Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1350) to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very important piece of legislation and I hope the Members will have an opportunity to listen to the debate. I wanted to thank my colleagues on the committee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of our committee, for the work and effort they have put in on behalf of this legislation. We went through an extensive mark-up. We had an opportunity to offer a number of amendments. Unfortunately, most of them from our side were not accepted. But I believe that, in fact, this is a matter of good intentions by both sides of this debate.

I must state, however, at this time I think this bill does considerable harm. I think that this bill falls short in protecting what is the basic civil rights of children with disabilities to get a free and appropriate education. That is the intent of the law. And I am concerned that this bill does not do what it says it should do with respect to guaranteeing the basic rights of those children.

This bill also falls short on another front, and that is the guaranteed full funding of this Act. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) is right, the Congress has done a much better job in the last 6 or 7 years in providing those fundings, but the fact is that the promise that has been made to the local school districts has not been kept; and even this year in an appropriations bill passed just a couple of weeks ago, we are $1 billion 200 million behind that curve; and yet we will not be allowed to offer amendments to require that that funding be mandatory and that full funding be achieved by this legislation. That is a 30 year-old promise that we made, and it is unfortunate that we will not be allowed to have that amendment.

Yes, many in the school establishment and the education establishment are for this Act. It probably makes their lives somewhat easier; but we ought to be thinking also about the rights of these children and the protections of these children and the needs of these children and their families; to make sure that, in fact, the educational opportunity is provided to these children with disabilities.

It is for that reason that after reviewing this legislation that the National PTA, the Children's Defense Fund, the National Association of Education of Young Children, and so many other organizations have contacted the Members of Congress and said that this bill is unacceptable, that they oppose this bill because it does not provide that protection along with 14,000 other people who have sent e-mails and petitions against this legislation, representing the parents and families of these children who know how difficult it is to get that education for the children. And yet at the same time, when we have not met full funding, when we are weakening the rights of the children and the families, we also see that this legislation allows for the diversion of funds, some of which are for good purposes, but when you do not have the funding in place, you have to raise the question of whether or not this money ought to be diverted from the system. And also, we have to look at that diversion of these Federal funds targeted for the education of children with disabilities at a time when these funds at the local level are becoming more and more scarce because of the budget problems of our States that is now so well documented.

Finally, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I am deeply concerned about the waivers that are authorized in the name of paperwork reduction for the States. I am very concerned that this

will allow the waivers of documentation to ensure access to a general education curriculum, documentation ensuring accommodations of State tests, information on a child's academic achievement, information on transition plans for post secondary education, procedural safeguard notices provided to parents so that they are aware of their rights, prior written notices to parents of the services and placements that their child will receive.

These are fundamental to these families. It is fundamental to these children. It is fundamental to making sure that they can get the education that they have sought for their child so that the child will have a full opportunity to participate in American society. And yet we see as we go into the due process hearings, you go in to enforce your child's civil rights, that you would be barred from raising new issues at a process hearing even if the evidence surfaces. If there is new evidence that comes to the attention of the school and the parents, you cannot raise it in these hearings. You cannot raise it. You cannot. All they have to decide is whether or not you are getting a free and appropriate education. But if there are errors made, the parent cannot raise them. Why are we precluding these parents?

The fact of the matter is that many school districts, we may not want to say it is one in our district, but there are a huge number of school districts that make it very difficult for parents to get the free and appropriate education, to get the services. Huge numbers of these children do not get services. They get put on the list for services. And there is a world of distinction between being on the list for services and getting services when your child is in an educational setting and you run the risk that they are going to fall further and further behind, and then you need additional services to have them catch up.

Then we have a cap on attorneys fees on this legislation, which says that it is going to be harder and harder for low income parents to find a lawyer to take these cases to challenge the school districts where that educational opportunity is being denied. But the school district, there is no limitation on their use of tax dollars paid for by these parents to defend what they have done. Now, nothing there. It is just that you cannot get attorney's fees when you bring a case because your child has been denied that education.

My concern, Mr. Chairman, is that this legislation is taking us back to another time. With the discipline provisions, where we are now going to determine this basic right to an education, this basic civil rights action based upon the code of conduct in individual schools, so that children with autism, children with cerebral palsy, severely emotionally disturbed children, are going to be determined by that code of conduct. You ought to read those codes of conduct and see whether or not that is how you would like your child to be measured up if they have Down syndrome, because unacceptable displays of affection are reasons for suspension.

You say a school district would not do that, but these are the same school districts that are throwing Harry Potter out of school. So we cannot take the educational needs of these children and the civil rights protections in this law and have them open to that kind of whim. And I think we ought to be very careful about that.

I would urge Members to vote against this legislation. It fails on the protections for children and it fails on the funding, and this will be our last chance to try and get and redeem the promise that every Member of this Congress has made to local school districts that we would provide the funding. We said we would provide the funding in No Child Left Behind. We are $5 billion behind on that one, and we are a $1.2 billion behind on this one this year. That is $7 billion that we are down at a time when the States are struggling, and at a time when it is becoming more and more expensive to educate these children. We ought not do that. We ought to have an amendment here on full funding and we ought to make it mandatory, and we ought to protect the rights of these children.

This is a very, very important bill that we take up here today. I urge members to listen carefully to this debate.

I first want to thank my colleagues on the Education Committee, Representative Castle, Representative Woolsey, and Chairman Boehner, for the time and effort they have put into this legislation. I appreciate the other side's willingness to discuss the issues in this bill, and to take the time in Committee over a 2-day mark-up to debate the 30-some amendments that members on both sides of the aisle offered. However, despite what I know were many good intentions on the other side of the aisle, this bill is fundamentally flawed.

The Bill Does Harm: The bill we will consider today has many, many provisions that jeopardize the quality of education provided to children with disabilities and their civil and due process rights under current law.

This Bill Falls Short In What It Does Not Do: Moreover, this bill breaks yet another promise to couple resources with reform. Despite promises made last year by the Administration, and by the Republican leadership of this Congress, the bill before us today fails to ensure that additional resources will accompany these major changes to the law.

Stakes Are High: The stakes in this reauthorization are very high. The reason we need a Federal law is that students with disabilities have special needs. They require extra attention and accommodations. And for a variety of reasons, without external pressure and assistance, many schools cannot or will not provide the services and accommodations necessary to ensure that every child has a free and appropriate public education.

Before 1975, approximately 1 million children with disabilities were excluded from public education. Millions more were given an inferior education even though they attended school. There are many provisions in this bill that would turn back the clock on the progress we have made. But you don't have to take my word for it. I have received stacks of letters on this from parents, educators, and experts who have expressed grave concerns about this bill. Dozens of national organizations--including the National PTA, the Children's Defense Fund, the National Association of Education of Young Children, and almost every group that exists to advocate on behalf of students with specific disabilities--opposes this bill. And an ever growing list--at current count 14,000--of individuals has signed an on-line petition expressing their opposition.

Many of the fights we will have today pit the interests of parents and students against those of school board members and administrators. What drives these fights primarily is the scarcity of resources. It is a problem we could easily solve. If we had the will.

Almost every member of the House is on record in support of full funding either as cosponsor of a bill, as a ``yea'' vote on non-binding resolution, or as a speaker on special orders. And all of the other vehicles we have in this body for pretending we are doing something.

But now the moment of truth has arrived. And suddenly the past supporters of full funding, under pressure from their leadership, are scrambling for cover. It would have taken only an additional $1.2 billion in the appropriations bill just passed in February to put us on the road to full funding.

The other side will tell you that we have done all that is possible. That there are no offsets to provide additional funding. With all due respect, those arguments do not stand up under scrutiny.

What we are asking for to ensure that children with disabilities have the accommodations, the aides, the qualified teachers, the curriculum, and other things they need to receive a quality education is chump change compared to other legislation this House has passed within the last couple of years.

No one asked for an offset when this Congress spent over a trillion dollars in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. No one asked for an offset when we provided $99 billion over 10 years to repeal the estate tax for the richest 2 percent of decedents. No one asked for an offset when we spent $87 billion over 10 years on the farm bill. No one asked for an offset when we spent $36 billion over 10 years on a pointless energy bill. But suddenly we cannot come up with a measly $1.2 billion. Shame on us. Shame on us.

Diversion of Funds: To add insult to injury, H.R. 1350 contains many provisions that allow States and school districts to divert funds--all IDEA funds--away from direct services to students with disabilities during the regular school day. Here is a partial list:

Fifteen percent of funds can be diverted to a new ``pre-referral'' program;

Twenty percent of funds can be used to supplant local education funds; and

An unlimited percentage of funds can be diverted to ``supplemental services'' required under the Title I program of Federal education law.

These are all worthy purposes. But because we fail to provide the necessary funding, we are setting an even more intense competition for scarce resources. Resources that--given State and local budget crises and the prolonged economic downturn--are becoming scarcer and scarcer every day.

H.R. 1350 authorizes a pilot project under which the Secretary of Education may grant waivers to up to 10 States under the auspices of ``paperwork reduction.'' Under this authority, many bedrock requirements of IDEA could be waived, including:

Individualized Education Programs--

Documentation on ensuring access to general education curriculum;

Documentation ensuring accommodations on State tests;

Information on a child's academic achievement; and

Information on transition plans for postsecondary education or employment.

Procedural Safeguard Notices--Notices provided to parents to ensure they are aware of their rights.

Prior Written Notices--Notices to parents on the services and placement their child will receive.

Accountability and Public Reporting--State and local achievement and drop out data, disaggregation by race or LEP status, disproportionate representation of minorities in special education.

This bill Weakens Due Process Protections for Parents in All 50 States--even if children and their parents are lucky enough to live in one of the States that is not part of the waiver program, they cannot escape this bill's damage. The Republican bill would fundamentally undermine the due process rights of all parents:

Parents would be barred from raising new issues at due process hearings--even if new evidence has surfaced;

Hearing officers would be hamstrung to limit rulings to the denial of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE);

Schools would not be liable for procedural, due process, and other violations; and

Schools would have little to fear in denying parents due process rights because parents would effectively have no recourse, no remedy.

H.R. 1350 institutes a one-year statute of limitations on violations of IDEA. Virtually the only thing that would have a shorter statutory reach would be parking tickets and traffic violations.

H.R. 1350 Caps Attorneys' Fees Reimbursement to parents, requiring Governors to set the rate of attorneys' fees reimbursement when a parent wins a due process hearing. This would allow caps on attorneys' fees but only for parents. School districts would still be free to hire and pay, at public expense, the salaries of lawyers who are on the opposite side of the legal battle from parents. This provision will effectively prevent low- and moderate-income parents from acquiring legal representation to protect the rights of their disabled children.

H.R. 1350 would allow students to be expelled unilaterally and placed in an ``alternative setting'' for any violation of a school's ``code of conduct.'' This is the single most egregious provision in this bill. It will set back the disability rights movement 30 years.

Under the guise of discipline, many children will confront the same obstacles they confronted before IDEA was passed--school districts that can say unilaterally: ``You are not welcome here. We do not want to educate you.''

Under this provision, a student could be expelled for virtually anything: chewing gum, shouting out in class, carrying a plastic eating utensil with their lunch, inappropriate displays of public affection, being late for class, not completing homework.

Moreover, placement in an alternative setting is unilateral. There is no ``manifestation determination'' that would mitigate the consequences for students whose violations are the result of their disability:

A child with Tourrete's syndrome could be expelled for shouting out in class;

A child with cerebral palsy could be expelled for inadvertently making contact with another student or teacher;

A developmentally disabled child (low IQ) could be expelled for an ``inappropriate public affection;''

A child with Attention Deficit Disorder could be expelled for repeatedly being late for class or getting out of his or her seat.

As I said in my opening, I think many of the provisions in this bill are well-intentioned. Some make sensible improvements in the law. But overall the bill is fundamentally flawed.

I hope we are able to improve the bill here on the floor and in conference and look forward to working with my colleagues in that effort. I hope we can make these so that this law makes a positive change in lives of children with disabilities and their families. And so that it garners the strong bipartisan support and consensus it has long enjoyed.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very bad idea. This law was built up about guaranteeing to these children and to their families that they would have certain rights that would provide them an access to a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. And over the years we have built up a system of accountability to make sure that that education was, in fact, provided to these children.

Now we come along with this voucher amendment where immediately upon the exchange of money from the school district to the private school, or from the parent to the private school, those rights are eviscerated. Because this bill deems upon acceptance of the voucher that these children are getting a free and appropriate education. We do not know whether they will or not. If the children decide they are not and they come back to the public school system, does the school system get to bring some of the money back? Is the money stuck over there? Does the school system now have to pony up additional money to educate that child? I think the answer is yes, they do because they have an obligation.

The fact of the matter is these schools, they do not have to accept the child if the disability is too expensive. They do not have to accept the child. They get to pick and choose among the children. The public schools have to take the children as they come to give them a free and appropriate education. These schools do not have to be certified. They do not have to be qualified. They do not have to be State licensed.

What happens to the money? You just get to take this money, the taxpayers' money and not have these accountabilities. I can understand the desire; and, in fact, the law provides for parents who think their children can get a better education at a private school with special skills or special talents or a record of handling these children in the appropriate way. They can petition to go to these schools.

In 1997, we had so many people leaving the system that we said you cannot do that because you are sticking the school district for so much money. And there was no process, there was no determination whether or not this was a suitable placement. Now you can just opt out. If the parent is lucky and if the child is lucky and it works, fine. If it does not, the school district is out the money, the child is out the education, and we are back in the stew.

This is just an unacceptable amendment. Nobody is required to make adequate yearly progress with these children under Leave No Child Behind. There is no accountability under that. There is for the school. There is no accountability in this legislation. There is no accountability under, in many instances, State law. So I do not understand. The President, the Congress decided that we are going to build a system of accountability, and now, still, simply, you can opt out of that.

If students need supplemental services, your legislation provides for supplemental services without limit to provide for that child that is hearing impaired, that is sight impaired, where they can get additional services. I assume that is the purpose of the supplemental services. But this voucher goes far beyond that.

This voucher simply gives some level of scholarship to the parents to take. But that does not mean the parents will get into that school. They may settle for a school that does not quite provide those services. It turns out that does not work, and they are back in the public school system. Meanwhile, the public school system trying to hold on to a critical mass of people skilled to deal with the education of children with disabilities, finds out that the cost per service per child goes up.

Again, as we have seen in the McKay program, about 25 percent of these people go out into those things. They get their scholarships. They go to schools, and they are coming back. We do not know quite why yet they are coming back; but obviously as they come back to the public school system, they are more expensive than when they left.

There ought to be some screen to know that this, in fact, is going to enhance the children's education. We understand and deal with, all the time, parents who want another location for the child. That is not this system. This is just a wide open voucher system without any accountability. It ought to be rejected by the House.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

The arguments here are very similar to the previous amendment. One, it is a very bad idea in terms of policy and accountability and responsibility to these children, but it is also a bit of a hoax.

The idea that the parent can take the Federal share of the money, which the gentlewoman says is $1,400, maybe as high as $1,800, and go out and buy the same education they are going to get in the public school system for their children on the school-year basis, well, where does the rest of the money come from? At least if this bill had some intellectual integrity, it would say take all the money the school district is going to spend, take the $6,000 on a national average, give that to the parent and let them try to find this education.

Obviously, if the parent cannot come up with the additional money, they cannot provide for an education. Or if the child is severely disabled, this will not begin to cover those services. Remember, most of the people who go out to get these services end up suing the school district for those services and the school pays the whole amount. They pay $15,000, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, or $50,000 because of the kind of intense services that these children need in order to qualify to get a free and appropriate education.

That is not what this amendment is about. This is just a shuck and a jive, that somehow you can go out and get these first-class services for a severely disabled child for $1,400. Again, the bill allows for, and I think it makes sense on one level, supplemental services. If $1,400 will buy the kind of services for a child that is moderately disabled or has a reading problem or something, and is labeled as disabled, fine, give them the supplemental services. But the notion someone can go out and buy an education for $1,400 is a hoax on the parents.

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) because I think this amendment causes a great deal of trouble in terms of the questions of the stigma of people.

I have talked to an awful lot of parents who have great qualms about whether their children should be identified in special education programs, whether to try to get the child into the program when they know the child needs help or not because they are concerned about what that means in the future. We have struggled with this in the committee and on both sides of the aisle, this question of underidentification, overidentification, and of the illnesses that we should be treating in this setting.

I do not think that this language, and maybe it can be improved before the end of this process, but I do not think that this language is proper. It suggests that only a select number of people are fit to pass judgment on whether or not these children are eligible or not, and I think it does create a problem in terms of the question of mental disability and of special education. I hope that we would not agree to this amendment. I think it is very damaging on the front that we have tried to make some progress on with the public.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time, and I have a tremendous amount of empathy for his personal situation and have spent a great deal of time discussing that and his interest in this bill, as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts, who exhibited, I felt, at the hearing before the Committee on Rules, an understanding of the legislation as well.

I think it is very important that we begin this debate by understanding several background areas. One is that this is legislation which was created in 1975 with the help of a number of people who are still here today. One of those Members is the ranking member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and others who put language into this legislation, which I think has held up extraordinarily well over the past 30 or so years. I believe that the services that we provide to our children who have disabilities are tremendous, light years ahead of where we were just 30 years ago.

I believe that Republicans and Democrats alike have worked together every 5 or 6 years in the reauthorization process, and I know it was very difficult 5 or 6 years ago when I went through it in order to put together legislation which will be helpful in improving what we are doing in helping children with disabilities. But I believe that the legislation before us is another step in that direction.

Now, obviously, if this passes today, with some of the amendments which are before us, it will go into a conference with the Senate and may come out somewhat differently. But I would suggest that before the process is done, this may become both bipartisan and perhaps even some improvements in it from where it is at this point today, although I think it is a significant and good piece of legislation today.

I do rise in support of H. Res. 206, which provides for the consideration of H.R. 1350, which is the Improving Results for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003. I offer my thanks to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for his latitude in making sure that this legislation was worked out. We are very appreciative of that. I also want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and members of the Committee on Rules, particularly the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), for drafting what I find to be a fair and balanced rule.

I think we need to know the background of that too. For almost 2 years, we have been working to create a balanced piece of legislation to ensure that students with disabilities receive a quality education. In doing so, we have been committed to working with Democrats and parents and educators, and I think that rule today reflects that commitment. This has been an ongoing process, Mr. Speaker, which is exhibited in this rule.

There are a number of amendments that are the result of dialogue we have had with the minority. There are a number of other amendments that did not have to be introduced because we adopted them as part of the legislation. We have a manager's amendment with some technical aspects, which I am sponsoring.

But over the past 18 months, our committee, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, has held seven different hearings on issues directly relating to the reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities on Education Act. And though that is probably not unparalleled, it is a little unusual to have that extensive number of hearings on any legislation in the House of Representatives.

On June 6, 2002, I helped launch a Web-based project called Great IDEAs, designed to solicit input from stakeholders in special education across the Nation. Since that time we have had more than 3,000 responses from teachers, school administrators, parents of children with special needs, and others familiar with the unique needs of children with disabilities and incorporated many of these suggestions into H.R. 1350. So the point on that is there has been a great deal of effort put into the preparation of this legislation and the preparation of the rule which we have before us today.

Turning to the bill, I believe that this bill employs commonsense reforms to reduce the excessive amount of paperwork requirements, and that is the common complaint that we hear from everybody. It improves IDEA to provide greater parent involvement, seeks to reduce litigation, authorizes dramatic funding increases, and improves early intervention strategies.

The excessive amount of paperwork requirement simply, frankly, overwhelms teachers and robs them of valuable time to educate their students. Teachers must have the ability to spend more time in the classroom rather than spending endless hours filling out unnecessary forms. Additionally, these provisions will allow school districts to retain and recruit highly qualified special education teachers.

Throughout the bill we have made improvements to IDEA to provide greater flexibility to parents and greater input in developing the Individualized Education Program, which is known by the acronym IEP, for their child.

The bill gives parents discretion over who attends IEP team meetings, how they are conducted, or whether to have one at all. We have improved the parent training and information centers and the community-parent resource centers to serve as valuable tools for parents trying to work with schools to get a quality education for their child.

This bill seeks to reduce litigation and restore trust between parents and school districts by encouraging the use of alternative means or what we know as dispute resolution. All too often miscommunication damages this relationship and results in proliferation of litigation. Not only is this course of action costly, but it breeds an attitude of distrust.

H.R. 1350 authorizes dramatic increases in funding for special education, creates a clear path to attain full funding of the Federal Government's 40 percent goal within 7 years. Let me go through that carefully. We are going to hear that a lot in the course of the next 4 or 5 hours on the floor. Essentially, after IDEA was created, in the original language it said that the Federal Government will fund up to 40 percent of the cost of the education of these children beyond the normal cost of education. The Federal Government for whatever reasons did not live up to that.

Up until about 7 years ago, the Federal Government was funding 5 or 6 percent of that cost. In the last 7 years, and I am proud that Republicans have been involved with this, although Democrats have been supportive as well, but over the last 7 years, we have increased that dramatically so that instead of funding 5 percent, we are now funding 18 percent.

In this year's budget resolution, that funding number will take us up to 21 percent. The President of the United States has indicated his complete willingness to fund this in rapid increases to get us to that 40 percent in a 7-year glide path. This Congress, in the form of the Committee on Appropriations, has indicated doing it the same way. This is all under the discretionary spending which we have with constant review; and believe me, we need constant review of IDEA which is happening as a result of the fact that it is under discretionary spending. I do not believe when we go to mandatory spending we get those reviews.

I believe that particular commitment to getting there in 7 years is going to work. The mandatory spending side of it, the amendments that we are seeing, although they are not in this particular legislation, have a 6-year path to get us to that 40 percent funding. The real differences are rather minimal in terms of when we would get there, and the commitment to do it. Some Members say we need to do it in a mandatory way or it is not going to happen.

I do not agree with that. I have watched it happen year after year in most of the years that I have been in the Congress of the United States, and it is happening extremely well. I am proud of our record of dramatically increasing this funding for IDEA over the past 7 years and remain committed to building on that impressive record as far as the future is concerned. I am convinced that we are doing the right thing. We will hear a lot about it in a political sense today, but the bottom line is the commitment is there and that is happening.

The bill also improves early intervention strategies. Currently too many children with reading problems are being identified as learning disabled and placed in special education classes they do not necessarily belong in. We have given local school districts the flexibility to use up to 15 percent of their funds for prereferral services for students before they are identified as needing special education. I think that is a very important provision because of some of the overidentification that goes on, particularly in the African American community.

We also attempt to address that question of a disproportionate number of minority students wrongly placed in special education. We encourage school districts to provide positive behavioral interventions and support intensive educational interventions to prevent this overidentification and misidentification.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot in this legislation. It is very difficult, frankly, to take a significant piece of legislation and be able to comprehend it unless one has lived it for a long time. I will tell Members there are many people who have come to my office and left pictures of their children behind, which I have on my desk in both Wilmington and here in Washington, D.C. There are many Members of Congress who are involved very personally with children with disabilities and are very concerned with what is in this legislation.

Many steps have been taken in order to improve the legislation. We have tried to keep an open mind about amendments and suggestions and will do so through conference in order to help those children who truly need help in our schools. We are proud of our record and the legislation. I believe the Committee on Rules has done an outstanding job of sorting through amendments and preparing for today, and I would encourage everybody to support this rule.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

I rise in strong support of this legislation. Sometimes when we hear debates, we do not get the full significance of what we are doing. We are dealing with a piece of legislation which the chairman and others on the Democrat side have worked very hard on to make educational opportunities better for children with disabilities in this country.

We have been involved for 2 years doing this. We have had 7 hearings, we started a Web site, we had something like 3,000 suggestions on that Web site. We have had many discussions with many people in trying to work out a lot of differences, and there are a lot of problems in dealing with this issue.

I have talked to many, many individual Members, but at the heart of it, this legislation is aimed at trying to help children with disabilities get a better education and help other children being educated in our schools. I thank the parents and children in Delaware, many of whom I have spent time with, and my judgment is this is good legislation, excellent legislation which is going to move us forward.

For too many years children who had disabilities were denied access to education. In 1975 Congress, this House and the Senate, provided that educational opportunity. According to the Department of Education, about 6.6 million students currently participate in these programs across the Nation. Of those, almost 50 percent of the children with disabilities spend 80 percent or more of their day in a regular education classroom. Mr. Chairman, 30 years ago that would not have happened. Probably zero of those children would have spent time in a regular classroom. That is happening today. Each 5 years, we come along in Congress and try to improve that. There is room for improvement.

These are children who are at the greatest risk of being left behind. We have to give children with disabilities access to an education that maximizes their unique abilities and provides them with tools for later successful, productive lives. We must work together to do this in every way we can. This bill aims to improve current law by focusing on improved education results, reducing the paperwork burden for special education teachers, and addressing the problem of overidentification of minority students as disabled.

In addition, the bill seeks to reduce litigation and reform special education financing and funding. One of the great benefits of No Child Left Behind, H.R. 1, is that we have raised expectations and will hold school districts accountable for the annual progress of all of their students, including students with disabilities.

Although we have made great progress in including students with disabilities in regular classrooms, we now must make equally great process in ensuring that they receive a quality education in a regular classroom. We need to align IDEA and No Child Left Behind.

This bill will help reduce the paperwork burden so school districts are able to retain and recruit highly qualified special education teachers. The excessive amount of paperwork currently inherent in special education continues to overwhelm and burden teachers. We hear that from all of them, robbing them of time with their students. Based on that, we have tried to amend the individual education plan without reconvening the entire IEP team at all times. We also establish a rule of construction stating that nothing beyond what is explicitly included in the Act is required in a child's IEP, and requires the secretary to develop model forms for the IEP, something a lot of people asked for.

Secondly, we permit the use of alternative means of meeting participation, such as teleconferencing and videoconferencing.

All of these measures will give teachers the ability to spend more time in classrooms. Furthermore, we are committed to implementing reforms that would reduce the number of students that are misidentified or overrepresented in special ed programs. Minorities are often significantly overrepresented in these programs. In fact, African Americans are nearly 3 times, more likely twice, to be labeled as mentally retarded and almost twice as likely to be labeled emotionally disturbed. Thousands of children are misidentified every year, while many are not identified early enough.

We address these issues in this legislation. By providing these services to children at an earlier age, we can prevent people from being identified as having learning disabilities and help them in their education process. We also seek to reduce litigation, restore trust between parents and school districts, and many other steps have been taken in this legislation that we think are tremendously helpful in improving the opportunities for children with disabilities. I urge Members to support the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor).

(Mr. GILLMOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this 1\1/2\ minutes to address this issue of funding because I think there has been perhaps a misunderstanding here. Some of it, frankly, is a little bit political; but I think we need to sort of clear the air if we can.

This bill, as we all know, I think, now at this point, was first passed in 1975. From 1975 until 1995, which was a time, frankly, that the Congress was controlled by the Democrats for the most part here, the funding for the Federal share of this never got above 7 percent. Starting in 1996 and thereafter up until now in the year 2003 and then 2004, that funding as the percentage share of the Federal Government, even with the cost-of-living increases and everything else, has gone to 18 percent. The funding in the budget bill for this next year, 2004, which is the yellow line on this chart, is actually at 21 percent, on our way to 40 percent. In this legislation is a guide path by authorization to take that funding to the full 40 percent in 7 years. Even under the mandatory funding bills that those advocates are talking about in terms of handling the funding would not get there for 6 years. It would take an additional $10.2 billion, and everybody realizes that that cannot be done.

This Congress has committed to it. This Republican Party under this President has absolutely committed to doing this, and is making extraordinary gains. In fact, that increase is 282.3 percent in that period of time, from 1996 to 2003. We wish our stocks had increased that much in value. The average yearly funding for IDEA between 1996 and 2003 has grown at 18.6 percent per year. Those are astounding increases for any kind of Federal program, all of which usually increase, at best, at a rate of cost of living.

So, the truth of the matter is, the bottom line is that we have met our responsibilities, and I would encourage everyone to support the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer Amendment No. 1.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, first I appreciate the bipartisan support for the amendment. Secondly, I think it would be worth taking this 2 minutes to try to read what is actually in this amendment so we will know what we are voting for.

It is a technical amendment, it clarifies and consolidates a series of GAO reports that were added during the consideration of the bill by the Committee on Education and Workforce.

It redefines the percentage of funds that the State can reserve out of its State level activities for programs designed to serve children with disabilities with high cost, special education-related services needs to reflect the common understanding.

It updates authorization levels that were modified by the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution. This level reflects the increased funding in the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution included for IDEA Part B State Grants.

It clarifies that evaluations are provided to children in the language and form designed to obtain useful information and includes longstanding terminology used throughout the implementing regulations and elsewhere in the Act.

It modifies language in the section prohibiting the Federal control of curriculum to ensure that this exact language is included in the No Child Left Behind Act. This is an important change, by the way, that ensures consistent language addressing local control over the curriculum.

It revises language in the Part D programs to ensure that the needs of limited English-proficient children with disabilities are met through the training of school personnel and effective data collection.

It modifies the section regarding support for captioning programs to enable news programs to be captioned until 2006, which is when Federal Communications Commission requirements require all news programs to be captioned.

These amendments, Mr. Chairman, continue our well-balanced approach toward improving IDEA. As with the remainder of the bill, these improvements will result in improved services for students and improved achievement for students.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

We have no further speakers, and I think we have 1 minute. I will just close by encouraging all of us to support the technical amendment. I do not think there is any disagreement about that, so we can go on to the other amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I also want to thank him for his amendment.

I do not want to prolong this debate, because I am in agreement with the other two speakers. But I think it is important to understand the impact of paperwork and the meetings and the whole process of dealing with IDEA. There is not a person in this Chamber who does not wish to help children with disabilities to be educated. But part of the problem is that a lot of the teachers drop out of the system, a lot of them just cannot face all of the bureaucracy that goes along with it. I believe that the Vitter amendment moves strongly in the direction of making sure that we are providing oversight to that and doing that through a GAO report.

I might also, from a personal point of view, just say that I believe it is one of the reasons that I am happy that we do go through this reauthorization process every 5 or 6 years, which is necessary under the discretionary form of spending which we have. I think it is very, very important that we, as Members of Congress, do keep an eye on this. So I do support the amendment, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support it.

Although I do not oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I ask to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, we have had discussions on this, and it is our judgment that this is an amendment we should support. This clarifies what services are required to be provided by school districts. It specifies that the educational program and services provided under it must be reasonably calculated to provide an educational benefit that enables a child with a disability to access the general curriculum.

Children with disabilities should be provided instruction and services at public expense that meet the State's educational standards for the appropriate grade level that are reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress in the general education curriculum and advance from grade to grade. That is what both No Child Left Behind and IDEA are really all about.

School districts have to provide the necessary services, but the act does not and should not require school districts to provide all services simply because a service exists that might have some benefit.

Essentially, this has been a matter of litigation, and it has been a matter of some interest. Our judgment is that the amendment encompasses improvements to IDEA. For that reason, I would encourage support for it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Texas for yielding me time and for his great work working with myself and the members of our committee and others to help craft the bill that we have before us today.

Let me also thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and the Committee on Rules for their consideration of what I think is a very fair rule for Members on both sides of the political aisle. There is great opportunity for Members to offer amendments.

Let me also thank my good friend, the chairman of our Subcommittee on Education Reform, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for the tremendous work that he did, and the members of our committee and our staff, by the way, for all of their hard work in getting us here today.

I will have a lot more to say about the bill when we actually get into the bill, but we are on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of conversation this morning about the issue of mandatory spending versus full funding. I just want to say that the amendments that were offered that were not made in order with regard to mandatory spending were not made in order because they violated the rules of the House. You cannot bring a mandatory funding amendment here without getting a waiver of the Budget Act. The fact is that neither of these amendments were crafted in such a way that they did not violate the rules of the House. That is why they were not made in order.

Let me also say that mandatory funding for this program is the wrong way to fund the program. We would not be here today making the improvements in this bill to help children with special needs and to help our teachers, principals, school board members and superintendents if it had not been for the fact that we have this bill on a 5-year reauthorization track. It forces the Congress to step back and look at this Act and to determine, is it working the way we intended it? Are there better ways to achieve our objective?

I would suggest to all of my colleagues that if it had been under mandatory spending, we know what happens with those programs; they get put on automatic pilot and are very seldom looked at. That is not in the best interests of special needs children, and it is not in the best interests of our schools.

Let me also say what my colleague from California pointed to. The first 20 years of this Act Congress never really stepped up to the plate. Our friends on the other side of the aisle were in charge. Even in 1993 and 1994, when they had control of the House and Senate and the White House, there was no move made to make this a mandatory funding program. So why do we hear about it now?

I would just suggest to my colleagues we do two things here in this town; we do public policy and we do politics. We would like to get the politics out of it, but it is kind of hard to take politics out of politics. But when we hear all of the discussion about mandatory funding, trust me, it is nothing more than politics.

Since 1996, all you have to do is look at the chart next to me and see the dramatic increases in funding. 1997, a 33.7 percent increase in IDEA spending. In 1998, a 22.3 percent increase in spending; then we raised it another 13.2 percent in 1999; how about the year 2000, 16 percent more on top of that; the year 2001, a 27.1 percent increase; or how about 2002, an 18.8 percent increase; or how about this year, 2003, a 17.8 percent increase.

All of these are built on top of the previous increases. And in the budget resolution that we adopted just several weeks ago we called for a 24.8 percent increase in IDEA spending.

For someone to suggest that we are not doing our job, we are not trying to meet our responsibilities, I think, misses the point entirely. In this bill that is before us, we have a glidepath to get from the 20 percent of funding, in round figures, 21 percent at the end of this year, to 40 percent. I think that is a reasonable approach, it is the right way to go, and none of us, none of us, should hang our heads when it comes to the question of whether we are meeting our obligations to fully fund IDEA.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we have a chance today to consider the Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act, H.R. 1350, legislation that will strengthen our Nation's education law for children with special needs.

I am very grateful for the work of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) on this important legislation, and for all of the hard work all of our committee members have put into this project over the last 18 months.

I also want to thank the ranking member and my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for his work during this process. While we are not in complete agreement with the bill that we have before us today, his efforts have been extraordinary and very helpful.

The issues addressed in this bill are important ones for our constituents. I hear more comments from Members about IDEA than I do about any other Federal education program. Today is a chance to do something that will make a real difference in our schools.

The bill that we have before us today is an important bill for our children and our schools. It is the next major step in education reform and the next step in the process of ensuring that Washington no longer spends billions of dollars a year on education programs without insisting on results for our children.

This bill is important as an opportunity for us as legislators. The reforms in H.R. 1350 are strongly supported by teachers, school administrators, principals, and other educators, those who have been asked to do the most under the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act. This bill gives teachers and school leaders better tools to meet the high standards in No Child Left Behind, and they support it.

When Republicans and Democrats came together some 16 months ago to pass No Child Left Behind, we vowed to bring a generation of failed Federal education policy to an end. We acknowledged that money alone has failed to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their peers. We declared that Washington would no longer pump billions of dollars a year into education without insisting on results for the children those dollars are supposed to serve.

No Child Left Behind was the beginning of this process, not the end of it. The No Child Left Behind law requires that every child in America be given the chance to learn and succeed, including children with special needs. When we passed the law, we promised we would follow up by giving teachers and educators the tools they need to meet these high standards.

We promised that we would revise laws like IDEA to ensure that the focus is on results being produced for our children, rather than on compliance with complicated rules and paperwork. We said that these things we could finally do, now that an accountability system was in place to ensure that parents know when their children are learning.

Mr. Chairman, we are here today to make good on that commitment. The measure before us provides powerful reforms requested for years by teachers, principals, local educators, the people on the front lines of education in our

country. The American Association of School Administrators, which represents some 14,000 educational leaders nationwide, calls H.R. 1350 ``the best special education policy revisions we have seen in decades.''

The legislation aligns IDEA with No Child Left Behind and gives our school districts greater flexibility in reviewing the progress of a child by replacing benchmarks and short-term objectives with regular reporting requirements that are contained in No Child Left Behind.

The bill before us reduces the paperwork burden on teachers. Good special education teachers are leaving the profession in frustration because of the IDEA paperwork burden, and there is a growing shortage of quality teachers in special education. This legislation before us allows parents to choose the option of a 3-year individualized education plan instead of an annual one.

And it is at the option of school to offer it and at the option of parents if they want to move to a 3-year plan. And the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) has been promoting this idea for several years. I want to thank him for his contributions in this bill.

H.R. 1350 will reduce the numbers of students that are misidentified or overrepresented in special education, a problem that particularly effects minority children. As the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University has shown, African Americans are nearly 3 times more likely to be labeled as mentally retarded under the current IDEA system and almost twice as likely to be labeled emotionally disturbed. Thousands of children every year are inappropriately identified, while many others are not identified at all.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), our colleague, gave us compelling testimony during committee sessions in the last Congress to help us address this, and I am proud to say that it is being addressed.

H.R. 1350 gives local school districts new flexibility and resources to improve early intervention and reduce misidentification of children into special education. The bill before us would reduce destructive lawsuits and litigation in special ed, it encourages the use of mediation as early as possible, and creates new opportunities for voluntary binding arbitration.

The bill encourages parental involvement and allows IDEA or school districts to use IDEA to support supplemental services for students with disabilities in high priority schools. It also allows parents to choose to keep their children with the same educational provider from the beginning of service until the child reaches school age. And I am grateful for the help from the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) who helped devise these provisions.

The bill also charts a clear path to full funding within 7 years. Thanks to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), it authorizes a systematic increase in special education aid to the State that would result in the Federal Government paying an unprecedented 21 percent of the total cost of special ed in America next year. And as the chart shows, as this chart shows, we have had unprecedented increases over the last 7 years. And the budget resolution that we passed just several weeks ago brings an increase this year of over $2 billion and authorizes an additional $2.5 billion next year. This is by far the highest percentage in history; and the Porter language will allow appropriators to increase IDEA spending through the traditional spending process, the same process that Congress has used to increase IDEA spending by almost 300 percent over the past 8 years.

H.R. 1350, the bill before us, will enhance school safety, requiring districts to continue to provide educational services to students with disabilities while allowing the school district personnel to have one uniform discipline policy for our children. And the gentleman in Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has been a very effective member in leading the Congress to deal with this issue for many years. And I really do want to thank him for his willingness to work with the committee to craft the discipline provisions that we have in our bill.

Let me just say as I close, I want to commend my colleague from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for his leadership in bringing this legislation to this point. It is an excellent bill that will make a positive difference in the lives of parents with special needs children, teachers, school boards members and others, and I urge all of my colleagues today to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my good friend from California (Mr. George Miller), one of the authors of the original underlying legislation, there is a point that is being missed here.

In all, the conversation that we heard from my friend from California revolved around the current system and how the current system works and the changes to the current system. But there is one very large dynamic that is being changed, and it changed under No Child Left Behind when we require school districts to disaggregate data and we require them to disaggregate the test data by subgroups including special education children. For a school to succeed under No Child Left Behind, all the sub-groups have to show improvement. And so school districts under No Child Left Behind are going to have to ensure that their special needs students are improving and showing progress.

This is a dramatic change in terms of how we are going to deal with special ed students. And as a result, the changes that we are putting in the bill will allow school districts to have more flexibility to move this program to one that will bring results for our special ed students as opposed to being locked in the process.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), a friend and member of the committee as well as the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), another member of our committee and a subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me again thank my colleague, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and all of the members on our committee who have played an important role in bringing this bill to us today.

I also want to congratulate the members of our staff, including Sally Lovejoy, Krisann Pearce, David Cleary, Melanie Looney and Elisabeth Wheel; Sarah Rittling, a staff member of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle); and Jacqueline Norris, a staff member of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), for all of their hard work and dedication over the last year or so as we were bringing this bill together.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very difficult piece of legislation. It has been very difficult for Congress to deal with it ever since they first brought it up in 1975. But I think that Members on both sides of the aisle have worked closely together to craft a bill that will help special needs children all across our country.

I think it is important to note that that is our goal here. It is to make sure that children with disabilities get the free and appropriate public education that they are entitled to in the least restrictive manner. We believe that the bill that we have before us today does, in fact, provide that, and does not weaken any safeguards for those children or their parents.

Let us not forget the importance of the requirements under No Child Left Behind where school districts are going to have to focus in on results for these children. This is a huge shift in dynamics for how schools are going to have to deal with their IDEA children. As a result, being able to change the paperwork requirements, to ease those for classroom teachers, to make the process more simple for school districts and administrators to enact, will not diminish the services for these students, because these same schools are going to have to show results for these children.

So this is a very big change, and I do believe it will lead to much better results for our special needs children.

The last point I would make is this is a bipartisan bill. We will talk about more of it as we get into the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina, for offering this amendment and congratulate him on his effort in promoting new and innovative ways to deal with children with special needs.

These children require the utmost in flexibility in their education; and the amendment before us encourages innovative options and provides States with much-needed flexibility.

The amendment would accomplish three goals. First, it encourages States to establish innovative solutions by providing seed money to develop new programs. Second, it answers the call of parents of children with disabilities to ensure that educational opportunities are not withheld and that States may choose to implement as much or as little flexibility as the State deems appropriate. Third, it allows States to use Federal dollars in flexible programs already utilizing State resources to provide services for children with special needs.

The amendment does not, as has been claimed by some critics, provide vouchers. It simply affords States the flexibility they are seeking to provide individualized options for students with disabilities.

This amendment is not a mandate in any way, shape, or form; but it makes new options available for States who choose, these are only for States who choose, to want to look at new options and new technology and more flexibility in terms of meeting the needs of special needs children, of all of their children in their State.

Each participating State must determine which approach and what type of program will best serve the children with disabilities in their State, including options such as public schools, charter schools, or private schools, whatever is in the best interests of the child. So children with disabilities today deserve every effort that can be made to provide them with a high-quality education, and their options and the options of the States should not be limited.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule because it will not allow Members of this Congress to vote on an amendment and to debate an amendment that would fully fund IDEA and make the funding mandatory. We all know how the funding process works around here. Authorization levels may be fine, budget numbers may help, but what really counts is appropriations. There are many, many competing demands on appropriations, so we should remove that competition when the Federal Government has made a commitment to fund an education program at any level because our schools need to be able to count on those funds. We have told them they are coming. They need to be able to count on them.

To that end, Mr. Speaker, two amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules, one by three Democrats and the other by three Republicans. Those amendments would have phased in full funding for the part B State grants in IDEA and at the same time made all new funding mandatory. Neither of these amendments were accepted; neither will be considered today. Without the opportunity to debate and vote on one or the other of these amendments, a vote for H.R. 1350 is a vote against fully funding special education programs, which in turn leaves our schools and our parents competing for scarce funds for needed programs that are needed equally for our special ed kids and for the rest of kids that need to be educated.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote down this rule and in so doing demand the opportunity to vote on an IDEA reauthorization bill that includes mandatory full funding.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the IDEA, I have been struck by how very emotional people are about this very issue. In fact, before me I have a stack of mail that came to the Committee on Education and the Workforce just over the last few days, and that mail is against passage of H.R. 1350.

There are two things we can do in Congress to reduce the stress and the emotion that people feel about this issue. One is to fully fund it and make it mandatory; two is to make sure that children are treated fairly in the discipline process.

If we fully fund the Federal share of our costs and if we make funding mandatory, we will fulfill the commitment to our schools for the special education programs that we have promised here in the Congress. Unfortunately, H.R. 1350 does not do that. Without mandatory full funding, the authorization levels in the bill are meaningless because they are subject to the many,

many competitive requests included in all and every appropriations process.

Amendments were offered during the committee, Mr. Chairman. Amendments were offered by the Democrats that would fully fund IDEA and make the funding mandatory. But those amendments were defeated on a partisan basis, and we do not have before us any amendment that would fully fund and allow for the debate here today to fully fund this issue of mandatory funding for IDEA.

To me, a vote for H.R. 1350 is a vote against fully funding the issue, and I oppose it for that reason alone. But there is another good reason to oppose H.R. 1350. And talk about getting emotional, this is where parents and educators have a lot to say, and that is the discipline provisions in the bill.

In the bill, a student with special needs can be removed from school for, and I quote, ``any violation of a school's student code of conduct.'' Now, that is different in every single school, and a child can be kept out of school for an indefinite length of time. So a student with Tourette's syndrome, for example, who may shout out in class, can be expelled. A student who does not understand the dress code and wears shorts when long pants are required, could be expelled. A student with limited muscular control could be expelled for lashing out or possibly pushing another student. There is no requirement in H.R. 1350 to determine if the child's violation is the result of his or her disability.

This is going backwards. It is no way to reauthorize IDEA. Children, parents, and schools deserve an IDEA reauthorization where parents will not have to compete over education funds, where the goal will be to keep kids with special needs in school, where the legislation removes the emotion surrounding the issue, not increases it. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1350 is not that kind of reauthorization, and I will not be able to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a really important member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), another important member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) who is also an important member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, actually the key here is mandatory funding because no matter what we authorize on this committee, no matter what we vote for today on H.R. 1350, whether it is 18 percent of the 40 percent Federal commitment, whether it is 21 percent of the 40 percent commitment, or if it is 25 percent of the 40 percent Federal commitment, the funding has to be spent. We can authorize it, but the Committee on Appropriations spends it. Unless we tell the Committee on Appropriations through changing the rules of H.R. 1350 and IDEA, unless we tell them that it is mandatory that they spend what we authorize, it will not get spent; and it is going to be the year 2035 before we even come close to reaching 40 percent.

Later on today the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and I have an amendment that will pass all new funding after the year 2003, pass any new funding that is appropriated directly to the school districts and to the schools. But if we do not get any new funding because indeed the appropriators do not choose to add funding, then we pass along nothing to school districts because 100 percent of nothing is still nothing.

The Federal commitment to IDEA 30 years ago was 40 percent that Federal Government would match the mandate that the States educate all kids, which is absolutely the right thing to do, and provide them a free education and equally educate all children in the public school system. That was 40 years ago. We are at 18 percent of that 40 percent today, and we are never going to get there if we do not say that it is something that must be done. And in so doing, we will be making it possible for schools to count on the funding they need, we will be removing the emotion that parents pit themselves against each other because there is so little funding available for education in the first place, and we will make sure that special education funding does not come out of the funding necessary for other programs.

We make promises. We do not fulfill them. Voting for H.R. 1350 would be another broken promise unless H.R. 1350 includes mandatory full funding over the next 6-year, 7-year period.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle), and certainly my ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for what has gone into this legislation. We truly have worked hard to make this be something that we could all vote for, and I believe in your sincerity and I know you believe in our's and our passion on all of this.

There are reasons why I will not be able to vote for this. Reason number one is the discipline provisions. This bill will allow students to be moved indefinitely to alternative placements for any violation of a school code of conduct, and we have gone over that. That could severely affect a disabled child.

This bill has no guarantee of full funding. We can say we want full funding, but if we do not guarantee it, it probably is not going to happen. And, yes, we have done a much better job over the last few years. We have just gone through some really good prosperous years in this country. Now this country is in an economic downturn and the challenges for the same dollars are going to be much, much greater.

This bill weakens due process protection for parents. It would bar parents from raising new issues at due process hearings, even if new evidence has surfaced since the hearing was scheduled.

This bill has a pilot program for 10 State waivers. It permits the Secretary of Education to waive IDEA provisions to reduce paperwork. Criteria for the approach of these pilot programs are completely open- ended and would be defined by the Secretary.

Mr. Chairman, the other thing this bill does that will make it impossible for me to vote for it is it puts a cap on attorney fee reimbursements, which makes it even more difficult for low income parents to get their due process.

Mr. Chairman, I am hoping Democrats and those on the Republican side who want full funding and want that funding to be mandatory, who want our children's discipline provisions not to go backwards, but to go forward, will vote against this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time,

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, we worked with the majority on this amendment. We do not oppose it, and would hope that it could be passed right now.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that we do not, on this side of the aisle, oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment No. 4.

For the time being, yes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Amendment No. 4 would change the definition of a free appropriate public education, the language changed in the Supreme Court decision known as Rowley, which states that the goal of a child with disabilities is the same as all other children, to have educational and related services necessary for that child to access the general curriculum.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

For the purposes of legislative history, the intent of this amendment is to codify the interpretation of FAPE contained in the Supreme Court decision Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the DeMint amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. Federal funds should not be used for private school vouchers for any children, but it is particularly dangerous to do this for children with disabilities.

Vouchers undermine the very foundation of IDEA. IDEA guarantees children with disabilities a free and appropriate public education and provides important safeguards to the child and the parents to ensure that education is received.

When a special education child takes a voucher to a private school, all guarantees of rights under IDEA are lost. The McKay voucher program in Florida, which allows children with disabilities to use vouchers to go to private schools, is a perfect example of the pitfalls of an IDEA voucher program.

In the Florida special education voucher program, there are no State reviews of the education and services being provided, and there are no civil rights protections if the parents are not happy with the education and services their child is receiving.

Under the Florida IDEA voucher program, private schools can and do charge parents additional tuition and fees above the voucher, making it difficult or impossible for low-income parents to benefit from a voucher program.

Contrary to what people claim, vouchers do not increase parents' choice. Private schools can and do discriminate for a variety of reasons. They can refuse to take a student for any reason, including the student's disability. So when it comes to vouchers, it is not the parents who have the choice; it is the private school. Whatever choices a private school makes, it does not have to let parents or the public know why.

Vouchers give private schools public taxpayer dollars, but the private schools are not held to any of the same standards of accountability that public schools are held to. Public schools must hold open meetings and make their test scores, dropout rates, and other basic information public. Private schools are subject to no public oversight.

Accountability to the child, to the parents, and to the public is the touchstone of IDEA, and also, supposedly, No Child Left Behind. We must not allow vouchers to jeopardize that accountability. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Musgrave amendment and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. Vouchers undermine the very foundation of IDEA. IDEA guarantees children with disabilities a free and appropriate public education and provides important safeguards to the child and the parents to ensure that education is actually received.

When a special education child takes a voucher to a private school, all guarantees and rights under IDEA are lost. The McKay Voucher Program in Florida, which allows children with disabilities to use vouchers to go to private schools, is a perfect example of the pitfalls of an IDEA voucher program gone wrong.

In the Florida special education voucher program, there are no State reviews of the education and services being provided, and there are no civil rights protections if parents are not happy with the education and services their children or their child is receiving. Under the Florida IDEA voucher program, private schools can and do charge parents additional tuition and fees above the voucher making it difficult and usually impossible for low income parents to benefit from vouchers.

Contrary to what some people claim, vouchers do not increase parents' choice. Private schools can and do discriminate for a variety of reasons. They can refuse to take a student for any reason including the student's disability. So when it comes to vouchers, it is not the parents who have the choice. It is the private school.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the Tancredo amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment restricts local schools' methods of identifying students as having learning disabilities by redefining the language ``specific learning disability'' as a disorder ``due to a medically detectable and diagnosable physiological condition relying on physical and scientific evidence.''

Learning disabilities are not simply a medical condition that can only be determined by a doctor. Current definition includes disorders with psychological processes which have severe impact on learning and behavior. The Tancredo amendment creates a new and very narrow medical condition definition that would actually keep children from getting the special education services that they need, and they need those services so they can learn and be successful in school.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, partisan battles are nothing new on the floor of this House, but there are many matters where broad bipartisan agreement and good will have traditionally been the rule. Education for disabled and special needs children has been one of those issues notable for its profound bipartisan consensus.

Therefore, it is a sad day for this House as we consider the rule for H.R. 1350, the IDEA reauthorization. This is not a bipartisan rule, and this bill certainly does not reflect a broad bipartisan consensus. If anything, H.R. 1350

represents consensus breaking, undermining many of the hard-won and carefully constructed checks and balances of existing law.

Education for disabled and special-needs children is a sensitive issue for all Americans. Some of our colleagues will be personally and directly affected by what we do here today. I am disappointed that we are considering this bill today because I believe we can do better and we should have done more to build a broad consensus around this bill among Members of this House and the constituencies most affected by this law.

During consideration of this bill in the Committee on Rules last night, I told every Member who testified before the committee that I supported their right to offer their amendments on the floor today. Unfortunately, the majority did not join me in that support. I am disappointed the majority has denied the opportunity for many Members to offer their amendments, but I am most disappointed that the majority has stifled debate on mandatory funding by denying the Woolsey/Van Hollen/McCollum amendment and the Bass/Simmons amendment, both of which would have required mandatory funding for IDEA.

There is a pattern in this body of saying one thing and doing another. The majority talks a good game about educating America's children but balks at providing the necessary funding when the time comes to back up their rhetoric with deeds. Today, we will hear about increases for special education in the budget resolution. But when it comes time to fully fund these programs, the majority denies debate on the only two amendments that would genuinely make that a reality.

This bill reneges on our 28-year commitment to fully fund the Federal share of special education part B grants to States, what is commonly referred to as fully funding IDEA. It denies mandatory funding that would ensure the Federal Government finally lives up to its legal commitment to provide States with 40 percent of these costs.

Time and time again Congress has passed meaningless sense of Congress resolutions supporting full funding for IDEA. But when it came to the point to require that these funds be provided, this bill, once again, turned its back on that promise. In fact, this bill actually sets caps, authorizing ceilings on the amount of funding that Congress may provide in any given year.

Even those groups representing teachers, principals, and school administrations that do support many of the changes in H.R. 1350 categorically state that the bill must be amended to require mandatory funding increases. Yet the majority on the Committee on Rules denied both Republican and Democratic amendments on this issue. So there will be no debate in the United States House of Representatives on the most critical issue facing special education today: Will the Congress finally put some money where its mouth has been for the past several years?

H.R. 1350 also undermines due process and discipline protections for children with disabilities, placing new restrictions on the ability of parents to seek legal representation when a violation of the law has occurred. It might even bring us back to the time when children with disabilities could be removed from the classroom or, worse, refused a public education simply because they had disabilities.

I have heard from so many parents of children with disabilities and from school counselors and other professionals about how this bill would adversely affect the lives and education of these children. Here is what one mother in my district wrote about H.R. 1350, and I quote:

``Leah is my 7-year-old daughter. She has Downs Syndrome. Leah is fully included in her class, learning to read and has many friends. Not only has she benefited from being in this class, I truly believe the children in Leah's school have benefited from knowing Leah and becoming her friend. I want Leah to continue in this inclusive environment because I feel this is the best way for her to develop independence and appropriate social skills for the future. But H.R. 1350 does not provide full funding for IDEA. H.R. 1350 would take away many protections for parents' rights that are in IDEA, called procedural safeguards. It is important for schools to give parents their rights so parents can use them to make sure their children get a good education. H.R. 1350 would prevent this. When you sign an important contract, you get notice of your rights. H.R. 1350 would let schools give a short description of rights to parents rather than fully explain these rights to parents, like they now have to do. Why are the schools so afraid for parents to know their rights?''

Another woman from my district, the mother of a 12-year-old boy with autism, is also extremely disturbed by the changes contained in H.R. 1350. She writes: ``Under H.R. 1350, procedural rights would be greatly reduced. As a parent dealing with large teams of school district staff, these rights are critical to me in ensuring that my child's unique and individual needs are considered. Both school staff and I work very hard with my child to meet society's expectations. However, it is the nature of his disability that sometimes he cannot obey student codes of conduct. To subject my child to a segregated placement at the sole discretion of school staff anytime a rule is violated would be terrifying. Although some of the proposed changes in H.R. 1350 may appear sensible on the surface, as a person who has dealt with special education, I can easily see what their real-world impact would be, and it would be disastrous.''

I am sure my colleagues have received scores of similar letters from parents and grandparents of children who need special education, as well as letters from school counselors, psychologists, and therapists who work with and support these families. They are asking us and they are pleading with us to reject H.R. 1350.

Surely we can find a way to give school administrators the flexibility they say they need without undermining the rights of the children and families they are charged to serve. Surely we can find a way to fulfill our promises and provide mandatory funding. We should send this bill back to committee and return with a genuine consensus on the IDEA reauthorization, as has been the tradition of this body for nearly 3 decades.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is opposed by nearly every major constituency directly involved in the lives of children requiring special education: parents, families, school counselors, psychologists and developmental specialists, disabilities advocates, and organizations involved in the professional development of teachers.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a list of organizations opposed to this bill:

The Council for Exceptional Children

The National Mental Health Association

The Higher Education Consortium for Special Education

The National Center for Learning Disabilities

The American Academy of Pediatrics

The School Social Work Association of America

The National Down Syndrome Society

Easter Seals

American Society for Deaf Children

National Coalition of Parent Centers

Epilepsy Foundation

Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs

National Alliance of Pupil Services Organizations

American Council of the Blind

National Parent Teacher Association

National Association of School Psychologists

National Association of School Nurses

American School Counselor Association

American Psychological Association

National Association for College Admission Counseling

National Association of Social Workers

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and to oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, to respond to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), I wanted to make clear that those of us who have concerns about this bill do not want to maintain the status quo. We think this bill could be made much better. Our concerns are shared by a number of people who are directly impacted by this legislation, a number of constituency groups, parents, families, school counselors, psychologists, development specialists, disability advocates and other organizations. This is just a sampling of some of the correspondence I have received in the last 24 hours. People have very, very deep and legitimate concerns about this bill; and I think we should have tried to get a broader consensus before we brought this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) what we would like to see happen is all of us, including those on the majority side, keep their word to the American people, that we provide full funding for IDEA.

There have been over 22 various resolutions and bills which have been voted on in this Chamber and the other body endorsing the idea of fully funding IDEA. We want them to keep their word. Let us put our appropriations where our rhetoric is.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a valued member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), another valued

member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman from California who just spoke that the government made a commitment to provide States with 40 percent of the costs for special education. We have broken that promise time and time again. We are breaking that promise again today. If the gentleman does not want to provide 40 percent of the costs to States, he can vote against one of the amendments that was offered in the Committee on Rules last night that was denied here on the floor today that would provide mandatory funding.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close for our side.

Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of schools welcome children with disabilities as an integral part of their student body. They work with parents, teachers, medical professions and support personnel to provide these students with ``free appropriate public education.''

Unfortunately, there are still children with disabilities who are denied the education they need, the education that they deserve, and the education that they are entitled to by law.

H.R. 1350 does nothing. It does nothing to guarantee that the Federal Government will keep its commitment to fund 40 percent of the Part B grants to States.

It is astonishing that the new argument why we are being denied the right to vote up or down on the issue of mandatory funding is these amendments would require a budget waiver. The majority provides budget waivers and every other kind of waiver for all of their amendments all the time. So the real reason why we are not having these amendments on the floor is because the majority does not want us to vote on an amendment that would require the Federal Government to keep its word to the American people.

This bill also does not address the shortage of qualified special education teachers in a meaningful way. Currently unqualified and under-qualified special education teachers are teaching more than 600,000 children with disabilities. By significantly weakening both the discipline protections and due process rights in current law, H.R. 1350 makes it more likely that students with disabilities will be turned away from their neighborhood schools and segregated in alternative education settings until they eventually just drop out of school.

If H.R. 1350 becomes law, children with disabilities will not just be left behind, they will be left far behind.

Mr. Speaker, although this rule allows debate on several amendments, it denies the House the opportunity to debate the question of mandatory funding, the most fundamental question affecting special education programs. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule and to vote no on H.R. 1350.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.