A bill to authorize resources to foster a safe learning environment that supports academic achievement for all students by improving the quality of interim alternative educational settings, providing more behavioral supports in schools, and supporting whole school interventions.

A very brief word on the technical amendment, the managers' amendment. We give assurance to all of our colleagues that it is a technical amendment. All the matters that are in that managers' amendment are directly related to provisions in the legislation. I give the assurance to our colleagues that is the nature and description of the managers' amendment, and we appreciate their willingness to accept it.

We have several of our colleagues on their way over who wish to address the Senate on this issue. Then we will hopefully move along to final passage somewhere in the noon area.

Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Today, the Senate moves a large step closer to guaranteeing that children with disabilities can obtain the education they need in order to reach their full potential. Today is a victory for disabled children, a victory for the parents of these children, and a victory for our country. Today we renew our commitment to the education of every child in the nation.

We know that disabled does not mean unable. Children with disabilities have the same dreams as every other child in America--to grow up and lead a happy and productive life. We know that IDEA helps them fulfill that dream.

IDEA says children cannot be cast aside or locked away just because they have a disability. Those days are gone in America--hopefully forever.

Children with disabilities have rights like every other child in America, including the right to join other children in public schools so they can learn and prepare themselves for the future.

This law is about disabled children and their rights. It is about their hope and dream of living independent and productive lives. It is about parents who love their children and fight for them every day against a world that's too often inflexible and unwilling to help them meet their children's needs. It is about teachers who see the potential in a disabled child, but don't have the support or training they need to keep it alive.

That is what this law is about. It is our statement as a nation that these children matter and that we will do our part to help their parents and teachers and communities meet their education goals. That is why the government should make an iron-clad commitment to provide the resources for special education. That is why it is important to develop a solid education plan for each child, to chart the progress, and to hold schools accountable when they fall short. It sounds like No Child Left Behind, and it is--``No Child'' means ``No Disabled Child too.''

Later this month, we observe the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's historic decision in Brown v. the Board of Education, which struck down school segregation by race and said that all children have equal access to education under the Constitution. But it was not until the passage of the Education for the Handicapped Act in 1975 that the Brown decision had real meaning for children with disabilities.

Only then did we finally end school segregation by disability, and open the doors of public schools to disabled children. Only then did the nation's four million disabled children begin to have the same opportunities as other children to develop their talents, share their gifts, and lead productive lives.

We must never go back to the days when disabled children were excluded from public education, when few if any preschool children with disabilities received services, and when the disabled were passed off to institutions and substandard schools where they were out of sight and out of mind.

We've made tremendous progress since those dark days. Today, six and a half million children with disabilities receive special education services. Almost all of them--96 percent--are learning alongside their non-disabled peers. The number of young children with early development problems who receive childhood services has tripled since 1975.

The opportunities for further progress are boundless. We know far more about disability today than a quarter century ago. We understand the various disabilities of children, and how to help them all to learn and achieve. We are learning more each day about the enabling power of technology to help disabled children lead independent lives--it lets them communicate, explore the world on the Internet, move in ways we couldn't have imagined 5 years ago, much less in 1975 when the law was first enacted.

This legislation builds on the enormous progress we have already made by recognizing that in several key areas, we must do better.

We must do better in bringing the law's promise to all disabled students in all schools. That means fully enforcing the law in every school district in the country.

A GAO analysis of compliance shows that from educational services to transition support, students are not getting what they are entitled to.

Even when noncompliance is identified, the Federal response is intolerably slow. Some States violated the law for more than a decade before the Department of Education intervened.

This failure has real world consequences for real children struggling to get an education. I have with me today almost 2,000 letters from parents across the Nation whose disabled children have been denied their educational rights under IDEA.

This legislation will improve enforcement of IDEA at every level. It requires a State-Federal partnership to design a better monitoring system to hold States more accountable.

We must also improve services for children nearing graduation, so they can leave school with the skills and continuing support they need to succeed. For persons with disabilities, the adult world offers little help to meet the challenges of daily life.

It is vital for these steps to be taken in school, so that all children with disabilities can be reached before they enter the job market and the confusing maze of adult services.

At best, only a little over half of students leaving special education have jobs or are continuing their education 5 years later. Often, they are transferred into the welfare system, with no recognition of their potential.

Our bill places a major focus on early planning for that all- important transition, and better coordination with other Federal programs such as vocational rehabilitation and our Ticket to Work program, to link students to more options and maximize prospects for their independence. Welfare can't be the only option for students with disabilities when they graduate from school.

Finally, we must do more to help special education teachers--to recruit them, to train them, and to support them in this challenging field. They are the men and women we depend on everyday to stand up and say to our children: You can do it. You can succeed.

We also help special education teachers by reducing the unnecessary paperwork that distracts teachers from focusing on students. It creates better ways for parents, teachers, and school administrators to work together to meet children's needs without resorting to litigation, and provides more flexibility to parents to develop their child's education program by teleconferencing and video conferencing.

The legislation authorizes new funds to improve the quality of alternative placements, and to provide better behavioral supports through whole school interventions.

The legislation provides more flexibility for schools to discipline students, with safeguards so that discipline is not used as an excuse to halt educational services, and is not used to exclude or segregate disabled children because of the failure of the school to provide for the educational needs of the child.

Our ultimate goal should be to support disabled children, not punish them for what they can't control.

I thank the many persons who have brought us successfully to this day.

First and foremost, I commend the thousands of parents who met with Members and staff, sent letters, made a phone call, and participated in other ways in making this legislation possible. They have been citizen leaders at their very best, and have opened our eyes to their cause and let us into their lives, and we are proud of all they have accomplished.

Here in the Senate, I commend Chairman Gregg for his leadership on this legislation over the years, and for all he has done to bring this important reauthorization before the Senate. All of us are grateful to Annie White on his staff as well, for her dedication to making this bipartisan process work--and work, and work, and work.

I commend the majority leader for scheduling the consideration of this legislation as soon as it was ready for action by the full Senate. Because of his willingness to act so quickly, we have a realistic opportunity to enact this important legislation into law this year. I also commend the distinguished minority leader for making consideration of this legislation possible and for his leadership on this and so many other issues of importance to the Nation and giving it the priority he has.

I also commend Senator Sessions and John Little with his staff for their bipartisan effort in dealing with the discipline issue, which has needlessly plagued the debate on IDEA for so long.

Senator Clinton deserves great credit for her work to ensure that new funds are provided to improve the quality of alternative student placements, to provide more effective behavioral supports for students, and to see that all schools are safe schools.

Senator Harkin is always at the forefront of the movement for equal rights for all persons with disabilities, including children, and he has led the effort for full funding of IDEA.

Mr. President, I yield myself 4 more minutes.

Senator Dodd and Senator Jeffords worked effectively on this legislation to improve early childhood programs. They have been two pioneers in the development of the legislation since the very beginning, and they have been absolutely tireless in pursuing positive, constructive, responsive changes in these programs. They are both leaders on children's programs in the Senate.

Senator Reed improved the training and recruitment of special education teachers. Senator Bingaman fought for strong enforcement of civil rights protections for every disabled student. Senator Mikulski strengthened support for students making the transition from schools to careers. Senator Murray improved the provisions on enforcement and the monitoring of the law and for caring for those children who are moving, who are in transition.

I commend as well, the many members of our staffs, who have worked long and hard and well for the past 2 years. Our thanks go to Bethany Little, formerly with Senator Murray's staff; Jamie Fasteau, with Senator Murray's staff; Carmel Martin, formerly with Senator Bingaman's staff; Michael Yudin, with Senator Bingaman; Catherine Brown, with Senator Clinton; Justin King, with Senator Jeffords; Mary Giliberti and Eric Fatemi, with Senator Harkin; Rebecca Litt, with Senator Mikulski; Elyse Wasch, with Senator Reed; Maryellen McGuire, with Senator Dodd; Denzie McGoire and Bill Lucia, with Senator Gregg; Todd Haiken, with Senator Bingaman; and Dennis Borum, with Senator Reid.

Our thanks also go out to the hundreds of disability and education advocates across the country who worked so hard on this legislation.

I especially thank Jeremy Buzzell, Michael Dannenberg, Charlotte Burrows, Jim Manley, Jane Oates, Roberto Rodriguez, Kent Mitchell, Danica Petroshius and Michael Myers on my staff for their skillful work and dedication, and above all Connie Garner for all she has done for children with disabilities and their families and for never letting us forget what this debate and this law is really about.

This bill represents our best bipartisan effort, and I look forward to its immediate and imminent passage and strong support from both sides of the aisle. As we move forward today to reconcile our differences with the House of Representatives, I hope we retain that same bipartisan spirit and quickly resolve our differences in this Congress and have this signed into law to benefit the children, the parents, and our country.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes. We have other speakers coming, but I want to read into the Record what difference this law has made, which really tells the story.

This is a letter from Lyssa Bookman from Galloway, OH. This is a letter we received, actually, a few weeks ago. I pointed out earlier that we have over 3,000 letters on this legislation, very thoughtful letters, enormously compelling, extremely moving; in many instances, inspiring. I will just read from this letter:

IDEA is necessary for all children. My personal experience

started long before my daughter was of school age. She was

diagnosed with Leukemia at nine months old.

Due to her treatments she has long-term cognitive side

effects. I have had to beg to get any services for her. I

have never had to hire an attorney but have had to tell the

building principal and superintendent of schools that they

left me with no choice but to file suit against the district

of the IDEA laws. As soon as I mentioned it I had what I was

after. All my daughter needs is extra time to complete tests

and assignments. If the law was not in place, I would not

have a leg to stand on and my daughter would have been

miserable in school. Homeschooling would have been my only

option. She is now a fifth grade student in a gifted class

with a 504 plan giving the slight modification of extra

time. Without IDEA, she would not be able to handle the

pressures placed on a gifted student. Learning

disabilities and giftedness can go hand in hand and with

IDEA the giftedness can shine and the disability overcome.

IDEA gives the disabled child that chance to shine and

takes one worry out of the parents' minds. Thank you for

your efforts for the kids. They are the future.

I have another letter from Cathie Davis of Tennessee. She writes:

We moved to Monroe County, Tennessee where we will remain

until Angel graduates high school. Angel was the first

hearing impaired special needs student to enter their school

system and they have gone above and beyond to see to it that

Angel receives the best education possible. They provided her

with an interpreter, Joyce Boyles who has been with her since

the second grade. Mrs. Boyles put together a group they call

singing hands as a way of teaching the other students how to

communicate with Angel as opposed to only teaching Angel to

communicate with them. These students (all hearing) along

with Angel have been invited to perform at many events

throughout the State of Tennessee, signing the words to songs

such as ``I'm Proud to be an American'' by Lee Greenwood.

Angel has made all ``A's'' and ``B's'' on the sliding grade

scale and as of this year, without the aid of any Special Ed

classes and on a regular grading scale, she has maintained a

``C'' average.

Mr. President, this is the kind of mail we have received. There are others, obviously, who have not had as much success under the old bill. We tried to address those issues in the current legislation.

Here is another parent who wrote. Her name is Denice Cronin, from Houston, TX. She wrote:

IDEA gave me the rights to ask for testing outside of the

school by an unbiased professional, paid for by the school.

Based on these findings, the school adjusted their style of

teaching and Bonnie again excelled. I still had to seek

outside teachings to ensure her success. The Texas Reading

Institute of Texas saved my daughter's sanity, as well as my

son's.

Today, she is a healthy 7th grade A-B student, still

classified as learning disabled. She attends, completes and

excels in the ``normal'' classroom. She even passes the TAKs

instead of taking the ``alternative testing.'' Should she run

into a setback, we have the rights and laws in place, due to

IDEA, to protect and ensure she continues to receive a ``fair

and complete education''.

In the past, these children were stored away in back rooms, even if they were lucky enough to get into the school some years ago. We mentioned several who have been able to benefit from the bill. We are convinced that with the changes we have made in the legislation, many more families will be able to do so as well.

Mr. President, I withhold the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally divided.

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

Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Pennsylvania is expected momentarily. Let me read a hopeful letter from Carolyn Wright, from Spokane, WA, which we received earlier this year:

My son, Aaron, attends his neighborhood elementary school.

He is in the same first-grade class as the boy who lives next

door. Sometimes after school Aaron and the neighbor boy play

together. They play Nintendo, sometimes ``boxing,'' or they

play catch.

None of that is unusual except that Aaron has Down

Syndrome. If it weren't for the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA) Aaron would not be in class with his

neighbor. He would not get his chance to hold the flag during

the Pledge of Allegiance. He would not have the opportunity

to tell his friends that he has a cat or to learn that

``Joey'' has a dog. IDEA has helped Aaron be a part of his

school community.

Math is a difficult subject for Aaron so he has a different

curriculum than other first graders and he is taught in the

special education classroom along with other students who

struggle with math. However, Aaron likes to read so he joins

the first-grade reading group to improve his reading skills.

Each area of Aaron's curriculum has been addressed so that he

is in the least restrictive environment possible that will

facilitate his learning.

Whenever Aaron's Individualized Education Plan (IEP) needs

revision, my husband and I are included in the discussion

with the multi-disciplinary team. Placement options are

discussed along with specific skill areas that need to be

addressed, keeping in mind Aaron's position as a member of

the community as well as his place in school. As part of the

IEP team we determine what curriculum will best meet Aaron's

needs.

We are very grateful to have IDEA. Because of IDEA Aaron is

a member of his neighborhood community and he is learning the

skills he needs to be independent. He may never be able to

live entirely independently but he will have a job and he

will contribute to society.

That is what this legislation is all about, Mr. President. We wish Aaron great luck. We believe there are many other ``Aarons'' in the country who will continue to benefit. We hope to do it in a better way.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of this amendment because it will give States the flexibility they need to reduce special education paperwork.

We have heard from many teachers that they must take too much time out of their busy days to complete IDEA paperwork requirements. Teachers would rather spend that time in the classroom teaching their students.

We have heard these concerns loud and clear, and we have responded with changes to make things easier for both parents and teachers. This bill reduces paperwork and meetings by: Streamlining educational planning and procedural requirements; simplifying the Federal application process; encouraging the use of technology; clarifying that no paperwork is required beyond what is in the Federal law; and requiring the Department of Education to develop model forms.

These changes will go a long way to simplifying the work of special education teachers and giving them more time to do what they do best-- teach children. These changes will also make it possible for more parents to participate in their child's education.

This amendment will give a limited number of States the opportunity to do even more to address paperwork by giving them flexibility to waive paperwork requirements. But today the Senate needs to make it absolutely clear that this flexibility does not include waiving Civil Rights protections for disabled students.

Civil Rights are the very heart of the IDEA. The right to go to a public school, the right to learn alongside one's peers, the right to an appropriate education, and the right to due process, are fundamental to this law and we cannot allow waivers to trade these rights in exchange for less paperwork.

In July 2002, President Bush's Commission on Excellence in Special Education gave Congress and the President its recommendations for improving results for disabled students. This commission offered many suggestions for reducing paperwork in special education and allowing these waivers was one of them.

But the chair of the President's commission was absolutely clear that paperwork reduction should not threaten civil rights. Listen to what the chair, Governor Terry Branstad of Iowa, had to say when he testified before the House on the IDEA and the commission's report:

`` . . . [A]s we are trying to reduce the paperwork,

streamline it, and make it more efficient, we . . . want to .

. . protect their civil rights.''

We must ensure that States live up to the full intent of the commission's recommendation--to balance paperwork reduction with civil rights protections.

The chair of the President's commission is not alone in his concern for protecting civil rights while reducing paperwork. The National Council on Disability--the Federal agency responsible for advising President and Congress on issues affecting the disabled--says that, if not done carefully, waivers may have unintended consequences. According to the National Council on Disability:

Waivers threaten educational quality because instruction and

achievement are measured by documenting progress.

Waivers threaten civil rights because compliance with the law

must be documented.

Let me first speak to the issue of paperwork and educational quality. Ask any teacher how he or she begins the day before the students arrive. They begin by reviewing a lesson plan that sets the goals for the day and describes how those goals will be reached. They develop tests for their students to see if they are meeting those goals. These lesson plans, goals, and tests are based on a thoughtful and comprehensive curriculum. This is all paperwork--paperwork that is necessary to ensure quality instruction for every student.

Quality instruction for disabled students is no different. Special education paperwork ensures that schools think carefully about how best to educate a disabled student, then document their plan, and then document progress. Does any of that paperwork sound unnecessary?

If States interpret these waivers as a license to set aside these important pieces of a disabled child's education, we have completely undermined the focus on academic and functional achievement in this bill.

Just like the National Council on Disability, I also have expressed my great concern about protecting civil rights if States are given too much flexibility. In my opening statement, I addressed the issue of noncompliance with this law. All across this country, nearly 30 years after this law was first passed, many disabled children still are denied their right to a public education. Year after year, the majority of States fail to implement the IDEA and are found out of compliance with its most basic requirements.

Reports from the Department of Education show just how rampant noncompliance with the IDEA is. From 2000 to 2003: 76 percent of States did not appropriately resolve complaints; 71 percent of States lacked effective systems to monitor and enforce the law; 71 percent of States did not educated disabled children with their peers; and 65 percent of States did not appropriately prepare students for post-school employment and independent living.

These States already blatantly disregard the requirements of the IDEA. Imagine what would happen if these States are given waivers without the clear limitations set forth in this amendment, if they could feel free to waive any requirement in the name of paperwork reduction. The impact of unlimited paperwork waivers on disabled students in States like these could be devastating.

Even with detailed requirements for education plans and other paperwork under current law, look at what is happening to disabled children all across the nation.

The Richer family from Oregon writes that their school made the decision to shorten their son's school day by 3 hours--without asking the parents first. The same school district completed their son's education plan and assigned him to a classroom without including his parents in the decision.

The Johnson family from new Jersey writes that it took 18 months to get an appropriate educational plan written for their child, and the school still will not provide the speech therapy and counseling services written on that plan.

These are true stories, just like the hundreds of other true stories that parents have sent to me. This is why it must be made absolutely clear that these waivers are not a free pass out of accountability or a way to erode individualized education plans that are the cornerstone of the IDEA.

Look at any other field--the legal field, the medical field, or business. In these fields, if it wasn't documented, it wasn't done. Insurers don't pay doctors when they don't document the care they provided. Clients don't pay lawyers if they do not document the hours spent on a case. And businesses don't provide their services without a contract. In every part of life, documentation is the way we guarantee that people did what they promised to do. It is not too much to ask that schools do the same so we can be sure they are complying with the law and giving every disabled child an appropriate education.

I know that we demand a lot of our teachers. We ask them to not only educate our children to become productive citizens, but also to be counselors, mentors, and role models. And, yes, we ask them to do paperwork on top of that.

Should the Senate do everything it can to make it easier for special education teachers to focus on the needs of students instead of focusing on paperwork? Absolutely--but not at the cost of educational accountability and civil

rights for students with disabilities. Not if it undermines the foundations of the IDEA. Without the limitations set forth in this amendment, waivers may have the unintended consequence of allowing States to experiment with the civil rights of millions of disabled students for years to come.

I do not object to giving States the chance to creatively address the issue of paperwork. This amendment offers States an exciting opportunity to make sure that teachers have more time to plan, take professional development courses, or provide extra help to students. Giving teachers more time means giving them a chance to do what they love most: focus on the needs of students.

But the needs of disabled students cannot be met without first guaranteeing that they have the full protection of the law. This amendment provides that guarantee, while still encouraging paperwork reduction, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for offering the amendment that will reduce the paperwork for teachers and also ensure the protection of the rights of disabled children.

This amendment draws a clear line between unnecessary paperwork about the process and necessary documentation and ensuring every disabled child's right to a free and appropriate public education.

The Senator from Pennsylvania has made it clear that States will not be allowed to waive the civil rights of disabled students or waive procedural safeguards guaranteed under law.

This is a good amendment. It balances the needs of both the teachers and students. I thank him for his work on this amendment and also for his accommodation and willingness to work this out. It has been very helpful.

I will wait for my colleague, the chairman, before urging the adoption of the amendment, but I expect it will be done momentarily.

I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be evenly divided.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

I will be glad to yield the 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Senator Kennedy and I have a number of technical and conforming amendments that have been cleared on both sides of the aisle and put into a managers' package. Therefore, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider and agree to amendment No. 3150.

Mr. President, for Members' information, we expect to have a vote on final passage around 12:10. In fact, we may have a unanimous consent, although I will withhold that for a moment.

I ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 12:10 be equally divided between the sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that once Senator Santorum's amendment is modified and we agree to it, at 12:10 today the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of H.R. 1350, with all provisions of the original agreement in place, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield the floor.

Stay Put Rule

I understand your concerns and will take them to conference.

Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his help, assistance, and tireless effort in making sure this bill moved forward, and in an extremely constructive way. We have had considerable success in this committee in passing out of the committee a number of major pieces of legislation that have been bipartisan. Even in this time, as we head into a Presidential election, when there is a bit of tension and some slowdown in legislative activity due to the differences of opinion, which are being highlighted both substantively and politically, we have been able to make progress not only on special education but on other bills, such as the pension bill, which we passed and, hopefully fairly soon, on the bioshield bill, which is a critical piece of legislation. And that is in the last couple months.

The special education bill is one this committee has attended to over the years and has tried to improve. It is a very intense piece of legislation in the sense that the parents and children who are affected by it are immediately impacted by everything we do. Clearly, the school systems, which try to respond to the needs of these children, and often have very complicated and difficult issues to resolve, are also immediately impacted.

Therefore, I am glad we have been able to reach what is clearly a bipartisan and very positive and aggressive bill in moving forward on the issue of giving special needs children adequate education and appropriate education, to which they have a right and which, obviously, we all want to accomplish.

The bill has received strong support from across the board. It is supported

by the Council of Chief State School Officers, the American Association of School Administrators, Great City Schools, the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, the Council for Exceptional Children, the National Center for Learning Disabilities, the Association for the Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired.

I think it is important to note those different groups that represent different constituencies because sometimes there is tension between those groups as to how special needs children should be addressed and how they should be educated.

As Senator Kennedy has so effectively highlighted, the bill creates a number of initiatives with which we are trying to address improvement of the educational system as it reaches out to these children. The first area that is the most fundamental area of change is what the children are learning. Unfortunately, the present law that has evolved over time has become an inputs exercise. In fact, there are something like 819 items which must be checked off in every school district for every child relative to the special needs of that child and how they are educated. We came to the conclusion that this was not getting to the bottom line.

The bottom line is, are these children learning? Is their life improving? Are they being given the tools they need in order to participate in society? The bill moves significantly from being an inputs-tested bill to being an outputs-tested bill, to looking at improvement in academic results as being the primary mode under which we evaluate whether the bill is working relative to the children it is supposed to impact.

Secondly, it is the teacher who is the key player in this effort. Teachers who undertake teaching special needs children are extraordinary people. They are giving of themselves in an immense way. I had the chance, when I headed up a center that dealt with children who had severe disabilities, to constantly be amazed at the commitment of these individuals who are basically, 24 hours a day--at least in our institution--trying to assist the children as they work through their personal problems but also work toward learning more. What we have tried to do is give teachers some new tools and relieve them of some of the bureaucratic burden. That is especially important.

It is estimated that the average special needs teacher may spend as much as a day and a half each week just doing paperwork. We tried to reduce that and give the teachers the professional support they need and the assistance to make sure they are qualified to deal with these children who have very complex and difficult issues.

Thirdly, we attempt to facilitate a better relationship between parents and the schools. Unfortunately, there is a natural tension. It has developed over time. Sometimes it becomes quite aggravated. It not only goes to the schools, it goes to the parents of other children in the school and the property-tax payers in the community. There is no reason a parent of a special needs child should find themselves in a confrontational situation as they try to get what is the appropriate education for their children. We have developed a whole series of initiatives to try to, for better or worse, create dispute resolution in a more comfortable manner rather than a confrontational and litigious manner. This is important to the parent and to the school system. It will mean resources, instead of being focused on hiring attorneys and confrontation in the courtroom or confrontation in a formal legal setting, can be focused on actually educating the child in the classroom. That is the bottom line.

Fourth, the bill gives schools the tools they need to ensure that all the children are safe. As Senator Kennedy mentioned, discipline has always been a very difficult issue relative to IDEA, relative to special needs children. Disruption in the classroom is one of the primary concerns you hear when talking with teachers and faculty in relation to how special needs children are handled and dealt with in the classroom. In this bill we try to address that. We have made significant progress.

I need to especially point out the work of Senator Sessions who focused on this issue, and in a very constructive way moved the process forward, so we have an excellent piece of legislation in this area.

Lastly, we do have, as part of the amendments which passed yesterday, a glide path to full funding under the discretionary accounts, which is the proper way it should be done. In the history of dramatic increases in funding in this account, as was mentioned by Senator Bond, a 376- percent increase is the fastest growing funding increase of any spending item in the Federal budget on a percentage basis over the last few years. The commitment is there and now the authorization is locked in to get us to full funding in 6 to 7 years.

This is a good piece of legislation. I expect it to receive very strong support. It didn't come about through luck and just out of the blue. It came about because a lot of people spent a lot of time over a significant period in constructing it and listening and bringing the people who were involved to the table to discuss it.

I especially thank some of those folks because most of this work is done by our staff, and they do an extraordinary job. Let me mention a couple. Senator Kennedy has mentioned them also on his side of the aisle.

Specifically with Senator Sessions, there was John Little of his staff who worked so hard on the discipline issue. Senator Alexander and his staff; Kristin Bannerman, worked very hard on providing State and school districts greater flexibility. Of course, from Senator Kennedy and his staff there is Michael Myers, who is staff director, and Connie Garner, who was already mentioned, who has been a major player. And Jeremy Buzzell, we very much appreciate his effort.

On my staff, I have some extraordinary people who have done incredible work and deserve a great amount of accolades for this bill getting to this point: Annie White, who is truly a specialist in this area; Denzel McGuire, an extraordinary leader on all educational issues; and Bill Lucia, who is equally strong on these issues. I have had the very good fortune to have an exceptional staff--and, of course, my staff director Sharon Soderstrom, who does an exceptional job on all issues. We are very lucky to have these folks working for us.

As a result of their efforts, we have been able to produce what I believe is an exceptional and a positive work product which is consistent with the efforts of this committee generally, as I mentioned.

I thought I might read some of the things we have been able to pass out of this committee this year, this Congress, to reflect on how constructive we have been, even in a time of some considerable partisanship. We have done the genetics nondiscrimination bill; the generics drug bill, which reduces the cost of generics; special education; the community services block grant; the Workforce Investment Act, if we can get that to conference; we have the trauma care bill; the medical devices bill; the child abuse prevention and treatment bill; the childcare block grant; the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act; pediatric drug research authority; Organ Donation and Recovery Act; and the Birth Defects Act. That is just a few of the pieces of legislation we have been able to produce out of this committee in a bipartisan effort.

I certainly appreciate the assistance of Senator Kennedy undertaking and accomplishing this very strong record.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, reducing the paperwork burdens within IDEA is one of the Senate's top priorities in reauthorizing this important law.

We want to empower teachers to spend more time with their students in the classroom, rather than spending endless hours filling out forms that do not lead to a better education for students.

This bill already contains a number of excellent provisions aimed at cutting down on unnecessary paperwork for both teachers and parents. For instance, S. 1248 streamlines state and local requirements to ensure that paperwork focuses on improved educational and functional results for children with disabilities.

It clarifies that no information is required in an IEP beyond what Federal law requires.

It eliminates the requirements that IEPs must include benchmarks and short-term objectives that generate more paperwork, but requires a description of how progress is measured, including quarterly reports to parents.

It reduces the number of times that procedural safeguards notices must be sent out to parents to once per year, unless their parent registers a complaint or requests a copy.

It ensures that State regulations are consistent with IDEA and that any state-imposed requirements or paperwork reporting are clearly identified to local educational agencies.

And it requires the Secretary to develop model forms, review paperwork requirements and provide Congress with proposals to reduce the paperwork burden on teachers.

This is a great start on reducing paperwork for teachers, parents, and administrators.

However, we need to do more.

The amount of paperwork special education teachers are required to complete is burdensome, takes valuable time away from the classroom, and undermines the goal of providing the best quality education possible to all children.

Let me give you some statistics to illustrate this problem.

According to a recent study by the Council for Exceptional Children, a majority of special educators estimate that they spend a day or more each week on paperwork, and 83 percent report spending half to one and a half days per week in IEP-related meetings.

Special education teachers spend an average of 5 hours per week on paperwork, compared to general education teachers who spend an average of 2 hours per week on paperwork. The average length of an individualized education program, or IEP, one of the biggest sources of paperwork, is between 8 and 16 pages. Fifty-three percent of special education teachers report that, to a great extent, their routine duties and paperwork interfere with their interaction with their students.

Special educators spend more time on paperwork than grading papers, communicating with parents, sharing expertise with colleagues, supervising paraprofessionals and attending individualized education program meetings combined.

While special educators spend the majority of their time on paperwork filling out compliance and documentation-related paperwork, general educators spend most of their time completing instructionally relevant paperwork such as tracking students' academic progress across the curriculum.

With these overwhelming paperwork burdens on teachers, we need to ask ourselves what kind of effect they are having on our special education system.

Special education teachers feel excessive paperwork interferes with their ability to serve children with disabilities more effectively. The study of personnel needs in special education, SPENSE, sponsored by OSEP reveals that special education teachers often cite required forms and administrative paperwork as an area of dissatisfaction with their working conditions.

The excessive amount of paperwork currently inherent in the process overwhelms and burdens teachers, robbing them of time to educate their students. It also makes it more difficult for school districts to retain and recruit highly qualified special education teachers.

Studies from the Department of Education show that the nation is facing a significant shortage of special education teachers, and many special educators leaving the field cite the burden of unnecessary paperwork as one of the primary reasons for their departure.

Simply put, teachers, schools, local educational agencies, and States should be relieved of irrelevant and unnecessary paperwork burdens that do not lead to improved educational outcomes for children with disabilities.

Therefore, I support the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania, which authorizes a pilot program allowing States to demonstrate innovative and creative measures to reduce the paperwork burden.

The Secretary of Education would be authorized to grant waivers of paperwork requirements to 15 States based on proposals submitted by States for reducing paperwork.

The goal is to increase instructional time and resources and improve results for students with disabilities.

This pilot program is not meant to decrease any of the rights children have under the Act, but is intended to allow those States who choose to participate to think creatively and innovatively about how to best meet the demands of the Act while reducing the paperwork burden so school personnel can focus on educating children with disabilities.

In fact, we clearly state that the Secretary of Education may not waive any applicable civil rights requirements or procedural safeguards under Section 615, and nothing in the demo will affect the right of a child with a disability to receive a free appropriate public education,

Mr. President, I yield back the balance of our time and I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the bill.

Mr. President, I believe that this legislation is the next step toward ensuring that all children with disabilities receive the education and services they deserve. I am pleased to lend my support to the passage of S. 1248, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2003. This legislation has been carefully crafted to balance the concerns and wishes of students, parents, teachers, principals, and superintendents.

As a new member to the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, it has been a pleasure to be involved in this reauthorization from the very beginning. I have worked hard to ensure that the needs of the children, parents, teachers, and administrators in my home State of Nevada have been met. I have heard from Nevadans the problems they face when dealing with the complexities of IDEA and believe this bill addresses many, if not all, of their concerns.

During one of my rural tours, I had the opportunity to stop in Minden, NV, which is located in the Douglas County School District. As part of my time there, I went to a school to meet with parents, teachers, students, and the superintendent of the school district. While many topics and issues were discussed during that time, the one that has stuck out the most in my mind is IDEA. The superintendent told me stories and gave examples of the difficult time he and his staff have had in dealing with the complexities of IDEA, especially the regulations related to discipline. It finally got so bad the Nevada State Department of Education had to put out a handbook to describe the regulations.

Just recently, the superintendent for Washoe County School District was in town, and he shared with me many issues of importance for his schools, including funding for IDEA. He told me that while additional funding for No Child Left Behind programs would be nice, funding for IDEA was much more important to the financial well-being of his district. We talked about the recent press regarding charges that No Child Left Behind is an unfunded mandate, but he replied that there is no greater unfunded mandate and burden on the financial state of districts than IDEA.

It is with these experiences in mind that I come to the floor today to discuss S. 1248, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2003. I am particularly pleased to see that this legislation focuses on the goal of improving the academic achievement and long-term goals of these students rather than burdensome administrative checklists. In 1954, the United States Congress made it clear that ``all children'' included racial minorities, and in 1975 we expanded this to include children with disabilities by ensuring that all children receive a free and appropriate public education. This legislation complements the work done with the No Child Left Behind Act, and helps ensure that no child is left behind.

Unfortunately, the focus of IDEA has moved away from providing students with disabilities a quality education and towards ensuring that teachers, schools, and districts are simply in compliance with the law. The current accountability provisions in IDEA focus more on compliance in terms of paperwork and lawsuits, rather than on student performance and outcomes. I believe that S. 1248 changes the direction that IDEA is moving by simplifying the paperwork requirements, giving States greater flexibility, and making the process of disciplining students with individualized education plans, commonly known as IEPs, easier.

Changes contained in S. 1248 will simplify the IEP process for parents and teachers, while maintaining the flexibility both parties need to include additional information, outcomes, and goals for individual students. The IEP process had become a burdensome and time- consuming endeavor for all parties that often produced little for the child involved. Rather than focusing on short-term objectives for every child, the Senate bill requires that IEPs contain only long-term goals and objectives that are focused on the child's academic achievement and functional performance goals for the school year. This change recognizes that not all children will make great strides on the academic side of the equation, but may excel in their functional achievements. I know that some parents in Nevada have expressed concern over this change, but I believe this will be more beneficial to individual children by eliminating a one-size-fits-all approach for IEPs.

Another area of great concern to parents, teachers, and administrators has been the discipline provisions contained in IDEA. The Senate version simplifies the framework for schools to administer IDEA but also ensures the rights and the safety of all children. In Nevada I have heard from numerous school principals, superintendents, and teachers about the difficulties they have when it comes to disciplining a disabled student. They have complained not only about the dual-discipline system created by IDEA but also about the incredibly complex rules and regulations they must follow if a disabled student does violate school rules. The Senate language will allow schools to suspend a child with a disability who violates a code of conduct and withhold services during the suspension. Schools would be allowed to discipline a child with a disability in the same manner as a child without a disability for school code violations so long as the violation was not related to the child's disability. An agreement has also been reached with regards to offenses related to weapons and drugs for children with disabilities. While this language is a great improvement on current law, I still have concerns about the complexity of these provisions and the continued burden faced by teachers and principals in completing paperwork and fighting lawsuits related to discipline.

That said, this legislation also makes great strides in other areas, such as providing special education teachers the initial training they need and the ongoing educational support and assistance required in the classroom every day. Parents will no longer be faced with reams of paper every time they go to a meeting with their child's teacher. Children will be taught by highly qualified teachers and receive the services they need to succeed in school. Students will also be provided with important transition services as they leave high school and enter either the workforce or postsecondary education opportunities.

I have heard from many parents in Nevada who believe their child's teachers and principals are overburdened with paperwork related to their child's education. They also have felt bombarded with notices explaining to them their right to sue school districts if they do not believe their son or daughter has received the services necessary for he or she to succeed. This legislation, I believe, strikes that delicate balance between parents who believe they are getting too much information and those who believe they are not getting enough. I am always careful not to have too great an impact on the important relationship between a parent and a teacher from Washington, DC.

The issue of Federal funding for IDEA has been an issue of huge concern not only to my constituents, but to every school district in the country. Every school district in Nevada has contacted me with a very legitimate concern in that the Federal Government has never lived up to the promise it made in 1975 to provide 40 percent of the excess cost to educate a child with a disability. Currently, the Government is providing funding that pays for about 20 percent of the excess cost to educate children with disabilities. I completely agree that the Federal Government must live up to its promise to provide this crucial funding to our schools. IDEA is truly an unfunded mandate. However, I believe we must continue to fund these programs on the discretionary side of the budget and not move funding to the mandatory side of the budget. Moving funding to the mandatory side of the budget places it in the same category as Medicare and Social Security and above other education programs. I do not believe it is right to make IDEA an entitlement and elevate it above other, equally important, Federal education programs.

Not only would IDEA funding be placed in a higher category than other education programs, but moving funding to the mandatory side of the budget has the potential to increase the deficit. We cannot afford to continue deficit spending and place the burden of our unrestricted spending on the backs of our children. I believe we must work to make IDEA funding a true priority both during the budget process and the appropriations process. We should work to increase funding at large levels every year to reach the 40-percent marker.

In addition, funding for IDEA has substantially increased over the past 4 years. In fact, assuming the President's $1 billion increase for this year is approved, funding has increased by $4.7 billion, or 75 percent, since 2001. Since 1996, when Republican's took over control of Congress, funding for IDEA has increased by 224 percent, yes, 224 percent. If the President's $1 billion increase is approved for this year, funding will have increased by 376 percent in less than 10 years. Nevada has seen funding nearly double in the past 4 years. Since 2001, funding has increased by 84 percent, one of the largest increases in the country. While I recognize we are only at half of our promised level of funding, it is clear that Congress is making great strides to living up to its promise.

I hope we can continue the great progress we have made on this important legislation and appoint conferees to work out our differences with the House-passed legislation. This issue is too important to fall victim to partisan politics. We cannot allow children with disabilities to be held hostage because of the partisan atmosphere of the Senate.

Finally, I thank both Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy for their hard work on this legislation and dedication to this important issue. I look forward to working with both of them on future reauthorizations in the HELP Committee this year.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleagues, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, for their work on a very important piece of legislation that is so vital to many parents, teachers, school administrators, and most importantly, children in the State of Arkansas and across this country. It is especially important that on issues such as this we have bipartisan cooperation, and I thank my colleagues for ensuring that cooperation and the quick action we have seen on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act yesterday and today.

I have heard from many of my constituents about IDEA, and they have expressed a wide range of concerns about various aspects of the legislation, from discipline, to due process, to funding, to individualized education programs. And we all know that no one got everything they wanted from this reauthorization. But that is the nature of compromise. That is the nature of legislating in this body. It is my hope that we can find more opportunities to work in the bipartisan manner that Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg demonstrated in managing this bill.

Just to remind my colleagues, though I know they do not need reminding, because so many of them hear

the same concerns I do from their home States, we cannot overstate how important IDEA is to so many and how it touches the lives of our children every day. I would like to relate the comments of one of my constituents, Tracey Smith, of Springdale, AR.

Ms. Smith's son, Kyle, is an 8-year-old who has been the beneficiary of IDEA since 2000. Kyle's family moved from Texas to Arkansas during the middle of a school year, and Ms. Smith called me to talk about how IDEA has helped Kyle and to talk about some of her concerns with the pending reauthorization. She stressed how important yearly IEPs were for her son and how short-term goals were so vital to her son's long- term achievement. It is important that IEPs continue to be revisited on a yearly basis, and I am encouraged that we have managed to ensure this important aspect of special education will remain in the Senate legislation.

Furthermore, Ms. Smith was nervous that people in Washington, who do not experience on a day-to-day basis the trials parents and children have to face, would not understand how changes we make affect their daily lives. IDEA has provided much-needed flexibility for parents, and this legislation continues in that manner. As Ms. Smith told me:

As a parent I appreciate and value the freedom that IDEA

gives parents and educators to address an individual child's

needs.

And that is what this is about, individual children and individual parents. It is about addressing their educational needs and concerns, addressing their daily struggles in the hopes that we can make their lives a little more normal, even if it is only for 1 day. I admire parents like Tracey Smith, and I commend her for having the courage to remind us of the effect we have on persons we may not always know.

I know there will be many issues related to civil rights, discipline, due process, and highly qualified teachers to address in the conference with the House of Representatives. I hope they are resolved in the same bipartisan manner in which this bill was crafted in the Senate and with parents and children in mind. We have worked hard to ensure civil rights protections for children and parents, and I hope they are not diminished. We have worked hard to craft discipline provisions that protect all of our children while understanding disabled children have special needs, and I hope we can continue to ensure the safety of our schools. We have worked hard to include protections for due process, and I hope any differences are resolved to ensure parents know and understand their rights under the law without giving unfair advantage to any one party. We have worked hard to make sure our children have proper instruction, and I hope we continue to ensure proper instruction without discouraging individuals from entering the field of special education. Most of all, I hope we have a finished product that all parents, educators, and, most importantly, children can benefit from.

This is a bipartisan bill, and I am pleased with the progress we have made in the past couple of days in regards to funding, ensuring services to our military families and homeless and foster children, and reducing burdensome paperwork for our teachers. I am, however, disappointed that we failed to make full funding mandatory. Senators Harkin and Hagel have worked very hard to ensure the Federal Government lives up to the promises we made to our disabled children, parents, and schools almost 30 years ago. I was very pleased to join in that worthy cause, and I will continue to work with my friends on both sides of the aisle until we meet our commitments. As we in this body are all aware, funding is not always the answer, and it is never the only answer. But many times we see that inadequately funding the mandates we force on States and local districts are such a large piece of the puzzle. We cannot honestly say we are doing all we can to advance education for disabled children unless we meet those funding commitments. It doesn't do us any good to educate some and leave others behind. Instead of providing opportunity for many of our children, we are closing doors to them. Instead of educating and instructing future productive citizens, we are, in some cases, neglecting those who will become dependent on Government and those who will live a life of despair.

I believe fully funding IDEA is not just a commitment we have made, but also an investment in our children. By appropriating the necessary funds to fully fund IDEA, we can provide our teachers the tools and resources they need to do what they do best--educate all of our children to the extent that they not only participate in but contribute to society. It is an investment we should and we can afford to make. Several of my colleagues made the point that by making full funding mandatory, Congress would somehow lose the ability to revisit and change the adjustments we have made in this legislation. I disagree. I would ask my colleagues, when has Congress failed to address problematic aspects of any piece of legislation when it was so warranted? When has the Congress given up oversight of any area of responsibility? I would venture to guess that mandatory funding of IDEA would not prevent this body from revisiting IDEA if and when it becomes necessary.

We have made progress toward living up to our commitments in recent years. We should be proud of that progress. In fact, when IDEA was brought into existence in 1975, Congress funded less than 7 percent of the excess costs to schools for special education. In 2004, we funded close to 19 percent of excess costs. We have made progress, no one denies that, but as the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, so eloquently pointed out: We should not be concerned with what we have done. We should be concerned with what we will do now to reach our commitments. I commend this body for realizing we need to do more for special education. But if we continue to make piecemeal increases in IDEA, we will never reach full funding under current law. I hope in the coming months and years we can make progress toward fulfilling the 40 percent commitment. We can do better. We can do more. And I commend and thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their leadership and commitment to this issue.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. He has been such a dedicated champion for the needs of special education throughout the country for all these years. I wish his dedication was reflected fully in this legislation on which we are going to be voting shortly.

In an era when we are talking so much about accountability in education, the teachers, administrators, and local school boards throughout our country who are supposed to be accountable for results, for ``making acceptable progress'' and improving student test scores, we, too, in the Senate have a role and responsibility to aid and assist them in making that progress.

I regrettably believe this legislation falls seriously short of our responsibility to them and to the students they are helping and supporting and without our full involvement and aid are less likely to succeed.

In this important area of special education, we in the Senate, the Congress, and the Federal Government have very special responsibilities because it was Congress who established these rights for every American child to a quality public education a quarter century ago and mandated every school district with the responsibility to provide it.

I was not here when that legislation passed, but its language implied that schools would be reluctant, perhaps even resistant, to assume their responsibilities. That was over a quarter century ago.

I speak from my personal knowledge about Minnesota, and I assume it is true throughout our country, our public schools, our teachers, administrators, support personnel, and policymakers are the legislation's allies. In Minnesota, our educators are fully committed and deeply dedicated to providing the best possible special education to every student with special needs and in fact every student who comes through their doors. They are doing so, as I have personally witnessed in hundreds of special education classes throughout Minnesota, with amazing skills, heart-warming personal devotion and often extraordinary success. They are doing so increasingly in spite of, not because of, the Senate.

This legislation fails our responsibility to the students of this Nation with special needs, to their dedication and to their cause, which is our cause. Yesterday an amendment failed which would have fulfilled in 6 years a promise the U.S. Congress made over a quarter century ago when it passed the initial legislation to fund 40 percent of the costs of special education.

In the year 2001, when we had all of these surpluses we were told would exist throughout the decade, the Senate did pass such an amendment, but the House of Representatives and the administration refused to accept it and so it was not put into that law.

I have tried 5 times in the last 3 years, with amendments, to have us realize our long-broken promise in 1 year, in a succeeding fiscal year, and those amendments have failed.

I was shocked and appalled that this body rejected Senator Harkin's amendment to bring us up to that promised 40-percent level in 6 years. Today it is less than half of that promise. That cost Minnesota schools $250 million a year. That is money that is badly needed to fulfill their responsibilities to children with special needs and it is money then that often has to be taken out of regular school programs because they have a legal responsibility and liability to provide those special education services. So it means all of the students in Minnesota get shortchanged because this Senate will not keep its promise. The majority decided to provide an additional $39 billion over the next 10 years in tax advantages to companies for their foreign operations, tax preferences to expand their foreign businesses and take more jobs away from the United States and put them overseas. That was deemed worthy of $39 billion.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes to conclude my remarks.

Mr. President, at that same time, where there is $39 billion around somewhere for giant corporations and wealthy investors who do not need it, there is not a willingness to provide even in 6 years the promised 40-percent level for students with special needs. It is not that we do not have the money; we do not have the right priorities; we do not have the will. It is terribly unfair for us to be telling the school districts they have to run tests every year and include children with special needs and be measured and publicized and in some cases publicly embarrassed because they are not making acceptable progress toward goals that have been established when we do not provide the money to enable them to do it. Shame on us, not them. It is irresponsible and it is inexcusable. This money is badly needed in Minnesota, and I assume elsewhere in the country.

In terms of reform, the paperwork that burdens the reporting requirements is driving Minnesota teachers out of special education and out of the classroom entirely. Those who remain spend less than half of their time actually working with students because

they are so busy filling out the forms the Federal Government has imposed on them, as well as some by the State and the school districts for sure. I commend Senator Santorum for offering a pilot program for 15 States, but it is the job of the Senate to determine those reforms. I have heard for over 3 years the reason we are not providing money for special education is because we have to ``reform it first''. So now we are passing a bill that has minimal reforms and a pilot program and no additional money.

I think it is a terrible disservice to No Child Left Behind, which is being proven once again to be a nice phrase but with no real meaning or commitment behind it. I think we will regret that.

I yield the floor.