana and our families that are greatly concerned. We see some hope in this underlying legislation that we are moving in the right direction.

I yield the floor.

Lake Pontchartrain.

If the Senator will yield for a moment, I thank the Senator for those kind remarks. The Senator is invited to come back any time for that famous Moon Landrieu peanut brittle. I am motivated to speak on the floor about this particular subject because in our household our parents helped to educate nine of us on a shoestring budget. It became such a passion of mine, as I could see how that has helped each of us to go forward in our lives and to see what it had done for my father and mother. They both came from families where only one grandparent had gone to college. In my father's case, neither of his parents even went to high school. So when I come to the floor--I know you graduated from that large school of yours, with eight in the graduating class--you can appreciate the importance of the work regarding education, fighting hard to make sure every family is like the Landrieu family or Reid family--at least having a chance for a good education.

If we write good laws and policies, it happens. If we don't, it doesn't.

I thank the Senator for those comments and I am happy to share my few thoughts about the underlying bill.