Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1350) to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule. The conference report on the reauthorization of IDEA represents the culmination of 3 years of effort to strengthen and renew special education. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), who I have worked closely with over these last 3 years on all of his efforts to help us strengthen and renew this program. I know it is an issue he feels very strongly about, and I want to thank him for his leadership.

I also thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who is the subcommittee chairman on the Subcommittee on Education Reform, the author of this bill. He worked this bill through the committee and through the House and through this conference, and without his strong leadership we would not be here today.

I think the bill that we will have before us soon is a tremendous achievement of compromise, vision, determination, and bipartisanship.

I want to thank my partner in this process over the last 4 years, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member on our committee. While we have had disagreements on many occasions, in the end I think what the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I both believe is we have a responsibility to legislate on education and workforce matters and at the end of the day we were able to come together and produce this bipartisan conference report.

In crafting this bill, we listened to parents, teachers, students, and advocates. We listened to the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, and the principles around the creation of this bill are very similar to the principles that the Commission on Excellence in Special Education came forward with as well.

We listened to schools, the people on the front lines of educating children with special needs. We began this process with the principles of No Child Left Behind firmly embedded in our minds. In No Child Left Behind, we put a system in place to ensure that students

with disabilities, along with all students, are getting access to the education that they deserve. In this bill, we are making sure that the rules help special education teachers and parents get the most out of that system, instead of making it harder for them.

This bill is an across-the-board win for parents, teachers and students with disabilities. I urge my colleagues to support the rule today.

I will have more to say when we get into the bill itself about the changes made in this bill that truly will help students with special needs, their parents, and the teachers and school administrators who often in the past have been at serious conflict. We attempt to reduce that conflict in this bill to make it easier for these students to get an education and make it easier for school administrators and special ed teachers to be able to provide these services to the most special of our children.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 858, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1350) to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1350.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the H.R. 1350 conference report. Three years ago we began a process to strengthen and improve special education for the 6\1/2\ million American students participating under the Individuals with Disability Education Act. Today we have a final reform bill that will help us achieve that goal. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform of my committee was the author of this bill that we passed in the House in April of 2003. I think he deserves great credit for his leadership throughout this process. He wrote a good bill and worked to ensure that these important reforms will be enacted in a bipartisan manner. The final bill we produced is closely aligned with the findings of President Bush's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, and with the bill that we passed in the House again in April of 2003.

We set out with one fundamental goal in mind, and that was to improve the educational results for students with disabilities. And I believe that we have accomplished that goal with the bill that we have before us today.

We included important provisions to give parents more choices and greater control when it comes to their child's education. We increased the focus on academic results and more closely aligned special education with the No Child Left Behind Act. The No Child Left Behind Act was the most sweeping Federal education reform in decades for students with disabilities. For the first time we ensured that States would include children with disabilities in their accountability systems. We made it clear that all children, and I

mean all children, including those with disabilities, deserve a high- quality education.

The bill before us today will build on No Child Left Behind. We are making sure the rules under IDEA helps special education teachers, parents, and students get the most out of that system instead of making it harder for them. To support teachers and schools, we included steps to reduce the crushing paperwork burden that is keeping teachers out of the classroom and in many cases driving teachers out of the profession altogether. We also restore common sense to school discipline to keep schools safe for all students and hold students accountable for their actions. Students will have the same punishment for the same infraction unless the disciplinary problem is the direct result of a child's disability.

We also give States and schools the clarity they have been seeking on what it means to be a highly qualified special education teacher. In No Child Left Behind we said that every child shall learn from a highly qualified teacher and children in special ed are no exception. We added flexibility, though, for States and teachers to meet the highly qualified definition when it comes to special ed teachers, but we did not do anything to slow down the progress States are making in reaching that goal. We are going to cut down on costly and unnecessary litigation in special education, and we are going to hold attorneys liable for frivolous lawsuits. That is important because we need to restore a sense of trust between parents and schools. We want to encourage cooperation to do what is best for students and to get there we need to cut down on damaging lawsuits.

Our bill also puts the Federal Government on a 6-year glide path to reaching our original goal of funding up to 40 percent of the excess cost of educating students with special needs. And as we get closer to that goal, we are also going to give local communities more control over how they spend their own local dollars. And we are keeping special education funded through the discretionary appropriations process.

I just want to take a moment to thank a number of people. As I mentioned before, I want to thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for his hard work. But we would not be here without the help of several other people. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), while we had disagreements on the House-passed bill, we came together at this late hour of this session to do what our job is to do, and that is to reauthorize this law and to do it in such a way to bring a bipartisan product to the floor of the House today.

But it would not have been possible without the help of the other body, and I have to thank the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions committee Judd Gregg for his willingness to work with us and the ranking member of that committee, Senator Ted Kennedy. We had a small window of opportunity, and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I sat down with Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy and looked them in the eye and said we are going to be fair, we are going to do this right, and if we work together, we can in fact produce a strong bill, which we have. And we would not be here without the help of all of those people involved.

I also want to thank some of my staff and others who have worked on this. David Cleary, without whose help we would not be here at all, period. He did a great job in guiding this process. Melanie Looney on my staff, and also I want to thank Sally Lovejoy, who heads up our education section; Krisann Pearce, who I referred to as the adult the other day. I should probably refer to her as the calming, steady influence over some of my more hyperactive staff. And I want to thank Brad Thomas, who joined us just a couple of months ago and got thrown in into this process at the end.

From the gentleman from Delaware's (Mr. Castle) office, Sarah Rittling and from the gentleman from California's (Mr. George Miller) office I want to thank Alex Nock for his great work as well.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the next step in our effort to reform education in America, and I think it is going to make a real difference in the lives of millions of American students who are participating in special education. And as most of my colleagues know, I have gotten rather passionate about this. I am beginning to sound more like the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) than the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) himself. But I do believe that all kids deserve a chance at a good education regardless of their color, regardless of where they grew up, or regardless if they may have a disability. And I think the bill that we have today does in fact move us in a direction to help more kids, especially special ed kids, to get a chance at good education.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the H.R. 1350 conference report. Three years ago we began a process to strengthen and improve special education for the six and a half million American students participating under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Today, we have a final reform bill that will help us achieve that goal.

Representative Castle was the author of the bill we passed in the House in April of 2003, and he deserves great credit for his leadership throughout the process. He wrote a good bill, and he worked to ensure these important reforms will be enacted in a bipartisan manner.

The final bill we produced is closely aligned with the findings of President Bush's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, and with the bill we passed in the House in April of 2003. We set out with one fundamental goal in mind: to improve educational results for students with disabilities. I believe this bill will accomplish that goal.

We included important provisions to give parents more choices and greater control when it comes to their children's education. We increased the focus on academic results, and more closely aligned special education with the No Child Left Behind Act.

The No Child Left Behind Act was the most sweeping Federal education reform in decades for students with disabilities. For the first time, we ensured States would include children with disabilities in their accountability systems. We made it clear that all children, including children with disabilities, deserve a high quality education.

The bill before us today will build on NCLB. We're making sure the rules under IDEA help special education teachers and parents get the most out of that system, instead of making it harder for them.

To support teachers and schools, we included steps to reduce the crushing paperwork burden that is keeping teachers out of the classroom. We also restored common sense to school discipline to keep schools safe for all students, and hold students accountable for their actions. Students will have the same punishment for the same infraction, unless the discipline problem is the direct result of a child's disability.

We also give States and schools the clarity they have been seeking on what it means to be a highly qualified special education teacher. In No Child Left Behind, we said every child should learn from a highly qualified teacher. Children in special education are no exception. We added flexibility for States and teachers to meet the highly qualified definition, but we didn't do anything to slow down the progress States are making to reach that goal.

We're going to cut down on costly and unnecessary litigation in special education, and we're going to hold attorneys liable for frivolous lawsuits. That's important, because we need to restore a sense of trust between parents and schools. We want to encourage cooperation to do what is best for students. To get there, we need to cut down on damaging lawsuits.

I also want to point out one oversight. A sentence in the Statement of Managers' language of the Conference Report that provided the explanation for the attorneys' fees language was inadvertently left out. By adding at Note 231 sections detailing the limited circumstances in which LEAs and SEAs can recover attorneys' fees, specifically Sections 615(i)(3)(B)(i)(II) and (III), the Conferees intend to codify the standards set forth in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978). According to Christiansburg, attorneys' fees may only be awarded to defendants in civil rights cases where the plaintiff's claims are frivolous, without foundation or brought in bad faith.

Our bill also puts the Federal government on a 6-year glide path to reaching our original funding goal of up to 40 percent of the excess cost of educating students with disabilities. As we get closer to that goal, we're also going to give local communities more control over how they spend their own, local dollars. And we're keeping special education funded through the discretionary appropriations process.

I'd like to take a moment to thank members of the staff who have been so instrumental in producing this great bill. With my staff, I'd like

to thank David Cleary and Melanie Looney, who did a remarkable job crafting this bill and negotiating the final conference report. I'd also like to thank Sally Lovejoy, Krisann Pearce, and Brad Thomas. From Representative Castle's office I'd like to thank Sarah Rittling, and from Representative Miller's office I'd like to thank Alex Nock.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the next step in our effort to reform education in America. It will make a real difference in the lives of millions of American students participating in special education. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, with the No Child Left Behind Act, we made a commitment to America's students, parents, and schools. We said that every child in America deserves a high quality education, and no child should be left behind.

I think that commitment was particularly important to students with disabilities. For too many years, these students have been allowed to fall between the cracks. Many States excluded them from accountability systems, wrongly assuming these children can't learn.

They can learn, and they should. They deserve the same high quality education as the rest of this Nation's students. They deserve the same high quality teachers, and the same focus on their academic results.

H.R. 1350 fulfills that vision. It says that special education is important. It makes clear that we must focus on breaking down bureaucracy and building up results. This is an important bill for students participating in special education, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform and the author of the bill that we have before us who has done a great job.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), one of our conferees working this bill out between the House and Senate and someone who has worked on this since he came to Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a member of the committee, a conferee, and one who feels passionately about this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a member of our committee, the coach.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the dean of the Ohio delegation and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield \1/2\ minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, over the last 4 years that I have had the pleasure of chairing the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I think we have come an awful long way in terms of transforming the Federal role in education and trying to help all of our kids in our country get a chance at a good education. And I think we have been fortunate to be able to do almost all of this in a broad bipartisan way.

The bill before us today is the result of a lot of commitment and hard work on the part of Members on both sides of the aisle. And while we have heard an awful lot of talk about IDEA and how we are transforming it, I think there is one important point that continues to be lost on many people. When we passed No Child Left Behind, we created a new paradigm for how we are going to judge the education of our special-needs students.

By disaggregating data in four subgroups in each school, including those with special needs, what we have done is we have asked schools to focus on results for our special education students as opposed to being burdened with a lot of paperwork, dotting I's, crossing T's and worrying about lawsuits. Now schools are judged on the results that they produce for these children.

There was some resistance to this, of course, because we still have people in America who think that students with special needs cannot learn. But that is nonsense, and I think all of us understand that have worked on this that these children can learn, and should learn, and society and our country owe them an opportunity to learn.

So schools now are having to produce results. And as a result the Individuals With Disabilities and Education Act itself had to be more integrated with No Child Left Behind, which we have

done in this conference report; and we needed to take the shackles off of our local school administrators and teachers so that they could focus on producing results as opposed to dotting more I's and crossing more T's and having the burdens of paperwork and lawsuits coming at them.

So I am proud of the bill that we have before us. It is not exactly what I would do, certainly not exactly what the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) or the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) would want. But that brings me to my last point.

The Congress, over the last few years, the last several sessions, let us call it 5 years, 6 years, 8 years, has been gripped in an awful lot of partisan strife. And what we have shown on No Child Left Behind, what we have shown on the Child Nutrition Act reauthorization we had earlier this year, the Vote Rehabilitation Act, and again today on IDEA reauthorization is that we can in fact work together.

I really do want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking Democrat. He referred to us last night in the Committee on Rules as the political odd couple, and we are. I would describe myself as a mainstream conservative Republican, the gentleman from California I would describe as a liberal Democrat. Neither one of us is shy about our opinions. But there is an issue here that I think can help not only the progress in our own committee but the progress in this House, and that is to learn to trust one another.

The gentleman from California and I began this process, this journey, 4 years ago by developing a trust with each other. And while we may disagree on many issues every day, he and I both know that we can trust each other and trust our word. I went to the gentleman from California and I went to Senators Ted Kennedy and Judd Gregg back in September. And as highly partisan as things were leading up to the election, I looked them in this eye and said we can do this. We can do this if we trust each other, all work together, and there is a small opening that we may actually be able to finish this bill this year.

The reason we are here today is because we did in fact trust one another. We worked together. And I think once again we have produced an example of what can occur in this House each and every day if we are willing to put our partisan differences aside once in a while and think about why we are here and the trust and responsibilities that the American people have given us in order to do their work and not ours.

I thank all my colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by also thanking people because I think many people are surprised, myself included, that we are here today.

This has been a rather toxic season in the political arena and in this Congress. There is not a lot of evidence that there is a lot of bipartisan action taking place in the Congress of the United States. But in this committee on this subject we were able to work through all of those environmental concerns about the atmosphere and arrive at legislation that is going to be very good for those children with special needs.

And I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), our chairman, for all of his time, his effort, his political skill within his caucus and I think within my caucus, too, to get us to this point. And to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who, as we all know, is absolutely committed to getting good legislation on the books, to write good law, and to do it on behalf of our Nation's school children to see that they get a good opportunity at the education that should be offered to them.

I want to thank Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Judd Gregg for their cooperation in deciding even before the election that we would take a shot at getting this passed before this session closed down, and we were able to do it. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) on our side, who managed this legislation for the minority, who took it from the early days when it was clearly very confrontational, to smoothing out some of the rough spots and finally helping us arrive at the compromised positions that maintain the integrity of IDEA, to also improve IDEA and make sure that our commitment to these young children and their educational opportunities are clear as a matter of Federal law.

I want to thank the staff on our side, Alex Nock and Alice Cain, Ruth Friedman and Lloyd Hoowich, for all of their help. This was long hours by the staff. And on the Republican side, David Cleary, Sally Lovejoy, Melanie Looney, Krisann Pearce for all of their help in working with people on the Democratic side. And on the Senate Republican side, Denzel McGuire, Bill Lucia; Senate Democrats Connie Garner, Roberto Rodriguez, and Michael Yudin for their help.

This would not have been done had these people not been able to come together and work their way through bills that were different in many ways. But the fact of the matter was it did happen, and I think the children with special needs who need this law are going to be well served, as are their parents, as are their schools, and as are their teachers.

I have a special connection to this law because I was in Congress and served as one of the original authors of this law when it was first passed in 1974. And in 1974 when we surveyed the Nation's schools and the State systems of school, we found that children were, on an ordinary basis, on a regular basis, excluded from the classrooms of this Nation. They were put into basements. They were put into segregated schools. They were put into separate classrooms. They were not allowed to come into classrooms if they were in a wheelchair, if they needed assistance for their physical disabilities; and a dramatic percentage of minority students, were labeled as retarded, were labeled as having an inability to take advantage of an education in numbers that defied any statistical understanding that any population would be labeled in that fashion.

Hundreds of thousands of children mislabeled and therefore not allowed to go to the schools of this Nation. And at that time we passed the Education for all Handicapped Children, as it was called in those days. And from that time forward, this law has become one of the basic civil rights laws of this Nation for those children with special needs, for their families, and for those schools, recognizing the commitment that this Congress made to these children and their families, that they would get a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment to make sure that, where possible, these children would be in the mainstream classrooms of our Nation's schools. They would be able to participate with their peers on a regular basis. They would be able to enjoy the benefits of that educational opportunity, that no longer by simple reason of their special needs would they be segregated, no longer by reason of their special needs would they be discriminated against.

This has not been a smooth road to make sure that these children would have educational opportunity and have access to that free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. It has been a struggle. It has been a struggle for our school districts. It has been a struggle for our taxpayers. It has been a struggle for the families of these children.

But each and every time we have made progress, and we do so again with this legislation. We make sure that they will, in fact, have qualified teachers. But we make sure that we do not drive the teachers from the teaching field by the law that we have passed here. We have provided that kind of flexibility so we can have the best of both worlds.

We can have qualified teachers, and we can make it workable for those teachers and for the school districts. We make sure that those children who might act out in class, who might be a discipline problem can be separated from the general population if they are a danger, but we also make sure that we do not discontinue their educational opportunities in that separate setting, however restrictive it might be. And there is a process for doing that, both to protect that child, to protect their educational opportunity, and to protect the general school population, a very important change.

We make sure that, while trying to enforce this law, that we make every effort to make sure that the child has access to a workable, individualized education plan. But we also want to make sure that, in the enforcement of those efforts, we do not engage in frivolous lawsuits, we do not engage in trying to extort the school district into positions. So we make sure that you can have access to those programs, but you do not get to take advantage of the taxpayers and the efforts that are being made.

From 1974 onward, I have had hundreds and hundreds of parents who have come to me and said, or written to me from all over the country, that, but for this law, my child would not have gotten an education; but for this law, my child would not have been able to be in the public schools. Some of those were long letters of the detailed effort by parents, taking months and thousands of dollars, to challenge the right of their child to be in an educational setting, along with the rest of the schoolchildren in this Nation.

But it is this law that made it possible, and it is law that we extend with this reauthorization. It is this law that we extend the civil rights protections of our Constitution to the Nation's schoolchildren, to those children with special needs, and it is this law that gives their parents a voice and a say in the direction of their education. It is this law that makes sure that the educational establishments of this country respond to those needs. And it is this law that tries to provide the means to work that out by offering alternative dispute resolution, by offering mediation, by offering a means by which parents and teachers and school personnel can sit down together and, at the end of that day, that child will have a chance at that educational opportunity, and the district will be in a position to provide it.

But there is something that is still lacking in this law, and that is the funding of this legislation. This is the funding of this legislation. Back in 1974, we said we would pick up 40 percent of the excess cost of the education of these children, and we have not done it. We have not done it as Democrats. We have not done it as Republicans. In the last few years, we have made a rather substantial march on that effort, but we still never get there under the budget.

Yet we have Members of Congress voting for full funding and mandatory funding of special education. We have Members signing letters to the President asking for full funding of special education. We have votes in the Senate, a majority, bipartisan votes demanding full funding for special education. But somehow we can never get there. And even in this legislation, I am glad to see that we have laid out a roadmap for over the next 7 years, I believe it is, we will arrive at full funding.

But I am worried that later tonight, as we pass an omnibus appropriations bill, we will not even meet the target in this legislation before the ink is dry or even before the President has signed it.

The President said he has not fully funded No Child Left Behind because he did not read the bill. I want the President to read this bill, because the compact with these parents and with this Congress is that we are going to reach full funding in 7 years. And if we do not, if we do not, the full educational opportunity for these students and for the other students is not going to be realized because the funding is not following this legislation. It is very important that that happen and that we start to keep our commitments on special education, that we start to keep our commitments on No Child Left Behind.

It is not enough, and we cannot continue the practice. We did it when we were in control. It is not enough to put figures into authorizations and tell people that is the law, that is what we have done, and then look behind and say we never intended to do that. We should say what we mean, and we should mean what we say. If we cannot do it in 7 years, then tell the public when we are going to do it. But this is the statement of the Congress that we will reach full funding in those 7 years, and I think that is most important.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an editorial from this morning's Washington Post.

[From the Washington Post, Nov. 19, 2004]

Making Progress

It is a rare piece of legislation nowadays that makes it

through the House and the Senate, let alone a House-Senate

conference, without ill will, partisan shouting and layers of

added pork. For that reason alone, the Individuals With

Disabilities Education Improvement Act, now heading toward

the House and Senate floors, deserve a moment's attention.

From the beginning, Republicans, Democrats and advocates were

all part of the debate about this law, which reauthorizes the

federal rules and funding for special education. Staffers for

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), chairman of the Senate education

committee, as well as those working for Sen. Edward M.

Kennedy (Mass.), the ranking Democratic member, also

solicited the opinions of outsiders who were not part or

organized groups, to better understand the real problems

faced by students, parents and teachers. Congressional

offices on the House side, notably those of Reps. John A.

Boehner (R-Ohio) and George Miller (D-Calif.), did the same.

The result is a law that doesn't address every problem with

special education but that does grapple with some of the

tougher ones. Unlike most education bills, this one involves

civil rights issues, namely the right of disabled students to

receive appropriate, free education, just like other

children. While reinforcing this principle, the law also

addresses, for example, the contentious question of whether

schools can discipline or expel unruly students with

disabilities: they can, but only after an appropriate process

and only if they ensure that the special services the child

was receiving are not discontinued.

While attitudes cannot be legislated, the law also tries to

reduce some of the adversarial tension that has built up

between schools and parents in recent years by reducing

paperwork, by providing alternatives to litigation and by

eliminating some of the more trivial bureaucratic

requirements. The law also brings special education in line

with the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act,

establishing the qualifications required for special

education teachers, providing funding for teachers to get

those qualifications if they don't have them already and

taking some steps toward establishing alternatives to assess

the progress of disabled children.

Ultimately, the test for Congress is not whether this bill

finally becomes law, which seems likely, but whether the

goodwill surrounding it continues. The special education

debate is not over, nor should it be. It is legitimate to ask

about the costs of this law, both in terms of time and money;

equally, it is legitimate to ask whether schools comply with

it because they genuinely believe that special education is

worthwhile or because they have to. The answers to both

questions will affect the quality of the education all

children receive. As different lessons are learned about what

works best, for disabled children and for schools,

legislators will need to keep the law flexible, and their

naturally partisan tempers under control.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on the committee--the gentleman from Delaware, the gentlewoman from California, and the gentleman from Ohio--for all of their hard work on this legislation and their genuine efforts to make this a bipartisan bill.

IDEA is a program that is very important to me personally. I was one of the original authors of the legislation in 1975 that made an historic commitment to the special needs children of the country--and their parents--to assure them the opportunity for a public education that would allow them to take full advantage of their gifts and have a full opportunity to participate in American society.

In opposed the IDEA bill passed by the House last year because I believed it undermined that bond between Congress and the special needs community. For me and for millions of American families, IDEA is more than an education law; it is a pact that never again will we abandon special needs children and cut them off from the educational services they need and deserve.

While I voted against the House version of the bill, I am pleased that the conference committee reversed many of the House positions opposed by longtime supporters of IDEA.

As a result, I support the conference report before us today because it maintains the basic civil rights of children with disabilities and their families. I am hopeful that our changes will improve their quality and access to a free and appropriate education.

One of the most important decisions we had to make in conference was whether or not children could be, in effect, punished because of their disability. I am very pleased that we took the necessary steps to ensure that children cannot be unfairly punished.

We had the good sense to include one of the most important provisions in current law: The manifestation determination requirement that school districts consider whether a child's behavior was the result of their disability when considering disciplinary action.

It is only fair to consider whether the child could control their behavior and whether they could understand the consequences of their behavior. These questions are clearly relevant and I am pleased that they will continue to be treated as relevant.

Our agreement also ensures that children who are subject to discipline cannot be put in alternative placements for unlimited periods of time and that, if suspended, they will continue to receive educational services. These measures will help these children continue on the path toward graduation rather than dropping out--and provide for the safety of other children and school personnel.

Let me also mention two improvements to current law that I believe are particularly beneficial. First, I am pleased that the conference report addresses long-standing problems with IDEA monitoring and enforcement. The Department of Education is required to monitor key IDEA issues.

These issues include making sure States educate children in the least restrictive environment and take steps to prevent minority students, from being disproportionately identified, as is too often the case. Once identified, these children are more likely to be placed in lower quality, substantially segregated environments and are more likely to be suspended or expelled.

When a State is out of compliance for two years, our agreement requires the Secretary to take an enforcement action.

These changes give the Department of Education the means to both identify problems and the authority and tools necessary to help solve them through a range of options, including advice, technical assistance, and support.

Second, I support the improved outreach and services for children who--through no fault of their own--move and change schools frequently. It is only right that we take steps that protect the 500,000 children in foster care and the 1.3 million children who experience homelessness each year.

Children who are homeless suffer from disabilities nearly four times more than children who are from stable homes, but they have great difficulty accessing special education services. Even when they have Individualized Education Plans, their IEPs often have not moved with them and the process must start over.

After months without adequate services, a child may regress so far that she or he can lost a whole school year. Our agreement improves coordination between schools and ensures that the child's IEP must transfer with them and be used until the new school district and parent can develop a new IEP.

Despite these important improvements, a fundamental problem continues to jeopardize all of our best efforts. Congress continues to ignore our 30-year old pledge to fully fund this law.

When we originally passed it in 1975, we made a simple promise: The Federal government would provide states with 40 percent of the total costs of special education--not 100 percent--just 40 percent. But we have never fulfilled our promise. As of today, we are providing nearly 20 percent of special education costs--less than half of what we promised three decades ago.

Our conference report tries to help. I'm pleased that it recommits Congress to providing States with the full 40 percent by laying our authorization levels each year that would allow us to meet the goal by the year 2011.

Obviously, this is not as soon as I would like or our children need, but at least it is a blueprint for getting us there. But the blueprint involves substantial increases each year, including this year--and I am dismayed that this year's increase may already be in jeopardy.

We must mean what we say and say what we mean--it's time to put our money where our mouth is and appropriate these funds once and for all.

I urge all of my colleagues, especially those on the appropriations committee, to make this a top priority. What could possibly be a better investment in our country than helping our children develop and grow to their full potential?

We have just gone through the experience of No Child Left Behind where the President and Congress promised to fund the new law at levels that were necessary to ensure schools would be able to meet the new goals. And before the ink was dry on that law the president broke his promise on funding. Now we are $27 billion in the red on our commitment to No Child Left Behind and America's public schools.

As Members vote to approve this conference report, and I hope they do, we must be prepared to stand by the commitment this bill makes to properly fund special education.

The bottom line for me is to ensure that all children--including all children with disabilities--have access to public education that propels them toward participation in American society to the fullest extent possible. I believe that this conference agreement moves us in that direction, and I am pleased to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also want to point out one oversight. A sentence in the Statement of Managers' language of the Conference Report that provided the explanation for the attorneys' fees language was inadvertently left out. By adding at Note 231 sections detailing the limited circumstances in which LEAs and SEAs can recover attorneys' fees, specifically Sections 615(i)(3)(B)(i)(II) and (III), the Conferees intend to codify the standards set forth in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978). According to Christiansburg, attorneys' fees may only be awarded to defendants in civil rights cases where the plaintiff's claims are frivolous, without foundation or brought in bad faith.

Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 858 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

This rule waives all points of order against the conference report for H.R. 1350 and against its consideration, and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, shortly after my second son, Alex, was born in 1994, my father gave me some healthy words of advice when he said that Alex Sessions would be the greatest thing that would ever happen to our family. He knew and understood that in fact Alex was a very special baby. He was born with Downs Syndrome. The past 10 years have reaffirmed my father's words to me, and Alex has become one of the greatest parts of our family's life.

Ten years later, Alex is a very happy third grader at Lakewood Elementary in Dallas, Texas; and Alex has the support of numerous teachers, students, and parents who provide him with remarkable educational lessons and invaluable friendships. For each of the last 2 years, Alex has been rewarded with the school's highest citizenship honor, to be a Lakewood Super Stallion.

In the last 3 weeks, Alex has successfully written for the first time his first and last name. While these are great personal achievements for Alex and our entire family, stories like these are being told all across the country because of the extra efforts of those dedicated educators who are working diligently with these wonderful children under landmark Federal legislation known as IDEA, or Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Several decades ago, Congress passed this legislation to guarantee children with disabilities full access to a fulfilling and appropriate public education. And while I have talked today about the many successes and achievements of this important program, there are also areas within the law that could and can use improvement and adjustment. I am proud to support the bipartisan legislation that is before us today to reauthorize and improve this most important education program to ensure that the true promise and intent of this act is carried out to the fullest extent of our abilities as Congressmen.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1350 creates an educational atmosphere focusing on the future of our most vulnerable children. It builds on the existing strengths of IDEA, while modernizing and improving the program to guarantee that children with disabilities have the most appropriate tools to fully utilize their gifts. The changes that we are making in IDEA will give children measurable goals to ensure they reach their postsecondary living and employment goals.

H.R. 1350 directly addresses perhaps the greatest problem facing IDEA, the effective monitoring and enforcement of the act. Effective July 1, 2005, it will give the Secretary of Education clear authority to enforce standards to monitor and enforce whether or not schools are in compliance with IDEA, authority that has been lacking since the inception of this education initiative. States will be empowered to create an acceptable set of standards; and if they are not met, the Secretary of Education will now have the tools necessary to take appropriate and reasonable action to work with State and local educators to remedy the situation.

This conference report provides Congress with a 6-year glidepath to fully fund IDEA by 2011. Under President Bush's leadership, funding for all education programs, in particular IDEA, have been a high priority. In his first term, President Bush increased IDEA funding to States by $4.8 billion, or what we would know as a 76 percent increase. This Republican-controlled Congress, which I am proud to be a part of, has increased the Federal share of IDEA funding to 19 percent in 10 years, whereas our predecessors in the Democrat-controlled Congresses only allowed the Federal share of IDEA costs to reach 7 percent.

H.R. 1350 also restores trust and constructive dialogue to the relationship between parents and school personnel promoting an earlier resolution to problems before they end up in court. This legislation creates the opportunity for a resolution session within 30 days of a complaint being filed to quickly resolve the problem. The constant threat of litigation creates an atmosphere of distrust between parents and schools, an environment that harms everyone involved.

Today's legislation also solves another problem that has plagued IDEA for too long. Today, many children with reading problems are misidentified as learning disabled and wrongly placed in special education classes, a costly mistake which siphons away valuable funding from students who truly need IDEA services. To address this issue, H.R. 1350 requires districts with significant over-identifying of students to operate early intervention programs to reduce over-identification, eliminating the outdated IQ discrepancy, a model that relies on a wait- to-fail approach, and introduces a response to intervention model that identifies specific learning disabilities before the students are at a failing grade level.

I am proud of this new IDEA legislation. Because of the important resources that H.R. 1350 provides to our schools, it may one day help my son Alex to further meet his goals of learning to read.

I am pleased to note that the House version of this legislation successfully passed through the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and then through the House in April of 2003. Today's conference report enjoys the overwhelming bipartisan support of its conferees, and I am confident that this report will enjoy wide bipartisan margins in both Houses before it is signed by President Bush.

I would ask that all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle demonstrate their commitment to the special education needs of our country's disabled children by supporting this conference report. I would like to thank the House sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for their dedicated hard work in producing the conference report.

I would also like to take a minute to commend the conferees from both bodies that have labored to produce this fine product, including the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), Senator Edward Kennedy, and Senator Judd Gregg.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, late in the Committee on Rules, the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), came before our committee and talked with great confidence and exuberance about the hard work that had been produced by not only the conferees but also that proud committee. Today, I am very pleased to have that chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who has worked diligently for the past few years not only with me as a parent with a child who falls under IDEA but also with all Members who bring thoughts and ideas about encouraging our teachers and our parents and our children to achieve greater things. I would like to publicly say that not only the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) but also what the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) has done has been of great service to our country, and I would like to thank him for that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner).

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

Today we are having a discussion about some of America's greatest gifts, and that is our children with disabilities. An observation I would make is the kind words on both sides have come as a result of a lot of hard work, a lot of hard work not only within this body but also with the Senate. It also came as a result of a lot of hard work where members of that committee and subcommittee had to go out all across America and listen to parents and listen to educators and to listen to people. Certainly the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) was a huge part of this success.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, however, I would like to suggest that the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) was a great leader in this process. He made sure of the strength of his argument so this law would make a difference. So I, like the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), stand here to say that the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle) has done a great job on behalf of so many students.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

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

I, too, would join with the gentleman from Massachusetts in enunciating our support of not only the staff members of the Rules Committee and for the hard work that they put in day in and day out and night in and night out but also would join in support of what the gentleman from Massachusetts said when he talked about our colleague Martin Frost. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has served for 26 years as a distinguished Member of not only the House of Representatives but also in his service to the people of the 24th Congressional District of Texas. During that period of time the gentleman from Texas has distinguished himself as a person who would articulate not only the position of the Democrat Party but also a position that was very successful in support of veterans all across this country and in many other issues that he so deeply believed in, including a major piece of legislation which was known as the Amber Alert system for children who had been taken from their parents.

Mr. Speaker, I include for printing in the Congressional Record a resolution that was passed by the Rules Committee last night, November 18, 2004:

Resolution of the House Committee on Rules November 18, 2004

Whereas, Martin Frost has served the United States House of

Representatives and the citizens of the United States with

excellence since first elected to this body in 1978;

Whereas, Martin Frost began developing his extensive

political and legislative expertise as a reporter for

Congressional Quarterly, and then as a practicing attorney in

the Dallas area, while honorably serving the country as a

member of the United States Army Reserves;

Whereas, Martin Frost has represented the constituents of

the 24th district of Texas, serving the citizens of the

Dallas and Fort Worth areas for 26 years in the House of

Representatives with outstanding diligence and passion. He

has taken on issues of importance to the diverse population

of his district, such as the active- and reserve-duty

military, and Medicare, and has been an integral figure in

the creation of the nationwide AMBER Alert system for missing

children;

Whereas, Martin Frost has utilized his status as the

highest ranking Southern Democrat in the House, and as a

senior member of the Texas delegation, to address concerns

vital to his region, such as transportation issues, veterans

affairs and youth violence;

Whereas, Martin Frost has exemplified himself as a model of

leadership of the Democratic Party in the House, serving in

the capacity of chairman of the Democratic Congressional

Campaign Committee, as well as chairman of the House

Democratic Caucus during his career in Washington, proving

himself to be an astute policy and political strategist;

Whereas, the Committee on Rules has benefitted greatly by

the service of Martin Frost since his appointment to the

committee as a freshman in 1978, most recently through his

leadership as Ranking Minority Member of the Committee,

acting as a sounding board for the Democratic delegation in

advocating legislative priorities and providing his extensive

knowledge of the House rules and practices garnered from his

26 year service to the Committee to ensure success in

fulfilling its jurisdictional duties;

Whereas, the tenure of Martin Frost in this United States

Congress has been characterized by honesty, integrity, and a

general willingness to work together with colleagues, on a

variety of important issues: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Committee on Rules, That its Members

express their deep appreciation for the service Martin Frost

has selflessly given to the country, our citizens, the House

Rules Committee, and the United States House of

Representatives, and wish him the best of luck and godspeed

on all future endeavors.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I thank the gentleman for his comments, also, about our colleague from Texas (Mr. Frost).

Mr. Speaker, we have also earlier thanked a number of people, the Members of Congress who were a part of making this bill, IDEA, successful. Certainly we will have in a few minutes the opportunity to hear from Chairman Boehner once again and his colleague, the ranking member, George Miller, from California. Both of these gentleman spent an incredible number of hours working together. We have heard obviously from the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). We will also hear from the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

But I think it is important that we also say that there have been a number of people who have worked behind the scenes to make this bill successful and they really come from both sides of this great hall, the Senate and the House. I would like to personally thank Connie Garner from the office of Senator Kennedy; David Cleary from the office of Chairman Boehner. David has worked tirelessly not only on behalf of these children but also doing town hall meetings to make sure that we got this right. Melanie Looney, who is also from Chairman Boehner's office; Alex Nock, who is from Mr. Miller's office; Denzel McGuire from the office of Senator Judd Gregg.

I would also like to thank from my staff Bobby Hillert and from the White House Elan Liang for their hard work to make sure that this document not only enunciated a better policy but also took in all the feedback from educators, parents and students from across this country who wake up every day to make IDEA better.

I do, too, encourage all my colleagues to support this bipartisan piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for not just managing this rule today but for his own personal interest in this legislation. He and I have had several discussions about this. His input was extremely helpful. For that, I am certainly personally appreciative. The gentleman's interest is typical of a number of Members who spoke to me and others about their concerns about this particular legislation.

The gentleman is correct. This legislation, as much as anything we deal with in the Committee on Education and the Workforce, really embraces a wide scope of all of America in terms of the interest which is there. Virtually all school districts, many parents, and many interest groups deal with the issues of children with disabilities. I am delighted that we were able to work this legislation out in conference with the Senate.

Obviously I do rise in support of H. Res. 858; and as the sponsor of the underlying bill, H.R. 1350, I also support all aspects of the bill which is before us.

I think it is important maybe to understand how all this came about, because it was not easy. It took a long time to do it. In preparation for this, our committee had seven different hearings. We launched a Web-based project a couple of years ago called Great IDEAs which was designed to solicit input from stakeholders in special education across the Nation. We received literally thousands of responses from teachers, school administrators, parents of children with special needs, and others familiar with the unique needs of children with disabilities. Many of those are incorporated in H.R. 1350.

The process in terms of the bill itself began 19 months ago in the House of Representatives; and that bill, which was called the Improving Education Results For Children With Disabilities Act, aimed 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 sought to reduce litigation and reform special education finance and funding. I am pleased to say the conference report includes all these important reforms.

It is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to sit here and say all that in a couple of sentences when in reality each of those different policies took many, many hours and even days and months of negotiation in order to work out all the differences that existed amongst the groups and blend it together into something that is supported by everybody today.

Obviously, we have worked with the Senate. I say ``we.'' I give tremendous credit to the staff on both sides of the aisle here and in the Senate staff as well for their great work in the past 6 weeks in very, very serious negotiations to get all of this worked out. And so the resulting conference report which we have before us today will make tremendous strides in helping to achieve a quality education and services for children with special needs.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge swift approval of the rule and hopefully, following that, swift approval of the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that I think without the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner's) patience and will to continue to deal with what was a tough issue and tough politics perhaps in the beginning, we probably would not be here today. I would just like to thank him for that. I think he has just done an incredible job.

I stood at a press conference after we did the conference a couple days ago, and I looked at the cast of people who were there, including the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) who just spoke, and Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), and I realized that it was an unlikely group to come together in terms of being very liberal, very strong, and very conservative and very strong. But I also realized that every single one of those individuals had the interests of children at heart, which is hopefully what we have done in this legislation and hopefully what we have captured in this legislation.

I would just like to thank everybody that had anything to do with that: Members of Congress, a lot of whom were personally involved with this; all of the staff people who worked on this on both sides and in both Chambers who did a wonderful job, particularly in my case Sarah Rittling on my staff did an extraordinary job. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) was opposed to this initially, and we were able to resolve those differences. She and I have had some good fortune this year, the nutrition bill and this, and some other things, and I think we are both proud of our achievements, even though we have our differences from time to time. I cannot thank everybody enough.

Obviously, I rise in support of this legislation. We have been waiting a long time to get to this point, and today marks an important day for the millions of children with disabilities. As a sponsor of H.R. 1350, I have been deeply involved over the past 3 years in working to find a balanced approach to ensure children with disabilities receive the services they deserve to help them reach their potential and succeed in school. All of us have listened to thousands of parents and educators about what we can do to make the system better for the children. The resulting bill represents delicately crafted, bipartisan language that will ensure children with special needs receive the high- quality education they deserve.

For too many years, children with disabilities were simply denied access to public education. However, with the passage of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act in 1975, the doors of educational opportunity were opened. Today, more than ever, students with disabilities have an opportunity to accomplish their goals.

According to the Department of Education, about 6.6 million students currently participate in these programs in schools across the Nation. Of those, almost 50 percent of students with disabilities spend 80 percent or more of their day in regular education classrooms.

Tremendous strides have been made, and today we will be giving students, parents, and educators the tools to do even more, as I always believe we can do better. Now, more than ever, in the spirit of No Child Left Behind, we must make sure that children with disabilities are given access to an education that maximizes their unique abilities and gives them the tools to be successful, productive members of our communities.

The Improving Education Results for Children With Disabilities Act aims to improve current law by focusing on improved education results, reducing the paperwork burden for special education teachers, reducing litigation, and restoring trust between parents and school districts, and focusing on monitoring and enforcement of the law. I know my colleagues in the Senate share many of these goals, and our final conference agreement surely reflects our shared desire to strengthen special education through these common sense approaches.

Today I would like to pay particular attention to reforms in H.R. 1350 that will focus on academic progress and efforts to reduce over- identification. One of the great benefits of the No Child Left Behind Act is that we have raised expectations that 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 the regular classroom, we now must make equally great progress in ensuring that they receive a quality education in the regular classroom. We have therefore carefully aligned IDEA with No Child Left Behind to ensure students with disabilities are included in the accountability system of States and school districts.

Furthermore, H.R. 1350 includes reforms that would reduce the number of students that are misidentified or overrepresented in special education programs. Minorities are often significantly overrepresented in special education programs. In fact, African Americans are nearly three times more likely to be labeled as mentally retarded and almost twice as likely to be

labeled emotionally disturbed. Current methods of identifying children with disabilities lack validity or reliability. As a result, thousands of children are inappropriately identified every year, while many others are not identified early enough or at all. We have, therefore, reformed the manner in which children are identified.

As recommended by the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, H.R. 1350 provides local school districts flexibility to use funds for early intervention services for students before they are identified as needing special education. Currently, too many children with reading problems are identified as learning disabled and placed in special education classes.

Today is an exciting day for the special needs of our children, and I would urge all of us to support H.R. 1350.

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

I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I would like to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member, for returning to this House a bipartisan-supported conference report on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Last year, when the House first considered H.R. 1350 which reauthorized the IDEA, I felt compelled to oppose that bill. It undermined, in my opinion, the basic rights of children in need of special education to quality education. It undermined the rights of these students' families, and it failed our States and local school districts to effectively provide special education services for these students. Worse yet, the Republican leadership refused to allow any amendment addressing the need to provide full funding for the Federal share of special education to even be debated in this body. It was the House at its very worst.

Today is a very different day. We have before us a bipartisan- supported bill. We have a bill that maintains the basic civil rights of children with disabilities. We have a conference report that addresses long-standing problems with IDEA monitoring and enforcement by the U.S. Department of Education.

We have a bill that has added protections for children with special needs who have fallen between the cracks for too long; in particular, the 1.3 million children who experience homelessness each year and the 500,000 children in foster care. These children, who are moved around and change schools frequently, disproportionately suffer from learning and physical disabilities than children from stable homes, but they have greater difficulty accessing special education services. This bill now ensures that their individual education plans can travel with them so they are not denied services or regress further when moving from school to school.

From the bottom of my heart, I thank the conferees for remembering these children and addressing this problem in this bill.

This bill also helps schools resolve conflicts over providing special education services and reduce litigation. It should result in reducing the over-identification and misidentification of nondisabled children, especially among minorities and other disadvantaged communities. It reduces paperwork requirements, improves transition services, and strengthens methods for measuring student progress, all of which should improve the academic achievement of special education students.

This bill, however, is not perfect. For example, I believe we still have a long way to go toward ensuring a seamless system for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with disabilities, let alone successfully preparing and transitioning these children into K-12 special education programs.

And, most importantly, this bill still does not guarantee mandatory funding for the Federal share of IDEA State grants. This year alone, special education funding is $2.5 billion short of what Republicans promised in their budget and only half of what has been authorized under the IDEA. This leaves already cash-strapped schools without the support needed to ensure that all students, no matter their disabilities, receive the same education opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, I remain deeply concerned that Congress will continue to break its promise to our States, our local schools and our special needs children and families to provide the 40 percent Federal share of funding for federally mandated special education programs and services. For 30 years we have failed to keep our word to fully fund this law, and I see nothing in this bill to reassure me that Congress will meet even the more modest funding targets set in this bill. We seem perfectly able to ignore, back away from, or reduce our commitment.

I believe it is well past time for Congress to step up to the plate and fulfill its promise to fully fund the Federal share of special education programs. Until we do so, local and State education budgets will have to continue to rob from other education programs in order to pay for mandatory special education services, breeding unnecessary resentment towards the children and families who require these programs and placing increased stress on scarce education dollars.

I promise my colleagues, I promise the children and families and schools in the Third Congressional District of Massachusetts that I will continue to fight for full mandatory funding of the Federal share of IDEA. I hope President Bush will finally make this funding a priority in his budget next year.

Mr. Speaker, even with these concerns, I believe this conference report is an important step forward for our special education programs and services, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the conference report on H.R. 1350.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) who is a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, as speaker after speaker on our side has already said, this is a much improved conference report from the bill that we originally saw before this House a few months ago. It is supported. It deserves bipartisan support. I hope my colleagues will support the rule. I hope they will support the final passage of this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, this may very well be the last rule that I manage for our side in the 108th Congress. So I wanted to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the ranking Democrat on the committee, my friend Martin Frost. He is one of the smartest Members to serve in this body. He became an expert in the rules of the House, and he fought the good fight every single day for people and for causes that oftentime get overlooked in this body. I think our Nation is better because of his service, and I think we will miss him.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) offered a resolution in the Rules Committee last night, and we got to pay our tributes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) then; but I wanted to take this opportunity just to express publicly my appreciation for his service not only to this Congress but to the people of this country.

I also want to say that we are going to miss our colleagues Sue Myrick and Tom Reynolds who are leaving the Rules Committee to take on other committee assignments. Both of them have been good and strong members of the committee, and I have enjoyed working with them.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the majority and the minority Rules staff. These men and women work incredibly hard, probably harder than most people could possibly appreciate. In particular, let me thank Mr. Frost's staff who have served this House to the best of their abilities. They have done a wonderful job under difficult circumstances, and they deserve to be thanked for their service. As a former staffer myself, I have a special appreciation for the work that members of the staff do.

Specifically, I want to recognize Kristi Walseth, who is the staff director; Askia Suruma; Sophie Hayford, who also served with my old boss and former Rules Committee chairman, Joe Moakley; John Williams; Shannon Meissner; Jane Hamilton; and Jeff Rosenthal for their work and their dedication in this House and to the causes that they believe in during the 108th Congress.

I also want to thank the associate staff on our side: Fred Turner who has served with great distinction for Alcee Hastings; Rosaline Cohen who has worked very hard for Louise Slaughter; and Keith Stern who has served me incredibly well and worked incredibly hard on behalf of this Congress for all their work as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his resolution last night and for his words today.