[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 30, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H3458-H3531]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMPROVING EDUCATION RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 2003
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 206 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 206
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1350) to reauthorize the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in
order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill. The
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the 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
purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules met yesterday afternoon and
granted a structured rule for H.R. 1350, Improving Education Results
for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003. This rule makes a total of
14 amendments in order, including 3 minority and 1 bipartisan
amendment. I am very proud of not only the Committee on Rules, but also
the Committee on Education and the Workforce for preserving the
greatest hallmarks for democracy while setting the stage for today's
votes on H.R. 1350. I believe inclusion, deliberation and full
participation was achieved in making sure that this important Act is
brought forward.
Mr. Speaker, since I want original enactment in 1975, the purpose of
IDEA has been to ensure free appropriate education is achieved
nationwide for disabled students. When IDEA was first enacted, this was
the goal. Today we are here to improve upon the things that we learned
since the last IDEA reauthorization in 1997.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, as through IDEA, the Federal Government is,
in fact, authorized to cover 40 percent of the costs that schools
nationwide spend to educate special needs students. However, the
Federal Government today picks up only about 18 percent of the total
cost of educating our special needs students and we must do better than
that.
The good news this year, Mr. Speaker, is that the budget agreement
reached by the House and the Senate this month includes an increase of
$2.2 billion for special education in 2004. This unprecedented funding
to increase for special education programs means that the Federal share
of the special education will be brought up to 21 percent this year.
The good work for the Committee on the Budget this year also
establishes a clear pattern to reach our State goal of funding fully 40
percent of the total cost of the special needs education within the
next 7 years.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that from fiscal year 1996
to fiscal year 2003, overall IDEA funding has increased by nearly 21
percent, from $3.2 billion to $10 billion annually. In fact, the 2003
funding level is more than a 15 percent increase over the 2002 funding
level. This is a positive trend and proves that we are serious about
attaining our goals and meeting our commitment to special education
needs. But there is so much more that this bill does, more than just
increasing funding. And I would like to provide some of the major
provisions of H.R. 13 where Members of Congress will be able to see
that this committee and the committee work that was done not only by
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) but also the subcommittee
chairman, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) really has made a
difference in the life and ongoing life of IDEA.
The underlying bill ensures that State will align their
accountability systems for students with disabilities to the No Child
Left Behind Act system and requires each child's Individual Education
Plan, known as an IEP, to specifically address that child's academic
achievement.
H.R. 1350 makes significant changes to the Department of Education's
activities on research of special education, establishes a center for
special education research within the Institute of Education Science
and authorizes the creation of a commissioner for special education
research to oversee the Institute's research into special education and
related services.
It incorporates elements of the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Keller)
Paperwork Reduction Bill, H.R. 464, including the 3-year individualized
education plan known as IEP; it creates a 10-State pilot program that
allows State to reduce the IEP paperwork burden on teachers in order to
increase instructional time and resources and improves results for
disabled students.
For these and so many other reasons, Mr. Speaker, I have ask that you
and each of my 434 other colleagues join me in supporting the dream of
the greatest realization of our beloved, compassionate and democratic
Nation. The realization that we have inherent worth and that here in
America we will provide opportunity, love and compassion for every
single one of our children.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, partisan battles are nothing new on the floor of this
House, but there are many matters where broad bipartisan agreement and
good will have traditionally been the rule. Education for disabled and
special needs children has been one of those issues notable for its
profound bipartisan consensus.
{time} 1030
Therefore, it is a sad day for this House as we consider the rule for
H.R. 1350, the IDEA reauthorization. This is not a bipartisan rule, and
this bill certainly does not reflect a broad bipartisan consensus. If
anything, H.R. 1350
[[Page H3459]]
represents consensus breaking, undermining many of the hard-won and
carefully constructed checks and balances of existing law.
Education for disabled and special-needs children is a sensitive
issue for all Americans. Some of our colleagues will be personally and
directly affected by what we do here today. I am disappointed that we
are considering this bill today because I believe we can do better and
we should have done more to build a broad consensus around this bill
among Members of this House and the constituencies most affected by
this law.
During consideration of this bill in the Committee on Rules last
night, I told every Member who testified before the committee that I
supported their right to offer their amendments on the floor today.
Unfortunately, the majority did not join me in that support. I am
disappointed the majority has denied the opportunity for many Members
to offer their amendments, but I am most disappointed that the majority
has stifled debate on mandatory funding by denying the Woolsey/Van
Hollen/McCollum amendment and the Bass/Simmons amendment, both of which
would have required mandatory funding for IDEA.
There is a pattern in this body of saying one thing and doing
another. The majority talks a good game about educating America's
children but balks at providing the necessary funding when the time
comes to back up their rhetoric with deeds. Today, we will hear about
increases for special education in the budget resolution. But when it
comes time to fully fund these programs, the majority denies debate on
the only two amendments that would genuinely make that a reality.
This bill reneges on our 28-year commitment to fully fund the Federal
share of special education part B grants to States, what is commonly
referred to as fully funding IDEA. It denies mandatory funding that
would ensure the Federal Government finally lives up to its legal
commitment to provide States with 40 percent of these costs.
Time and time again Congress has passed meaningless sense of Congress
resolutions supporting full funding for IDEA. But when it came to the
point to require that these funds be provided, this bill, once again,
turned its back on that promise. In fact, this bill actually sets caps,
authorizing ceilings on the amount of funding that Congress may provide
in any given year.
Even those groups representing teachers, principals, and school
administrations that do support many of the changes in H.R. 1350
categorically state that the bill must be amended to require mandatory
funding increases. Yet the majority on the Committee on Rules denied
both Republican and Democratic amendments on this issue. So there will
be no debate in the United States House of Representatives on the most
critical issue facing special education today: Will the Congress
finally put some money where its mouth has been for the past several
years?
H.R. 1350 also undermines due process and discipline protections for
children with disabilities, placing new restrictions on the ability of
parents to seek legal representation when a violation of the law has
occurred. It might even bring us back to the time when children with
disabilities could be removed from the classroom or, worse, refused a
public education simply because they had disabilities.
I have heard from so many parents of children with disabilities and
from school counselors and other professionals about how this bill
would adversely affect the lives and education of these children. Here
is what one mother in my district wrote about H.R. 1350, and I quote:
``Leah is my 7-year-old daughter. She has Downs Syndrome. Leah is
fully included in her class, learning to read and has many friends. Not
only has she benefited from being in this class, I truly believe the
children in Leah's school have benefited from knowing Leah and becoming
her friend. I want Leah to continue in this inclusive environment
because I feel this is the best way for her to develop independence and
appropriate social skills for the future. But H.R. 1350 does not
provide full funding for IDEA. H.R. 1350 would take away many
protections for parents' rights that are in IDEA, called procedural
safeguards. It is important for schools to give parents their rights so
parents can use them to make sure their children get a good education.
H.R. 1350 would prevent this. When you sign an important contract, you
get notice of your rights. H.R. 1350 would let schools give a short
description of rights to parents rather than fully explain these rights
to parents, like they now have to do. Why are the schools so afraid for
parents to know their rights?''
Another woman from my district, the mother of a 12-year-old boy with
autism, is also extremely disturbed by the changes contained in H.R.
1350. She writes: ``Under H.R. 1350, procedural rights would be greatly
reduced. As a parent dealing with large teams of school district staff,
these rights are critical to me in ensuring that my child's unique and
individual needs are considered. Both school staff and I work very hard
with my child to meet society's expectations. However, it is the nature
of his disability that sometimes he cannot obey student codes of
conduct. To subject my child to a segregated placement at the sole
discretion of school staff anytime a rule is violated would be
terrifying. Although some of the proposed changes in H.R. 1350 may
appear sensible on the surface, as a person who has dealt with special
education, I can easily see what their real-world impact would be, and
it would be disastrous.''
I am sure my colleagues have received scores of similar letters from
parents and grandparents of children who need special education, as
well as letters from school counselors, psychologists, and therapists
who work with and support these families. They are asking us and they
are pleading with us to reject H.R. 1350.
Surely we can find a way to give school administrators the
flexibility they say they need without undermining the rights of the
children and families they are charged to serve. Surely we can find a
way to fulfill our promises and provide mandatory funding. We should
send this bill back to committee and return with a genuine consensus on
the IDEA reauthorization, as has been the tradition of this body for
nearly 3 decades.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is opposed by nearly every major constituency
directly involved in the lives of children requiring special education:
parents, families, school counselors, psychologists and developmental
specialists, disabilities advocates, and organizations involved in the
professional development of teachers.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a list of organizations opposed
to this bill:
The Council for Exceptional Children
The National Mental Health Association
The Higher Education Consortium for Special Education
The National Center for Learning Disabilities
The American Academy of Pediatrics
The School Social Work Association of America
The National Down Syndrome Society
Easter Seals
American Society for Deaf Children
National Coalition of Parent Centers
Epilepsy Foundation
Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs
National Alliance of Pupil Services Organizations
American Council of the Blind
National Parent Teacher Association
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of School Nurses
American School Counselor Association
American Psychological Association
National Association for College Admission Counseling
National Association of Social Workers
The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and to oppose
the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and with great respect to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I would
tell him that I too have received a good number of letters which
involve feedback from parents who are concerned about changes in the
law; they are concerned about what any IDEA reauthorization would look
like.
As a parent of a son, a person who has Downs Syndrome and is affected
with the afflictions that come with that syndrome, I can tell my
colleagues that I too am concerned about
[[Page H3460]]
these things and approached this entire effort with an open mind,
instead of saying I do not want any changes. I said, what are the
things that we have learned from time; what are the things that we
think we can do to get closer to not only better inclusion but to have
better results from our children who fall within the IDEA guidelines?
Mr. Speaker, my son, who is 9 years old, and who is in first grade,
is making progress. And I see where these things occur. But this
committee and this subcommittee, under the leadership of the chairman,
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. Castle), have done things to go in and instead of keeping the
status quo, they have gone in and made things dynamic. We are going to
be more inclusive, we are going to provide more money, we are going to
do those things that will enhance the relationship that a parent has in
an IEP, which are these individual times processes that one goes
through where they sit down and look at their child and try to map out
and plan out a way for them to fully meet their needs and also those
educational opportunities that are ahead of them.
After looking at the entire package, not just a piece or a part, I am
satisfied; and I believe that what has occurred here is a better bill.
Is it perfect? Probably not. But under the current law, there are still
parents and still students that suffer needlessly as a result of either
people not understanding the law or people not complying completely.
That will always be a part of the process. But the advantages of this
new bill come about as a result of the intuitive nature of this
committee and subcommittee, who wanted to enhance and learn from the
past and make it better.
So as a parent of a child who is affected by what this legislation
will do, and as an advocate on behalf of this community, I am asking
those people who have written in, those people who have called, and I
have talked to a good number of them, to allow us an opportunity to
speak fully about the entire bill, to put it into context; and I
believe that by the end of today, as the smoke has cleared, as we have
talked about it, the advantages will be very apparent for not only the
parents but also the students that are impacted.
It is ultimately the parents who are put out on the front line in
trying to negotiate. Parents are scared and they are worried about
this; but if we walk through the things that this bill will do,
including providing more funding and more flexibility, they will see
where the advantages will be true for each one of them and their
children. So I would politely address the concerns that the gentleman
from Massachusetts has, because it is a real question that does exist
in real parents' minds; and I respect the gentleman for his discussion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Wilmington, Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Education Reform.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me this time, and I have a tremendous amount of empathy for
his personal situation and have spent a great deal of time discussing
that and his interest in this bill, as well as the gentleman from
Massachusetts, who exhibited, I felt, at the hearing before the
Committee on Rules, an understanding of the legislation as well.
I think it is very important that we begin this debate by
understanding several background areas. One is that this is legislation
which was created in 1975 with the help of a number of people who are
still here today. One of those Members is the ranking member on the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, and others who put language
into this legislation, which I think has held up extraordinarily well
over the past 30 or so years. I believe that the services that we
provide to our children who have disabilities are tremendous, light
years ahead of where we were just 30 years ago.
I believe that Republicans and Democrats alike have worked together
every 5 or 6 years in the reauthorization process, and I know it was
very difficult 5 or 6 years ago when I went through it in order to put
together legislation which will be helpful in improving what we are
doing in helping children with disabilities. But I believe that the
legislation before us is another step in that direction.
Now, obviously, if this passes today, with some of the amendments
which are before us, it will go into a conference with the Senate and
may come out somewhat differently. But I would suggest that before the
process is done, this may become both bipartisan and perhaps even some
improvements in it from where it is at this point today, although I
think it is a significant and good piece of legislation today.
I do rise in support of H. Res. 206, which provides for the
consideration of H.R. 1350, which is the Improving Results for Children
With Disabilities Act of 2003. I offer my thanks to the chairman of the
committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for his latitude in
making sure that this legislation was worked out. We are very
appreciative of that. I also want to thank the chairman of the
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and
members of the Committee on Rules, particularly the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sessions), for drafting what I find to be a fair and
balanced rule.
I think we need to know the background of that too. For almost 2
years, we have been working to create a balanced piece of legislation
to ensure that students with disabilities receive a quality education.
In doing so, we have been committed to working with Democrats and
parents and educators, and I think that rule today reflects that
commitment. This has been an ongoing process, Mr. Speaker, which is
exhibited in this rule.
There are a number of amendments that are the result of dialogue we
have had with the minority. There are a number of other amendments that
did not have to be introduced because we adopted them as part of the
legislation. We have a manager's amendment with some technical aspects,
which I am sponsoring.
But over the past 18 months, our committee, the House Committee on
Education and the Workforce, has held seven different hearings on
issues directly relating to the reauthorization of the Individuals With
Disabilities on Education Act. And though that is probably not
unparalleled, it is a little unusual to have that extensive number of
hearings on any legislation in the House of Representatives.
{time} 1045
On June 6, 2002, I helped launch a Web-based project called Great
IDEAs, designed to solicit input from stakeholders in special education
across the Nation. Since that time we have had more than 3,000
responses from teachers, school administrators, parents of children
with special needs, and others familiar with the unique needs of
children with disabilities and incorporated many of these suggestions
into H.R. 1350. So the point on that is there has been a great deal of
effort put into the preparation of this legislation and the preparation
of the rule which we have before us today.
Turning to the bill, I believe that this bill employs commonsense
reforms to reduce the excessive amount of paperwork requirements, and
that is the common complaint that we hear from everybody. It improves
IDEA to provide greater parent involvement, seeks to reduce litigation,
authorizes dramatic funding increases, and improves early intervention
strategies.
The excessive amount of paperwork requirement simply, frankly,
overwhelms teachers and robs them of valuable time to educate their
students. Teachers must have the ability to spend more time in the
classroom rather than spending endless hours filling out unnecessary
forms. Additionally, these provisions will allow school districts to
retain and recruit highly qualified special education teachers.
Throughout the bill we have made improvements to IDEA to provide
greater flexibility to parents and greater input in developing the
Individualized Education Program, which is known by the acronym IEP,
for their child.
The bill gives parents discretion over who attends IEP team meetings,
how they are conducted, or whether to have one at all. We have improved
the parent training and information centers and the community-parent
resource centers to serve as valuable tools for parents trying to work
with schools to get a quality education for their child.
[[Page H3461]]
This bill seeks to reduce litigation and restore trust between
parents and school districts by encouraging the use of alternative
means or what we know as dispute resolution. All too often
miscommunication damages this relationship and results in proliferation
of litigation. Not only is this course of action costly, but it breeds
an attitude of distrust.
H.R. 1350 authorizes dramatic increases in funding for special
education, creates a clear path to attain full funding of the Federal
Government's 40 percent goal within 7 years. Let me go through that
carefully. We are going to hear that a lot in the course of the next 4
or 5 hours on the floor. Essentially, after IDEA was created, in the
original language it said that the Federal Government will fund up to
40 percent of the cost of the education of these children beyond the
normal cost of education. The Federal Government for whatever reasons
did not live up to that.
Up until about 7 years ago, the Federal Government was funding 5 or 6
percent of that cost. In the last 7 years, and I am proud that
Republicans have been involved with this, although Democrats have been
supportive as well, but over the last 7 years, we have increased that
dramatically so that instead of funding 5 percent, we are now funding
18 percent.
In this year's budget resolution, that funding number will take us up
to 21 percent. The President of the United States has indicated his
complete willingness to fund this in rapid increases to get us to that
40 percent in a 7-year glide path. This Congress, in the form of the
Committee on Appropriations, has indicated doing it the same way. This
is all under the discretionary spending which we have with constant
review; and believe me, we need constant review of IDEA which is
happening as a result of the fact that it is under discretionary
spending. I do not believe when we go to mandatory spending we get
those reviews.
I believe that particular commitment to getting there in 7 years is
going to work. The mandatory spending side of it, the amendments that
we are seeing, although they are not in this particular legislation,
have a 6-year path to get us to that 40 percent funding. The real
differences are rather minimal in terms of when we would get there, and
the commitment to do it. Some Members say we need to do it in a
mandatory way or it is not going to happen.
I do not agree with that. I have watched it happen year after year in
most of the years that I have been in the Congress of the United
States, and it is happening extremely well. I am proud of our record of
dramatically increasing this funding for IDEA over the past 7 years and
remain committed to building on that impressive record as far as the
future is concerned. I am convinced that we are doing the right thing.
We will hear a lot about it in a political sense today, but the bottom
line is the commitment is there and that is happening.
The bill also improves early intervention strategies. Currently too
many children with reading problems are being identified as learning
disabled and placed in special education classes they do not
necessarily belong in. We have given local school districts the
flexibility to use up to 15 percent of their funds for prereferral
services for students before they are identified as needing special
education. I think that is a very important provision because of some
of the overidentification that goes on, particularly in the African
American community.
We also attempt to address that question of a disproportionate number
of minority students wrongly placed in special education. We encourage
school districts to provide positive behavioral interventions and
support intensive educational interventions to prevent this
overidentification and misidentification.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot in this legislation. It is very
difficult, frankly, to take a significant piece of legislation and be
able to comprehend it unless one has lived it for a long time. I will
tell Members there are many people who have come to my office and left
pictures of their children behind, which I have on my desk in both
Wilmington and here in Washington, D.C. There are many Members of
Congress who are involved very personally with children with
disabilities and are very concerned with what is in this legislation.
Many steps have been taken in order to improve the legislation. We
have tried to keep an open mind about amendments and suggestions and
will do so through conference in order to help those children who truly
need help in our schools. We are proud of our record and the
legislation. I believe the Committee on Rules has done an outstanding
job of sorting through amendments and preparing for today, and I would
encourage everybody to support this rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, to respond to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), I
wanted to make clear that those of us who have concerns about this bill
do not want to maintain the status quo. We think this bill could be
made much better. Our concerns are shared by a number of people who are
directly impacted by this legislation, a number of constituency groups,
parents, families, school counselors, psychologists, development
specialists, disability advocates and other organizations. This is just
a sampling of some of the correspondence I have received in the last 24
hours. People have very, very deep and legitimate concerns about this
bill; and I think we should have tried to get a broader consensus
before we brought this bill to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Woolsey), a member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule
because it will not allow Members of this Congress to vote on an
amendment and to debate an amendment that would fully fund IDEA and
make the funding mandatory. We all know how the funding process works
around here. Authorization levels may be fine, budget numbers may help,
but what really counts is appropriations. There are many, many
competing demands on appropriations, so we should remove that
competition when the Federal Government has made a commitment to fund
an education program at any level because our schools need to be able
to count on those funds. We have told them they are coming. They need
to be able to count on them.
To that end, Mr. Speaker, two amendments were submitted to the
Committee on Rules, one by three Democrats and the other by three
Republicans. Those amendments would have phased in full funding for the
part B State grants in IDEA and at the same time made all new funding
mandatory. Neither of these amendments were accepted; neither will be
considered today. Without the opportunity to debate and vote on one or
the other of these amendments, a vote for H.R. 1350 is a vote against
fully funding special education programs, which in turn leaves our
schools and our parents competing for scarce funds for needed programs
that are needed equally for our special ed kids and for the rest of
kids that need to be educated.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote down this rule and in so doing
demand the opportunity to vote on an IDEA reauthorization bill that
includes mandatory full funding.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) were at the Committee on Rules
last night and spoke eloquently about their desire to ensure the
funding levels. There are several issues there, but one of the most
important ones was requiring that additional increases in funding above
fiscal year 2003 levels be passed down directly to the local level.
There was a very important discussion in the Committee on Rules about
Governors and the responsibility they would have as they managed their
State budgets. I would like to make sure that the Members of Congress
understand this will be part of the debate that takes place today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us in
supporting this rule so we may move to debate on the underlying
legislation, the Improving Education Results for Children With
Disabilities Act of 2003.
This is a structured rule that makes in order a total of 14
amendments to
[[Page H3462]]
H.R. 1350. These amendments allow the House to work its will on a
variety of important issues and topics. It is a fair rule, and I hope
it is overwhelmingly approved.
With respect to H.R. 1350, I want to commend the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education
Reform, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, for all of the time and
effort they have invested in bringing this important, well-crafted
legislation to the House floor.
Although IDEA has helped many children with special needs since it
was enacted in 1975, some problems remain. The largest problem with
IDEA is its focus on requiring compliance with complex rules, rather
than producing the academic results that children with disabilities
need. Streamlining and significant reforms are needed.
H.R. 1350 represents a step in the right direction. Not only does it
strengthen accountability and results for students, it also gives
States the freedom to reduce paperwork that is often duplicative and
unnecessary. Doing this will allow teachers to focus less on complex
forms and more on spending time in the classroom teaching students with
needs.
Other reforms include greater flexibility for local school districts
to improve early intervention strategies and thereby helping to lower
the number of children who are improperly placed in special ed classes,
and more innovative approaches to parental involvement and choice.
When the IDEA law was originally enacted in the mid-1970s, the
Federal Government promised to fund 40 percent of its costs. Although
the Federal Government has made dramatic improvements in the last 8
years by appropriating significantly higher funding, we are still
falling short of the goal. However, to the credit of the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the full committee chairman, this bill puts
the Federal Government on a glide path towards providing its full 40
percent share of IDEA costs within 7 years.
To those who would vote against a rule because it does not do what
they did not do for the 22 years they controlled this House and the
Senate and the White House is pure politics. It has nothing to do with
children; it has nothing to do with special needs. When I came here 10
years ago, IDEA was funded to the tune of 5 percent. It is now 18, soon
to be 23, and on a glide path to 40 percent; and that is real
significant progress. Opposition to this bill because it does not do
what was failed to have been done for 25 years is sheer politics.
I have always supported the right of children to a quality public
education, and that remains a bedrock principle of mine. Unfortunately,
in many local schools, special ed cannot be given the kind of
treatment, attention, and care that it ought to receive. When this
happens, families with special education children suffer.
H.R. 1350 will move us toward our goal of working to give families
with special education children the choices and the support they
deserve. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this rule so we may
proceed to debate the underlying legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder) what we would like to see happen is all of us, including those
on the majority side, keep their word to the American people, that we
provide full funding for IDEA.
There have been over 22 various resolutions and bills which have been
voted on in this Chamber and the other body endorsing the idea of fully
funding IDEA. We want them to keep their word. Let us put our
appropriations where our rhetoric is.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the
chairman of our subcommittee, for the gentleman's recognition and
leading the committee toward an understanding of the disproportionately
high number of African American males being placed in special
education.
I raised the issue in subcommittee in the form of an amendment, and
the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), to his credit, led us through
a discussion of that which led to what I am sure is a real adjustment
and a way to handle that issue by dealing with this disproportionately
high number of individuals in a special group.
{time} 1100
With that having been said, since we did not get to the point,
though, of dealing with full funding for the legislation and without
the resources needed, I am afraid that we cannot take care of the
problems. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the rule. I think we
have had an opportunity and could have had an excellent piece of
legislation, but I am afraid that it falls short because it short-
changes those in our society who need the help the most, children with
disabilities.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire upon the time
remaining for both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) has 8 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern) has 18 minutes remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to let the gentleman know
that I would be pleased to have them consume several speakers so that
we can get more closely aligned on the time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a valued member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me
this time.
I think it is extremely unfortunate that the Republican majority on
the Committee on Rules has voted to deny this full body, all 435
Members of this Congress, the opportunity today to vote up or down on
meeting the education commitments we have made to America's children.
We many years ago said that the Federal Government was going to pay for
40 percent of the costs for special education; and as we sit here on
this floor today, we are only at 18 percent. I know that in campaigns
throughout this country when we all go before school boards,
Republicans and Democrats, when we talk to parents groups, we have all
said how important it is to keep our promise and make that 40 percent
commitment. I am very pleased and I want to thank the chairman of the
full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee for giving us the
opportunity to debate that very issue and vote on it in committee. I
was disappointed that it failed on party lines, and I think it is
important that this full House have an opportunity to debate that. This
is the reauthorization bill. This is the one time for the next 5 years
we are going to be taking up this issue. This is the time to do it.
For those who say it is not important, we should leave it to the
appropriations process, I would say to those listening it is the
difference between giving a guarantee today and rolling the dice every
year with the Committee on Appropriations, and we know from history
that we have been unable to meet that commitment rolling the dice every
year. Now is the time to make the guarantee. Just a little over a year
ago, the President signed the No Child Left Behind bill and promised a
great deal of more resources to our States and our school boards in
exchange for numerous responsibilities that we put upon them; and yet
just a little over a year later, we are already failing to make our
commitment on No Child Left Behind. This year we are $9 billion short.
We need to meet our commitments we made on special ed more than 20
years ago. We need to meet our commitments we made in No Child Left
Behind. We should not be pitting these groups against each other. There
should not be competition in funds between special education and all
other education. Let us vote today to provide our schools and our
children the resources we have promised. Give this House an opportunity
to do it. Why are we afraid to let 435 Members vote on that issue?
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), another valued
[[Page H3463]]
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the work he has
put in in dealing with this rule as well as with the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce and a member of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth
and Families in charge of the reauthorization of this bill. And while I
will be supporting legislation at the end of the day, assuming the
voucher amendments that will be offered today are not in fact adopted,
I have to rise and express my opposition to the rule.
I do appreciate most sincerely the effort that the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the subcommittee chairman, has put in with the
outreach that he has provided to the members of the committee and also
throughout the rest of the Nation in regards to the input on this
important legislation; but this is really the most important education
bill that is going to be appearing before this 108th session of
Congress over the next couple of years, and all Members should have an
opportunity to offer amendments and to express their concerns and to
offer some improvements to the legislation that we have been working on
for some time, not least of which the granddaddy of all the unfunded
Federal mandates that is affecting our school district, which is full
funding of special education.
I cannot comment on the remarks of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder) in regards to what happened in previous Congresses and why they
did not fully fund it, but I do recognize a promise, and a promise that
is not being kept, when I see it. We should have the opportunity today
to offer an amendment requiring mandatory full funding of special
education so we can get away from pitting student against student in
our classrooms.
This is an important piece of legislation. Children with special
needs should have access to quality of education like any other child
throughout the country, but this is an unfunded mandate because we have
never lived up to the 40 percent cost share that was promised in the
mid-1970s when it was first passed. We are on an encouraging trend
line, though, to try to increase funding to that level, but excuse some
of us on this side of the aisle if we are somewhat cynical or doubtful
that this Congress or the administration is truly committed to
achieving full funding in the 7 years that they claim they will achieve
it under this legislation. It is just a little over a year since No
Child Left Behind was passed; and yet, as my colleague before me just
recognized, we are $9 billion short in funding that program.
This should be an open rule. We should not be closing the debate
process. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on it and bring back
an open rule to have a discussion on this important topic.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule
and the bill.
In general, IDEA is a good program which works well. As a society, we
have decided that all children have a right to a quality education. In
1954 our country made it clear that ``all children'' included racial
minorities, and under IDEA we made it clear that ``all children''
included those with disabilities. The dream that all children are
entitled to a quality education is an expensive dream to achieve, but
we have decided that we mean to achieve that goal.
Many years ago, Congress promised to contribute 40 percent of the
cost of achieving that goal, and this bill provides only a modest
increase in authorization; but if No Child Left Behind is a guide, the
appropriations will not follow. If we mandated the appropriations in
the bill, we could be sure that the money would follow the
authorization, but that mandate is not in the bill. We should remember,
Mr. Speaker, that the Federal legislation to protect the educational
rights of children with disabilities would not be necessary if school
districts did a better job in carrying out their responsibilities.
Prior to the Federal mandate of Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, millions of children with disabilities receive no
education at all. But this bill makes it more difficult for our
children with disabilities to get the free and appropriate education to
which they are entitled because many of the discipline provisions in
the bill are inconsistent with that goal. Rather than making sure that
children with disabilities are provided with good teachers who have
appropriate training and professional development, the bill allows
school districts to shuttle kids off to so-called interim alternative
educational settings that will not provide a free and appropriate
public education. In so doing, this bill makes it easier for local
school systems to illegally place children with disabilities in
inappropriate settings while at the same time reducing the parents'
ability to challenge those placements. And so, Mr. Speaker, in the bill
the removal of the current discipline protections will result in
students with disabilities being expelled or removed for actions they
cannot control.
Mr. Speaker, the revised discipline provisions in the bill were added
to give school districts an opportunity to avoid providing the most
challenging students with disabilities free and appropriate education;
yet we should remember that even with the current protections, students
with disabilities are already overrepresented among students who are
expelled from schools. The elimination of the current discipline
safeguards will remove the only legal safeguards that currently exist
for these students with disabilities.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons as well as others I ask my colleagues
to oppose the rule and oppose final passage of H.R. 1350.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, wherever I have gone in my
district meeting with my school superintendents and parents, teachers,
and just proponents of good education for all of our children, one of
the strongest issues has been the full funding of the authorization for
children with disabilities. Full funding, full funding is the cry all
over America. I would have hoped today that we could have moved forward
with the concept of full funding, and I am gratified that this
legislation has finally come to the floor; but clearly we are missing
the boat if we believe that we are going to be able to reach again to
America's commitment to equal education for every children if we do not
provide full funding for children with disabilities.
And then, Mr. Speaker, I think it is clearly important that we again
reassess these new provisions dealing with penalties for misbehavior in
this legislation. Why are we penalizing the children who need the most
help? Why are we penalizing the children who need the most incentive?
Why are we penalizing the teachers who need the most help? We can find
a much better guide, if the Members will, and provide the guiding mark
for helping these children without providing them with extra burdens or
penalties for misbehavior so they wind up being the children who are
expelled and out of the system in the first place.
Have my colleagues ever spoken to a parent of a disabled child? Their
greatest plea is to give their child that opportunity. And here we come
with a bill that, one, does not have full funding; and, two, creates
these extraordinary burdens on the school system, the teachers, and the
parents.
I would also say that I think it is extremely important to support
the McKeon-Woolsey amendment that clearly dictates to our school
districts, and I know they are struggling with the funding resources
that they have, to direct all funds beyond the administrative costs
directly to the services so that all the moneys that we do have funded
out of this legislation will directly go to serving our children.
I would like us to come forward as we have attempted to do in a
bipartisan manner. I certainly appreciate the work of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, but we are falling short of America's
children and America's promise of the educational opportunity for all
children. If we do not provide full funding, we do not direct
[[Page H3464]]
all moneys to the services and we get rid of these burdensome
provisions, that will only send more special ed children into the
streets away from equal opportunity of education for all of our
children.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, before I was selected to the Committee
on Appropriations, I was subcommittee chairman of the Committee on
Education. I went through the IDEA bill and the reauthorization. Taking
the parent groups and the schools and putting them in the same room is
like putting a Persian cat and a Siamese cat together. It was very
difficult. We actually basically put them in a room, gave them no bread
or water, and told them to come out with a solution. The solution they
came out with was pretty reasonable, and there was balance except that
when the final bill came out, for example, the trial lawyers changed
the intent, we said the first time a parent goes to the school we do
not want a trial lawyer there because it will raise the funding and it
will cost schools. And they said let the schools provide a lawyer. The
schools do not need a lawyer. But they do, and what happened is they
got around it when we established that rule that a parent would go to
school, the trial lawyers would still be paid, and it would cost the
additional money.
I think the Democrats have really got their gall. For 20 years IDEA
was supposed to be funded at 40 percent. The most it was ever funded
was 5 percent of that 40 percent. When the Democrats had the White
House, the House, and the Senate, they gave us the highest tax increase
in history. They increased spending with a deficit at $330 billion
forever; but, no, they did not increase the spending on IDEA. It stayed
at 5 percent. Since we have taken the majority, we have put it up to 18
percent, over a 262 percent increase; and it is on a climb, and it will
go on to climb. But they want to put this program on a mandatory level,
on autopilot. None of these changes would be possible. People will
retire on active duty just like the other mandatory spending programs.
The Democrats talk about fiscal responsibility. Let us put veterans,
let us put IDEA, let us put Impact Aid, let us put all those other
things on mandatory spending. The budget in this place will go out of
sight and the deficit and the debt will also go up. The real problem is
Gray Davis, the Governor of California. He is cutting the money at the
State level and running the whole IDEA engine on Federal money. He is
cutting IDEA.
{time} 1115
He is cutting Impact Aid. He is cutting Title I. So if you want to
improve IDEA stop him from stealing the money, I do not want to add new
money and have Governor Davis steal it. I do not want to add new money
though and have it go to the trial lawyers with these cottage
organizations. But the Democrats will not do that, because that is
where they get their campaign money.
We need to change the system. Alan Bersin was Bill Clinton's Border
Czar and is now the superintendent of the San Diego city schools. He
has testified that IDEA is his biggest problem in schools. He wants to
improve IDEA. IDEA has helped children with disabilities before they
were left out. They were left behind. We are trying to improve the
bill. But to make it mandatory after what the Democrats have done
nothing for all of these years is hypocrisy and political demagoguery.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman from California who
just spoke that the government made a commitment to provide States with
40 percent of the costs for special education. We have broken that
promise time and time again. We are breaking that promise again today.
If the gentleman does not want to provide 40 percent of the costs to
States, he can vote against one of the amendments that was offered in
the Committee on Rules last night that was denied here on the floor
today that would provide mandatory funding.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in objection to the rule.
Mr. Speaker, the Individuals with Disabilities Act, also known as
IDEA, has made progressive strides for children with disabilities since
it was first introduced in 1975. H.R. 1350, which reauthorizes this
landmark legislation, is before the House today. This bill has some
very positive attributes and, I think, perhaps some very negative
points.
First, this bill provides for a 1-year statute of limitations on
complaints for due process hearing. I think this is very helpful for
school districts who are serving many of these students. The 1-year
statute will prevent complaints from previous school years from
reoccurring.
But at the same time, this bill weakens protections for parents and
students that are provided by the current law. The bill gives the
option for a school district to develop an individual education plan
for the child every 3 years. The current law provides for the IEPs to
be done every year. Three years is too long, I think, to track a
student's progress. This bill needs to maintain the continued IEP for
every school year.
Additionally, the bill allows students to be moved indefinitely to an
alternative placement for any violation of a school's code of conduct.
Current law allows a 45-day alternative placement unless it is for
weapons, guns or drugs. Removing the child indefinitely may not be
warranted by the facts of the particular situation of the child. The
child should be entitled to a manifestation review to see if the
disability has caused that conduct, but this bill eliminates the
manifestation review that is in the current law. We should not
permanently remove a child from school if the conduct was a result of
his or her disability.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to uphold the imposition of the
rule so debate can continue on this bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Texas for
yielding me time and for his great work working with myself and the
members of our committee and others to help craft the bill that we have
before us today.
Let me also thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and
the Committee on Rules for their consideration of what I think is a
very fair rule for Members on both sides of the political aisle. There
is great opportunity for Members to offer amendments.
Let me also thank my good friend, the chairman of our Subcommittee on
Education Reform, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for the
tremendous work that he did, and the members of our committee and our
staff, by the way, for all of their hard work in getting us here today.
I will have a lot more to say about the bill when we actually get
into the bill, but we are on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of conversation this morning about
the issue of mandatory spending versus full funding. I just want to say
that the amendments that were offered that were not made in order with
regard to mandatory spending were not made in order because they
violated the rules of the House. You cannot bring a mandatory funding
amendment here without getting a waiver of the Budget Act. The fact is
that neither of these amendments were crafted in such a way that they
did not violate the rules of the House. That is why they were not made
in order.
Let me also say that mandatory funding for this program is the wrong
way to fund the program. We would not be here today making the
improvements in this bill to help children with special needs and to
help our teachers, principals, school board members and superintendents
if it had not been for the fact that we have this bill on a 5-year
reauthorization track. It forces the Congress to step back and look at
this Act and to determine, is it working the way we intended it? Are
there better ways to achieve our objective?
[[Page H3465]]
I would suggest to all of my colleagues that if it had been under
mandatory spending, we know what happens with those programs; they get
put on automatic pilot and are very seldom looked at. That is not in
the best interests of special needs children, and it is not in the best
interests of our schools.
Let me also say what my colleague from California pointed to. The
first 20 years of this Act Congress never really stepped up to the
plate. Our friends on the other side of the aisle were in charge. Even
in 1993 and 1994, when they had control of the House and Senate and the
White House, there was no move made to make this a mandatory funding
program. So why do we hear about it now?
I would just suggest to my colleagues we do two things here in this
town; we do public policy and we do politics. We would like to get the
politics out of it, but it is kind of hard to take politics out of
politics. But when we hear all of the discussion about mandatory
funding, trust me, it is nothing more than politics.
Since 1996, all you have to do is look at the chart next to me and
see the dramatic increases in funding. 1997, a 33.7 percent increase in
IDEA spending. In 1998, a 22.3 percent increase in spending; then we
raised it another 13.2 percent in 1999; how about the year 2000, 16
percent more on top of that; the year 2001, a 27.1 percent increase; or
how about 2002, an 18.8 percent increase; or how about this year, 2003,
a 17.8 percent increase.
All of these are built on top of the previous increases. And in the
budget resolution that we adopted just several weeks ago we called for
a 24.8 percent increase in IDEA spending.
For someone to suggest that we are not doing our job, we are not
trying to meet our responsibilities, I think, misses the point
entirely. In this bill that is before us, we have a glidepath to get
from the 20 percent of funding, in round figures, 21 percent at the end
of this year, to 40 percent. I think that is a reasonable approach, it
is the right way to go, and none of us, none of us, should hang our
heads when it comes to the question of whether we are meeting our
obligations to fully fund IDEA.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to close for our side.
Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of schools welcome children with
disabilities as an integral part of their student body. They work with
parents, teachers, medical professions and support personnel to provide
these students with ``free appropriate public education.''
Unfortunately, there are still children with disabilities who are
denied the education they need, the education that they deserve, and
the education that they are entitled to by law.
H.R. 1350 does nothing. It does nothing to guarantee that the Federal
Government will keep its commitment to fund 40 percent of the Part B
grants to States.
It is astonishing that the new argument why we are being denied the
right to vote up or down on the issue of mandatory funding is these
amendments would require a budget waiver. The majority provides budget
waivers and every other kind of waiver for all of their amendments all
the time. So the real reason why we are not having these amendments on
the floor is because the majority does not want us to vote on an
amendment that would require the Federal Government to keep its word to
the American people.
This bill also does not address the shortage of qualified special
education teachers in a meaningful way. Currently unqualified and
under-qualified special education teachers are teaching more than
600,000 children with disabilities. By significantly weakening both the
discipline protections and due process rights in current law, H.R. 1350
makes it more likely that students with disabilities will be turned
away from their neighborhood schools and segregated in alternative
education settings until they eventually just drop out of school.
If H.R. 1350 becomes law, children with disabilities will not just be
left behind, they will be left far behind.
Mr. Speaker, although this rule allows debate on several amendments,
it denies the House the opportunity to debate the question of mandatory
funding, the most fundamental question affecting special education
programs. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule
and to vote no on H.R. 1350.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank several people who have been a
part of our success today, not just the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman
Boehner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle), but also
from the Committee on Education and Workforce, David Cleary and Sally
Lovejoy; from the staff of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle),
Sarah Rittling; from the Committee on Rules, Adam Jarvis and Eileen
Harley; and from my staff, Bobby Hillert and Tucker Anderson.
Mr. Speaker, this is about a decision that this House is going to
make to debate today, IDEA. That is what the vote on the rule is about,
are we going to proceed with regular order?
I am in favor of what we are doing. I believe that the clay that we
have put in front of us today will be a better model. We will rebuild
IDEA and we will make it better than what it is today.
As the parent of a child who will fall under IDEA, I can tell you
obviously there are risks involved any time you get into a new
circumstance. I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the
opportunity that this great body has to make IDEA better for every
single student, for the teachers and the administrators who will work
underneath these new processes and the students who come into contact
with our children, will find that this will be a better way. We have
learned from the last 7 years. We will learn on a going-forward basis.
It is the right thing to do.
Mr. Speaker, I ask every single one of my colleagues, please support
the rule. Let us debate IDEA, and let us get it passed today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 211,
nays 195, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 149]
YEAS--211
Aderholt
Akin
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
[[Page H3466]]
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--195
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Bass
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--28
Bachus
Becerra
Boehlert
Burr
Burton (IN)
Capuano
Cardin
Collins
Combest
Conyers
Cubin
Davis (AL)
DeMint
Dreier
Gephardt
Honda
Hyde
King (NY)
Kirk
Lewis (GA)
McCarthy (MO)
Oberstar
Owens
Pomeroy
Slaughter
Snyder
Tauzin
Whitfield
Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson)(during the vote). The Chair
announces that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1152
Ms. VELAZQUEZ and Messrs. EDWARDS, DAVIS of Tennessee, and GUTIERREZ
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. Goss changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I was inevitably detained at the White
House and was not able to be present on rollcall vote 149, providing
for consideration of H.R. 1350; to reauthorize the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall vote 149.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday April 30th I missed rollcall
vote 149 due to attending an awards ceremony for the National Teacher
of the Year at the White House. If I had been present I would have
voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 149.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). Pursuant to House Resolution 206
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 1350.
The Chair designates the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) as
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from
Idaho (Mr. Simpson) to assume the chair temporarily.
{time} 1153
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1350) to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, and for other purposes, with Mr. Simpson (Chairman pro tempore) in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is
considered as having been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we have a chance today to consider
the Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act,
H.R. 1350, legislation that will strengthen our Nation's education law
for children with special needs.
I am very grateful for the work of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle) on this important legislation, and for all of the hard work all
of our committee members have put into this project over the last 18
months.
I also want to thank the ranking member and my friend, the gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller), for his work during this process.
While we are not in complete agreement with the bill that we have
before us today, his efforts have been extraordinary and very helpful.
The issues addressed in this bill are important ones for our
constituents. I hear more comments from Members about IDEA than I do
about any other Federal education program. Today is a chance to do
something that will make a real difference in our schools.
The bill that we have before us today is an important bill for our
children and our schools. It is the next major step in education reform
and the next step in the process of ensuring that Washington no longer
spends billions of dollars a year on education programs without
insisting on results for our children.
This bill is important as an opportunity for us as legislators. The
reforms in H.R. 1350 are strongly supported by teachers, school
administrators, principals, and other educators, those who have been
asked to do the most under the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act.
This bill gives teachers and school leaders better tools to meet the
high standards in No Child Left Behind, and they support it.
When Republicans and Democrats came together some 16 months ago to
pass No Child Left Behind, we vowed to bring a generation of failed
Federal education policy to an end. We acknowledged that money alone
has failed to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students
and their peers. We declared that Washington would no longer pump
billions of dollars a year into education without insisting on results
for the children those dollars are supposed to serve.
No Child Left Behind was the beginning of this process, not the end
of it. The No Child Left Behind law requires that every child in
America be given the chance to learn and succeed, including children
with special needs. When we passed the law, we promised we would follow
up by giving teachers and educators the tools they need to meet these
high standards.
We promised that we would revise laws like IDEA to ensure that the
focus is on results being produced for our children, rather than on
compliance with complicated rules and paperwork. We said that these
things we could finally do, now that an accountability system was in
place to ensure that parents know when their children are learning.
Mr. Chairman, we are here today to make good on that commitment. The
measure before us provides powerful reforms requested for years by
teachers, principals, local educators, the people on the front lines of
education in our
[[Page H3467]]
country. The American Association of School Administrators, which
represents some 14,000 educational leaders nationwide, calls H.R. 1350
``the best special education policy revisions we have seen in
decades.''
The legislation aligns IDEA with No Child Left Behind and gives our
school districts greater flexibility in reviewing the progress of a
child by replacing benchmarks and short-term objectives with regular
reporting requirements that are contained in No Child Left Behind.
The bill before us reduces the paperwork burden on teachers. Good
special education teachers are leaving the profession in frustration
because of the IDEA paperwork burden, and there is a growing shortage
of quality teachers in special education. This legislation before us
allows parents to choose the option of a 3-year individualized
education plan instead of an annual one.
{time} 1200
And it is at the option of school to offer it and at the option of
parents if they want to move to a 3-year plan. And the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Keller) has been promoting this idea for several years. I
want to thank him for his contributions in this bill.
H.R. 1350 will reduce the numbers of students that are misidentified
or overrepresented in special education, a problem that particularly
effects minority children. As the Civil Rights Project at Harvard
University has shown, African Americans are nearly 3 times more likely
to be labeled as mentally retarded under the current IDEA system and
almost twice as likely to be labeled emotionally disturbed. Thousands
of children every year are inappropriately identified, while many
others are not identified at all.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), our colleague, gave us
compelling testimony during committee sessions in the last Congress to
help us address this, and I am proud to say that it is being addressed.
H.R. 1350 gives local school districts new flexibility and resources
to improve early intervention and reduce misidentification of children
into special education. The bill before us would reduce destructive
lawsuits and litigation in special ed, it encourages the use of
mediation as early as possible, and creates new opportunities for
voluntary binding arbitration.
The bill encourages parental involvement and allows IDEA or school
districts to use IDEA to support supplemental services for students
with disabilities in high priority schools. It also allows parents to
choose to keep their children with the same educational provider from
the beginning of service until the child reaches school age. And I am
grateful for the help from the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
DeMint) who helped devise these provisions.
The bill also charts a clear path to full funding within 7 years.
Thanks to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), it authorizes a
systematic increase in special education aid to the State that would
result in the Federal Government paying an unprecedented 21 percent of
the total cost of special ed in America next year. And as the chart
shows, as this chart shows, we have had unprecedented increases over
the last 7 years. And the budget resolution that we passed just several
weeks ago brings an increase this year of over $2 billion and
authorizes an additional $2.5 billion next year. This is by far the
highest percentage in history; and the Porter language will allow
appropriators to increase IDEA spending through the traditional
spending process, the same process that Congress has used to increase
IDEA spending by almost 300 percent over the past 8 years.
H.R. 1350, the bill before us, will enhance school safety, requiring
districts to continue to provide educational services to students with
disabilities while allowing the school district personnel to have one
uniform discipline policy for our children. And the gentleman in
Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has been a very effective member in leading the
Congress to deal with this issue for many years. And I really do want
to thank him for his willingness to work with the committee to craft
the discipline provisions that we have in our bill.
Let me just say as I close, I want to commend my colleague from
Delaware (Mr. Castle) for his leadership in bringing this legislation
to this point. It is an excellent bill that will make a positive
difference in the lives of parents with special needs children,
teachers, school boards members and others, and I urge all of my
colleagues today to join me in supporting this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this is a very
important piece of legislation and I hope the Members will have an
opportunity to listen to the debate. I wanted to thank my colleagues on
the committee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner), the chairman of our committee, for the work and effort
they have put in on behalf of this legislation. We went through an
extensive mark-up. We had an opportunity to offer a number of
amendments. Unfortunately, most of them from our side were not
accepted. But I believe that, in fact, this is a matter of good
intentions by both sides of this debate.
I must state, however, at this time I think this bill does
considerable harm. I think that this bill falls short in protecting
what is the basic civil rights of children with disabilities to get a
free and appropriate education. That is the intent of the law. And I am
concerned that this bill does not do what it says it should do with
respect to guaranteeing the basic rights of those children.
This bill also falls short on another front, and that is the
guaranteed full funding of this Act. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) is right, the Congress has done a much better job in the last
6 or 7 years in providing those fundings, but the fact is that the
promise that has been made to the local school districts has not been
kept; and even this year in an appropriations bill passed just a couple
of weeks ago, we are $1 billion 200 million behind that curve; and yet
we will not be allowed to offer amendments to require that that funding
be mandatory and that full funding be achieved by this legislation.
That is a 30 year-old promise that we made, and it is unfortunate that
we will not be allowed to have that amendment.
Yes, many in the school establishment and the education establishment
are for this Act. It probably makes their lives somewhat easier; but we
ought to be thinking also about the rights of these children and the
protections of these children and the needs of these children and their
families; to make sure that, in fact, the educational opportunity is
provided to these children with disabilities.
It is for that reason that after reviewing this legislation that the
National PTA, the Children's Defense Fund, the National Association of
Education of Young Children, and so many other organizations have
contacted the Members of Congress and said that this bill is
unacceptable, that they oppose this bill because it does not provide
that protection along with 14,000 other people who have sent e-mails
and petitions against this legislation, representing the parents and
families of these children who know how difficult it is to get that
education for the children. And yet at the same time, when we have not
met full funding, when we are weakening the rights of the children and
the families, we also see that this legislation allows for the
diversion of funds, some of which are for good purposes, but when you
do not have the funding in place, you have to raise the question of
whether or not this money ought to be diverted from the system. And
also, we have to look at that diversion of these Federal funds targeted
for the education of children with disabilities at a time when these
funds at the local level are becoming more and more scarce because of
the budget problems of our States that is now so well documented.
Finally, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I am deeply concerned about
the waivers that are authorized in the name of paperwork reduction for
the States. I am very concerned that this
[[Page H3468]]
will allow the waivers of documentation to ensure access to a general
education curriculum, documentation ensuring accommodations of State
tests, information on a child's academic achievement, information on
transition plans for post secondary education, procedural safeguard
notices provided to parents so that they are aware of their rights,
prior written notices to parents of the services and placements that
their child will receive.
These are fundamental to these families. It is fundamental to these
children. It is fundamental to making sure that they can get the
education that they have sought for their child so that the child will
have a full opportunity to participate in American society. And yet we
see as we go into the due process hearings, you go in to enforce your
child's civil rights, that you would be barred from raising new issues
at a process hearing even if the evidence surfaces. If there is new
evidence that comes to the attention of the school and the parents, you
cannot raise it in these hearings. You cannot raise it. You cannot. All
they have to decide is whether or not you are getting a free and
appropriate education. But if there are errors made, the parent cannot
raise them. Why are we precluding these parents?
The fact of the matter is that many school districts, we may not want
to say it is one in our district, but there are a huge number of school
districts that make it very difficult for parents to get the free and
appropriate education, to get the services. Huge numbers of these
children do not get services. They get put on the list for services.
And there is a world of distinction between being on the list for
services and getting services when your child is in an educational
setting and you run the risk that they are going to fall further and
further behind, and then you need additional services to have them
catch up.
Then we have a cap on attorneys fees on this legislation, which says
that it is going to be harder and harder for low income parents to find
a lawyer to take these cases to challenge the school districts where
that educational opportunity is being denied. But the school district,
there is no limitation on their use of tax dollars paid for by these
parents to defend what they have done. Now, nothing there. It is just
that you cannot get attorney's fees when you bring a case because your
child has been denied that education.
My concern, Mr. Chairman, is that this legislation is taking us back
to another time. With the discipline provisions, where we are now going
to determine this basic right to an education, this basic civil rights
action based upon the code of conduct in individual schools, so that
children with autism, children with cerebral palsy, severely
emotionally disturbed children, are going to be determined by that code
of conduct. You ought to read those codes of conduct and see whether or
not that is how you would like your child to be measured up if they
have Down syndrome, because unacceptable displays of affection are
reasons for suspension.
You say a school district would not do that, but these are the same
school districts that are throwing Harry Potter out of school. So we
cannot take the educational needs of these children and the civil
rights protections in this law and have them open to that kind of whim.
And I think we ought to be very careful about that.
I would urge Members to vote against this legislation. It fails on
the protections for children and it fails on the funding, and this will
be our last chance to try and get and redeem the promise that every
Member of this Congress has made to local school districts that we
would provide the funding. We said we would provide the funding in No
Child Left Behind. We are $5 billion behind on that one, and we are a
$1.2 billion behind on this one this year. That is $7 billion that we
are down at a time when the States are struggling, and at a time when
it is becoming more and more expensive to educate these children. We
ought not do that. We ought to have an amendment here on full funding
and we ought to make it mandatory, and we ought to protect the rights
of these children.
This is a very, very important bill that we take up here today. I
urge members to listen carefully to this debate.
I first want to thank my colleagues on the Education Committee,
Representative Castle, Representative Woolsey, and Chairman Boehner,
for the time and effort they have put into this legislation. I
appreciate the other side's willingness to discuss the issues in this
bill, and to take the time in Committee over a 2-day mark-up to debate
the 30-some amendments that members on both sides of the aisle offered.
However, despite what I know were many good intentions on the other
side of the aisle, this bill is fundamentally flawed.
The Bill Does Harm: The bill we will consider today has many, many
provisions that jeopardize the quality of education provided to
children with disabilities and their civil and due process rights under
current law.
This Bill Falls Short In What It Does Not Do: Moreover, this bill
breaks yet another promise to couple resources with reform. Despite
promises made last year by the Administration, and by the Republican
leadership of this Congress, the bill before us today fails to ensure
that additional resources will accompany these major changes to the
law.
Stakes Are High: The stakes in this reauthorization are very high.
The reason we need a Federal law is that students with disabilities
have special needs. They require extra attention and accommodations.
And for a variety of reasons, without external pressure and assistance,
many schools cannot or will not provide the services and accommodations
necessary to ensure that every child has a free and appropriate public
education.
Before 1975, approximately 1 million children with disabilities were
excluded from public education. Millions more were given an inferior
education even though they attended school. There are many provisions
in this bill that would turn back the clock on the progress we have
made. But you don't have to take my word for it. I have received stacks
of letters on this from parents, educators, and experts who have
expressed grave concerns about this bill. Dozens of national
organizations--including the National PTA, the Children's Defense Fund,
the National Association of Education of Young Children, and almost
every group that exists to advocate on behalf of students with specific
disabilities--opposes this bill. And an ever growing list--at current
count 14,000--of individuals has signed an on-line petition expressing
their opposition.
Many of the fights we will have today pit the interests of parents
and students against those of school board members and administrators.
What drives these fights primarily is the scarcity of resources. It is
a problem we could easily solve. If we had the will.
Almost every member of the House is on record in support of full
funding either as cosponsor of a bill, as a ``yea'' vote on non-binding
resolution, or as a speaker on special orders. And all of the other
vehicles we have in this body for pretending we are doing something.
But now the moment of truth has arrived. And suddenly the past
supporters of full funding, under pressure from their leadership, are
scrambling for cover. It would have taken only an additional $1.2
billion in the appropriations bill just passed in February to put us on
the road to full funding.
The other side will tell you that we have done all that is possible.
That there are no offsets to provide additional funding. With all due
respect, those arguments do not stand up under scrutiny.
What we are asking for to ensure that children with disabilities have
the accommodations, the aides, the qualified teachers, the curriculum,
and other things they need to receive a quality education is chump
change compared to other legislation this House has passed within the
last couple of years.
No one asked for an offset when this Congress spent over a trillion
dollars in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. No one asked for an
offset when we provided $99 billion over 10 years to repeal the estate
tax for the richest 2 percent of decedents. No one asked for an offset
when we spent $87 billion over 10 years on the farm bill. No one asked
for an offset when we spent $36 billion over 10 years on a pointless
energy bill. But suddenly we cannot come up with a measly $1.2 billion.
Shame on us. Shame on us.
Diversion of Funds: To add insult to injury, H.R. 1350 contains many
provisions that allow States and school districts to divert funds--all
IDEA funds--away from direct services to students with disabilities
during the regular school day. Here is a partial list:
Fifteen percent of funds can be diverted to a new ``pre-referral''
program;
Twenty percent of funds can be used to supplant local education
funds; and
An unlimited percentage of funds can be diverted to ``supplemental
services'' required under the Title I program of Federal education law.
These are all worthy purposes. But because we fail to provide the
necessary funding, we are setting an even more intense competition for
scarce resources. Resources that--given State and local budget crises
and the prolonged economic downturn--are becoming scarcer and scarcer
every day.
[[Page H3469]]
H.R. 1350 authorizes a pilot project under which the Secretary of
Education may grant waivers to up to 10 States under the auspices of
``paperwork reduction.'' Under this authority, many bedrock
requirements of IDEA could be waived, including:
Individualized Education Programs--
Documentation on ensuring access to general education curriculum;
Documentation ensuring accommodations on State tests;
Information on a child's academic achievement; and
Information on transition plans for postsecondary education or
employment.
Procedural Safeguard Notices--Notices provided to parents to ensure
they are aware of their rights.
Prior Written Notices--Notices to parents on the services and
placement their child will receive.
Accountability and Public Reporting--State and local achievement and
drop out data, disaggregation by race or LEP status, disproportionate
representation of minorities in special education.
This bill Weakens Due Process Protections for Parents in All 50
States--even if children and their parents are lucky enough to live in
one of the States that is not part of the waiver program, they cannot
escape this bill's damage. The Republican bill would fundamentally
undermine the due process rights of all parents:
Parents would be barred from raising new issues at due process
hearings--even if new evidence has surfaced;
Hearing officers would be hamstrung to limit rulings to the denial of
a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE);
Schools would not be liable for procedural, due process, and other
violations; and
Schools would have little to fear in denying parents due process
rights because parents would effectively have no recourse, no remedy.
H.R. 1350 institutes a one-year statute of limitations on violations
of IDEA. Virtually the only thing that would have a shorter statutory
reach would be parking tickets and traffic violations.
H.R. 1350 Caps Attorneys' Fees Reimbursement to parents, requiring
Governors to set the rate of attorneys' fees reimbursement when a
parent wins a due process hearing. This would allow caps on attorneys'
fees but only for parents. School districts would still be free to hire
and pay, at public expense, the salaries of lawyers who are on the
opposite side of the legal battle from parents. This provision will
effectively prevent low- and moderate-income parents from acquiring
legal representation to protect the rights of their disabled children.
H.R. 1350 would allow students to be expelled unilaterally and placed
in an ``alternative setting'' for any violation of a school's ``code of
conduct.'' This is the single most egregious provision in this bill. It
will set back the disability rights movement 30 years.
Under the guise of discipline, many children will confront the same
obstacles they confronted before IDEA was passed--school districts that
can say unilaterally: ``You are not welcome here. We do not want to
educate you.''
Under this provision, a student could be expelled for virtually
anything: chewing gum, shouting out in class, carrying a plastic eating
utensil with their lunch, inappropriate displays of public affection,
being late for class, not completing homework.
Moreover, placement in an alternative setting is unilateral. There is
no ``manifestation determination'' that would mitigate the consequences
for students whose violations are the result of their disability:
A child with Tourrete's syndrome could be expelled for shouting out
in class;
A child with cerebral palsy could be expelled for inadvertently
making contact with another student or teacher;
A developmentally disabled child (low IQ) could be expelled for an
``inappropriate public affection;''
A child with Attention Deficit Disorder could be expelled for
repeatedly being late for class or getting out of his or her seat.
As I said in my opening, I think many of the provisions in this bill
are well-intentioned. Some make sensible improvements in the law. But
overall the bill is fundamentally flawed.
I hope we are able to improve the bill here on the floor and in
conference and look forward to working with my colleagues in that
effort. I hope we can make these so that this law makes a positive
change in lives of children with disabilities and their families. And
so that it garners the strong bipartisan support and consensus it has
long enjoyed.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my good friend from California
(Mr. George Miller), one of the authors of the original underlying
legislation, there is a point that is being missed here.
In all, the conversation that we heard from my friend from California
revolved around the current system and how the current system works and
the changes to the current system. But there is one very large dynamic
that is being changed, and it changed under No Child Left Behind when
we require school districts to disaggregate data and we require them to
disaggregate the test data by subgroups including special education
children. For a school to succeed under No Child Left Behind, all the
sub-groups have to show improvement. And so school districts under No
Child Left Behind are going to have to ensure that their special needs
students are improving and showing progress.
This is a dramatic change in terms of how we are going to deal with
special ed students. And as a result, the changes that we are putting
in the bill will allow school districts to have more flexibility to
move this program to one that will bring results for our special ed
students as opposed to being locked in the process.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Burton).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
I just wanted to say that the committee has done a pretty good job on
a very difficult issue. They are going to be up to 21 percent. The goal
has been 40 percent for a long time. Let me just say that I have a
personal interest in this issue. I did not have a few years ago but I
do now. And I want to tell you that there are children being left
behind and they are going to be left behind unless we get additional
funds.
I have talked to school boards and school teachers and others and the
funds are not there to give these children the educational additional
attention they need, particularly children who are autistic. And we
have 1 out of every 200 children in America now that are autistic. And
we need to get to that 40 percent level before 6 years; and I know the
gentleman is doing his absolute best to get there, but that is not
enough. We are not moving fast enough. We waste a ton of money around
here, and these kids who are autistic and who are Down syndrome
children are going to be burdens on society as they grow up if they do
not get the attention they need right now.
And it will cost 10, 20, 30 times more if we do not do it now by
educating them and giving them a chance to be a productive member of
society, than if we wait.
So what I would like to do is say to my colleagues in this Congress,
and I know we are all well-intentioned and we care about these kids,
the problem is real. Children are being left behind, and it is going to
come back to bite us in the fanny in the future if we do not do
something about it right now.
So I would like to say to my colleague who has worked very hard on
this and his committee and the members of the Committee on
Appropriations, let us get to the 40 percent level a lot quicker than 6
years from now because these kids cannot wait.
{time} 1215
We are going to bear the responsibility 10, 20, 30 years from now
when they grow up and they cannot produce.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the subcommittee that has
jurisdiction over the IDEA, I have been struck by how very emotional
people are about this very issue. In fact, before me I have a stack of
mail that came to the Committee on Education and the Workforce just
over the last few days, and that mail is against passage of H.R. 1350.
There are two things we can do in Congress to reduce the stress and
the emotion that people feel about this issue. One is to fully fund it
and make it mandatory; two is to make sure that children are treated
fairly in the discipline process.
If we fully fund the Federal share of our costs and if we make
funding mandatory, we will fulfill the commitment to our schools for
the special education programs that we have promised here in the
Congress. Unfortunately, H.R. 1350 does not do that. Without mandatory
full funding, the authorization levels in the bill are meaningless
because they are subject to the many,
[[Page H3470]]
many competitive requests included in all and every appropriations
process.
Amendments were offered during the committee, Mr. Chairman.
Amendments were offered by the Democrats that would fully fund IDEA and
make the funding mandatory. But those amendments were defeated on a
partisan basis, and we do not have before us any amendment that would
fully fund and allow for the debate here today to fully fund this issue
of mandatory funding for IDEA.
To me, a vote for H.R. 1350 is a vote against fully funding the
issue, and I oppose it for that reason alone. But there is another good
reason to oppose H.R. 1350. And talk about getting emotional, this is
where parents and educators have a lot to say, and that is the
discipline provisions in the bill.
In the bill, a student with special needs can be removed from school
for, and I quote, ``any violation of a school's student code of
conduct.'' Now, that is different in every single school, and a child
can be kept out of school for an indefinite length of time. So a
student with Tourette's syndrome, for example, who may shout out in
class, can be expelled. A student who does not understand the dress
code and wears shorts when long pants are required, could be expelled.
A student with limited muscular control could be expelled for lashing
out or possibly pushing another student. There is no requirement in
H.R. 1350 to determine if the child's violation is the result of his or
her disability.
This is going backwards. It is no way to reauthorize IDEA. Children,
parents, and schools deserve an IDEA reauthorization where parents will
not have to compete over education funds, where the goal will be to
keep kids with special needs in school, where the legislation removes
the emotion surrounding the issue, not increases it. Unfortunately, Mr.
Chairman, H.R. 1350 is not that kind of reauthorization, and I will not
be able to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), a friend and member of the
committee as well as the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century
Competitiveness.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1350,
which will make dramatic improvements in the Nation's special education
law. I would like to thank my good friend and chairman of the
committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Castle), chairman of the Subcommittee on Education
Reform, for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor.
Nearly 2 years ago, the Committee on Education and the Workforce
began holding hearings in preparation for the reauthorization of the
Individuals With Disabilities Act. During conversations with actual
practitioners in the classroom, many who were from my own State of
California, we have been told that the burdensome, unnecessary
paperwork is driving away teachers from the classroom, which will hurt
these children. Priority is placed on complying with complicated rules
rather than delivering academic achievement. This must be changed, and
H.R. 1350 starts the process by creating a 10-State pilot program to
reduce the IEP paperwork burden on teachers in order to increase
instructional time and resources.
I also remain concerned that excessive and expensive litigation
continues to be a large component of the special education system. It
seems that all too often decisions that are reached are those that
benefit the attorneys the most. Every single one of the school
districts in my congressional district, from the suburban areas of
Santa Clarita to the rural areas of Bishop, have told me the single
most important thing that we can do is to reduce litigation and restore
the trust between the parents and the school district.
Though I do not think this goes far enough, the legislation does make
significant improvements by encouraging the use of mediation as soon as
possible, creating opportunities for voluntary binding arbitration, and
allowing States to set limits on attorneys' fees. By passing IDEA, this
Congress moves closer to following through on a commitment made over 27
years ago to families and their children with special needs.
In closing, I want to say that I commend the members of the committee
for their hard work; and I strongly urge my colleagues to support the
underlying bill, which will increase accountability and reduce
overidentification of nondisabled children.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a really important member of the committee.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time, and I rise today in opposition to the bill before us today.
H.R. 1350 does not ensure full funding of IDEA and, worse, jeopardizes
the civil rights of children with disabilities.
Reauthorization of IDEA has traditionally been a bipartisan effort.
In Michigan, I was cosponsor of the Special Education Act, which was
passed before this Congress addressed the education of children with
special needs in the least restrictive environment. In my tenure here
in Congress, I have always supported the reauthorization of IDEA, but I
cannot support the bill before us today.
First, this legislation does not provide any additional resources for
IDEA. It does not get us any closer, Mr. Chairman, to fully funding
IDEA, an effort that many Members have worked on for many, many years.
Democratic members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
attempted to address this issue in committee. We offered several
amendments that would provide mandatory spending for IDEA.
Unfortunately, these amendments were defeated on party-line votes.
These amendments represent the only way to ensure full funding for IDEA
in this legislation.
Second, the legislation jeopardizes the civil rights of children with
disabilities. This bill would allow children with disabilities to be
removed from their current educational placement for any violation of a
code of student conduct. The bill also eliminates the current
manifestation determination. Manifestation determinations ensure that
children with disabilities are not unfairly punished for acts they
cannot control. The discipline provisions in this legislation are
simply unfair.
Last, I would like to express my disappointment that this legislation
does not continue funding for the freely associated states. These
former U.S. territories have an extremely high percentage of children
with disabilities due to U.S. military testing of weapons around the
islands that make up these nations. I hope this issue can be further
addressed in conference, Mr. Chairman.
In closing, I urge Members to carefully consider the impact that this
legislation will have on children with disabilities. The disabled
children of our Nation are best served by defeating this legislation
today.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill before us today. H.R.
1350 does not ensure full funding of IDEA and worse, jeopardizes the
civil rights of children with disabilities.
Reauthorization of IDEA has traditionally been a bipartisan effort.
In Michigan I was cosponsor of the Special Education Act, which was
passed before this Congress, addressed the education of children with
special needs in the least restrictive environment. In my tenure here
in Congress I have always supported the reauthorization of IDEA.
But I cannot support the bill before us today.
The last time we reauthorized IDEA in 1997, we worked tirelessly with
our majority colleagues to improve this program for children with
disabilities and the schools which serve them.
Unfortunately, the pace at which this legislation has moved has left
very little time for public input or bipartisan discussions.
This bill has fundamental flaws.
First, this legislation doesn't provide any additional resources for
IDEA. It doesn't get us any closer to fully funding IDEA--an effort
that many members have worked on for numerous years.
Democratic members of the Education and the Workforce Committee
attempted to address this issue in committee.
We offered several amendments that would provide mandatory spending
for IDEA. Unfortunately, these amendments were defeated on party-line
votes.
These amendments represent the only way to ensure full funding for
IDEA in this legislation.
Second, the legislation jeopardizes the civil rights of children with
disabilities.
[[Page H3471]]
This bill would allow children with disabilities to be removed from
their current educational placement for any violation of a code of
student conduct.
The bill also eliminates the current manifestation determination.
Manifestation determinations ensure that children with disabilities are
not unfairly punished for acts they cannot control. The discipline
provisions in this legislation are simply unfair.
In addition, the bill places a strait jacket on parents of children
with disabilities by instituting a 1-year statute of limitations.
This restriction will prevent parents of disabled children from
raising issues with the education of their children to those issues
that are less than 1 year old. This unfairly constrains parents and
their efforts to ensure their children receive an education.
Lastly, I'd like to express my disappointment that this legislation
does not continue funding for the freely associated States.
These former U.S. territories have an extremely high percentage of
children with disabilities due to U.S. military testing of weapons
around the islands that make up these nations.
I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that the freely
associated States receive funding under this legislation and their
negotiated compacts of free association.
I hope this is an issue we can further address in conference.
In closing, I urge Members to carefully consider the impact that this
legislation will have on children with disabilities. The disabled
children of our Nation are best served by defeating this legislation
today.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood), another member of our committee and a
subcommittee chairman.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I particularly appreciate the time right now.
We need to take just a minute and ask ourselves a question, and
perhaps somebody can answer it. In 1975, IDEA was passed by a
Democratic Congress and signed by a Republican President. From 1975 to
1995 the Congress was controlled by the Democrats. Where were my
Democratic colleagues' amendments then to fund IDEA? Why did they not
fund it in the 20 years while they were in control? Why has it been
only since Republicans have been in control of this House that we have
increased funding for IDEA?
There is a very good reason for that, my colleagues. If the Federal
Government does not pay its share, it comes out of the school districts
and that affects disabled children and nondisabled children.
I wish to advise the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller)
that this bill protects the civil rights of 88 percent of our
schoolchildren that are not in special education without reducing the
civil rights of special education children. To say it otherwise is
simply not the way it is done. It is not the truth.
I want to also just briefly mention the cap on attorneys' fees. The
money from the school districts that is used to train our children is
going into the pockets of attorneys rather than going to train our
children, whether they are in special ed or whether they are not. There
is no question in my mind that we need to deal with that.
Last, the discipline amendments in this bill. The discipline
amendments in this bill are not unfair. What is unfair is how the bill
was written in 1975. I strongly support this legislation. It does not
go quite as far as I would like for it to go, but it greatly improves
that bill that has been on the books for 25 years.
I have been trying to improve this discipline provision almost for 5
years. We have passed it in this House, I know, three different times.
It has been taken out in the other body every time. I have done this
because of my concern that the system we have today is a double-
standard system for the behavior in our schools, one for special needs
students and another for nonspecial needs students. It is critical to
the safety of the special ed student that we pass these disciplinary
provisions.
My colleagues know as well as I do that there are people, teachers,
who have been harmed because they could not remove a dangerous child
from school. Now, all we are really doing is saying that rather than
after 10 days they can now have 55 days to discipline a special
education student. They really do get a manifestation determination
after 55 days. They do get special education.
The other very important part of this is that it says that State laws
will prevail for students who bring weapons, drugs, or commit felonies
in school. A special ed child who would bring a gun or a pair of
scissors and kill one of my constituents does not make any difference
to them whether the children in the classroom are in special ed or
whether they are not. We cannot stand here and say that the
disciplinary changes we are making in this bill are harmful to the
students of America. It is very, very important for the students of
America, the 12 percent that are special needs students and the 88
percent that are not.
I encourage my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), to
vote for this bill. He is a good man. The gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller) is a good man. They do want full funding for IDEA.
They did not do it when they were in charge; but they do want it, just
like we want it. This is the right thing to do at this stage. I plead
with my colleagues to pass this thing and let us move forward with
protecting the children in the classroom.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), another important member of the committee.
{time} 1230
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1350 in its
present form. As proposed, it is designed to dramatically undermine the
ideals of IDEA, and doing so in the name of reauthorizing it.
In response to the previous speaker's question about funding over a
period of time, from 1980 to 1992, we had a Republican in the White
House. So we had a division between the leadership in the White House
and in Congress, and that may explain some reason why things were not
funded. But this year we had a Republican majority in the House, one in
the Senate, and in the White House. If they have the will, they
certainly have the way to move forward for full funding.
I am joined in my position of opposition to this bill in its present
form by parents, educators, and advocates for the disability community,
all making clear that this bill is not responsive to the needs of the
true consumers of the law, and that is children.
The majority is asserting something is better than nothing, and in
this case I am afraid that is wrong. These counterproductive changes in
the bill mean that the children would be better served by the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in its current form. The
civil rights of these children and the due process rights of their
parents are not being quality protected in the legislation. Foremost,
as has been mentioned, this bill fails to fully fund that 40 percent of
the average per-pupil expenditure that Members have been promising for
30 years to fund in order to help our States and local governments as
they try to educate children who, before 1975, and before the courts
stepped in to make it, otherwise were ignored or mistreated.
We cannot afford to rely on promises from the majority that some day
we are going to fully fund it. We have to make it positive and firm
right now. As our President rather inarticulately tried to say some
time ago, Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, and I did it just
like he did.
The problem is that we cannot do that. We cannot just rely on their
promises. Nobody can rely on that statement as inarticulately set
forth. The fact of the matter is that their promises have fallen behind
on the education bill; their promises have fallen behind on this bill;
their promises have fallen behind on civil rights, due process rights
and on funding. I ask Members to not support the bill.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Carter), a member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his hard work on
this bill and the committee for bringing this bill forward. I am
encouraged that the improvements in this bill will help reduce
litigation, restore trust and refocus the system on improving the
education of children with disabilities.
[[Page H3472]]
In 1997, Congress required the States to set up and maintain
mediation systems that would allow school districts and parents to
handle their disputes in less hostile fashion. The change significantly
reduced the amount of litigation and helped restore trust between
parents and school personnel. This bill builds upon the 1997
improvements by requiring States to establish and maintain voluntary
arbitration systems. Given the interest in resolving disputes through
nonlitigation, it is expected this will reduce the litigation burden
and restore the focus on educating children.
Importantly, this system is voluntary, and voluntary means the
parents can choose, the school can choose. If both parties do not
choose voluntary arbitration, then the complaint goes through the
regular due process system.
This bill also clarifies that the parent is obligated to provide
clear and specific notice to the LEA or SEA before a due process
hearing can be held.
This change is important to ensure that a school district has a clear
understanding of what the problem is. Without this clear and specific
notice, the school district cannot attempt to resolve the issue.
The resolution session created by this bill allows parents and the
school district officials to explore the problem and attempt to resolve
the problem in a rapid time frame, so that the child can be better
served. Instead of waiting to air concerns at the due process hearing,
the parent and the school district will meet within 15 days of the
filing of the complaint to see if they can resolve the problem. If they
cannot, the parent can still go to a due process hearing. This does not
delay the parent's right to a due process hearing in any way. The IDEA
regulations require a due process hearing to commence within 45 days of
a parent filing a complaint. The language in the bill does not modify
or delay that timeline in any way. This resolution session gives
parents and school districts a new opportunity to sit down and work out
the issues and is a sensible change to ensure that everyone's efforts
are focused on improving results for the child.
The improvements included in H.R. 1350 should clear some of the legal
landmines and allow for more productive, less hostile relations between
parents and schools that refocuses on the Act's primary role of
educating children with disabilities. IDEA currently has no statute of
limitations and leaves school districts open to litigation for all of
the 12 years a child is in school, whether or not the child has been
identified as a child with a disability. School districts are often
surprised by claims from parents involving issues that occurred in an
elementary school program when the child may currently be a high school
student.
Such an unreasonably long threat of litigation hanging over a school
district forces them to document every step they take with every child,
even if the parent agrees with the action, because parents could later
change their mind and sue. The fear of far-removed litigation raises
the tension between the school and the parent. This improvement will
align IDEA with other federal statutes that have explicit statutes of
limitations (civil rights claims, federal tort claims, Social Security,
ERISA) and allow for timely resolution of issues.
I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and these provisions
as we continue to work to improve the education results for children
with disabilities.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of children
with disabilities and their families and in opposition to H.R. 1350.
They say, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' The fundamentals of IDEA
are widely appreciated by parents. In an e-mail I received, it says,
``Do not dilute IDEA legislation in any way. Our family has personally
benefited from almost every part of IDEA rights,'' says the father of
an autistic son.
We say, ``First, do no harm.'' Unfortunately, this legislation does
do harm. It changes the features of the Individualized Education
Program in a way that hurts children and makes it easier to kick
children with disabilities out of their classrooms, even when they are
doing their best to comply and to do everything right, and it may be
the result of their disability.
Third, it diminishes the legal rights of parents to get the best
education for children.
Finally, this legislation still is dismally underfunded. If we want
to do something good for IDEA, we should provide full funding and vote
against H.R. 1350.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
I rise in strong support of this legislation. Sometimes when we hear
debates, we do not get the full significance of what we are doing. We
are dealing with a piece of legislation which the chairman and others
on the Democrat side have worked very hard on to make educational
opportunities better for children with disabilities in this country.
We have been involved for 2 years doing this. We have had 7 hearings,
we started a Web site, we had something like 3,000 suggestions on that
Web site. We have had many discussions with many people in trying to
work out a lot of differences, and there are a lot of problems in
dealing with this issue.
I have talked to many, many individual Members, but at the heart of
it, this legislation is aimed at trying to help children with
disabilities get a better education and help other children being
educated in our schools. I thank the parents and children in Delaware,
many of whom I have spent time with, and my judgment is this is good
legislation, excellent legislation which is going to move us forward.
For too many years children who had disabilities were denied access
to education. In 1975 Congress, this House and the Senate, provided
that educational opportunity. According to the Department of Education,
about 6.6 million students currently participate in these programs
across the Nation. Of those, almost 50 percent of the children with
disabilities spend 80 percent or more of their day in a regular
education classroom. Mr. Chairman, 30 years ago that would not have
happened. Probably zero of those children would have spent time in a
regular classroom. That is happening today. Each 5 years, we come along
in Congress and try to improve that. There is room for improvement.
These are children who are at the greatest risk of being left behind.
We have to give children with disabilities access to an education that
maximizes their unique abilities and provides them with tools for later
successful, productive lives. We must work together to do this in every
way we can. This bill aims to improve current law by focusing on
improved education results, reducing the paperwork burden for special
education teachers, and addressing the problem of overidentification of
minority students as disabled.
In addition, the bill seeks to reduce litigation and reform special
education financing and funding. One of the great benefits of No Child
Left Behind, H.R. 1, is that we have raised expectations and will hold
school districts accountable for the annual progress of all of their
students, including students with disabilities.
Although we have made great progress in including students with
disabilities in regular classrooms, we now must make equally great
process in ensuring that they receive a quality education in a regular
classroom. We need to align IDEA and No Child Left Behind.
This bill will help reduce the paperwork burden so school districts
are able to retain and recruit highly qualified special education
teachers. The excessive amount of paperwork currently inherent in
special education continues to overwhelm and burden teachers. We hear
that from all of them, robbing them of time with their students. Based
on that, we have tried to amend the individual education plan without
reconvening the entire IEP team at all times. We also establish a rule
of construction stating that nothing beyond what is explicitly included
in the Act is required in a child's IEP, and requires the secretary to
develop model forms for the IEP, something a lot of people asked for.
Secondly, we permit the use of alternative means of meeting
participation, such as teleconferencing and videoconferencing.
All of these measures will give teachers the ability to spend more
time in classrooms. Furthermore, we are committed to implementing
reforms that would reduce the number of students that are misidentified
or overrepresented in special ed programs. Minorities are often
significantly overrepresented in these programs. In fact, African
Americans are nearly 3 times, more likely twice, to be labeled as
mentally retarded and almost twice as likely to be labeled emotionally
disturbed. Thousands of children are misidentified every year, while
many are not identified early enough.
[[Page H3473]]
We address these issues in this legislation. By providing these
services to children at an earlier age, we can prevent people from
being identified as having learning disabilities and help them in their
education process. We also seek to reduce litigation, restore trust
between parents and school districts, and many other steps have been
taken in this legislation that we think are tremendously helpful in
improving the opportunities for children with disabilities. I urge
Members to support the legislation.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) who is also an important member of the committee.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 1350 in its present
form. The Improving Results for Children With Disabilities Act is the
bill that we are debating. It includes amendments that I offered in
committee to improve our knowledge as to how well special education
serves limited English-proficient children, and to support research on
best practices for identifying, assessing and providing instructional
and other services to these left children.
H.R. 1350 also ensures that disabled children in migrant worker
families are not placed at risk because their school records are not
transferred to their next school. I believe that these additions to the
bill will put us on the right path to improving services to migrant
children and left children with disabilities.
These improvements, however, do not compensate for the draconian
discipline provisions that are in H.R. 1350. Under this bill, schools
could suspend or expel a child with disabilities for any infraction of
the school code of conduct without considering whether the behavior was
the result of a disability. This manifestation determination has been
one of the key protections for children with disabilities under the
current law. Given the disproportionate suspension and expulsion rates
for Hispanic and black youth in general, it is hard to imagine that
H.R. 1350 will not push more of these young people out of school.
Finally, the fast pace of this bill has shortchanged debate and full
discussion on this and other important issues. I have heard from
respected flagship university experts in my State in the field of
special education research who are very concerned about transfer of
special education research to the Institute for Education Sciences. We
all recognize the value of education research is its direct link to
practice. Moving special education research outside of the special ed
program undermines that link. Because of the serious deficiencies in
the bill, I oppose and ask my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1350.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Isakson), a member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle) and his great work on this bill. I have heard from a lot of
Members about their concerns about the alignment of No Child Left
Behind in IDEA. If there is ever a child that should not be left
behind, it is a child with disabilities.
We are ensuring through this legislation and No Child Left Behind
that goals are aligned, that we have meaningful goals and standards for
children with disabilities, and that we give them meaningful
assessments to determine whether schools need improvement. And then if
that determination is made, we provide additional funds through
subgrants so local education agencies can fund professional and staff
development for special education and regular teachers alike who teach
our children with disabilities.
If Members are for children with disabilities and the improvement of
their education, if Members are for lifting their sights and raising
standards, if Members are for funding professional and necessary staff
development, Members should be for this bill, and I urge all Members to
vote in favor of it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller),
the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) for the spirited hearings and debate and
discussions that we have had on this legislation.
While it is not supportable to me, I do believe we made some
progress, and I thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle),
chairman of the subcommittee for his sensitivity to an issue which I
raised through proposed amendment and which we subsequently worked out
for inclusion in the base bill.
The issue related to the disproportionately high number of African
American males being placed in special education. The new language
states in the case of a determination of significant disproportionality
with respect to the identification of children as children with
disabilities or the placement in particular educational settings of
such children in accordance with paragraph (1), the State or the
secretary, as the case may be, shall provide for the review and, if
appropriate, revision of the policies, procedures and practices used in
such identification or placement to ensure that such policies,
procedures and practices comply with the requirements of this Act, and
shall require any local educational agency identified under paragraph
(1) to reserve the maximum amount of funds under section 613(f) to
provide comprehensive coordinated prereferral support services to serve
children in the local educational agency, particularly children in
those groups that were significantly overidentified under paragraph
(1).
Even though I am pleased with this section, the inability to provide
full funding and some onerous discipline provisions makes this Act
unacceptable to me. I urge a no vote.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Keller), a member of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the IDEA bill
for two reasons. First, we have tripled the IDEA special education
funding from $3 billion in over $10 billion since 1995, when
Republicans took control of the House.
{time} 1245
Second, this bill will help reduce the paperwork burden on teachers
so that they are able to spend more time in the classroom with the
students rather than wasting hours a day filling out forms and
performing clerical duties.
I recently spent time in the classroom with some of our special
education teachers. While working as a special education teacher for a
day in an elementary and a high school in Orlando, Florida, I learned
firsthand that special education teachers spend approximately 2 hours a
day completing government-required paperwork. I have tried to address
this problem head on by drafting the paperwork reduction provisions in
this IDEA bill. These paperwork reduction provisions incorporate the
good ideas we received from parents; teachers; the Council for
Exceptional Education, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization;
and the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. For
example, this IDEA legislation helps reduce the paperwork burden on
teachers by requiring the Secretary to develop model forms for the IEP,
by creating a pilot program for 10 States, and by allowing parents the
flexibility to choose to develop the multiple-year IEP for their child
to a maximum of 3 years.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this IDEA bill
because it will improve the lives of disabled children in Orlando,
Florida, and all across the country by making a historic increase in
special education funding and by reducing the paperwork on teachers.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy
in allowing me to speak on this bill.
Twenty years ago, Congress made a law and a commitment. The law was
to extend equal education opportunity for all children. The commitment
was to provide 40 percent funding to meet this goal. We have no reason
to put off fulfilling this commitment for yet another decade. Nearly
every State is facing serious financial difficulty, few as serious as
my State of Oregon. We need
[[Page H3474]]
help as never before. Yet we are told full funding is not realistic at
this point. Yet we have the President and leadership of his party
proposing a half trillion dollars in additional tax cuts for those who
need help the least. Whatever dubious economic benefits claimed are
clearly minuscule compared with investing in our communities and
meeting the commitments to our schools and our children.
The authors of today's bill should be thanked for their commitment to
move in the right direction and for some genuine improvements like
dealing with some burdensome paperwork, which has been discussed here
on the floor. But without providing full funding, the bill ought to be
rejected until we do what we know is right and what is clearly within
our power. I for one would be embarrassed to go home to a State that is
stressed like many of my colleagues, giving cover for those who would
avoid meeting this long-standing commitment for another decade. My
community and my colleagues' deserve better. By all means, embrace the
positive elements in this bill; but let us not pass it until we make
sure we have fulfilled our commitment.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner),
the chairman, for their efforts to improve the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act.
As a new grandfather for the first time, as the husband of a very
hard-working school teacher, and with 17 years' experience on the
Education Committee in the South Carolina State senate, I know the most
important aspect of improving education is ensuring each classroom has
a teacher committed to the task of educating children. Special
education also requires teachers with this dedication. Teachers who
choose to work with children with disabilities are especially gifted
and especially valued.
The particular legislation we have before us today brings some very
positive changes. First, the bill focuses on reducing unnecessary
paperwork which is not educationally relevant to the teacher's
interaction with the child. Second, to further reduce the paperwork
burden, the bill requires GAO to review paperwork requirements and
report to Congress on strategic proposals to reduce paperwork burdens
on teachers. Third, we have shifted the goal of the State Improvement
Grant to focus grants entirely on the activities to support the
professional development of regular and special education teachers and
administrators.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Burns), a member of the committee.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1350. This
is an important bill that contains much-needed improvements that
address the needs of children with disabilities throughout this great
Nation. I am especially grateful for the changes in this bill to help
address the problem of misidentification of minority students as having
a disability. I find it very troubling that we are continuing to
identify three times as many African Americans as having mental
retardation and twice as many African Americans as being emotionally
disturbed. We must reduce these excessive figures.
This bill makes great strides in this area. I would like to point out
that the bill permits local educational agencies to use funds for
prereferral services for children not yet identified as needing special
services. I believe that this will have a significant impact on the
current overidentification of students, especially minority students,
having disabilities. Finally, I am pleased that the bill allows
personnel preparation programs, research and technical assistance
projects to address the issue of overidentification of minority
students. We must and we will solve this problem. I urge my colleagues
to support this bill.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me this time.
I rise, first of all, to commend the gentleman from Delaware for the
very hard work and the dedication he has for improving education for
special needs children. I have some concerns about the bill, and I
bring them up because I hope they will be addressed in conference.
Number one, I read through the bill and spoke to staff. It does not
seem to have any mechanism in there to inform parents of services that
actually are available to them for their children. The second concern
that I have is that a parent might choose a 3-year IEP because of a
misunderstanding or being misinformed by the school district. We must
ensure that parents are not intimidated by school districts into
agreeing to a 3-year IEP when, indeed, there needs to be more follow-up
for many students. And, third, we need to make sure that there are not
any retaliation tactics that may occur at some school districts.
Parents tell me that very often they fear retaliation. I would
encourage the sponsor of the bill to make sure that these
considerations are taken in when they do the conference.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, actually the key here is mandatory funding because no
matter what we authorize on this committee, no matter what we vote for
today on H.R. 1350, whether it is 18 percent of the 40 percent Federal
commitment, whether it is 21 percent of the 40 percent commitment, or
if it is 25 percent of the 40 percent Federal commitment, the funding
has to be spent. We can authorize it, but the Committee on
Appropriations spends it. Unless we tell the Committee on
Appropriations through changing the rules of H.R. 1350 and IDEA, unless
we tell them that it is mandatory that they spend what we authorize, it
will not get spent; and it is going to be the year 2035 before we even
come close to reaching 40 percent.
Later on today the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and I have
an amendment that will pass all new funding after the year 2003, pass
any new funding that is appropriated directly to the school districts
and to the schools. But if we do not get any new funding because indeed
the appropriators do not choose to add funding, then we pass along
nothing to school districts because 100 percent of nothing is still
nothing.
The Federal commitment to IDEA 30 years ago was 40 percent that
Federal Government would match the mandate that the States educate all
kids, which is absolutely the right thing to do, and provide them a
free education and equally educate all children in the public school
system. That was 40 years ago. We are at 18 percent of that 40 percent
today, and we are never going to get there if we do not say that it is
something that must be done. And in so doing, we will be making it
possible for schools to count on the funding they need, we will be
removing the emotion that parents pit themselves against each other
because there is so little funding available for education in the first
place, and we will make sure that special education funding does not
come out of the funding necessary for other programs.
We make promises. We do not fulfill them. Voting for H.R. 1350 would
be another broken promise unless H.R. 1350 includes mandatory full
funding over the next 6-year, 7-year period.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor).
(Mr. GILLMOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in support of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1350. Reauthorizing and
improving the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is important
to the future of many American children and their families. The special
education community is now in a state of crisis--teachers are leaving,
students are being over-identified, and litigation has taken the place
of education. The true spirit of this legislation has been lost and
because of this lost vision many children have been denied an
appropriate education.
I commend my colleagues on the Education Committee who, under the
leadership of my
[[Page H3475]]
colleague from Ohio, Chairman Boehner, reported a bill that brings back
the spirit of the original legislation. This bill not only empowers
local school districts, but more importantly it empowers parents with
the freedom to choose what education plan best suits the needs of their
child. Reducing bureaucratic red-tape, supporting teachers, and
empowering parents are the keys to restoring faith in the special
education community and the keys to providing those children with
special needs a quality education. Mr. Chairman, I would urge all of my
colleagues to support this legislation and insure that no child is ever
left behind.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this 1\1/2\ minutes to address
this issue of funding because I think there has been perhaps a
misunderstanding here. Some of it, frankly, is a little bit political;
but I think we need to sort of clear the air if we can.
This bill, as we all know, I think, now at this point, was first
passed in 1975. From 1975 until 1995, which was a time, frankly, that
the Congress was controlled by the Democrats for the most part here,
the funding for the Federal share of this never got above 7 percent.
Starting in 1996 and thereafter up until now in the year 2003 and then
2004, that funding as the percentage share of the Federal Government,
even with the cost-of-living increases and everything else, has gone to
18 percent. The funding in the budget bill for this next year, 2004,
which is the yellow line on this chart, is actually at 21 percent, on
our way to 40 percent. In this legislation is a guide path by
authorization to take that funding to the full 40 percent in 7 years.
Even under the mandatory funding bills that those advocates are talking
about in terms of handling the funding would not get there for 6 years.
It would take an additional $10.2 billion, and everybody realizes that
that cannot be done.
{time} 1300
This Congress has committed to it. This Republican Party under this
President has absolutely committed to doing this, and is making
extraordinary gains. In fact, that increase is 282.3 percent in that
period of time, from 1996 to 2003. We wish our stocks had increased
that much in value. The average yearly funding for IDEA between 1996
and 2003 has grown at 18.6 percent per year. Those are astounding
increases for any kind of Federal program, all of which usually
increase, at best, at a rate of cost of living.
So, the truth of the matter is, the bottom line is that we have met
our responsibilities, and I would encourage everyone to support the
legislation.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman
Boehner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle), and
certainly my ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller), for what has gone into this legislation. We truly have worked
hard to make this be something that we could all vote for, and I
believe in your sincerity and I know you believe in our's and our
passion on all of this.
There are reasons why I will not be able to vote for this. Reason
number one is the discipline provisions. This bill will allow students
to be moved indefinitely to alternative placements for any violation of
a school code of conduct, and we have gone over that. That could
severely affect a disabled child.
This bill has no guarantee of full funding. We can say we want full
funding, but if we do not guarantee it, it probably is not going to
happen. And, yes, we have done a much better job over the last few
years. We have just gone through some really good prosperous years in
this country. Now this country is in an economic downturn and the
challenges for the same dollars are going to be much, much greater.
This bill weakens due process protection for parents. It would bar
parents from raising new issues at due process hearings, even if new
evidence has surfaced since the hearing was scheduled.
This bill has a pilot program for 10 State waivers. It permits the
Secretary of Education to waive IDEA provisions to reduce paperwork.
Criteria for the approach of these pilot programs are completely open-
ended and would be defined by the Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, the other thing this bill does that will make it
impossible for me to vote for it is it puts a cap on attorney fee
reimbursements, which makes it even more difficult for low income
parents to get their due process.
Mr. Chairman, I am hoping Democrats and those on the Republican side
who want full funding and want that funding to be mandatory, who want
our children's discipline provisions not to go backwards, but to go
forward, will vote against this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time,
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me again thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and all of the members on our committee who have
played an important role in bringing this bill to us today.
I also want to congratulate the members of our staff, including Sally
Lovejoy, Krisann Pearce, David Cleary, Melanie Looney and Elisabeth
Wheel; Sarah Rittling, a staff member of the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. Castle); and Jacqueline Norris, a staff member of the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Keller), for all of their hard work and dedication
over the last year or so as we were bringing this bill together.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very difficult piece of legislation. It has
been very difficult for Congress to deal with it ever since they first
brought it up in 1975. But I think that Members on both sides of the
aisle have worked closely together to craft a bill that will help
special needs children all across our country.
I think it is important to note that that is our goal here. It is to
make sure that children with disabilities get the free and appropriate
public education that they are entitled to in the least restrictive
manner. We believe that the bill that we have before us today does, in
fact, provide that, and does not weaken any safeguards for those
children or their parents.
Let us not forget the importance of the requirements under No Child
Left Behind where school districts are going to have to focus in on
results for these children. This is a huge shift in dynamics for how
schools are going to have to deal with their IDEA children. As a
result, being able to change the paperwork requirements, to ease those
for classroom teachers, to make the process more simple for school
districts and administrators to enact, will not diminish the services
for these students, because these same schools are going to have to
show results for these children.
So this is a very big change, and I do believe it will lead to much
better results for our special needs children.
The last point I would make is this is a bipartisan bill. We will
talk about more of it as we get into the amendments.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a firm supporter
of providing a free and quality education to students with and without
disabilities, but also in opposition to H.R. 1350, the Reauthorization
of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA).
When IDEA was initially enacted into law, Congress determined that
the cost of educating a student with a disability was, on average,
twice the cost of educating a student without a disability. In the
original legislation, the Federal Government required States to provide
an education to students with disabilities, but also agreed to help
states fund the ``extra cost'' of educating disabled children by 40
percent of the total cost. It has been 28 years since the original
implementation of IDEA, and Congress has yet to appropriate the full 40
percent to states for their special education programs. For 28 years,
State and local governments have struggled to fulfill their obligation
to disabled students with less than half of the funding that is
necessary for the task.
This year, Congress again had the opportunity to fulfill the Federal
Government's obligation. Members on both sides of the isle and
education organizations representing not only administrators and
teachers, but students and their parents have voiced their support of
appropriating full funding. H.R. 1350 allocates the highest percentage
ever to IDEA, yet the funding level is barely over half of that that is
required, at 21 percent.
Even at a time when full funding for IDEA is almost unanimously
supported, and education is touted as a priority by almost every Member
of Congress, H.R. 1350 does not come close to backing IDEA's 28 year
old promise. It is clear that in order to ensure substantial funding to
the nation's disabled children, funding for IDEA must become a
mandatory program
[[Page H3476]]
that requires the Federal Government to appropriate the full 40 percent
every appropriations cycle. It is past time for us to fulfill our
obligation to this Nation's disabled children. H.R. 1350 does not
appropriate full funding, and does not make full funding of IDEA
mandatory, and so I feel it is my duty to oppose the bill.
I also have serious concerns with the discipline provisions of this
bill. Under the ``manifestation determination'' previously required in
IDEA, when students with disabilities are disciplined the potential
that their disability was a fundamental reason for the problem must be
considered. H.R. 1350 would no longer require schools to determine
whether a student's action was the result of the disability. Under the
bill a child with cerebral palsy could be expelled for accidentally
making contact with his teacher or a developmentally disabled child
could be expelled for ``inappropriate public affection''. While the
majority of schools and administrators would not expel a student for
minor infractions, the original intent of IDEA was to protect students
with disabilities. If every school was enthusiastic and dedicated to
the education of disabled students there would have never been any need
for IDEA in the first place.
I understand the concerns voiced by national teachers and
administrators regarding their need to have the authority to discipline
students with and without disabilities. However, in order to protect
the students from punishment for their disability, the law must include
a requirement for the disability always to be taken into account before
deciding on consequences. I have received many calls from parents in my
district voicing anxiety over what will happen to their disabled
children next time he or she makes a mistake related to their
disability in school. I believe it is necessary to discipline disabled
children, just as it is necessary to discipline children without
disabilities, but we must ensure that the disabilities are always taken
into account. H.R. 1350 would omit this requirement, and this was
another reason that I cannot vote for the bill.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with deep
concerns with H.R. 1350, the bill to reauthorize the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act.
Prior to IDEA being passed in 1975, many children with disabilities
did not receive access to education, and worse they were denied any
educational services at all.
As a result of court decisions and congressional action, schools were
required to offer children with disabilities a free appropriate public
education.
Since then, Congress has acted to strengthen these laws time and time
again regardless of whether it was a Republican-controlled or
Democratic-controlled Congress.
Today under H.R. 1350, we are taking a large step backward especially
with regards to disciplining students.
Current law allows a school to suspend or expel a student with
disabilities if he or she brings a weapon or drugs to school, or is
found by a hearing officer to be likely to injure themselves or others.
Education services must be provided for up to 45 days in an alternative
setting.
In addition, current law requires schools to determine if the problem
which caused the student to be suspended or expelled was due to his or
her disability. This bill removes these important safety provisions
completely.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1350 allows students of all disabilities to be
removed from classrooms for any behavior for an indefinite period of
time.
Mr. Chairman, I am the first person to say we need to protect our
children from violence in the classroom. Therefore if a student with
attention deficit disorder hits another student, the student with
attention deficit disorder can be expelled indefinitely.
As a nurse, I can tell you that attention deficit disorder is widely
misunderstood by teachers and principals throughout the country.
However, it is recognized by Congress as disability under the law we
are amending today and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Mr. Chairman, this provision in H.R. 1350 alone cuts out the very
heart of IDEA. IDEA was created to prevent this type of discrimination
against disabled students. If a student's health problem is the reason
for causing trouble in the classroom, the health problem must be taken
into account before the child is expelled indefinitely. We should be
strengthening the current law instead of weakening it. It's just common
sense.
As a student with disabilities, a nurse, a mother, and a Member of
Congress, I am hopeful that we protect all children.
With that, I urge all my colleagues to vote against this bill that
takes the heart out of IDEA.
We should be doing more not less for our students.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, the Americans with Disabilities Act,
ADA, and the Individuals with Disabilities Action IDEA, are two primary
and most important laws that protect the rights of a special segment of
our population--individuals with disabilities. Today, we debate the
passage of H.R. 1350, a bill to reauthorize IDEA, which was created to
ensure that all children with disabilities are afforded a free and
appropriate public education within the least restrictive environment,
and that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such
children are protected. H.R. 1350, undermines the original intent of
the law and essentially guts the protections it was intended to
provide.
I support, 100 percent improving the quality of education for
children with disabilities, but despite the statements of its
proponents, this bill would not achieve this goal.
The base bill undermines civil rights provisions, something that
seems under attack on many fronts by this administration, and as in the
Leave No Child Behind Act, fails to fully fund it. This reauthorization
would make IDEA nothing more than an empty promise.
I am also very much opposed to the DeMint voucher proposal. Is this
yet another opportunity for the Republicans to force one of their
favorite programs upon the unsuspecting public. It has been said that
the amendment that Representative DeMint is scheduled to offer is not a
voucher, since it allows vouchers without requiring them. That is a
distinction without a difference. A voucher is a voucher is a voucher.
On behalf of approximately 1617 students with disabilities in my
district, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and all the major organizations
representing children with disabilities, I urge my colleagues to
resolve the issues raised by voting for the Democratic amendments and
to oppose final passage of the bill if these issues have not been
successfully addressed.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act, IDEA, is the Nation's main statute ensuring children
with disabilities receive the special education they need for success.
Today, Congress had the opportunity to make a difference in the lives
of millions of children with the reauthorization of IDEA. However, H.R.
1350 squanders this opportunity and that is why I urge all of my
colleagues to vote against this legislation.
Congress had the opportunity to support mandatory full funding for
the IDEA. Two amendments that would have made IDEA a mandatory program
and would have guaranteed that the Federal Government contribute 40
percent of the cost as promised in the original 1975 law were not
allowed to be offered.
Congress authorized the Federal Government to pay up to 40 percent of
each State's excess cost of educating children with disabilities. As we
have learned with the No Child Left Behind Act, promises to fund
education through authorizations are often not kept. It is time we
renew our commitment to all of our Nation's children and pay our share
of the cost of IDEA.
States across the Nation are dealing with an economic crisis, facing
large State budget deficits and making deep cuts to services. IDEA's
unfunded mandate is $10 billion--this is money our States and school
districts could be spending to alleviate State budget crises, reduce
class sizes, build and modernize schools and further technology
advances in education. This is an unfortunate trade off that our States
should not have to make.
Fully funding IDEA is not just about special education. It is about
keeping the promise of funding the mandate the Federal Government has
put on the States and relieving the school funding crisis that States
across the Nation are facing.
Congress needs to focus on real increases in IDEA funding and on
aiding our States and local communities in times of tight budgets.
Congress must follow through on the promise made to our special needs
students years ago.
H.R. 1350 in its current form does not fulfill that promise. Please
oppose H.R. 1350.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1350. As a
father of three, I know the importance of educating our children. There
should be no greater priority then providing our children with the
educational tools needed to succeed in life.
H.R. 1350 fulfills our commit to the youth of this Nation, by
providing special education children with the mechanisms and funding
needed for success.
Mr. Chairman, since the Republicans have controlled Congress we have
increased IDEA part B funding by $6.5 billion or 282 percent. All the
while, the political rhetoric continues to fly in the face of these
facts.
However, this is still not enough. Since 1975, when IDEA was
originally established, Congress committed to provide Federal funding
at 40 percent. Since 1975, IDEA funding levels have not even come close
to reaching the 40 percent level.
H.R. 1350 sets up a bold plan, by setting a clear 7-year path to
reach the 40 percent goal to make the full funding of IDEA a reality. I
strongly support this effort, and this is one of the reasons I will be
voting in favor of this bill.
[[Page H3477]]
Still, many on the other side of the aisle will confuse the issue, by
asserting that this needs to be done by making IDEA a new Federal
entitlement program.
Mr. Chairman, this is a misguided attempt. Making the program a
mandatory Federal entitlement will only make it nearly impossible to
make much needed reforms in IDEA for the future.
Making IDEA a new Federal entitlement spending program will cause an
explosion of new paperwork and bureaucracy in special education at the
very time teachers and parents are seeking a simpler process to ensure
children with disabilities receive the education they deserve.
In addition, this could even prevent IDEA from receiving substantial
funding increases in the upcoming years.
Finally, mandatory spending through a Federal entitlement will remove
the accountability and oversight mechanisms that Congress provides
through the annual discretionary appropriations process.
Instead, we need to continue our commitment to increasing the IDEA
budget as well as the overall education budget to ensure real academic
improvements results for children with disabilities and their peers.
Mr. Chairman, education is a top priority for this Republican-
controlled House and Senate and this bill is a shining example of this
continuing commitment to our children's education.
In spite of the continuing challenges of war and economic recovery--
the Republican administration and Congress remain dedicated to funding
our priorities. For this reason, I am proud to support the full funding
of IDEA and H.R. 1350.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak about this bill to
reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
As the only former State schools chief serving in Congress, I know
firsthand the tremendous challenges facing our schools, teachers,
parents and students when it comes to educating disabled children.
Congress has an obligation to provide a fair share of funding for
special education, and although this bill makes some progress toward
that important goal, it unfortunately falls short.
Since 1975, the Federal Government has pledged to fund 40 percent of
the costs of educating children with disabilities, but it has never
made good on that promise. When I first arrived in this body, Congress
was only funding its special education obligations at about 14 percent.
This year that level will rise to about 18 percent, and this
legislation will provide for additional increases perhaps as high as 21
percent. But Mr. Chairman, that still is not good enough. Congress must
live up to its commitments and fully fund IDEA.
I also urge my colleagues to vote against the voucher amendments on
this bill. Specifically, the DeMint amendment would siphon off precious
public resources and funnel them to fund private schools. Vouchers are
not good public policy. Taking taxpayer dollars to fund private school
tuition is wrong. I urge my colleagues to vote against any and all
voucher amendments.
Vouchers are a bad idea because they drain needed public resources
away from our public schools, where more than 90 percent of the
children in this country are educated, in favor of private schools that
have no accountability to the American taxpayers. Rather than siphoning
funds from the public schools, we need to invest more in initiatives
like school construction, teacher training, class size reduction,
tutoring and in other proven methods to raise academic achievement.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me state that this bill is not all bad,
and I am hopeful it can be improved in the upcoming conference with the
Senate. If the conference can fix its shortcomings, I could support the
final version of this legislation. But this House can do better than
the bill before us now, and I will vote no today on H.R. 1350.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1350, the
``Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act.''
Once again, the Republican majority is failing to match their
rhetoric with their actions. This time the victims are children with
disabilities. This bill will not improve education for children with
disabilities as its title claims. it fails to invest the funds
necessary to make that improvement real and it contains damaging
provisions that actually inhibit such improvements. These are steps
backward, not improvements at all.
The parents of children with disabilities are likely wondering why
Congress is allowing this to happen? Well, its because the Republicans
are refusing to honor the commitment Congress made almost 30 years ago
to significantly invest in educating children with disabilities. Back
then, the Federal Government promised to pay 40 percent of the national
average per pupil for providing this education. Today, we only pay
about 18 percent. Nothing in this bill improves on that. Talk about
passing the buck to local schools. Its no wonder many school districts
are cutting back on education for every child--not to mention their
failing for children with disabilities.
As if the under-funding weren't bad enough, this bill goes further.
This bill ignores the fact that the learning process for any child can
be very sensitive to changes in their home lives or their health
conditions. This is more likely to be true for children with
disabilities, many of whom confront very difficult physical and mental
health conditions that create barriers to their successful learning. it
is critical for schools to constantly monitor the situation of students
with disabilities and ensure that their educational needs are addressed
as quickly as possible. Instead of promoting this need, the bill
eliminates the requirement that every school have short-term
instructional objectives for each student. This greatly decreases the
chance for students with disabilities to succeed because their
individual educational needs may well go unaddressed for what could be
years.
In the biggest step backward, this bill provides schools with the
right to unilaterally expel and child with a disability if they
violate, even once, that school's code of conduct, regardless of the
severity. Republicans eliminate the review process and the requirement
for behavioral assessments and positive interventions in these
discipline cases. Without these protections, there is no limit to the
number of students with disabilities who can be kicked out of school
with no questions asked. This provision is wrong and unfair and has no
place in any legislation claiming to improve education for children
with disabilities.
It is long overdue for Congress to make good on our promise to give
children with disabilities a better chance to succeed. It is in that
spirit that I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the
``Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act''
because it flatly fails that promise. I hope the Senate will fix many
of the damaging provisions in this bill and pass an IDEA
reauthorization bill that really does improve education and opportunity
for children with disabilities. Then, maybe after a conference, we can
vote on a bill that truly achieves the goal of its title.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise against this ill-conceived and ill-
advised piece of legislation. Yet again the Republicans say that
education is their number one priority but every time they have a
chance to demonstrate their commitment to education they slash the
funding or eliminate the programs designed to educate our children.
Since the enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act in 1975, we have failed to fully fund this worthy program. It has
now been 28 years since we wrote children with disabilities a bad check
and today its time to make good on that debt. The only way to ensure
free appropriate public education is to fully fund special education.
Let us not politicize this issue. We know that the program is working.
Millions of children with special needs have benefitted greatly from
IDEA. Let us not return to the dark ages where children with special
needs were considered second class citizens. Our children deserve
better.
Not only do we negate to fully fund special education but we do away
with our children's basic civil rights protections. By removing due
process procedures in this Act, many children with special needs will
be the target of discriminatory practices. This is troubling to me
because even with the current safeguard, minorities are
disproportionately suspended or expelled from school compared to their
majority counterparts. Its seems that this legislation is geared
towards educating just the privileged few.
Again, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to rise on
behalf of the 600,000 children with disabilities so that no child will
be left behind.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the rule and against
the bill. The legislation before the House today fails to live up our
promises to fully fund special education. It fails the parents of
children with disabilities. Worst of all, it fails the kids who need
our help the most.
The Bush Administration and many in this Congress have said over and
over that the education policies of this country should leave no child
behind. If it becomes law, this bill would leave more than 600,000
children with disabilities behind.
For more than 28 years, Congress has pledged time and time again to
provide full funding for special education in this country, but not
once has Congress provided the promised 40 percent Federal cost share
of the states' cost of educating children and disabilities. Currently,
the Federal Government pays just 18 percent. To illustrate my point,
this year my home state of Michigan, will receive $308 million in IDEA
Part B grants. Michigan should receive almost $704 million, if this
Congress would only meet its obligation to fully fund this program, as
it has promised.
IDEA is really the poster child for unfunded federal mandates. The
fiscal crisis confronting the states makes it increasingly difficult
for
[[Page H3478]]
them to pick up the unfunded federal share. Proponents of this
legislation will claim that this bill fully funds IDEA by 1010. This
House can authorize higher spending limits for IDEA until it is blue in
the face, but it doesn't mean anything to our nation's disabled school
children unless we follow up and actually appropriate the money to meet
these authorization levels. And that's where the problem has been.
If the Majority is really serious about fully funding special
education, as it claims, why not make the funding mandatory? It is
ironic that at the same time the Majority is pushing to lock in a
permanent $550 billion tax cut that chiefly benefits the very rich, it
is unwilling to provide the same assurance of funding to disabled
school kids. This speaks volumes about priorities around here.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the rule and opposing
this bill. We can do much better.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 1350, the Improving
Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act. I oppose this
bill as a strong supporter of doing everything possible to advance the
education of persons with disabilities. However, I believe this bill is
yet another case of false advertising by supporters of centralized
education, as it expands the federal education bureaucracy and thus
strips control over education from local communities and the parents of
disabled children. Parents and local communities know their children so
much better than any federal bureaucrat, and they can do a better job
of meeting a child's needs than we in Washington. There is no way that
the unique needs of my grandchildren, and some young boy or girl in Los
Angeles, CA or New York City can be educated by some sort of ``Cookie
Cutter'' approach. In fact, the ``Cookie Cutter'' approach is
especially inappropriate for special needs children.
At a time when Congress should be returning power and funds to the
states, IDEA increases Federal control over education. Under this bill,
expenditures on IDEA will total over $100 billion by the year 2011.
After 2011, congressional appropriators are free to spend as much as
they wish on this program. This flies in the face of many members'
public commitment to place limits on the scope of the Federal
bureaucracy.
There are attempts in this bill to reduce the role of bureaucracy and
paperwork, and some provisions will benefit children. In particular, I
applaud the efforts of the drafters of those who drafted it to address
the over-prescription of psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin by
ensuring that no child shall be placed on these drugs without parental
consent.
However, H.R. 1350 still imposes significant costs on state
governments and localities. For example, this bill places new mandates
on state and local schools to offer special services in areas with
significant ``overidentification'' of disabled students. Mr. Chairman,
the problem of overidentification is one created by the Federal
mandates and federal spending of IDEA! So once again, Congress is using
problems created by their prior mandates to justify imposing new
mandates on the states!
When I think of imposing new mandates on local schools, I think of a
survey of teachers my office conducted last year. According to this
survey, over 65 percent of teachers felt that the federal mandates are
excessive. In fact, the area where most teachers indicated there is too
much federal involvement is disabilities education.
I would ask all my colleagues to consider whether we are truly aiding
education by imposing new mandates, or just making it more difficult
for hard-working, education professionals to properly educate our
children?
The major federal mandate in IDEA is that disabled children be
educated in the least restrictive setting. In other words, this bill
makes mainstreaming the federal policy. Many children may thrive in a
mainstream classroom environment; however, I worry that some children
may be mainstreamed solely because school officials believe federal law
requires it, even though the mainstream environment is not the most
appropriate for that child.
On May 10, 1994, Dr. Mary Wagner testified before the Education
Committee that disabled children who are not placed in mainstream
classrooms graduate from high school at a much higher rate than
disabled children who are mainstreamed. Dr. Wagner quite properly
accused Congress of sacrificing children to ideology.
H.R. 1350 also burdens parents by requiring them to go through a
time-consuming process of bureaucracy and litigation to obtain a proper
education for their child. I have been told that there are trial
lawyers actively soliciting dissatisfied parents of special needs
children as clients for lawsuits against local schools! Parents and
school districts should not be wasting resources that could go to
educating children enriching trial lawyers.
Instead of placing more federal control on education, Congress should
allow parents of disabled children the ability to obtain the type of
education appropriate for that child's unique needs by passing my Help
and Opportunities for Parents of Exceptional Children (HOPE for
Children) Act of 2003, H.R. 1575. This bill allows parents of children
with a learning disability a tax cut of up to $3,000 for educational
expenses. Parents could use this credit to pay for special services for
their child, or to pay tuition at private school or even to home school
their child. By allowing parents of special needs children to control
the education dollar, the HOPE for Children Act allows parents to
control their child's education. Thus, this bill helps parents of
special needs children provide their child an education tailored to the
child's unique needs.
The HOPE for Children Act allows parents of special needs children to
provide those children with an education that matches their child's
unique needs without having to beg permission of education bureaucrats
or engage in lengthy and costly litigation.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop sacrificing children on the altar of
ideology. Every child is unique and special. Given the colossal failure
of Washington's existing interference, it is clear that all children
will be better off when we get Washington out of their classroom and
out of their parents' pocketbooks. I therefore urge my colleagues to
cast a vote for constitutionally limited government and genuine
compassion by opposing H.R. 1350 and supporting the HOPE for Children
Act.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, none of the goals of IDEA can be achieved
without full funding. Today, the majority is refusing even to allow
amendments to improve the funding level in the bill.
Congress authorized full funding of IDEA 28 years ago and still has
failed to deliver. In 1975, Congress authorized funding to cover 40
percent of the excess cost of educating a child with a disability.
President Bush has requested $1 billion increases for IDEA in each of
his last 2 budgets. But according to the U.S. Department of Education,
providing $1 billion increases each year will never allow IDEA to reach
full funding.
When it comes to IDEA funding, Republicans are dwelling on the past,
rather than focusing on the future. The majority consistently points to
increases in IDEA funding in past years and this is true. However, this
doesn't respond to the needs of school districts now. That is why we
need to ensure full funding of IDEA over the next six years.
During debate on the No Child Left Behind Act, the majority claimed
we had to reform IDEA before providing full funding. The bill before us
supplies the Majority's reforms, yet reneges on full funding. What is
the excuse now? Since 1977, 22 separate bills and resolutions have
passed in the House and Senate calling for fund funding of IDEA with
support of a majority of Republicans. It is time for Congress to make
good on this promise.
In recent years, the Republican majority have said that there is not
enough money to appropriate full funding, however they seem to be able
to find enough money to give a large tax cut to those who don't need
it.
I offered an amendment in the Education and the Workforce Committee
with Representative Andrews to remove the funding cap from the bill. I
did so because today seven states stand to lose IDEA funding under this
cap, and another seven may soon be affected. While the Chairman did
agree to move the cap to 13.5 percent--and I thank him for working with
us--I still believe that a cap is fundamentally unfair. Not just unfair
to the 50 states but also to the American children.
Even with this cap on funding, states and schools are still required
to educate students that are identified as having special need even
when the population exceeds the cap. So, why not allow the funding?
While I recognize that the cap reflects an attempt to reduce
inappropriate identification of students as disabled, I believe that a
cap does not get at the problem. Simply setting a cap does not address
the issue of how students are being identified.
I believe that states and localities should be allowed to improve
this inappropriate identification through professional development.
I applaud the chairman for including increased funding for
professional development and research funding to reduce inappropriate
identification of children with disabilities, including
disproportionate assignment of minority children. We should allow these
funds to work.
Let me point out a good point of today's bill. I am glad to see that
section 674(c) recognizes the continued importance of funding an
organization that ``provides free educational materials, including
textbooks, in accessible media for visually impaired and print-disabled
students in elementary, secondary, postsecondary, and graduate
schools.'' As you may know, Mr. Speaker, Recording for the Blind &
Dyslexic, located in New Jersey in my district, has received federal
funding for nearly thirty years to produce, distribute and promote the
use of accessible-format versions of printed textbooks free to
students. During this time,
[[Page H3479]]
they have helped hundreds of thousands of students who would have
otherwise not had access to the textbooks they need to receive the kind
of ``free and appropriate'' education that is outlined under IDEA. I
commend RFB&D and want to bring to the attention of my colleagues in
the Congress the oustanding work of this organization.
I would to thank Chairman Boehner and Subcommittee Chairman Castle
for maintaining this important program in the law. I would like to
express my concern, however, that funding for this activity is no
longer a requirement for the Secretary of Education, as is the case
under current law. I believe this must be changed and this requirement
should be restored, and I look forward to working with the Chairman and
my colleagues to resolve this issue during conference with the Senate.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1350, which
reforms and re-Authorizes the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA), the Nation's primary special education law. This
reauthorization of IDEA offers an opportunity to renew our commitment
to students with special needs in Iowa and across the country.
IDEA laws and funding decisions impact all students, regardless of
whether they have special educational needs.
I commend the Education Committee for authorizing in this bill
special education funding increases for the next two years in line with
the amounts provided in the fiscal year 2004 conference budget
resolution. This includes a $2.2 billion increase in 2004, followed by
another $2.5 billion increases on top of that for 2005.
These funding increases would bring us more than halfway toward our
ultimate goal of funding 40 percent of the national average per pupil
expenditure for each child served under IDEA. These funding levels will
result in the Federal Government paying 21 percent of these costs in
2004 and 25 percent the following year.
Let's take a moment to acknowledge just how far we have come in
funding special education in recent years. The increases in this bill
build upon the dramatic rise in special education funding already
provided by the Republican Congress.
Since 1995, annual special education funding has risen from $2.3
billion to $8.9 billion. We've gone from 7 percent Federal funding to
17 percent.
In the first few years of the previous administration, special
education funding remained essentially flat, with no increase in the
Federal share.
I also want to point out that the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution
includes mandatory funding to help address the national shortage of
special education teachers by allowing Federal loan forgiveness of up
to $17,500 for special education teachers who teach in disadvantaged
school districts.
Funding is only one piece of the puzzle in improving education. We
must ensure that significant improvements are made to the system.
Iowa's students deserve no less. I am pleased this bill includes
critical reforms to enhance educational performance while reducing the
bureaucratic red tape that teachers and school administrators in Iowa
tell me can get in the way of what is most important: teaching.
H.R. 1350 substantially reduces the paperwork requirement of annual
individualized education plans (IEPS) by giving parents the option of
choosing a three-year IEP, instead of having to craft a new one every
year.
The bill grants school districts greater flexibility to more
accurately classify students to avoid wrongly identifying as disabled
those who may have a less severe condition. This growing problem
hinders the progress of affected students and indirectly impacts all
students.
There will be expanded choices for parents by allowing IDEA funds to
be used in some cases to obtain supplemental education services,
including services offered by private educational providers.
The bill also increases the flexibility of local school districts in
making decisions about discipline for individual special education
students. This flexibility can enhance the educational environment for
all students. This is a necessary step I have been advocating for some
time.
I support this bill and applaud the efforts of Mr. Boehner and Mr.
Castle to improve the Nation's special education law at a time as we
continue working to ensure that no child is left behind in America's
classrooms.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, not since Congress first passed
legislation to help children with disabilities to receive a free and
appropriate public education has a bill done so much for disabled
students, parents, and their teachers. That is why I am proud to
support the Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities
Act.
One important aspect of this legislation is that it helps to reduce
the over-identification and mis-identification of non-disabled
students. For far too long, students that were not disabled were
classified as being disabled--stigmatizing these children for the rest
of their education even though they were fully capable students.
H.R. 1350 encourages the use of early intervention strategies, which
we all know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. By
reducing the number of non-disabled students receiving services,
students who truly need assistance will have more resources available
to them.
I would also like to point out that our litigious society has
fostered an atmosphere of mistrust and apprehension between parents and
teachers. H.R. 1350 gives parents and schools increased flexibility in
resoling disputes. Through mediation and voluntary binding arbitration,
the trust between parents and teachers can be restored.
While I understand the fears and concerns of some regarding changes
to IDEA, I believe that H.R. 1350 goes a long way towards increasing
accountability and flexibility for both teachers and parents. I
strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, over a quarter century ago, President Ford
signed historic legislation seeking to ensure educational equity for
children with disabilities and special needs. This legislation, now
known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), was a
major milestone in the quest to end the chronic exclusion of students
with exceptional needs. It helped open the door to fairness and access
for millions of such youngsters and paved the way to greater
educational success for many students with disabilities.
IDEA is both a grants statute and a civil rights statute. It mandates
that all disabled students be provided a free appropriated public
education in the least restrictive environment. Over six million
children with disabilities are no longer limited by their families'
ability to afford private education; they are no longer forced to
attend costly state institutions, or worse, stay home and miss out
entirely on the benefits of an education. IDEA ensures that children
with disabilities may attend public school alongside their peers. There
is no question about it: students, schools, communities are enriched
when all children have a right to a free, appropriate public education.
As a member of the Education and Workforce Committee since 1997, I
have worked hard to improve the quality of education for our children.
Consistently, I have called on the federal government to fully fund
IDEA. In fact, during reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act I offered an amendment to fully fund IDEA. Unfortunately
the House leadership prevented the amendment from being debated on the
House floor.
Again, during committee consideration of H.R. 1350, I supported an
amendment for mandatory full funding offered by Representative Woolsey.
I am disappointed by the Committee's failure to adopt this important
amendment. This is not the time to withhold necessary funds from out
states. In the end, it is all our students nationwide, with an without
disabilities, who suffer from the lack of federal funds for special
education.
While I realize that H.R. 1350 is not a perfect bill, I feel that it
resolves some significant issues that are problematic in Wisconsin,
such as increasing instructional time with students through paperwork
reduction, improving early intervention strategies, reducing
overidentification and working to resolve conflicts between schools and
parents early and with less litigation. I hope, that as we move forward
we can continue to improve the bill and work with the Senate to produce
the best bill possible.
Specicially, I am pleased that H.R. 1350 includes several amendments
I offered during committee that focus on professional development.
Frequently, during my visits with special education personnel in
Wisconsin I heard how difficult it is to access professional
development, this being more pronounced in those rural school systems
in my district. For example, in Wisconsin a special education teacher
is required to obtain six credit hours of professional development
training every five years.
Thus, my amendment encourages the use and development of state-of-
the-art strategies to deliver professional development training for
school personnel working with special education students through the
use of technology, peer networks, and distance learning. The training
will include special and regular education teachers, principals,
superintendents, and other related services personnel.
Furthermore, to better assist states in encouraging the development
and use of distance learning and technology for special education
personnel, it is critical to raise awareness of what is currently
available in the area of distance learning for professional
development. Therefore, I requested GAO to research the existing and
developing distance learning and technology program offered to special
education personnel. This knowledge will help better focus resources
and time on developing programs where they are needed.
I offered an additional professional development amendment that will
include principals,
[[Page H3480]]
superintendents, and administrators in the states personnel preparation
programs. As district Special Education Directors leave, retire, or are
cut due to budgetary shortfalls, principals, and superintendents are
being tapped to fill this void. In the 423 school districts in
Wisconsin, less than half, only 185 school districts presently have
directors of special education. In the 238 districts without a director
of special education, school principals and superintendents provide
leadership of special education programs. Yet, few have had training
needed to administer these complicated programs. This amendment will
allow states to include administrators in special education
professional development programs.
Finally, H.R. 1350 includes a new provision that permits states to
establish and implement cost- and risk-sharing funds, consortiums or
cooperatives to assist students with severe disabilities. I offered my
amendment, which was accepted, that would allow states to prioritize a
certain percentage of funding for school districts to finance these
programs. High-cost, low-incidence students have a significant impact
on the budgets of the school districts, and this can be very pronounced
in rural areas. I am pleased this amendment was accepted and know it
will have a positive impact for Wisconsin.
Mr. Chairman, our educators are doing everything they can to meet the
needs of disabled students, despite the federal government's failure to
fully-fund IDEA. Congress has gone less than half way in its promise to
fund 40 percent of education costs for children with disabilities.
Therefore, until it does, we have to provide whatever help we can and I
feel that H.R. 1350 is a step forward in helping our local education
communities reach the goal of providing the best possible education
system for students with disabilities.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, it's with great disappointment that I rise
today in opposition to H.R. 1350, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act reauthorization.
H.R. 1350 fails special ed kids for these reasons: It undermines
their civil rights and their educational opportunity by removing
parental involvement in actions relating to the identification,
evaluation and education of their child.
It limits the dialogue between school professionals and families. It
institutes a one-year statute of limitations on parents to bring about
any grievances with their child's education.
It eliminates short term objectives for a student's Individualized
Education Program and limits a teacher of special ed to participate in
the process.
It makes changes to disciplinary procedures which allow disabled
children to be punished or removed for behavior due to their
disability.
And H.R. 1350 fails to fully fund IDEA. It calls for full funding
over seven years, but there isn't any guarantee that these dollars will
be there in seven years.
Congress made a commitment in 1975 to our children and our school
districts to fully fund special education at forty-percent. What an
insult it is that twenty-eight years later, Congress is still funding
less than half of this commitment. The budget passed by the House this
year authorizes only $8.5 billion, far short of the $20.2 billion
needed to fulfill our obligation.
Today every state across the nation is struggling fiscally, the worst
condition of states since the Great Depression and school funding is
being slashed.
It's critical that our nation's Governors unite with Congress now to
uphold the special education commitment to school districts. I support
the Woolsey-McKeon amendment which requires that any additional
increases in IDEA federal funding be passed down directly to the local
level.
I regret that the House is missing a critical opportunity to invest
in our children and our schools through IDEA reauthorization. The
reality of this bill is that it's bad for our children and it will set
back the progress we've made.
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
H.R. 1350 as I believe it will make many necessary reforms to better
serve our Nation's special-needs students, but wish to makes my
reservations known about funding levels for part B of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. It is well known that Congress
committed to contribute up to 40 percent of the average per pupil
expenditure of educating special needs children, and Congress' failure
to achieve even half of that 40 percent promise is even more well
known. In fact, in 28 years Congress has never contributed more than
17.6 percent, leaving local school districts with too heavy a burden to
provide for their special needs children. Thus, I am currently
cosponsor to H.R. 1094, legislation that would authorize appropriations
to achieve the full, 40 percent funding for part B of IDEA by 2008. I
believe it is imperative that the Federal Government keep its promise
to our Nation's special needs children.
While I am pleased that funding for IDEA has steadily risen in the
last several years, Congress is long overdue in providing its promise
of 40 percent. That said, I support H.R. 1350, although I realize that
its funding levels for part B of IDEA are lower than those that would
be authorized if H.R. 1094 were signed into law. While I realize this
discrepancy, I do believe that H.R. 1350 puts forth a good-faith effort
to dramatically increase the Federal Government's expenditure for
special needs children. H.R. 1350 will set in motion a plan to finally
achieve the 40 percent funding, and thus makes a statement that
Congress realizes its current funding shortfall of IDEA. I will
continue to fight for full funding for part B of IDEA in the budget for
FY2004 and beyond.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be
considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 1350
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Improving Education Results
for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003''.
TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 101. SECTIONS 601 THROUGH 603 OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT.
Sections 601 through 603 of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400-1402) are amended
to read as follows:
``SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS; FINDINGS;
PURPOSES.
``(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
`Individuals with Disabilities Education Act'.
``(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this
Act is as follows:
``Part A--General Provisions
``Sec. 601. Short title; table of contents; findings; purposes.
``Sec. 602. Definitions.
``Sec. 603. Office of Special Education Programs.
``Sec. 604. Abrogation of State sovereign immunity.
``Sec. 605. Acquisition of equipment; construction or alteration of
facilities.
``Sec. 606. Employment of individuals with disabilities.
``Sec. 607. Requirements for prescribing regulations.
``Sec. 608. State administration.
``Part B--Assistance for Education of All Children with Disabilities
``Sec. 611. Authorization; allotment; use of funds; authorization of
appropriations.
``Sec. 612. State eligibility.
``Sec. 613. Local educational agency eligibility.
``Sec. 614. Evaluations, eligibility determinations, individualized
education programs, and educational placements.
``Sec. 615. Procedural safeguards.
``Sec. 616. Monitoring, enforcement, withholding, and judicial review.
``Sec. 617. Administration.
``Sec. 618. Program information.
``Sec. 619. Preschool grants.
``Part C--Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities
``Sec. 631. Findings and policy.
``Sec. 632. Definitions.
``Sec. 633. General authority.
``Sec. 634. Eligibility.
``Sec. 635. Requirements for statewide system.
``Sec. 636. Individualized family service plan.
``Sec. 637. State application and assurances.
``Sec. 638. Uses of funds.
``Sec. 639. Procedural safeguards.
``Sec. 640. Payor of last resort.
``Sec. 641. State Interagency Coordinating Council.
``Sec. 642. Federal administration.
``Sec. 643. Allocation of funds.
``Sec. 644. Authorization of appropriations.
``Part D--National Activities To Improve Education of Children With
Disabilities
``Sec. 651. Findings.
``SUBPART 1--STATE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
``Sec. 652. Purpose.
``Sec. 653. Eligibility and collaborative process.
``Sec. 654. Applications.
``Sec. 655. Use of funds.
``Sec. 656. State grant amounts.
``Sec. 657. Authorization of appropriations.
``SUBPART 2--SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH; TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE;
MODEL DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS; DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION; AND
PERSONNEL PREPARATION PROGRAMS
``Sec. 661. Purpose.
``Sec. 662. Administrative provisions.
``Sec. 663. Research to improve results for children with disabilities.
``Sec. 664. Technical assistance, demonstration projects, dissemination
of information, and implementation of scientifically
based research.
[[Page H3481]]
``Sec. 665. Personnel preparation programs to improve services and
results for children with disabilities.
``Sec. 666. Studies and evaluations.
``Sec. 667. Authorization of appropriations.
``SUBPART 3--SUPPORTS TO IMPROVE RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES
``Sec. 671. Purposes.
``Sec. 672. Parent training and information centers.
``Sec. 673. Community parent resource centers.
``Sec. 674. Technical assistance for parent training and information
centers.
``Sec. 675. Technology development, demonstration, and utilization; and
media services.
``(c) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
``(1) Disability is a natural part of the human experience
and in no way diminishes the right of individuals to
participate in or contribute to society. Improving
educational results for children with disabilities is an
essential element of our national policy of ensuring equality
of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and
economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities.
``(2) Before the date of the enactment of the Education for
All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Public Law 94-142), the
special educational needs of millions of children with
disabilities were not being fully met and there were many
children with disabilities participating in regular school
programs whose undiagnosed disabilities prevented them from
having a successful educational experience.
``(3) Since the enactment and implementation of the
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, this Act
has been successful in ensuring children with disabilities
and the families of such children access to a free
appropriate public education and in improving educational
results for children with disabilities.
``(4) Over 25 years of research and experience has
demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities
can be made more effective by--
``(A) having high expectations for such children and
ensuring their access to the general education curriculum in
the regular classroom to the maximum extent possible in
order--
``(i) to meet developmental goals and, to the maximum
extent possible, the challenging expectations that have been
established for all children; and
``(ii) to be prepared to lead productive and independent
adult lives, to the maximum extent possible;
``(B) strengthening the role and responsibility of parents
and ensuring that families of such children have meaningful
opportunities to participate in the education of their
children at school and at home;
``(C) coordinating this Act with other local, State, and
Federal school improvement efforts, including efforts under
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, in order
to ensure that children with disabilities benefit from such
efforts and that special education can become a service for
such children rather than a place where they are sent;
``(D) supporting high-quality, intensive professional
development for personnel who work with children with
disabilities;
``(E) providing incentives for scientifically based reading
programs and prereferral intervention services to reduce the
need to label children as disabled in order to address their
learning needs;
``(F) focusing resources on teaching and learning while
reducing paperwork and requirements that do not assist in
improving educational results; and
``(G) supporting the development and use of technology,
including assistive technology devices and services, to
maximize accessibility for children with disabilities.
``(5) While States, local educational agencies, and
educational service agencies are primarily responsible for
providing an education for all children with disabilities, it
is in the national interest that the Federal Government has a
supporting role in assisting State and local efforts to
educate children with disabilities in order to improve
results for such children and to ensure equal protection of
the law.
``(6) A more equitable allocation of resources is essential
for the Federal Government to meet its responsibility to
provide an equal educational opportunity for all individuals.
``(7)(A) The Federal Government must respond to the growing
needs of an increasingly diverse society.
``(B) America's ethnic profile is rapidly changing. In the
year 2000, nearly one of every three persons in America was a
member of a minority group or was limited English proficient.
``(C) Minority children comprise an increasing percentage
of public school students.
``(D) With such changing demographics, recruitment efforts
for special education personnel should focus on increasing
the participation of minorities in the teaching profession in
order to provide appropriate role models with sufficient
knowledge to address the special education needs of these
students.
``(8)(A) The limited English proficient population is the
fastest growing in our Nation, and the growth is occurring in
many parts of our Nation.
``(B) Studies have documented apparent discrepancies in the
levels of referral and placement of limited English
proficient children in special education.
``(C) This poses a special challenge for special education
in the referral, assessment, and provision of services for
our Nation's students from non-English language backgrounds.
``(9)(A) Greater efforts are needed to prevent the
intensification of problems connected with mislabeling and
high dropout rates among minority children with disabilities.
``(B) More minority children continue to be served in
special education than would be expected from the percentage
of minority students in the general school population.
``(C) African American children are overidentified as
having mental retardation and emotional disturbance at rates
greater than their white counterparts.
``(D) In the 1998-99 school year, African American children
represented just 14.8 percent of the population aged 6
through 21, but comprised 20.2 percent of all children with
disabilities.
``(E) Studies have found that schools with predominantly
Caucasian students and teachers have placed
disproportionately high numbers of their minority students
into special education.
``(10)(A) As the number of minority students in special
education increases, the number of minority teachers and
related services personnel produced in colleges and
universities continues to decrease.
``(B) The opportunity for full participation by minority
individuals, organizations, and historically black colleges
and universities in awards for grants and contracts, boards
of organizations receiving assistance under this Act, peer
review panels, and training of professionals in the area of
special education is essential to obtain greater success in
the education of minority children with disabilities.
``(d) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
``(1)(A) to ensure that all children with disabilities have
available to them a free appropriate public education that
emphasizes special education and related services designed to
meet their unique needs and prepare them for further
education, employment, and independent living;
``(B) to ensure that the rights of children with
disabilities and parents of such children are protected; and
``(C) to assist States, localities, educational service
agencies, and Federal agencies to provide for the education
of all children with disabilities;
``(2) to assist States in the implementation of a
statewide, comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary,
interagency system of early intervention services for infants
and toddlers with disabilities and their families;
``(3) to ensure that educators and parents have the
necessary tools to improve educational results for children
with disabilities by supporting system improvement
activities; coordinated research and personnel preparation;
coordinated technical assistance, dissemination, and support;
and technology development and media services; and
``(4) to assess, and ensure the effectiveness of, efforts
to educate children with disabilities.
``SEC. 602. DEFINITIONS.
``Except as otherwise provided, as used in this Act:
``(1) Assistive technology device.--The term `assistive
technology device' means any item, piece of equipment, or
product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf,
modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain,
or improve functional capabilities of a child with a
disability.
``(2) Assistive technology service.--The term `assistive
technology service' means any service that directly assists a
child with a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use
of an assistive technology device. Such term includes--
``(A) the evaluation of the needs of such child, including
a functional evaluation of the child in the child's customary
environment;
``(B) purchasing, leasing, or otherwise providing for the
acquisition of assistive technology devices by such child;
``(C) selecting, designing, fitting, customizing, adapting,
applying, maintaining, repairing, or replacing of assistive
technology devices;
``(D) coordinating and using other therapies,
interventions, or services with assistive technology devices,
such as those associated with existing education and
rehabilitation plans and programs;
``(E) training or technical assistance for such child, or,
where appropriate, the family of such child; and
``(F) training or technical assistance for professionals
(including individuals providing education and rehabilitation
services), employers, or other individuals who provide
services to, employ, or are otherwise substantially involved
in the major life functions of such child.
``(3) Child with a disability.--
``(A) In general.--The term `child with a disability' means
a child--
``(i) with mental retardation, hearing impairments
(including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual
impairments (including blindness), serious emotional
disturbance (hereinafter referred to as `emotional
disturbance'), orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic
brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning
disabilities; and
``(ii) who, by reason thereof, needs special education and
related services.
``(B) Child aged 3 through 9.--The term `child with a
disability ' for a child aged 3 through 9 or any subset of
that age range, including ages 3 through 5, may, at the
discretion of the State and the local educational agency,
include a child--
``(i) experiencing developmental delays, as defined by the
State and as measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments
and procedures, in one or more of the following areas:
physical development, cognitive development, communication
development, social or emotional development, or adaptive
development; and
``(ii) who, by reason thereof, needs special education and
related services.
``(4) Educational service agency.--The term `educational
service agency'--
``(A) means a regional public multiservice agency--
``(i) authorized by State law to develop, manage, and
provide services or programs to local educational agencies;
and
[[Page H3482]]
``(ii) recognized as an administrative agency for purposes
of the provision of special education and related services
provided within public elementary and secondary schools of
the State; and
``(B) includes any other public institution or agency
having administrative control and direction over a public
elementary or secondary school.
``(5) Elementary school.--The term `elementary school'
means a nonprofit institutional day or residential school
that provides elementary education, as determined under State
law.
``(6) Equipment.--The term `equipment' includes--
``(A) machinery, utilities, and built-in equipment and any
necessary enclosures or structures to house such machinery,
utilities, or equipment; and
``(B) all other items necessary for the functioning of a
particular facility as a facility for the provision of
educational services, including items such as instructional
equipment and necessary furniture; printed, published, and
audio-visual instructional materials; telecommunications,
sensory, and other technological aids and devices; and books,
periodicals, documents, and other related materials.
``(7) Excess costs.--The term `excess costs' means those
costs that are in excess of the average annual per-student
expenditure in a local educational agency during the
preceding school year for an elementary or secondary school
student, as may be appropriate, and which shall be computed
after deducting--
``(A) amounts received--
``(i) under part B of this title;
``(ii) under part A of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965; and
``(iii) under title III of that Act; and
``(B) any State or local funds expended for programs that
would qualify for assistance under any of the provisions of
law described in subparagraph (A).
``(8) Free appropriate public education.--The term `free
appropriate public education' means special education and
related services that--
``(A) have been provided at public expense, under public
supervision and direction, and without charge;
``(B) meet the standards of the State educational agency;
``(C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or
secondary school education in the State involved; and
``(D) are provided in conformity with the individualized
education program required under section 614(d).
``(9) Highly qualified.--The term `highly qualified' has
the same meaning as that term in section 9101 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
``(10) Indian.--The term `Indian' means an individual who
is a member of an Indian tribe.
``(11) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' means any
Federal or State Indian tribe, band, rancheria, pueblo,
colony, or community, including any Alaska Native village or
regional village corporation (as defined in or established
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act).
``(12) Individualized education program.--The term
`individualized education program' or `IEP' means a written
statement for each child with a disability that is developed,
reviewed, and revised in accordance with section 614(d).
``(13) Individualized family service plan.--The term
`individualized family service plan' has the meaning given
such term in section 636.
``(14) Infant or toddler with a disability.--The term
`infant or toddler with a disability ' has the meaning given
such term in section 632.
``(15) Institution of higher education.--The term
`institution of higher education'--
``(A) has the meaning given that term in subsection (a) or
(b) of section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965; and
``(B) also includes any community college receiving funding
from the Secretary of the Interior under the Tribally
Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978.
``(16) Local educational agency.--
``(A) The term `local educational agency' means a public
board of education or other public authority legally
constituted within a State for either administrative control
or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public
elementary or secondary schools in a city, county, township,
school district, or other political subdivision of a State,
or for such combination of school districts or counties as
are recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its
public elementary or secondary schools.
``(B) The term includes--
``(i) an educational service agency, as defined in
paragraph (4); and
``(ii) any other public institution or agency having
administrative control and direction of a public elementary
or secondary school.
``(C) The term includes an elementary or secondary school
funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but only to the
extent that such inclusion makes the school eligible for
programs for which specific eligibility is not provided to
the school in another provision of law and the school does
not have a student population that is smaller than the
student population of the local educational agency receiving
assistance under this Act with the smallest student
population, except that the school shall not be subject to
the jurisdiction of any State educational agency other than
the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
``(17) Native language.--The term `native language', when
used with reference to an individual of limited English
proficiency, means the language normally used by the
individual, or, in the case of a child, the language normally
used by the parents of the child.
``(18) Nonprofit.--The term `nonprofit', as applied to a
school, agency, organization, or institution, means a school,
agency, organization, or institution owned and operated by
one or more nonprofit corporations or associations no part of
the net earnings of which inures, or may lawfully inure, to
the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.
``(19) Outlying area.--The term `outlying area' means the
United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
``(20) Parent.--The term `parent'--
``(A) includes a legal guardian; and
``(B) except as used in sections 615(b)(2) and 639(a)(5),
includes an individual assigned under either of those
sections to be a surrogate parent.
``(21) Parent organization.--The term `parent organization'
has the meaning given that term in section 672(g).
``(22) Parent training and information center.--The term
`parent training and information center' means a center
assisted under sections 672 and 673.
``(23) Related services.--The term `related services' means
transportation, and such developmental, corrective, and other
supportive services (including speech-language pathology and
audiology services, psychological services, physical and
occupational therapy, recreation, including therapeutic
recreation, social work services, counseling services,
including rehabilitation counseling, orientation and mobility
services, and medical services, except that such medical
services shall be for diagnostic and evaluation purposes
only) as may be required to assist a child with a disability
to benefit from special education, and includes the early
identification and assessment of disabling conditions in
children.
``(24) Secondary school.--The term `secondary school' means
a nonprofit institutional day or residential school that
provides secondary education, as determined under State law,
except that it does not include any education beyond grade
12.
``(25) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Education.
``(26) Special education.--The term `special education'
means specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents,
to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability,
including--
``(A) instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home,
in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings; and
``(B) instruction in physical education.
``(27) Specific learning disability.--
``(A) In general.--The term `specific learning disability '
means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological
processes involved in understanding or in using language,
spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in
imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write,
spell, or do mathematical calculations.
``(B) Disorders included.--Such term includes such
conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal
brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.
``(C) Disorders not included.--Such term does not include a
learning problem that is primarily the result of visual,
hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of
emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or
economic disadvantage.
``(28) State.--The term `State' means each of the 50
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, and each of the outlying areas.
``(29) State educational agency.--The term `State
educational agency' means the State board of education or
other agency or officer primarily responsible for the State
supervision of public elementary and secondary schools, or,
if there is no such officer or agency, an officer or agency
designated by the Governor or by State law.
``(30) Supplementary aids and services.--The term
`supplementary aids and services' means aids, services, and
other supports that are provided in regular education classes
or other education-related settings to enable children with
disabilities to be educated with nondisabled children to the
maximum extent appropriate in accordance with section
612(a)(5).
``(31) Transition services.--The term `transition services'
means a coordinated set of activities for a child with a
disability that--
``(A) is designed within a results-oriented process, that
is focused on improving the academic and developmental
achievement of the child with a disability to facilitate the
child's move from school to post-school activities, including
post-secondary education, vocational training, integrated
employment (including supported employment), continuing and
adult education, adult services, independent living, or
community participation;
``(B) is based upon the individual child's needs, taking
into account the child's skills, preferences, and interests;
and
``(C) includes instruction, related services, community
experiences, the development of employment and other post-
school adult living objectives, and, when appropriate,
acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocational
evaluation.
``SEC. 603. OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
``(a) Establishment.--There shall be, within the Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in the
Department of Education, an Office of Special Education
Programs, which shall be the principal agency in such
Department for administering and carrying out this Act and
other programs and activities concerning the education of
children with disabilities.
``(b) Director.--The Office established under subsection
(a) shall be headed by a Director who shall be selected by
the Secretary and shall report directly to the Assistant
Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
``(c) Voluntary and Uncompensated Services.--
Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United States Code,
the Secretary is authorized to accept voluntary and
uncompensated services in furtherance of the purposes of this
Act.''.
[[Page H3483]]
SEC. 102. SECTIONS 605 THROUGH 607 OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT.
Sections 605 through 607 of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1404-1406) are amended
to read as follows:
``SEC. 605. ACQUISITION OF EQUIPMENT; CONSTRUCTION OR
ALTERATION OF FACILITIES.
``(a) In General.--If the Secretary determines that a
program authorized under this Act would be improved by
permitting program funds to be used to acquire appropriate
equipment, or to construct new facilities or alter existing
facilities, the Secretary is authorized to allow the use of
those funds for those purposes.
``(b) Compliance With Certain Regulations.--Any
construction of new facilities or alteration of existing
facilities under subsection (a) shall comply with the
requirements of--
``(1) appendix A of part 36 of title 28, Code of Federal
Regulations (commonly known as the `Americans with
Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and
Facilities'); or
``(2) appendix A of part 101-19.6 of title 41, Code of
Federal Regulations (commonly known as the `Uniform Federal
Accessibility Standards').
``SEC. 606. EMPLOYMENT OF INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES.
``The Secretary shall ensure that each recipient of
assistance under this Act makes positive efforts to employ
and advance in employment qualified individuals with
disabilities, particularly as teachers, related services
personnel, early intervention providers, and administrators,
in programs assisted under this Act.
``SEC. 607. REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may issue regulations
under this Act only to the extent that such regulations are
reasonably necessary to ensure that there is compliance with
the specific requirements of this Act.
``(b) Protections Provided to Children.--The Secretary may
not implement, or publish in final form, any regulation
prescribed pursuant to this Act that would--
``(1) violate or contradict any provision of this Act; and
``(2) procedurally or substantively lessen the protections
provided to children with disabilities under this Act, as
embodied in regulations in effect on July 20, 1983
(particularly as such protections relate to parental consent
to initial evaluation or initial placement in special
education, least restrictive environment, related services,
timelines, attendance of evaluation personnel at
individualized education program meetings, or qualifications
of personnel), except to the extent that such regulation
reflects the clear and unequivocal intent of the Congress in
legislation.
``(c) Public Comment Period.--The Secretary shall provide a
public comment period of at least 60 days on any regulation
proposed under part B or part C of this Act on which an
opportunity for public comment is otherwise required by law.
``(d) Policy Letters and Statements.--The Secretary may not
issue policy letters or other statements (including on issues
of national significance) that--
``(1) would violate or contradict any provision of this
Act; or
``(2) establish a rule that is required for compliance
with, and eligibility under, this Act without following the
requirements of section 553 of title 5, United States Code.
``(e) Correspondence From Department of Education
Describing Interpretations of This Part.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, on a quarterly
basis, publish in the Federal Register, and widely
disseminate to interested entities through various additional
forms of communication, a list of correspondence from the
Department of Education received by individuals during the
previous quarter that describes the interpretations of the
Department of Education of this Act or the regulations
implemented pursuant to this Act.
``(2) Additional information.--For each item of
correspondence published in a list under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall--
``(A) identify the topic addressed by the correspondence
and shall include such other summary information as the
Secretary determines to be appropriate; and
``(B) ensure that all such correspondence is issued, where
applicable, in compliance with section 553 of title 5, United
States Code.
``(f) Explanation and Assurances.--Any written response by
the Secretary under subsection (e) regarding a policy,
question, or interpretation under this Act shall include an
explanation in the written response that the response--
``(1) is issued, when required, in compliance with the
requirements of section 553 of title 5, United States Code;
and
``(2) is provided as informal guidance and represents only
the interpretation by the Department of Education of the
applicable statutory or regulatory requirements in the
context of the specific facts presented in the original
question.''.
SEC. 103. SECTION 608 OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
EDUCATION ACT.
Part A of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``SEC. 608. STATE ADMINISTRATION.
``(a) Rulemaking.--Each State that receives funds under
this Act shall--
``(1) ensure that any State rules, regulations, and
policies relating to this Act conform to the purposes of this
Act; and
``(2) minimize the number of rules, regulations, and
policies to which the State's local educational agencies and
schools are subject to under this Act.
``(b) Support and Facilitation.--All State rules,
regulations, and policies relating to this Act shall support
and facilitate local educational agency and school-level
systemic reform designed to enable children with disabilities
to meet the challenging State student academic achievement
standards.''.
SEC. 104. GAO REVIEW; REPORT.
(a) Review.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a review
of all Federal requirements under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, and the requirements of a
reasonable sample of State and local educational agencies
relating to such Act, to determine which requirements result
in excessive paperwork completion burdens for teachers,
related services providers, and school administrators.
(b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall prepare
and submit to Congress a report that contains the results of
the review under subsection (a).
SEC. 105. GAO REVIEW OF CERTAIN STATE DEFINITIONS AND
EVALUATION PROCESSES.
(a) Review.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a review of--
(1) variation among States in definitions, and evaluation
processes, relating to the provision of services under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to children
having conditions described in section 602(a)(3) of such Act
using the terms ``emotional disturbance'', ``other health
impairments'', and ``specific learning disability''; and
(2) the degree to which these definitions and evaluation
processes conform to scientific, peer-reviewed research.
(b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall prepare
and submit to Congress a report that contains the results of
the review under subsection (a).
SEC. 106. ADDITIONAL GAO STUDY AND REPORT.
(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study on existing or developing
professional development programs for special education
personnel delivered through the use of technology and
distance learning.
(b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit a report containing the findings from the
study conducted under subsection (a) to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
of the Senate.
SEC. 107. STUDY ON LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENTS.
(a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study on how limited English
proficient students are being served under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act.
(b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of the Improving Education Results for Children
With Disabilities Act of 2003, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit a report containing the findings
from the study conducted under subsection (a) to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions of the Senate.
TITLE II--ASSISTANCE FOR EDUCATION OF ALL CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION; ALLOTMENT; USE OF FUNDS;
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 611 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1411) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 611. AUTHORIZATION; ALLOTMENT; USE OF FUNDS;
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) Grants to States.--
``(1) Purpose of grants.--The Secretary shall make grants
to States and the outlying areas, and provide funds to the
Secretary of the Interior, to assist them to provide special
education and related services to children with disabilities
in accordance with this part.
``(2) Maximum amounts.--The maximum amount of the grant a
State may receive under this section for any fiscal year is--
``(A) the number of children with disabilities in the State
who are receiving special education and related services--
``(i) aged 3 through 5 if the State is eligible for a grant
under section 619; and
``(ii) aged 6 through 21; multiplied by
``(B) 40 percent of the average per-pupil expenditure in
public elementary and secondary schools in the United States.
``(3) Limitation.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of paragraph (2), the maximum amount of the grant a State
may receive under this section for a fiscal year may not be
based on the number of children ages 3 through 17, inclusive,
in excess of 13.5 percent of the number of all children in
that age range in the State.
``(b) Outlying Areas.--
``(1) Funds reserved.--From the amount appropriated for any
fiscal year under subsection (i), the Secretary shall reserve
not more than one percent, which shall be used to provide
assistance to the outlying areas in accordance with their
respective populations of individuals aged 3 through 21.
``(2) Special rule.--The provisions of Public Law 95-134,
permitting the consolidation of grants by the outlying areas,
shall not apply to funds provided to those areas under this
section.
``(c) Secretary of the Interior.--From the amount
appropriated for any fiscal year under subsection (i), the
Secretary shall reserve 1.226 percent to provide assistance
to the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with
subsection (h).
[[Page H3484]]
``(d) Allocations to States.--
``(1) In general.--After reserving funds for payments to
the outlying areas and the Secretary of the Interior under
subsections (b) and (c), the Secretary shall allocate the
remaining amount among the States in accordance with this
subsection.
``(2) Special rule for use of fiscal year 1999 amount.--If
a State does not make a free appropriate public education
available to all children with disabilities aged 3 through 5
in the State in any fiscal year, the Secretary shall compute
the State's amount for fiscal year 1999, solely for the
purpose of calculating the State's allocation in the
subsequent year under paragraph (3) or (4), by subtracting
the amount allocated to the State for fiscal year 1999 on the
basis of those children.
``(3) Increase in funds.--If the amount available for
allocations to States under paragraph (1) is greater than the
amount allocated to the States under this paragraph for the
preceding fiscal year, those allocations shall be calculated
as follows:
``(A)(i) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the
Secretary shall allocate--
``(I) to each State the amount it received for fiscal year
1999;
``(II) 85 percent of any remaining funds to States on the
basis of their relative populations of children aged 3
through 21 who are of the same age as children with
disabilities for whom the State ensures the availability of a
free appropriate public education under this part; and
``(III) 15 percent of those remaining funds to States on
the basis of their relative populations of children described
in subclause (II) who are living in poverty.
``(ii) For the purpose of making grants under this
paragraph, the Secretary shall use the most recent population
data, including data on children living in poverty, that are
available and satisfactory to the Secretary.
``(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), allocations under
this paragraph shall be subject to the following:
``(i) No State's allocation shall be less than its
allocation for the preceding fiscal year.
``(ii) No State's allocation shall be less than the
greatest of--
``(I) the sum of--
``(aa) the amount it received for fiscal year 1999; and
``(bb) one-third of one percent of the amount by which the
amount appropriated under subsection (i) exceeds the amount
appropriated under this section for fiscal year 1999;
``(II) the sum of--
``(aa) the amount it received for the preceding fiscal
year; and
``(bb) that amount multiplied by the percentage by which
the increase in the funds appropriated from the preceding
fiscal year exceeds 1.5 percent; or
``(III) the sum of--
``(aa) the amount it received for the preceding fiscal
year; and
``(bb) that amount multiplied by 90 percent of the
percentage increase in the amount appropriated from the
preceding fiscal year.
``(iii) Notwithstanding clause (ii), no State's allocation
under this paragraph shall exceed the sum of--
``(I) the amount it received for the preceding fiscal year;
and
``(II) that amount multiplied by the sum of 1.5 percent and
the percentage increase in the amount appropriated.
``(C) If the amount available for allocations under this
paragraph is insufficient to pay those allocations in full,
those allocations shall be ratably reduced, subject to
subparagraph (B)(i).
``(4) Decrease in funds.--If the amount available for
allocations to States under paragraph (1) is less than the
amount allocated to the States under this section for the
preceding fiscal year, those allocations shall be calculated
as follows:
``(A) If the amount available for allocations is greater
than the amount allocated to the States for fiscal year 1999,
each State shall be allocated the sum of--
``(i) the amount it received for fiscal year 1999; and
``(ii) an amount that bears the same relation to any
remaining funds as the increase the State received for the
preceding fiscal year over fiscal year 1999 bears to the
total of all such increases for all States.
``(B)(i) If the amount available for allocations is equal
to or less than the amount allocated to the States for fiscal
year 1999, each State shall be allocated the amount it
received for fiscal year 1999.
``(ii) If the amount available is insufficient to make the
allocations described in clause (i), those allocations shall
be ratably reduced.
``(e) State-Level Activities.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Each State may retain not more than the amount
described in subparagraph (B) for administration and other
State-level activities in accordance with paragraphs (2),
(3), and (4).
``(B) For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall determine
and report to the State educational agency an amount that is
25 percent of the amount the State received under this
section for fiscal year 1997, cumulatively adjusted by the
Secretary for each succeeding fiscal year by the lesser of--
``(i) the percentage increase, if any, from the preceding
fiscal year in the State's allocation under this section; or
``(ii) the rate of inflation, as measured by the percentage
increase, if any, from the preceding fiscal year in the
Consumer Price Index For All Urban Consumers, published by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.
``(C) A State may use funds it retains under subparagraph
(A) without regard to--
``(i) the prohibition on commingling of funds in section
612(a)(18)(B); and
``(ii) the prohibition on supplanting other funds in
section 612(a)(18)(C).
``(2) State administration.--
``(A) For the purpose of administering this part, including
section 619 (including the coordination of activities under
this part with, and providing technical assistance to, other
programs that provide services to children with
disabilities)--
``(i) each State may use not more than 20 percent of the
maximum amount it may retain under paragraph (1)(A) for any
fiscal year or $500,000 (adjusted by the cumulative rate of
inflation since fiscal year 1998, as measured by the
percentage increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index For
All Urban Consumers, published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the Department of Labor), whichever is greater;
and
``(ii) each outlying area may use up to 5 percent of the
amount it receives under this section for any fiscal year or
$35,000 (adjusted by the cumulative rate of inflation since
fiscal year 1998, as measured by the percentage increase, if
any, in the Consumer Price Index For All Urban Consumers,
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department
of Labor), whichever is greater.
``(B) Funds described in subparagraph (A) may also be used
for the administration of part C of this Act, if the State
educational agency is the lead agency for the State under
that part.
``(3) High cost special education and related services.--
Each State may use not more than 4 percent of the maximum
amount it may retain under paragraph (1)(A) for any fiscal
year to establish and implement cost or risk sharing funds,
consortia, or cooperatives to assist local educational
agencies in providing high cost special education and related
services.
``(4) Other state-level activities.--Each State shall use
any funds it retains under paragraph (1) and does not use
under paragraph (2) or (3) for any of the following:
``(A) Support and direct services, including technical
assistance and personnel development and training.
``(B) Administrative costs of monitoring and complaint
investigation.
``(C) To establish and implement the mediation and
voluntary binding arbitration processes required by sections
612(a)(17) and 615(e), including providing for the costs of
mediators, arbitrators, and support personnel.
``(D) To assist local educational agencies in meeting
personnel shortages.
``(E) Activities at the State and local levels to meet the
performance goals established by the State under section
612(a)(15) and to support implementation of the State plan
under subpart 1 of part D if the State receives funds under
that subpart.
``(F) To support paperwork reduction activities, including
expanding the appropriate use of technology in the IEP
process under this part.
``(G) To develop and maintain a comprehensive, coordinated,
prereferral educational support system for students in
kindergarten through grade 12 (with a particular emphasis on
students in kindergarten through grade 3) who are not
enrolled in special education but who need additional
academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general
education environment.
``(H) To support capacity building activities and improve
the delivery of services by local educational agencies to
improve results for children with disabilities.
``(I) For subgrants to local educational agencies for the
purposes described in paragraph (5)(A).
``(5)(A) Subgrants to local educational agencies for
accountability.--In any fiscal year in which the percentage
increase in the State's allocation under this section exceeds
the rate of inflation (as measured by the percentage
increase, if any, from the preceding fiscal year in the
Consumer Price Index For All Urban Consumers, published by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor),
each State shall reserve, from its allocation under this
section, the amount described in subparagraph (B) to make
subgrants to local educational agencies, unless that amount
is less than $100,000, to provide technical assistance and
direct services to local educational agencies identified as
being in need of improvement under section 1116 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 on the basis,
in whole or in part, of the assessment results of the
disaggregated subgroup of students with disabilities,
including providing professional development to special and
regular education teachers, based on scientifically based
research to improve educational instruction.
``(B) Maximum subgrant.--For each fiscal year, the amount
referred to in subparagraph (A) is--
``(i) the maximum amount the State was allowed to retain
under paragraph (1)(A) for the prior fiscal year, or for
fiscal year 1998, 25 percent of the State's allocation for
fiscal year 1997 under this section; multiplied by
``(ii) the difference between the percentage increase in
the State's allocation under this section and the rate of
inflation, as measured by the percentage increase, if any,
from the preceding fiscal year in the Consumer Price Index
For All Urban Consumers, published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the Department of Labor.
``(6) Report on use of funds.--As part of the information
required to be submitted to the Secretary under section 612,
each State shall annually describe--
``(A) how amounts retained under paragraph (1) will be used
to meet the requirements of this part;
``(B) how those amounts will be allocated among the
activities described in this subsection to meet State
priorities based on input from local educational agencies;
and
``(C) the percentage of those amounts, if any, that will be
distributed to local educational agencies by formula.
[[Page H3485]]
``(f) Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies.--
``(1) Subgrants required.--Each State that receives a grant
under this section for any fiscal year shall distribute any
funds it does not retain under subsection (e) to local
educational agencies, including public charter schools that
operate as local educational agencies, in the State that have
established their eligibility under section 613, for use in
accordance with this part.
``(2) Procedure for allocations to local educational
agencies.--For each fiscal year for which funds are allocated
to States under subsection (e), each State shall allocate
funds under paragraph (1) as follows:
``(A) Base payments.--The State shall first award each
agency described in paragraph (1) the amount that agency
would have received under this section for fiscal year 1999,
if the State had distributed 75 percent of its grant for that
year under section 611(d), as then in effect.
``(B) Allocation of remaining funds.--After making
allocations under subparagraph (A), the State shall--
``(i) allocate 85 percent of any remaining funds to those
agencies on the basis of the relative numbers of children
enrolled in public and private elementary and secondary
schools within the agency's jurisdiction; and
``(ii) allocate 15 percent of those remaining funds to
those agencies in accordance with their relative numbers of
children living in poverty, as determined by the State
educational agency.
``(3) Reallocation of funds.--If a State educational agency
determines that a local educational agency is adequately
providing a free appropriate public education to all children
with disabilities residing in the area served by that agency
with State and local funds, the State educational agency may
reallocate any portion of the funds under this part that are
not needed by that local agency to provide a free appropriate
public education to other local educational agencies in the
State that are not adequately providing special education and
related services to all children with disabilities residing
in the areas they serve.
``(g) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section--
``(1) the term `average per-pupil expenditure in public
elementary and secondary schools in the United States'
means--
``(A) without regard to the source of funds--
``(i) the aggregate current expenditures, during the second
fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the
determination is made (or, if satisfactory data for that year
are not available, during the most recent preceding fiscal
year for which satisfactory data are available) of all local
educational agencies in the 50 States and the District of
Columbia); plus
``(ii) any direct expenditures by the State for the
operation of those agencies; divided by
``(B) the aggregate number of children in average daily
attendance to whom those agencies provided free public
education during that preceding year; and
``(2) the term `State' means each of the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
``(h) Use of Amounts by Secretary of the Interior.--
``(1) Provision of amounts for assistance.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary of Education shall provide
amounts to the Secretary of the Interior to meet the need for
assistance for the education of children with disabilities on
reservations aged 5 to 21, inclusive, enrolled in elementary
and secondary schools for Indian children operated or funded
by the Secretary of the Interior. The amount of such payment
for any fiscal year shall be equal to 80 percent of the
amount allotted under subsection (c) for that fiscal year. Of
the amount described in the preceding sentence--
``(i) 80 percent shall be allocated to such schools by July
1 of that fiscal year; and
``(ii) 20 percent shall be allocated to such schools by
September 30 of that fiscal year.
``(B) Calculation of number of children.--In the case of
Indian students aged 3 to 5, inclusive, who are enrolled in
programs affiliated with the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(hereafter in this subsection referred to as `BIA') schools
and that are required by the States in which such schools are
located to attain or maintain State accreditation, and which
schools have such accreditation prior to the date of
enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Amendments of 1991, the school shall be allowed to count
those children for the purpose of distribution of the funds
provided under this paragraph to the Secretary of the
Interior. The Secretary of the Interior shall be responsible
for meeting all of the requirements of this part for these
children, in accordance with paragraph (2).
``(C) Additional requirement.--With respect to all other
children aged 3 to 21, inclusive, on reservations, the State
educational agency shall be responsible for ensuring that all
of the requirements of this part are implemented.
``(2) Submission of information.--The Secretary of
Education may provide the Secretary of the Interior amounts
under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year only if the Secretary
of the Interior submits to the Secretary of Education
information that--
``(A) demonstrates that the Department of the Interior
meets the appropriate requirements, as determined by the
Secretary of Education, of sections 612 (including monitoring
and evaluation activities) and 613;
``(B) includes a description of how the Secretary of the
Interior will coordinate the provision of services under this
part with local educational agencies, tribes and tribal
organizations, and other private and Federal service
providers;
``(C) includes an assurance that there are public hearings,
adequate notice of such hearings, and an opportunity for
comment afforded to members of tribes, tribal governing
bodies, and affected local school boards before the adoption
of the policies, programs, and procedures described in
subparagraph (A);
``(D) includes an assurance that the Secretary of the
Interior will provide such information as the Secretary of
Education may require to comply with section 618;
``(E) includes an assurance that the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of Health and Human Services have
entered into a memorandum of agreement, to be provided to the
Secretary of Education, for the coordination of services,
resources, and personnel between their respective Federal,
State, and local offices and with State and local educational
agencies and other entities to facilitate the provision of
services to Indian children with disabilities residing on or
near reservations (such agreement shall provide for the
apportionment of responsibilities and costs including, but
not limited to, child find, evaluation, diagnosis,
remediation or therapeutic measures, and (where appropriate)
equipment and medical or personal supplies as needed for a
child to remain in school or a program); and
``(F) includes an assurance that the Department of the
Interior will cooperate with the Department of Education in
its exercise of monitoring, enforcement, and oversight of
this application, and any agreements entered into between the
Secretary of the Interior and other entities under this part,
and will fulfill its duties under this part.
Section 616(a) shall apply to the information described in
this paragraph.
``(3) Payments for education and services for indian
children with disabilities aged 3 through 5.--
``(A) In general.--With funds appropriated under subsection
(i), the Secretary of Education shall make payments to the
Secretary of the Interior to be distributed to tribes or
tribal organizations (as defined under section 4 of the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act) or
consortia of the above to provide for the coordination of
assistance for special education and related services for
children with disabilities aged 3 through 5 on reservations
served by elementary and secondary schools for Indian
children operated or funded by the Department of the
Interior. The amount of such payments under subparagraph (B)
for any fiscal year shall be equal to 20 percent of the
amount allotted under subsection (c).
``(B) Distribution of funds.--The Secretary of the Interior
shall distribute the total amount of the payment under
subparagraph (A) by allocating to each tribe or tribal
organization an amount based on the number of children with
disabilities ages 3 through 5 residing on reservations as
reported annually, divided by the total of those children
served by all tribes or tribal organizations.
``(C) Submission of information.--To receive a payment
under this paragraph, the tribe or tribal organization shall
submit such figures to the Secretary of the Interior as
required to determine the amounts to be allocated under
subparagraph (B). This information shall be compiled and
submitted to the Secretary of Education.
``(D) Use of funds.--The funds received by a tribe or
tribal organization shall be used to assist in child find,
screening, and other procedures for the early identification
of children aged 3 through 5, parent training, and the
provision of direct services. These activities may be carried
out directly or through contracts or cooperative agreements
with the BIA, local educational agencies, and other public or
private nonprofit organizations. The tribe or tribal
organization is encouraged to involve Indian parents in the
development and implementation of these activities. The above
entities shall, as appropriate, make referrals to local,
State, or Federal entities for the provision of services or
further diagnosis.
``(E) Annual report.--To be eligible to receive a grant
pursuant to subparagraph (A), the tribe or tribal
organization shall provide to the Secretary of the Interior
an annual report of activities undertaken under this
paragraph, including the number of contracts and cooperative
agreements entered into, the number of children contacted and
receiving services for each year, and the estimated number of
children needing services during the year following the one
in which the report is made. The Secretary of the Interior
shall include a summary of this information on an annual
basis in the report to the Secretary of Education required
under this subsection. The Secretary of Education may require
any additional information from the Secretary of the
Interior.
``(F) Prohibitions.--None of the funds allocated under this
paragraph may be used by the Secretary of the Interior for
administrative purposes, including child count and the
provision of technical assistance.
``(4) Plan for coordination of services.--The Secretary of
the Interior shall develop and implement a plan for the
coordination of services for all Indian children with
disabilities residing on reservations covered under this Act.
Such plan shall provide for the coordination of services
benefiting these children from whatever source, including
tribes, the Indian Health Service, other BIA divisions, and
other Federal agencies. In developing the plan, the Secretary
of the Interior shall consult with all interested and
involved parties. It shall be based on the needs of the
children and the system best suited for meeting those needs,
and may involve the establishment of cooperative agreements
between the BIA, other Federal agencies, and other entities.
The plan shall also be distributed upon request to States,
State and local educational agencies, and other agencies
providing services
[[Page H3486]]
to infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities, to
tribes, and to other interested parties.
``(5) Establishment of advisory board.--To meet the
requirements of section 612(a)(22), the Secretary of the
Interior shall establish, under the BIA, an advisory board
composed of individuals involved in or concerned with the
education and provision of services to Indian infants,
toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities, including
Indians with disabilities, Indian parents or guardians of
such children, teachers, service providers, State and local
educational officials, representatives of tribes or tribal
organizations, representatives from State Interagency
Coordinating Councils under section 641 in States having
reservations, and other members representing the various
divisions and entities of the BIA. The chairperson shall be
selected by the Secretary of the Interior. The advisory board
shall--
``(A) assist in the coordination of services within the BIA
and with other local, State, and Federal agencies in the
provision of education for infants, toddlers, and children
with disabilities;
``(B) advise and assist the Secretary of the Interior in
the performance of the Secretary's responsibilities described
in this subsection;
``(C) develop and recommend policies concerning effective
inter- and intra-agency collaboration, including
modifications to regulations, and the elimination of barriers
to inter- and intra-agency programs and activities;
``(D) provide assistance and disseminate information on
best practices, effective program coordination strategies,
and recommendations for improved educational programming for
Indian infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities; and
``(E) provide assistance in the preparation of information
required under paragraph (2)(D).
``(6) Annual reports.--
``(A) In general.--The advisory board established under
paragraph (5) shall prepare and submit to the Secretary of
the Interior and to the Congress an annual report containing
a description of the activities of the advisory board for the
preceding year.
``(B) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
make available to the Secretary of Education the report
described in subparagraph (A).
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this part, other than section 619, there are
authorized to be appropriated--
``(1) $11,074,398,000 for fiscal year 2004;
``(2) $13,374,398,000 for fiscal year 2005;
``(3) $15,746,302,000 for fiscal year 2006;
``(4) $17,918,205,000 for fiscal year 2007;
``(5) $20,090,109,000 for fiscal year 2008;
``(6) $22,262,307,000 for fiscal year 2009;
``(7) $25,198,603,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
``(8) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2011
and each subsequent fiscal year.''.
SEC. 202. STATE ELIGIBILITY.
(a) In General.--(1) Section 612(a) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)) is amended in
the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``demonstrates
to the satisfaction of'' and inserting ``reasonably
demonstrates to''.
(2) Paragraphs (1) through (11) of section 612(a) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.
1412(a)(1)-(11)) are amended to read as follows:
``(1) Free appropriate public education.--
``(A) In general.--A free appropriate public education is
available to all children with disabilities residing in the
State between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive, including
children with disabilities who have been suspended or
expelled from school.
``(B) Limitation.--The obligation to make a free
appropriate public education available to all children with
disabilities does not apply with respect to children--
``(i) aged 3 through 5 and 18 through 21 in a State to the
extent that its application to those children would be
inconsistent with State law or practice, or the order of any
court, respecting the provision of public education to
children in those age ranges; and
``(ii) aged 18 through 21 to the extent that State law does
not require that special education and related services under
this part be provided to children with disabilities who, in
the educational placement prior to their incarceration in an
adult correctional facility--
``(I) were not actually identified as being a child with a
disability under section 602(3) of this Act; or
``(II) did not have an individualized education program
under this part.
``(2) Full educational opportunity goal.--The State has
established a goal of providing full educational opportunity
to all children with disabilities and a detailed timetable
for accomplishing that goal.
``(3) Child find.--
``(A) In general.--All children with disabilities residing
in the State, including children with disabilities attending
private schools, regardless of the severity of their
disabilities, and who are in need of special education and
related services, are identified, located, and evaluated and
a practical method is developed and implemented to determine
which children with disabilities are currently receiving
needed special education and related services.
``(B) Construction.--Nothing in this Act requires that
children be classified by their disability so long as each
child who has a disability listed in section 602 and who, by
reason of that disability, needs special education and
related services is regarded as a child with a disability
under this part.
``(4) Individualized education program.--An individualized
education program, or an individualized family service plan
that meets the requirements of section 636(d), is developed,
reviewed, and revised for each child with a disability in
accordance with section 614(d).
``(5) Least restrictive environment.--
``(A) In general.--To the maximum extent appropriate,
children with disabilities, including children in public or
private institutions or other care facilities, are educated
with children who are not disabled, and special classes,
separate schooling, or other removal of children with
disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs
only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child
is such that education in regular classes with the use of
supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved
satisfactorily.
``(B) Additional requirement.--
``(i) In general.--If the State uses a funding mechanism by
which the State distributes State funds on the basis of the
type of setting in which a child is served, the funding
mechanism does not result in placements that violate the
requirements of subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Assurance.--If the State does not have policies and
procedures to ensure compliance with clause (i), the State
shall provide the Secretary an assurance that it will revise
the funding mechanism as soon as feasible to ensure that such
mechanism does not result in such placements.
``(6) Procedural safeguards.--
``(A) In general.--Children with disabilities and their
parents are afforded the procedural safeguards required by
section 615.
``(B) Additional procedural safeguards.--Procedures to
ensure that testing and evaluation materials and procedures
utilized for the purposes of evaluation and placement of
children with disabilities for services under this Act will
be selected and administered so as not to be racially or
culturally discriminatory. Such materials or procedures shall
be provided and administered in the child's native language
or mode of communication, unless it clearly is not feasible
to do so, and no single procedure shall be the sole criterion
for determining an appropriate educational program for a
child.
``(7) Evaluation.--Children with disabilities are evaluated
in accordance with subsections (a) through (c) of section
614.
``(8) Confidentiality.--Agencies in the State comply with
section 617(d) (relating to the confidentiality of records
and information).
``(9) Transition from part c to preschool programs.--
Children participating in early intervention programs
assisted under part C, and who will participate in preschool
programs assisted under this part, experience a smooth and
effective transition to those preschool programs in a manner
consistent with section 637(a)(8). By the third birthday of
such a child, an individualized education program or, if
consistent with section 636(d), an individualized family
service plan, has been developed and is being implemented for
the child. The local educational agency will participate in
transition planning conferences arranged by the designated
lead agency under section 637(a)(8).
``(10) Children in private schools.--
``(A) Children enrolled in private schools by their
parents.--
``(i) In general.--To the extent consistent with the number
and location of children with disabilities in the State who
are enrolled by their parents in private elementary and
secondary schools in the area served by such agency,
provision is made for the participation of those children in
the program assisted or carried out under this part by
providing for such children special education and related
services in accordance with the following requirements,
unless the Secretary has arranged for services to those
children under subsection (f):
``(I) Amounts to be expended for the provision of those
services (including direct services to parentally-placed
children) by a local educational agency shall be equal to a
proportionate amount of Federal funds made available under
this part.
``(II) In calculating the proportionate share of Federal
funds, the local educational agency, after timely and
meaningful consultation with representatives of children with
disabilities parentally-placed in private schools as
described in clause (iii), shall conduct a thorough and
complete child-find process to determine the number of
parentally-placed children with disabilities attending
private schools located in the district.
``(III) Such services may be provided to children with
disabilities on the premises of private, including religious,
schools, to the extent consistent with law.
``(IV) State and local funds may supplement and in no case
shall supplant the proportionate amount of Federal funds
required to be expended under this paragraph.
``(V) Each local educational agency maintains in its
records and provides to the State educational agency the
number of children evaluated under this paragraph, the number
of children determined to be children with disabilities, and
the number of children served under this subsection.
``(ii) Child-find requirement.--
``(I) In general.--The requirements of paragraph (3) of
this subsection (relating to child find) shall apply with
respect to children with disabilities in the State who are
enrolled in private, including religious, elementary and
secondary schools.
``(II) Equitable participation.--The child-find process
must be designed to ensure the equitable participation of
parentally-placed private school children and an accurate
count of such children.
``(III) Activities.--In carrying out this clause, the local
educational agency, or where applicable, the State
educational agency, shall undertake activities similar to
those activities undertaken for its public school children.
``(IV) Cost.--The cost of carrying out this clause,
including individual evaluations, may not be considered in
determining whether a local
[[Page H3487]]
education agency has met its obligations under clause (i).
``(V) Completion period.--Such child-find process shall be
completed in a time period comparable to that for other
students attending public schools in the local educational
agency.
``(iii) Consultation.--To ensure timely and meaningful
consultation, a local educational agency, or where
appropriate, a state educational agency, shall consult with
representatives of children with disabilities parentally-
placed in private schools during the design and development
of special education and related services for these children
including--
``(I) the child-find process and how parentally-placed
private school children suspected of having a disability can
participate equitably, including how parents, teachers, and
private school officials will be informed of the process;
``(II) the determination of the proportionate share of
Federal funds available to serve parentally-placed private
school children with disabilities under this paragraph,
including the determination of how those funds were
calculated;
``(III) the consultation process among the district,
private school officials, and parents of parentally-placed
private school children with disabilities including how such
process will operate throughout the school year to ensure
that parentally-placed children with disabilities identified
through the child find process can meaningfully participate
in special education and related services; and
``(IV) how, where, and by whom special education and
related services will be provided for parentally-placed
private school children, including a discussion of alternate
service delivery mechanisms, how such services will be
apportioned if funds are insufficient to serve all children,
and how and when these decisions will be made.
``(iv) Compliance.--
``(I) In general.--A private school official shall have the
right to complain to the State educational agency that the
local educational agency did not engage in consultation that
was meaningful and timely, or did not give due consideration
to the views of the private school official.
``(II) Procedure.--If the private school official wishes to
complain, the official shall provide the basis of the
noncompliance with this section by the local educational
agency to the State educational agency, and the local
educational agency shall forward the appropriate
documentation to the State educational agency. If the private
school official is dissatisfied with the decision of the
State educational agency, such official may complain to the
Secretary by providing the basis of the noncompliance with
this section by the local educational agency to the
Secretary, and the State educational agency shall forward the
appropriate documentation to the Secretary.
``(v) Provision of services.--
``(I) Directly or through contracts.--An agency may provide
special education and related services directly or through
contracts with public and private agencies, organizations,
and institutions.
``(II) Secular, neutral, nonideological.--Special education
and related services, including materials and equipment,
shall be secular, neutral, and nonideological.
``(vi) Public control of funds.--
``(I) In general.--The control of funds used to provide
special education and related services under this section,
and title to materials, equipment, and property purchased
with those funds, shall be in a public agency for the uses
and purposes provided in this Act, and a public agency shall
administer the funds and property.
``(II) Provision of services.--The provision of services
under this Act shall be provided--
``(aa) by employees of a public agency; or
``(bb) through contract by the public agency with an
individual, association, agency, organization, or other
entity.
``(B) Children placed in, or referred to, private schools
by public agencies.--
``(i) In general.--Children with disabilities in private
schools and facilities are provided special education and
related services, in accordance with an individualized
education program, at no cost to their parents, if such
children are placed in, or referred to, such schools or
facilities by the State or appropriate local educational
agency as the means of carrying out the requirements of this
part or any other applicable law requiring the provision of
special education and related services to all children with
disabilities within such State.
``(ii) Standards.--In all cases described in clause (i),
the State educational agency shall determine whether such
schools and facilities meet standards that apply to State and
local educational agencies and that children so served have
all the rights they would have if served by such agencies.
``(C) Payment for education of children enrolled in private
schools without consent of or referral by the public
agency.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (A), this part
does not require a local educational agency to pay for the
cost of education, including special education and related
services, of a child with a disability at a private school or
facility if that agency made a free appropriate public
education available to the child and the parents elected to
place the child in such private school or facility.
``(ii) Reimbursement for private school placement.--If the
parents of a child with a disability, who previously received
special education and related services under the authority of
a public agency, enroll the child in a private elementary or
secondary school without the consent of or referral by the
public agency, a court or a hearing officer may require the
agency to reimburse the parents for the cost of that
enrollment if the court or hearing officer finds that the
agency had not made a free appropriate public education
available to the child in a timely manner prior to that
enrollment.
``(iii) Limitation on reimbursement.--The cost of
reimbursement described in clause (ii) may be reduced or
denied--
``(I) if--
``(aa) at the most recent IEP meeting that the parents
attended prior to removal of the child from the public
school, the parents did not inform the IEP Team that they
were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to
provide a free appropriate public education to their child,
including stating their concerns and their intent to enroll
their child in a private school at public expense; or
``(bb) 10 business days (including any holidays that occur
on a business day) prior to the removal of the child from the
public school, the parents did not give written notice to the
public agency of the information described in division (aa);
``(II) if, prior to the parents' removal of the child from
the public school, the public agency informed the parents,
through the notice requirements described in section
615(b)(7), of its intent to evaluate the child (including a
statement of the purpose of the evaluation that was
appropriate and reasonable), but the parents did not make the
child available for such evaluation; or
``(III) upon a judicial finding of unreasonableness with
respect to actions taken by the parents.
``(iv) Exception.--Notwithstanding the notice requirement
in clause (iii)(I), the cost of reimbursement--
``(I) shall not be reduced or denied for failure to provide
such notice if--
``(aa) the school prevented the parent from providing such
notice;
``(bb) the parents had not received notice, pursuant to
section 615, of the notice requirement in clause (iii)(I); or
``(cc) compliance with clause (iii)(I) would likely result
in physical harm to the child; and
``(II) may, in the discretion of a court or a hearing
officer, not be reduced or denied for failure to provide such
notice if--
``(aa) the parent is illiterate or cannot write in English;
or
``(bb) compliance with clause (iii)(I) would likely result
in serious emotional harm to the child.
``(11) State educational agency responsible for general
supervision.--
``(A) In general.--The State educational agency is
responsible for ensuring that--
``(i) the requirements of this part are met; and
``(ii) all educational programs for children with
disabilities in the State, including all such programs
administered by any other State or local agency--
``(I) are under the general supervision of individuals in
the State who are responsible for educational programs for
children with disabilities; and
``(II) meet the educational standards of the State
educational agency.
``(B) Limitation.--Subparagraph (A) shall not limit the
responsibility of agencies in the State other than the State
educational agency to provide, or pay for some or all of the
costs of, a free appropriate public education for any child
with a disability in the State.
``(C) Exception.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and
(B), the Governor (or another individual pursuant to State
law), consistent with State law, may assign to any public
agency in the State the responsibility of ensuring that the
requirements of this part are met with respect to children
with disabilities who are convicted as adults under State law
and incarcerated in adult prisons.''.
(3) Paragraphs (13) through (22) of section 612(a) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.
1412(a)(13)-(22)) are amended to read as follows:
``(13) Procedural requirements relating to local
educational agency eligibility.--The State educational agency
will not make a final determination that a local educational
agency is not eligible for assistance under this part without
first affording that agency reasonable notice and an
opportunity for a hearing.
``(14) Personnel standards.--
``(A) In general.--The State educational agency has
established and maintains standards to ensure that personnel
necessary to carry out this part are appropriately and
adequately prepared and trained.
``(B) Standards described.--Such standards shall--
``(i) ensure that special education teachers who teach in
core academic subjects are highly qualified in those
subjects;
``(ii) be consistent with any State-approved or State-
recognized certification, licensing, registration, or other
comparable requirements that apply to the professional
discipline in which those personnel are providing special
education or related services in order to ensure that such
individuals are qualified to provide such services; and
``(iii) allow paraprofessionals and assistants who are
appropriately trained and supervised, in accordance with
State law, regulations, or written policy, in meeting the
requirements of this part to be used to assist in the
provision of special education and related services to
children with disabilities under this part.
``(C) Innovative strategies for professional development.--
The State educational agency encourages the development and
use of research-based innovative strategies, such as
strategies using technology, peer networks, and distance
learning, to deliver intensive professional development
programs for special and regular education teachers,
administrators, principals, and related services personnel
that--
``(i) improve educational results for students with
disabilities; and
``(ii) are both cost-effective and easily accessible.
[[Page H3488]]
``(15) Performance goals and indicators.--The State--
``(A) has established goals for the performance of children
with disabilities in the State that--
``(i) promote the purposes of this Act, as stated in
section 601(d);
``(ii) are the same as the State's definition of adequate
yearly progress, including the State's objectives for
progress by children with disabilities, under section
1111(b)(2)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965;
``(iii) address dropout rates, as well as such other
factors as the State may determine; and
``(iv) are consistent, to the extent appropriate, with any
other goals and standards for children established by the
State;
``(B) has established performance indicators the State will
use to assess progress toward achieving those goals described
in subparagraph (A), including measurable annual objectives
for progress by children with disabilities under section
1111(b)(2)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965; and
``(C) will annually report to the Secretary and the public
on the progress of the State, and of children with
disabilities in the State, toward meeting the goals
established under subparagraph (A), which may include
elements of the reports required under section 1111(h) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
``(16) Participation in assessments.--
``(A) In general.--(i) All children with disabilities are
included in all general State and district-wide assessment
programs, including assessments described under title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, with
appropriate accommodations, where necessary and as indicated
in their respective individualized education programs.
``(ii) The State (or, in the case of a district-wide
assessment, the local educational agency) has developed and
implemented guidelines for the provision of accommodations
described in clause (i).
``(iii) The State (or, in the case of a district-wide
assessment the local educational agency)--
``(I) has developed and implemented guidelines for the
participation of children with disabilities in alternate
assessments for those children who cannot participate in
regular assessments under clause (i); and
``(II) conducts those alternate assessments.
``(B) Reports.--The State educational agency (or, in the
case of a district-wide assessment, the local educational
agency) makes available to the public, and reports to the
public with the same frequency and in the same detail as it
reports on the assessment of nondisabled children, the
following:
``(i) The number of children with disabilities
participating in regular assessments, and the number of those
children who were provided accommodations in order to
participate in those assessments.
``(ii) The number of children with disabilities
participating in alternate assessments.
``(iii) The performance of children with disabilities on
regular assessments and on alternate assessments (if the
number of children with disabilities participating in those
assessments is sufficient to yield statistically reliable
information and reporting that information would not reveal
personally identifiable information about an individual
student), compared with the achievement of all children,
including children with disabilities, on those assessments.
``(17) Dispute resolution.--The State has in effect systems
of mediation and voluntary binding arbitration pursuant to
section 615(e).
``(18) Supplementation of state, local, and other federal
funds.--
``(A) Expenditures.--Funds paid to a State under this part
will be expended in accordance with all the provisions of
this part.
``(B) Prohibition against commingling.--Funds paid to a
State under this part will not be commingled with State
funds.
``(C) Prohibition against supplantation and conditions for
waiver by secretary.--Except as provided in section 613,
funds paid to a State under this part will be used to
supplement the level of Federal, State, and local funds
(including funds that are not under the direct control of
State or local educational agencies) expended for special
education and related services provided to children with
disabilities under this part and in no case to supplant such
Federal, State, and local funds, except that, where the State
provides clear and convincing evidence that all children with
disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public
education, the Secretary may waive, in whole or in part, the
requirements of this subparagraph if the Secretary concurs
with the evidence provided by the State.
``(19) Maintenance of state financial support.--
``(A) In general.--The State does not reduce the amount of
State financial support for special education and related
services for children with disabilities, or otherwise made
available because of the excess costs of educating those
children, below the amount of that support for the preceding
fiscal year.
``(B) Reduction of funds for failure to maintain support.--
The Secretary shall reduce the allocation of funds under
section 611 for any fiscal year following the fiscal year in
which the State fails to comply with the requirement of
subparagraph (A) by the same amount by which the State fails
to meet the requirement.
``(C) Waivers for exceptional or uncontrollable
circumstances.--The Secretary may waive the requirement of
subparagraph (A) for a State, for one fiscal year at a time,
if the Secretary determines that--
``(i) granting a waiver would be equitable due to
exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances such as a natural
disaster or a precipitous and unforeseen decline in the
financial resources of the State; or
``(ii) the State meets the standard in paragraph (18)(C) of
this section for a waiver of the requirement to supplement,
and not to supplant, funds received under this part.
``(D) Subsequent years.--If, for any year, a State fails to
meet the requirement of subparagraph (A), including any year
for which the State is granted a waiver under subparagraph
(C), the financial support required of the State in future
years under subparagraph (A) shall be the amount that would
have been required in the absence of that failure and not the
reduced level of the State's support.
``(20) Public participation.--Prior to the adoption of any
policies and procedures needed to comply with this section
(including any amendments to such policies and procedures),
the State ensures that there are public hearings, adequate
notice of the hearings, and an opportunity for comment
available to the general public, including individuals with
disabilities and parents of children with disabilities.
``(21) State advisory panel.--
``(A) In general.--The State has established and maintains
an advisory panel for the purpose of providing policy
guidance with respect to special education and related
services for children with disabilities in the State.
``(B) Membership.--Such advisory panel shall consist of
members appointed by the Governor, or any other official
authorized under State law to make such appointments, that is
representative of the State population and that is composed
of individuals involved in, or concerned with, the education
of children with disabilities, including--
``(i) parents of children with disabilities (ages birth
through 26);
``(ii) individuals with disabilities;
``(iii) teachers;
``(iv) representatives of institutions of higher education
that prepare special education and related services
personnel;
``(v) State and local education officials;
``(vi) administrators of programs for children with
disabilities;
``(vii) representatives of other State agencies involved in
the financing or delivery of related services to children
with disabilities;
``(viii) representatives of private schools and public
charter schools;
``(ix) at least one representative of a vocational,
community, or business organization concerned with the
provision of transition services to children with
disabilities; and
``(x) representatives from the State juvenile and adult
corrections agencies.
``(C) Special rule.--A majority of the members of the panel
shall be individuals with disabilities or parents of children
with disabilities ages birth through 26.
``(D) Duties.--The advisory panel shall--
``(i) advise the State educational agency of unmet needs
within the State in the education of children with
disabilities;
``(ii) comment publicly on any rules or regulations
proposed by the State regarding the education of children
with disabilities;
``(iii) advise the State educational agency in developing
evaluations and reporting on data to the Secretary under
section 618;
``(iv) advise the State educational agency in developing
corrective action plans to address findings identified in
Federal monitoring reports under this part; and
``(v) advise the State educational agency in developing and
implementing policies relating to the coordination of
services for children with disabilities.
``(22) Suspension and expulsion rates.--
``(A) In general.--The State educational agency examines
data, including data disaggregated by race and ethnicity, to
determine if significant discrepancies are occurring in the
rate of long-term suspensions and expulsions of children with
disabilities--
``(i) among local educational agencies in the State; or
``(ii) compared to such rates for nondisabled children
within such agencies.
``(B) Review and revision of policies.--If such
discrepancies are occurring, the State educational agency
reviews and, if appropriate, revises (or requires the
affected State or local educational agency to revise) its
policies, procedures, and practices relating to the
development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive
behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural
safeguards, to ensure that such policies, procedures, and
practices comply with this Act.''.
(4) Section 612(a) of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(13)-(22)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(23) Instructional materials.--
``(A) In general.--The State adopts the national
instructional materials accessibility standard for the
purposes of providing instructional materials to blind
persons or other persons with print disabilities in a timely
manner after the publication of the standard by the Secretary
in the Federal Register.
``(B) Purchase requirement.--Not later than 2 years after
the date of the enactment of the Improving Education Results
for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003, the State
educational agency, when purchasing instructional materials
for use in public elementary and secondary schools within the
State, requires the publisher of the instructional materials,
as a part of any purchase agreement that is made, renewed, or
revised, to prepare and supply electronic files containing
the contents of the instructional materials using the
national instructional materials accessibility standard.
``(C) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term
`instructional materials' means printed textbooks and related
core materials that are written and published primarily for
use in elementary school and secondary school instruction and
are required by a State educational agency or local
educational agency for use by pupils in the classroom.
[[Page H3489]]
``(24) Overidentification and disproportionality.--The
State has in effect, consistent with the purposes of this Act
and with section 618, policies and procedures designed to
prevent the overidentification or disproportionate
representation by race and ethnicity of children as children
with disabilities, including the identification of children
as children with disabilities in accordance with a particular
impairment described in section 602(3).
``(25) Prohibition on psychotropic medication.--The State
educational agency develops and implements policies and
procedures prohibiting school personnel from requiring a
child to obtain a prescription for substances covered by
section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
812(c)) as a condition of attending school or receiving
services.''.
(b) State Educational Agency as Provider of Free
Appropriate Public Education or Direct Services.--Section
612(b) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20
U.S.C. 1412(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) State Educational Agency as Provider of Free
Appropriate Public Education or Direct Services.--If the
State educational agency provides free appropriate public
education to children with disabilities, or provides direct
services to such children, such agency--
``(1) shall comply with any additional requirements of
section 613(a), as if such agency were a local educational
agency; and
``(2) may use amounts that are otherwise available to such
agency under this part to serve those children without regard
to section 613(a)(2)(A)(i) (relating to excess costs).''.
(c) Exception for Prior State Plans.--Section 612(c) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.
1412(c)) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Exception for Prior State Plans.--
``(1) In general.--If a State has on file with the
Secretary policies and procedures that demonstrate that such
State meets any requirement of subsection (a), including any
policies and procedures filed under this part as in effect
before the effective date of the Improving Education Results
for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003, the Secretary
shall consider such State to have met such requirement for
purposes of receiving a grant under this part.
``(2) Modifications made by state.--Subject to paragraph
(3), an application submitted by a State in accordance with
this section shall remain in effect until the State submits
to the Secretary such modifications as the State deems
necessary. This section shall apply to a modification to an
application to the same extent and in the same manner as this
section applies to the original plan.
``(3) Modifications required by the secretary.--If, after
the effective date of the Improving Education Results for
Children With Disabilities Act of 2003, the provisions of
this Act are amended (or the regulations developed to carry
out this Act are amended), or there is a new interpretation
of this Act by a Federal court or a State's highest court, or
there is an official finding of noncompliance with Federal
law or regulations, the Secretary may require a State to
modify its application only to the extent necessary to ensure
the State's compliance with this part.''.
(d) Approval by the Secretary.--Section 612(d) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.
1412(d)) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Approval by the Secretary.--
``(1) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a State
is eligible to receive a grant under this part, the Secretary
shall notify the State of that determination.
``(2) Notice and hearing.--The Secretary shall not make a
final determination that a State is not eligible to receive a
grant under this part until after providing the State--
``(A) with reasonable notice; and
``(B) with an opportunity for a hearing.''.
(e) Assistance Under Other Federal Programs.--Section
612(e) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20
U.S.C. 1412(e)) is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Assistance Under Other Federal Programs.--Nothing in
this title permits a State to reduce medical and other
assistance available, or to alter eligibility, under titles V
and XIX of the Social Security Act with respect to the
provision of a free appropriate public education for children
with disabilities in the State.''.
SEC. 203. LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY ELIGIBILITY.
Section 613 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1413) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 613. LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY ELIGIBILITY.
``(a) In General.--A local educational agency is eligible
for assistance under this part for a fiscal year if such
agency reasonably demonstrates to the State educational
agency that it meets each of the following conditions:
``(1) Consistency with state policies.--The local
educational agency, in providing for the education of
children with disabilities within its jurisdiction, has in
effect policies, procedures, and programs that are consistent
with the State policies and procedures established under
section 612.
``(2) Use of amounts.--
``(A) In general.--Amounts provided to the local
educational agency under this part shall be expended in
accordance with the applicable provisions of this part and--
``(i) shall be used only to pay the excess costs of
providing special education and related services to children
with disabilities;
``(ii) shall be used to supplement State, local, and other
Federal funds and not to supplant such funds; and
``(iii) shall not be used, except as provided in
subparagraphs (B) and (C), to reduce the level of
expenditures for the education of children with disabilities
made by the local educational agency from local funds below
the level of those expenditures for the preceding fiscal
year.
``(B) Exception.--Notwithstanding the restriction in
subparagraph (A)(iii), a local educational agency may reduce
the level of expenditures where such reduction is
attributable to--
``(i) the voluntary departure, by retirement or otherwise,
or departure for just cause, of special education personnel;
``(ii) a decrease in the enrollment of children with
disabilities;
``(iii) the termination of the obligation of the agency,
consistent with this part, to provide a program of special
education to a particular child with a disability that is an
exceptionally costly program, as determined by the State
educational agency, because the child--
``(I) has left the jurisdiction of the agency;
``(II) has reached the age at which the obligation of the
agency to provide a free appropriate public education to the
child has terminated; or
``(III) no longer needs such program of special education;
or
``(iv) the termination of costly expenditures for long-term
purchases, such as the acquisition of equipment or the
construction of school facilities.
``(C) Treatment of federal funds in certain fiscal years.--
``(i) Notwithstanding clauses (ii) and (iii) of
subparagraph (A), for any fiscal year for which amounts
appropriated to carry out section 611 exceeds $4,100,000,000,
a local educational agency may treat as local funds, for the
purpose of such clauses, up to 20 percent of the amount of
funds it receives under this part that exceeds the amount it
received under this part for the previous fiscal year.
``(ii) If a local educational agency chooses to use the
authority under clause (i), then the agency shall use those
local funds to provide additional funding for programs under
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,
including, but not limited to, programs that address student
achievement, comprehensive school reform, literacy, teacher
quality and professional development, school safety, before-
and after- school learning opportunities.
``(iii) Notwithstanding clause (i), if a State educational
agency determines that a local educational agency is unable
to establish and maintain programs of free appropriate public
education that meet the requirements of subsection (a), the
State educational agency shall prohibit the local educational
agency from treating funds received under this part as local
funds under clause (i) for that fiscal year, but only if it
is authorized to do so by the State constitution or a State
statute.
``(D) Schoolwide programs under title i of the esea.--
Notwithstanding subparagraph (A) or any other provision of
this part, a local educational agency may use funds received
under this part for any fiscal year to carry out a schoolwide
program under section 1114 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, except that the amount so used in any
such program shall not exceed--
``(i) the number of children with disabilities
participating in the schoolwide program; multiplied by
``(ii)(I) the amount received by the local educational
agency under this part for that fiscal year; divided by
``(II) the number of children with disabilities in the
jurisdiction of that agency.
``(3) Personnel development.--The local educational agency
shall ensure that all personnel necessary to carry out this
part are appropriately and adequately prepared, consistent
with the requirements of section 612 of this Act and section
1119 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
``(4) Permissive use of funds.--Notwithstanding paragraph
(2)(A) or section 612(a)(18)(B) (relating to commingled
funds), funds provided to the local educational agency under
this part may be used for the following activities:
``(A) Services and aids that also benefit nondisabled
children.--For the costs of special education and related
services and supplementary aids and services provided in a
regular class or other education-related setting to a child
with a disability in accordance with the individualized
education program of the child, even if one or more
nondisabled children benefit from such services.
``(B) Prereferral services.--To develop and implement a
system of comprehensive coordinated prereferral education
support services in accordance with subsection (f).
``(C) High cost education and related services.--To
establish and implement cost or risk sharing funds,
consortia, or cooperatives for the agency itself, or for
local educational agencies working in consortium of which the
local educational agency is a part, to pay for high cost
special education and related services.
``(D) Case management and administration.--To purchase
appropriate technology for record keeping, data collection,
and related case management activities of teachers and
related services personnel who are providing services
described in the individualized education program of children
with disabilities necessary to the implementation of those
case management activities.
``(E) Supplemental educational services for children with
disabilities in schools designated for improvement.--For the
reasonable additional expenses (as determined by the local
educational agency) of any necessary accommodations to allow
children with disabilities who are being educated in a school
identified for school improvement under section 1116(b) of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6316(b)) to be provided supplemental educational services
under section 1116(e) of such Act on an equitable basis.
[[Page H3490]]
``(5) Treatment of charter schools and their students.--In
carrying out this part with respect to charter schools that
are public schools of the local educational agency, the local
educational agency--
``(A) serves children with disabilities attending those
schools in the same manner as it serves children with
disabilities in its other schools, including providing
supplemental and related services on site at the charter
school when the local educational agency has a policy or
practice of providing those services on site to its other
schools; and
``(B) provides funds under this part to those schools on
the same basis as it provides those funds to its other public
schools (including, at the option of such agency,
proportional distribution based on relative enrollment of
children with disabilities at such charter schools), and at
the same time as such agency distributes other Federal funds
to those schools, consistent with the State's charter law.
``(6) Purchase of instructional materials.--Not later than
2 years after the date of the enactment of the Improving
Education Results for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003,
the local educational agency, when purchasing instructional
materials for use in public elementary and secondary schools
within the local educational agency, requires the publisher
of the instructional materials, as a part of any purchase
agreement that is made, renewed, or revised, to prepare and
supply electronic files containing the contents of the
instructional materials using the national instructional
materials accessibility standard described in section
612(a)(23).
``(7) Information for state educational agency.--The local
educational agency shall provide the State educational agency
with information necessary to enable the State educational
agency to carry out its duties under this part, including,
with respect to paragraphs (15) and (16) of section 612(a),
information relating to the performance of children with
disabilities participating in programs carried out under this
part.
``(8) Public information.--The local educational agency
shall make available to parents of children with disabilities
and to the general public all documents relating to the
eligibility of such agency under this part.
``(9) Records regarding migratory children with
disabilities.--The local educational agency shall cooperate
in the Secretary's efforts under section 1308 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6398) to ensure the linkage of records pertaining to
migratory children with a disability for the purpose of
electronically exchanging, among the States, health and
educational information regarding such children.
``(b) Exception for Prior Local Plans.--
``(1) In general.--If a local educational agency or State
agency has on file with the State educational agency policies
and procedures that demonstrate that such local educational
agency, or such State agency, as the case may be, meets any
requirement of subsection (a), including any policies and
procedures filed under this part as in effect before the
effective date of the Improving Education Results for
Children With Disabilities Act of 2003, the State educational
agency shall consider such local educational agency or State
agency, as the case may be, to have met such requirement for
purposes of receiving assistance under this part.
``(2) Modification made by local educational agency.--
Subject to paragraph (3), an application submitted by a local
educational agency in accordance with this section shall
remain in effect until it submits to the State educational
agency such modifications as the local educational agency
deems necessary.
``(3) Modifications required by state educational agency.--
If, after the date of the enactment of the Improving
Education Results for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003,
the provisions of this Act are amended (or the regulations
developed to carry out this Act are amended), or there is a
new interpretation of this Act by Federal or State courts, or
there is an official finding of noncompliance with Federal or
State law or regulations, the State educational agency may
require a local educational agency to modify its application
only to the extent necessary to ensure the local educational
agency's compliance with this part or State law.
``(c) Notification of Local Educational Agency or State
Agency in Case of Ineligibility.--If the State educational
agency determines that a local educational agency or State
agency is not eligible under this section, the State
educational agency shall notify the local educational agency
or State agency, as the case may be, of that determination
and shall provide such local educational agency or State
agency with reasonable notice and an opportunity for a
hearing.
``(d) Local Educational Agency Compliance.--
``(1) In general.--If the State educational agency, after
reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing, finds
that a local educational agency or State agency that has been
determined to be eligible under this section is failing to
comply with any requirement described in subsection (a), the
State educational agency shall reduce or shall not provide
any further payments to the local educational agency or State
agency until the State educational agency is satisfied that
the local educational agency or State agency, as the case may
be, is complying with that requirement.
``(2) Additional requirement.--Any State agency or local
educational agency in receipt of a notice described in
paragraph (1) shall, by means of public notice, take such
measures as may be necessary to bring the pendency of an
action pursuant to this subsection to the attention of the
public within the jurisdiction of such agency.
``(3) Consideration.--In carrying out its responsibilities
under paragraph (1), the State educational agency shall
consider any decision made in a hearing held under section
615 that is adverse to the local educational agency or State
agency involved in that decision.
``(e) Joint Establishment of Eligibility.--
``(1) Joint establishment.--
``(A) In general.--A State educational agency may require a
local educational agency to establish its eligibility jointly
with another local educational agency if the State
educational agency determines that the local educational
agency would be ineligible under this section because the
local educational agency would not be able to establish and
maintain programs of sufficient size and scope to effectively
meet the needs of children with disabilities.
``(B) Charter school exception.--A State educational agency
may not require a charter school that is a local educational
agency to jointly establish its eligibility under
subparagraph (A) unless it is explicitly permitted to do so
under the State's charter school statute.
``(2) Amount of payments.--If a State educational agency
requires the joint establishment of eligibility under
paragraph (1), the total amount of funds made available to
the affected local educational agencies shall be equal to the
sum of the payments that each such local educational agency
would have received under section 611(f) if such agencies
were eligible for such payments.
``(3) Requirements.--Local educational agencies that
establish joint eligibility under this subsection shall--
``(A) adopt policies and procedures that are consistent
with the State's policies and procedures under section
612(a); and
``(B) be jointly responsible for implementing programs that
receive assistance under this part.
``(4) Requirements for educational service agencies.--
``(A) In general.--If an educational service agency is
required by State law to carry out programs under this part,
the joint responsibilities given to local educational
agencies under this subsection shall--
``(i) not apply to the administration and disbursement of
any payments received by that educational service agency; and
``(ii) be carried out only by that educational service
agency.
``(B) Additional requirement.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this subsection, an educational service agency
shall provide for the education of children with disabilities
in the least restrictive environment, as required by section
612(a)(5).
``(f) Prereferral Services.--
``(1) In general.--A local educational agency may use not
more than 15 percent of the amount such agency receives under
this part for any fiscal year, in combination with other
amounts (which may include amounts other than education
funds), to develop and implement comprehensive coordinated
prereferral educational support services for students in
kindergarten through grade 12 (with a particular emphasis on
students in grades kindergarten through 3) who have not been
identified as needing special education or related services
but who need additional academic and behavioral support to
succeed in a general education environment.
``(2) Activities.--In implementing comprehensive
coordinated prereferral educational services under this
subsection, a local educational agency may carry out the
following activities:
``(A) Professional development (which may be provided by
entities other than local educational agencies) for teachers
to enable them to deliver scientifically based academic and
behavioral interventions, including scientifically based
literacy instruction.
``(B) Providing educational evaluations, services, and
supports, including scientifically based literacy instruction
and speech therapy.
``(C) Providing behavioral evaluations and services and
supports, including positive behavioral interventions and
supports.
``(3) Exclusion.--Nothing in this subsection shall be
construed to either limit or create a right to a free
appropriate public education under this part.
``(4) Reporting.--Each local educational agency that
develops and maintains comprehensive coordinated prereferral
educational support services under this subsection shall
annually report to the State educational agency on--
``(A) the number of students served under this subsection;
and
``(B) the number of students served under this subsection
who subsequently receive special education and related
services under this Act during the preceding 2-year period.
``(5) Coordination with the elementary and secondary
education act of 1965.--
``(A) In general.--Comprehensive coordinated prereferral
educational support services provided under this subsection
may be aligned with activities funded by, and carried out
under, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,
such as the Reading First program under subpart 1 of part B
of title I of such Act, the Early Reading First program under
subpart 2 of part B of title I of such Act, reading and math
supports under part A of title I of such Act, and behavior
intervention supports, that improve results for children with
disabilities.
``(B) Maintenance of effort.--Funds used under this section
shall be used to supplement, and not supplant, funds made
available under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965.
``(g) Direct Services by the State Educational Agency.--
``(1) In general.--A State educational agency shall use the
payments that would otherwise have been available to a local
educational agency or to a State agency to provide special
education and related services directly to children
[[Page H3491]]
with disabilities residing in the area served by that local
agency, or for whom that State agency is responsible, if the
State educational agency determines that the local education
agency or State agency, as the case may be--
``(A) has not provided the information needed to establish
the eligibility of such agency under this section;
``(B) is unable to establish and maintain programs of free
appropriate public education that meet the requirements of
subsection (a);
``(C) is unable or unwilling to be consolidated with one or
more local educational agencies in order to establish and
maintain such programs; or
``(D) has one or more children with disabilities who can
best be served by a regional or State program or service-
delivery system designed to meet the needs of such children.
``(2) Manner and location of education and services.--The
State educational agency may provide special education and
related services under paragraph (1) in such manner and at
such locations (including regional or State centers) as the
State agency considers appropriate. Such education and
services shall be provided in accordance with this part.
``(h) State Agency Eligibility.--Any State agency that
desires to receive a subgrant for any fiscal year under
section 611(f) shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
State educational agency that--
``(1) all children with disabilities who are participating
in programs and projects funded under this part receive a
free appropriate public education, and that those children
and their parents are provided all the rights and procedural
safeguards described in this part; and
``(2) the agency meets such other conditions of this
section as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
``(i) Disciplinary Information.--The State may require that
a local educational agency include in the records of a child
with a disability a statement of any current or previous
disciplinary action that has been taken against the child and
transmit such statement to the same extent that such
disciplinary information is included in, and transmitted
with, the student records of nondisabled children. The
statement may include a description of any behavior engaged
in by the child that required disciplinary action, a
description of the disciplinary action taken, and any other
information that is relevant to the safety of the child and
other individuals involved with the child. If the State
adopts such a policy, and the child transfers from one school
to another, the transmission of any of the child's records
must include both the child's current individualized
education program and any such statement of current or
previous disciplinary action that has been taken against the
child.''.
SEC. 204. EVALUATIONS, ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS,
INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAMS, AND
EDUCATIONAL PLACEMENTS.
Section 614 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1414) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 614. EVALUATIONS, ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS,
INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAMS, AND
EDUCATIONAL PLACEMENTS.
``(a) Evaluations, Parental Consent, and Reevaluations.--
``(1) Initial evaluations.--
``(A) In general.--A State educational agency, other State
agency, or local educational agency shall conduct a full and
individual initial evaluation, in accordance with this
paragraph and subsection (b), before the initial provision of
special education and related services to a child with a
disability under this part.
``(B) Request for initial evaluation.--Consistent with
subparagraph (D), either a parent of a child, a State
educational agency, other State agency as appropriate, or
local educational agency may initiate a request for an
initial evaluation to determine if the child is a child with
a disability.
``(C) Procedures.--Such initial evaluation shall consist of
procedures--
``(i) to determine whether a child is a child with a
disability (as defined in section 602(3)); and
``(ii) to determine the educational needs of such child.
``(D) Parental consent.--
``(i) In general.--
``(I) Consent for initial evaluation.--The agency proposing
to conduct an initial evaluation to determine if the child
qualifies as a child with a disability as defined in section
602(3)(A) or 602(3)(B) shall obtain informed consent from the
parent of such child before conducting the evaluation.
Parental consent for evaluation shall not be construed as
consent for placement for receipt of special education and
related services.
``(II) Consent for services.--An agency that is responsible
for making a free appropriate public education available to a
child with a disability under this part shall seek to obtain
informed consent from the parent of such child before
providing special education and related services to the
child.
``(ii) Absence of consent.--
``(I) For initial evaluation.--If the parent of such child
does not provide consent for an initial evaluation under
clause (i)(I), or the parent fails to respond to a request to
provide the consent, the local educational agency may pursue
the initial evaluation of the child through the procedures
described in section 615, except to the extent inconsistent
with State law relating to such parental consent.
``(II) For services.--If the parent of such child does not
provide consent for services under clause (i)(II), or the
parent fails to respond to a request to provide the consent,
the local educational agency shall not provide special
education and related services to the child through the
procedures described in section 615.
``(III) Effect on agency obligations.--In any case for
which there is an absence of consent for an initial
evaluation under subclause (I), or for which there is an
absence of consent for services under subclause (II)--
``(aa) the local educational agency shall not be required
to convene an IEP meeting or develop an IEP under this
section for the child; and
``(bb) the local educational agency shall not be considered
to be in violation of any requirement under this part
(including the requirement to make available a free
appropriate public education to the child) with respect to
the lack of an initial evaluation of the child, an IEP
meeting with respect to the child, or the development of an
IEP under this section for the child.
``(E) Rule of construction.--The screening of a student by
a teacher or specialist to determine appropriate
instructional strategies for curriculum implementation shall
not be considered to be an evaluation for eligibility for
special education and related services.
``(2) Reevaluations.--
``(A) In general.--A local educational agency shall ensure
that a reevaluation of each child with a disability is
conducted in accordance with subsections (b) and (c)--
``(i) if the local educational agency determines that the
educational needs, including improved academic achievement,
of the child warrant a reevaluation; or
``(ii) if the child's parent or teacher requests a
reevaluation.
``(B) Limitation.--A reevaluation conducted under
subparagraph (A) shall occur--
``(i) no more than once a year, unless the parent and the
local educational agency agree otherwise; and
``(ii) at least once every three years, unless the parent
and the local educational agency agree that a reevaluation is
unnecessary.
``(b) Evaluation Procedures.--
``(1) Notice.--The local educational agency shall provide
notice to the parent of a child with a disability, in
accordance with subsections (b)(3), (b)(4), and (c) of
section 615, that describes any evaluation procedures such
agency proposes to conduct.
``(2) Conduct of evaluation.--In conducting the evaluation,
the local educational agency shall--
``(A) use multiple up-to-date measures and assessments to
gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic
information, including information provided by the parent, to
assist in determining--
``(i) whether the child is a child with a disability; and
``(ii) the content of the child's individualized education
program, including information related to enabling the child
to be involved in and progress in the general education
curriculum or, for preschool children, to participate in
appropriate activities;
``(B) not use any single measure or assessment as the sole
criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a
disability or determining an appropriate educational program
for the child; and
``(C) use technically sound instruments that may assess the
relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in
addition to physical or developmental factors.
``(3) Additional requirements.--Each local educational
agency shall ensure that--
``(A) assessments and other evaluation measures used to
assess a child under this section--
``(i) are selected and administered so as not to be
discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis;
``(ii) are provided and administered, to the extent
practicable, in the language and form most likely to yield
accurate academic and developmental data;
``(iii) are used for the purposes for which the assessments
or measures are valid and reliable;
``(iv) are administered by trained and knowledgeable
personnel; and
``(v) are administered in accordance with any instructions
provided by the producer of such tests;
``(B) the child is assessed in all areas of suspected
disability; and
``(C) assessment tools and strategies that provide relevant
information that directly assists persons in determining the
educational needs of the child are provided.
``(4) Determination of eligibility and educational need.--
Upon completion of the administration of assessments and
other evaluation measures--
``(A) the determination of whether the child is a child
with a disability as defined in section 602(3) and the
educational needs of the child shall be made by a team of
qualified professionals and the parent of the child in
accordance with paragraph (5); and
``(B) a copy of the evaluation report and the documentation
of determination of eligibility will be given to the parent.
``(5) Special rule for eligibility determination.--In
making a determination of eligibility under paragraph (4)(A),
a child shall not be determined to be a child with a
disability if the determinant factor for such determination
is--
``(A) lack of scientifically based instruction practices
and programs that contain the essential components of reading
instruction (as that term is defined in section 1208(3) of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965);
``(B) lack of instruction in math; or
``(C) limited English proficiency.
``(6) Specific learning disabilities.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 607 of this Act,
when determining whether a child has a specific learning
disability as defined under this Act, the local educational
agency shall not be required to take into consideration
whether the child has a severe discrepancy between
achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression,
listening comprehension,
[[Page H3492]]
written expression, basic reading skill, reading
comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical
reasoning.
``(B) Additional authority.--In determining whether a child
has a specific learning disability, a local educational
agency may use a process which determines if a child responds
to scientific, research-based intervention.
``(c) Additional Requirements For Evaluation and
Reevaluations.--
``(1) Review of existing evaluation data.--As part of an
initial evaluation (if appropriate) and as part of any
reevaluation under this section, the IEP Team described in
subsection (d)(1)(B) and other qualified professionals, as
appropriate, shall--
``(A) review existing evaluation data on the child,
including evaluations and information provided by the parents
of the child, current classroom-based local or State
assessments, and classroom-based observations, and teacher
and related services providers observations; and
``(B) on the basis of that review, and input from the
child's parents, identify what additional data, if any, are
needed to determine--
``(i) whether the child is a child with a disability as
defined in section 602(3), and the educational needs of the
child, or, in case of a reevaluation of a child, whether the
child continues to have such a disability and such
educational needs;
``(ii) the present levels of academic achievement and
related developmental needs of the child;
``(iii) whether the child needs special education and
related services, or in the case of a reevaluation of a
child, whether the child continues to need special education
and related services; and
``(iv) whether any additions or modifications to the
special education and related services are needed to enable
the child to meet the measurable annual goals set out in the
individualized education program of the child and to
participate, as appropriate, in the general education
curriculum.
``(2) Source of data.--The local educational agency shall
administer such assessments and other evaluation measures as
may be needed to produce the data identified by the IEP Team
under paragraph (1)(B).
``(3) Parental consent.--Each local educational agency
shall obtain informed parental consent, in accordance with
subsection (a)(1)(D), prior to conducting any reevaluation of
a child with a disability, except that such informed parental
consent need not be obtained if the local educational agency
can demonstrate that it had taken reasonable measures to
obtain such consent and the child's parent has failed to
respond.
``(4) Requirements if additional data are not needed.--If
the IEP Team and other qualified professionals, as
appropriate, determine that no additional data are needed to
determine whether the child continues to be a child with a
disability and to determine the child's educational needs,
the local educational agency--
``(A) shall notify the child's parents of--
``(i) that determination and the reasons for it; and
``(ii) the right of such parents to request an assessment
to determine whether the child continues to be a child with a
disability and to determine the child's educational needs;
and
``(B) shall not be required to conduct such an assessment
unless requested to by the child's parents.
``(5) Evaluations before change in eligibility.--A local
educational agency shall evaluate a child with a disability
in accordance with this section prior to graduation, and
before determining that the child is no longer a child with a
disability, only in instances where the IEP Team is not in
agreement regarding the change in eligibility.
``(d) Individualized Education Programs.--
``(1) Definitions.--As used in this title:
``(A) Individualized education program.--
``(i) In general.--The term `individualized education
program' or `IEP' means a written statement for each child
with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised in
accordance with this section and that includes--
``(I) a statement of the child's present levels of academic
achievement, including--
``(aa) how the child's disability affects the child's
involvement and progress in the general education curriculum;
``(bb) for preschool children, as appropriate, how the
disability affects the child's participation in appropriate
activities; and
``(cc) until the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year, a
description of benchmarks or short-term objectives, except in
the case of children with disabilities who take alternate
assessments aligned to alternate achievement standards, a
description of benchmarks or short-term objectives shall
continue to be included;
``(II) a statement of measurable annual goals designed to--
``(aa) meet the child's needs that result from the child's
disability to enable the child to be involved in and make
progress in the general education curriculum; and
``(bb) meet the child's other educational needs that result
from the child's disability;
``(III) a statement of the special education and related
services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer-
reviewed research to the extent practicable, to be provided
to the child, or on behalf of the child, and a statement of
the program modifications or supports for school personnel
that will be provided for the child--
``(aa) to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual
goals;
``(bb) to be involved in and make progress in the general
education curriculum in accordance with subclause (I) and to
participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic
activities; and
``(cc) to be educated and participate with other children
with disabilities and nondisabled children in the activities
described in this paragraph;
``(IV) an explanation of the extent, if any, to which the
child will not participate with nondisabled children in the
regular class and in the activities described in subclause
(III)(cc);
``(V)(aa) a statement of any individual appropriate
accommodations in the administration of State or districtwide
assessments of student achievement that are necessary to
measure the academic achievement of the child consistent with
section 612(a)(16)(A)(ii); and
``(bb) if the IEP Team determines that the child will not
participate in a particular State or districtwide assessment
of student achievement (or part of such an assessment), a
statement of--
``(AA) why that assessment is not appropriate for the
child; and
``(BB) how the child will be assessed consistent with
612(a)(16)(A);
``(VI) the projected date for the beginning of the services
and modifications described in subclause (III), and the
anticipated frequency, location, and duration of those
services and modifications;
``(VII)(aa) beginning at age 14, and updated annually, a
statement of the transition service needs of the child under
the applicable components of the child's IEP that focuses on
the child's courses of study (such as participation in
advanced-placement courses or a vocational education
program);
``(bb) beginning at age 16 (or younger, if determined
appropriate by the IEP Team), a statement of needed
transition services for the child, including, when
appropriate, a statement of the interagency responsibilities
or any needed linkages; and
``(cc) beginning at least 1 year before the child reaches
the age of majority under State law, a statement that the
child has been informed of his or her rights under this
title, if any, that will transfer to the child on reaching
the age of majority under section 615(l); and
``(VIII) a statement of--
``(aa) how the child's progress toward the annual goals
described in subclause (II) will be measured; and
``(bb) how the child's parents will be regularly informed
(by such means as periodic report cards), at least as often
as parents are informed of their nondisabled children's
progress, of the sufficiency of their child's progress toward
the annual goals described in subclause (II).
``(ii) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subparagraph
shall be construed to require--
``(I) that additional information be included in a child's
IEP beyond what is required in this subsection; and
``(II) the IEP Team to include information under one
component of a child's IEP that is already contained under
another component of such IEP.
``(B) Individualized education program team.--The term
`individualized education program team' or `IEP Team' means a
group of individuals composed of--
``(i) the parents of a child with a disability;
``(ii) a regular education teacher of such child, but such
teacher shall not be required to attend a meeting or part of
a meeting of the IEP Team involving issues not related to the
child's participation in the regular education environment,
nor shall multiple regular education teachers, if the child
has more than one regular education teacher, be required to
attend a meeting, or part of a meeting, of the IEP team;
``(iii) at least 1 special education teacher, or where
appropriate, at least 1 special education provider of such
child;
``(iv) a representative of the local educational agency
who--
``(I) is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision
of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs
of children with disabilities;
``(II) is knowledgeable about the general education
curriculum; and
``(III) is knowledgeable about the availability of
resources of the local educational agency;
``(v) an individual who can interpret the instructional
implications of evaluation results, who may be a member of
the team described in clauses (ii) through (vi);
``(vi) at the discretion of the parent or the agency, other
individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding
the child, including related services personnel as
appropriate; and
``(vii) whenever appropriate, the child with a disability.
``(2) Requirement that program be in effect.--
``(A) In general.--At the beginning of each school year,
each local educational agency, State educational agency, or
other State agency, as the case may be, shall have in effect,
for each child with a disability in its jurisdiction, an
individualized education program, as defined in paragraph
(1)(A).
``(B) Program for child aged 3 through 5.--In the case of a
child with a disability aged 3 through 5 (or, at the
discretion of the State educational agency, a 2 year-old
child with a disability who will turn age 3 during the school
year), the IEP Team shall consider the individualized family
service plan that contains the material described in section
636, and that is developed in accordance with this section,
and the individualized family service plan may serve as the
IEP of the child if using that plan as the IEP is--
``(i) consistent with State policy; and
``(ii) agreed to by the agency and the child's parents.
``(3) Development of iep.--
``(A) In general.--In developing each child's IEP, the IEP
Team, subject to subparagraph (C), shall consider--
[[Page H3493]]
``(i) the results of the initial evaluation or most recent
evaluation of the child;
``(ii) the academic and developmental needs of the child;
``(iii) the strengths of the child; and
``(iv) the concerns of the parents for enhancing the
education of their child.
``(B) Consideration of special factors.--The IEP Team
shall--
``(i) in the case of a child whose behavior impedes his or
her learning or that of others, consider the use of positive
behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies,
to address that behavior;
``(ii) in the case of a child with limited English
proficiency, consider the language needs of the child as such
needs relate to the child's IEP;
``(iii) in the case of a child who is blind or visually
impaired, provide for instruction in Braille and the use of
Braille unless the IEP Team determines, after an evaluation
of the child's reading and writing skills, needs, and
appropriate reading and writing media (including an
evaluation of the child's future needs for instruction in
Braille or the use of Braille), that instruction in Braille
or the use of Braille is not appropriate for the child;
``(iv) consider the communication needs of the child, and
in the case of a child who is deaf or hard of hearing,
consider the child's language and communication needs,
opportunities for direct communications with peers and
professional personnel in the child's language and
communication mode, academic level, and full range of needs,
including opportunities for direct instruction in the child's
language and communication mode; and
``(v) consider whether the child needs assistive technology
devices and services.
``(C) Requirement with respect to regular education
teacher.--The regular education teacher of the child, if a
member of the IEP Team pursuant to paragraph (1)(B)(ii),
shall, to the extent appropriate, participate in the
development of the IEP of the child, including the
determination of appropriate positive behavioral
interventions and supports, and other strategies and the
determination of supplementary aids and services, program
modifications, and support for school personnel consistent
with paragraph (1)(A)(i)(III).
``(D) IEP team attendance.--The parent of a child with a
disability and the local educational agency may jointly
excuse any member of the IEP Team from attending all or part
of an IEP meeting if they agree that the member's attendance
is not necessary. The IEP Team shall obtain the member's
input prior to an IEP meeting from which the member is
excused.
``(E) Agreement on meeting.--In making changes to a child's
IEP after the annual IEP meeting, the parent of a child with
a disability and the local educational agency may agree not
to reconvene the IEP team and instead develop a written
document to amend or modify the child's current IEP.
``(F) Consolidation of iep team meetings.--To the extent
possible, the local educational agency shall encourage the
consolidation of IEP Team meetings for a child.
``(G) Amendments.--Changes to the IEP may be made either by
the entire IEP Team or, as provided in subparagraph (E), by
amending the IEP rather than by redrafting the entire IEP.
``(4) Review and revision of iep.--
``(A) In general.--The local educational agency shall
ensure that, subject to subparagraph (B), the IEP Team--
``(i) reviews the child's IEP periodically, but not less
than annually, to determine whether the annual goals for the
child are being achieved; and
``(ii) revises the IEP as appropriate to address--
``(I) any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals
and in the general education curriculum, where appropriate;
``(II) the results of any reevaluation conducted under this
section;
``(III) information about the child provided to, or by, the
parents, as described in subsection (c)(1)(B);
``(IV) the child's anticipated needs; or
``(V) other matters.
``(B) Requirement with respect to regular education
teacher.--The regular education teacher of the child, if a
member of the IEP Team, shall, consistent with this section,
participate in the review and revision of the IEP of the
child.
``(5) Multi-year iep.--
``(A) Development.--The local educational agency may offer
to the parent of a child with a disability the option of
developing a comprehensive multi-year IEP, not to exceed 3
years, that is designed to cover the natural transition
points for the child. With the consent of the parent, the IEP
Team shall develop an IEP, as described in paragraphs (1) and
(3), that is designed to serve the child for the appropriate
multi-year period, which includes a statement of--
``(i) measurable goals pursuant to paragraph (1)(A)(i)(II),
coinciding with natural transition points for the child, that
will enable the child to be involved in and make progress in
the general education curriculum and that will meet the
child's other needs that result from the child's disability;
and
``(ii) measurable annual goals for determining progress
toward meeting the goals described in clause (i).
``(B) Review and revision of multi-year iep.--
``(i) Requirement.--The IEP Team shall conduct a review
under paragraph (4) of the child's multi-year IEP at each of
the child's natural transition points.
``(ii) Streamlined annual review process.--In years other
than a child's natural transition points, the local
educational agency shall ensure that the IEP Team--
``(I) provides an annual review of the child's IEP to
determine the child's current levels of progress and
determine whether the annual goals for the child are being
achieved; and
``(II) amends the IEP, as appropriate, to enable the child
to continue to meet the measurable goals set out in the IEP.
``(iii) Comprehensive review process.--If the IEP Team
determines, on the basis of the review under clause (i), that
the child is not making sufficient progress toward the goals
described in subparagraph (A), the local educational agency
shall ensure that the IEP Team reviews the IEP under
paragraph (4), within 30 calendar days.
``(iv) Parental preference.--At the request of the parent,
the IEP Team shall conduct a review under paragraph (4) of
the child's multi-year IEP rather than a streamlined annual
review under clause (ii).
``(C) Definition.--As used in this paragraph, the term
`natural transition points' means those periods that are
close in time to the transition of a child with a disability
from preschool to elementary grades, from elementary grades
to middle or junior high school grades, from middle or junior
high school grades to high school grades, and from high
school grades to post-secondary activities, but in no case
longer than 3 years.
``(6) Failure to meet transition objectives.--If a
participating agency, other than the local educational
agency, fails to provide the transition services described in
the IEP in accordance with paragraph (1)(A)(i)(VII), the
local educational agency shall reconvene the IEP Team to
identify alternative strategies to meet the transition
objectives for the child set out in that program.
``(7) Children with disabilities in adult prisons.--
``(A) In general.--The following requirements do not apply
to children with disabilities who are convicted as adults
under State law and incarcerated in adult prisons:
``(i) The requirements contained in section 612(a)(16) and
paragraph (1)(A)(i)(V) of this subsection (relating to
participation of children with disabilities in general
assessments).
``(ii) The requirements of items (aa) and (bb) of paragraph
(1)(A)(i)(VII) of this subsection (relating to transition
planning and transition services), do not apply with respect
to such children whose eligibility under this part will end,
because of their age, before they will be released from
prison.
``(B) Additional requirement.--If a child with a disability
is convicted as an adult under State law and incarcerated in
an adult prison, the child's IEP Team may modify the child's
IEP or placement notwithstanding the requirements of sections
612(a)(5)(A) and 614(d)(1)(A) if the State has demonstrated a
bona fide security or compelling penological interest that
cannot otherwise be accommodated.
``(e) Educational Placements.--Each local educational
agency or State educational agency shall ensure that the
parents of each child with a disability are members of any
group that makes decisions on the educational placement of
their child.
``(f) Alternative Means of Meeting Participation.--When
conducting IEP team meetings and placement meetings pursuant
to this section and 615, the parent of a child with a
disability and a local educational agency may agree to use
alternative means of meeting participation, such as video
conferences and conference calls.''.
SEC. 205. PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS.
(a) Establishment of Procedures.--Section 615(a) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.
1415(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Establishment of Procedures.--Any State educational
agency, State agency, or local educational agency that
receives assistance under this part shall establish and
maintain procedures in accordance with this section to ensure
that children with disabilities and their parents are
guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the
provision of free appropriate public education by such
agencies.''.
(b) Types of Procedures.--Section 615(b) of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1415(b)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(b) Types of Procedures.--The procedures required by this
section shall include--
``(1) an opportunity for the parents of a child with a
disability to examine all records relating to such child and
to participate in meetings with respect to the
identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the
child, and the provision of a free appropriate public
education to such child, and to obtain as appropriate an
independent educational evaluation of the child;
``(2) procedures to protect the rights of the child
whenever the parents of the child are not known, the agency
cannot, after reasonable efforts, locate the parents, or the
child is a ward of the State, including the assignment of an
individual (who shall not be an employee of the State
educational agency, the local educational agency, or any
other agency that is involved in the education or care of the
child) to act as a surrogate for the parents;
``(3) written prior notice to the parents of the child
whenever such agency--
``(A) proposes to initiate or change; or
``(B) refuses to initiate or change;
the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of
the child, in accordance with subsection (c), or the
provision of a free appropriate public education to the
child;
``(4) procedures designed to ensure that the notice
required by paragraph (3) is in the native language of the
parents, unless it clearly is not feasible to do so;
``(5) an opportunity for mediation and voluntary binding
arbitration, in accordance with subsection (e);
[[Page H3494]]
``(6) an opportunity to present complaints--
``(A) with respect to any matter relating to the
identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the
child, or the provision of a free appropriate public
education to such child; and
``(B) which set forth a violation that occurred not more
than one year before the complaint is filed;
``(7)(A) procedures that require the parent of a child with
a disability, or the attorney representing the child, to
provide notice (which shall remain confidential)--
``(i) to the local educational agency or State educational
agency (if the State educational agency is the direct
provider of services pursuant to section 613(g)), in the
complaint filed under paragraph (6); and
``(ii) that shall include--
``(I) the name of the child, the address of the residence
of the child (or, in the case of a homeless child or youth
(within the meaning of section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2)), available
contact information for the child), and the name of the
school the child is attending;
``(II) a description of the specific issues regarding the
nature of the problem of the child relating to such proposed
initiation or change, including facts relating to such
problem; and
``(III) a proposed resolution of the problem to the extent
known and available to the parents at the time;
``(B) a requirement that a parent of a child with a
disability may not have a due process hearing until the
parent, or the attorney representing the child, files a
notice that meets the requirements of this paragraph; and
``(8) procedures that require the State educational agency
to develop a model form to assist parents in filing a
complaint in accordance with paragraph (7).''.
(c) Content of Prior Written Notice.--Section 615(c) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.
1415(c)) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Content of Prior Written Notice.--The notice required
by subsection (b)(3) shall include--
``(1) a description of the action proposed or refused by
the agency;
``(2) an explanation of why the agency proposes or refuses
to take the action and a description of each evaluation
procedure, test, record, or report the agency used as a basis
for the proposed or refused action;
``(3) a statement that the parents of a child with a
disability have protection under the procedural safeguards of
this part and, if this notice is not an initial referral for
evaluation, the means by which a copy of a description of the
procedural safeguards can be obtained; and
``(4) sources for parents to contact to obtain assistance
in understanding the provisions of this part.''.
(d) Procedural Safeguards Notice.--Section 615(d) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.
1415(d)) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Procedural Safeguards Notice.--
``(1) In general.--A copy of the procedural safeguards
available to the parents of a child with a disability shall
be given to the parents, at a minimum--
``(A) upon initial referral or parental request for
evaluation;
``(B) annually, at the beginning of the school year; and
``(C) upon written request by a parent.
``(2) Contents.--The procedural safeguards notice shall
include a description of the procedural safeguards, written
in the native language of the parents, unless it clearly is
not feasible to do so, and written in an easily
understandable manner, available under this section and under
regulations promulgated by the Secretary relating to--
``(A) independent educational evaluation;
``(B) prior written notice;
``(C) parental consent;
``(D) access to educational records;
``(E) opportunity to present complaints;
``(F) the child's placement during pendency of due process
proceedings;
``(G) procedures for students who are subject to placement
in an interim alternative educational setting;
``(H) requirements for unilateral placement by parents of
children in private schools at public expense;
``(I) mediation, early dispute resolution, and voluntary
binding arbitration;
``(J) due process hearings, including requirements for
disclosure of evaluation results and recommendations;
``(K) civil actions; and
``(L) attorneys' fees.''.
(e) Mediation and Voluntary Binding Arbitration.--Section
615(e) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20
U.S.C. 1415(e)) is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Mediation and Voluntary Binding Arbitration.--
``(1) Mediation.--
``(A) In general.--Any State educational agency or local
educational agency that receives assistance under this part
shall ensure that procedures are established and implemented
to allow parties to disputes involving any matter, including
matters arising prior to the filing of a complaint pursuant
to subsection (b)(6), to resolve such disputes through a
mediation process.
``(B) Requirements.--Such procedures shall meet the
following requirements:
``(i) The procedures shall ensure that the mediation
process--
``(I) is voluntary on the part of the parties;
``(II) is not used to deny or delay a parent's right to a
due process hearing under subsection (f), or to deny any
other rights afforded under this part; and
``(III) is conducted by a qualified and impartial mediator
who is trained in effective mediation techniques.
``(ii) A local educational agency or a State agency may
establish procedures to offer to parents who choose not to
use the mediation process, an opportunity to meet, at a time
and location convenient to the parents, with a disinterested
party who is under contract with--
``(I) a parent training and information center in the State
established under section 672; or
``(II) an appropriate alternative dispute resolution
entity;
to encourage the use, and explain the benefits, of the
mediation process to the parents.
``(iii) The State shall maintain a list of individuals who
are qualified mediators and knowledgeable in laws and
regulations relating to the provision of special education
and related services.
``(iv) The State shall bear the cost of the mediation
process, including the costs of meetings described in clause
(ii).
``(v) Each session in the mediation process shall be
scheduled in a timely manner and shall be held in a location
that is convenient to the parties to the dispute.
``(vi) An agreement reached by the parties to the dispute
in the mediation process shall be set forth in a written
mediation agreement.
``(vii) Discussions that occur during the mediation process
shall be confidential and may not be used as evidence in any
subsequent due process hearings or civil proceedings and the
parties to the mediation process may be required to sign a
confidentiality pledge prior to the commencement of such
process.
``(2) Voluntary binding arbitration.--
``(A) In general.--A State educational agency that receives
assistance under this part shall ensure that procedures are
established and implemented to allow parties to disputes
involving any matter described in subsection (b)(6) to
resolve such disputes through voluntary binding arbitration,
which shall be available when a hearing is requested under
subsection (f) or (j).
``(B) Requirements.--Such procedures shall meet the
following requirements:
``(i) The procedures shall ensure that the voluntary
binding arbitration process--
``(I) is voluntarily and knowingly agreed to in writing by
the parties; and
``(II) is conducted by a qualified and impartial
arbitrator.
``(ii) A local educational agency or a State agency shall
ensure that parents who choose to use voluntary binding
arbitration understand that the process is in lieu of a due
process hearing under subsection (f) or (j) and that the
decision made by the arbitrator is final, unless there is
fraud by a party or the arbitrator or misconduct on the part
of the arbitrator.
``(iii) The parties shall jointly agree to use an
arbitrator from a list that the State shall maintain of
individuals who are qualified arbitrators and knowledgeable
in laws and regulations relating to the provision of special
education and related services.
``(iv) The arbitration shall be conducted according to
State law on arbitration or, if there is no such applicable
State law, in a manner consistent with the Revised Uniform
Arbitration Act.
``(v) The voluntary binding arbitration shall be scheduled
in a timely manner and shall be held in a location that is
convenient to the parties to the dispute.''.
(f) Impartial Due Process Hearing.--Section 615(f) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.
1415(f)) is amended to read as follows:
``(f) Impartial Due Process Hearing.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Access to hearing.--Whenever a complaint has been
received under subsection (b)(6) or (j) of this section, the
parents or the local educational agency involved in such
complaint shall have an opportunity for an impartial due
process hearing, which shall be conducted by the State
educational agency.
``(B) Resolution session.--
``(i) In general.--Prior to the opportunity for an
impartial due process hearing under subparagraph (A), the
local educational agency shall convene a meeting with the
parents--
``(I) within 15 days of receiving notice of the parents'
complaint; and
``(II) where the parents of the child discuss their
complaint, and the specific issues that form the basis of the
complaint, and the local educational agency is provided the
opportunity to resolve the complaint;
unless the parents and the local educational agency agree in
writing to waive such meeting.
``(ii) Due process hearing.--If the local educational
agency has not resolved the complaint to the satisfaction of
the parents within 30 days of the receipt of the complaint,
the due process hearing shall occur in accordance with
subparagraph (A).
``(iii) Definition of meeting.--A meeting conducted
pursuant to clause (i) shall not be considered--
``(I) a meeting convened as a result of an administrative
hearing or judicial action; or
``(II) an administrative hearing or judicial action for
purposes of subsection (h)(3).
``(2) Disclosure of evaluations and recommendations.--
``(A) In general.--At least 5 business days prior to a
hearing conducted pursuant to paragraph (1), each party shall
disclose to all other parties all evaluations completed by
that date and recommendations based on the offering party's
evaluations that the party intends to use at the hearing.
``(B) Failure to disclose.--A hearing officer may bar any
party that fails to comply with subparagraph (A) from
introducing the relevant evaluation or recommendation at the
hearing without the consent of the other party.
``(3) Limitation on hearing.--
``(A) Hearing officer.--A hearing conducted pursuant to
paragraph (1)(A) may not be conducted by--
[[Page H3495]]
``(i) an employee of the State educational agency or the
local educational agency involved in the education or care of
the child; or
``(ii) any person having a personal or professional
interest that would conflict with his or her objectivity in
the hearing.
``(B) Subject matter of hearing.--The parents of the child
shall not be allowed to raise issues at the due process
hearing that were not raised in the complaint or discussed
during the meeting conducted pursuant to subparagraph (1)(B),
unless the local educational agency agrees otherwise.
``(C) Decision of hearing officer.--A decision made by a
hearing officer must be based on a determination of whether
or not the child received a free appropriate public
education.''.
(g) Appeal.--Section 615 of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1415) is amended by
striking subsection (g).
(h) Safeguards.--Section 615 of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1415) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (g); and
(2) by amending subsection (g) (as redesignated) to read as
follows:
``(g) Safeguards.--Any party to a hearing conducted
pursuant to subsection (f) or (j) shall be accorded--
``(1) the right to be represented by counsel and by non-
attorney advocates and to be accompanied and advised by
individuals with special knowledge or training with respect
to the problems of children with disabilities;
``(2) the right to present evidence and confront, cross-
examine, and compel the attendance of witnesses;
``(3) the right to a written, or, at the option of the
parents, electronic verbatim record of such hearing; and
``(4) the right to written, or, at the option of the
parents, electronic findings of fact and decisions (which
findings and decisions shall be made available to the public
consistent with the requirements of section 617(d)) (relating
to the confidentiality of data, information, and records).''.
(i) Administrative Procedures.--Section 615 of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1415)
is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (h); and
(2) in subsection (h) (as redesignated)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``In general.--'' and all that follows
through ``A decision made in a hearing'' and inserting ``In
general.--A decision made in a hearing'';
(ii) by striking ``(k)'' and inserting ``(j)'';
(iii) by striking ``subsection (g) and''; and
(iv) by striking subparagraph (B);
(B) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``subsection (f) or
(k) who does not have the right to an appeal under subsection
(g)'' and inserting ``subsection (f) or (j)''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by amending subparagraph (C) to read
as follows:
``(C) Determination of amount of attorneys' fees.--
``(i) In general.--Fees awarded under this paragraph shall
be based on rates determined by the Governor of the State (or
other appropriate State official) in which the action or
proceeding arose for the kind and quality of services
furnished. No bonus or multiplier may be used in calculating
the fees awarded under this subsection.
``(ii) Notice.--The Governor of the State (or other
appropriate State official) shall make available to the
public on an annual basis the rates described in clause
(i).''.
(j) Maintenance of Current Educational Placement.--Section
615 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20
U.S.C. 1415) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (i); and
(2) by amending subsection (i) (as redesignated) to read as
follows:
``(i) Maintenance of Current Educational Placement.--Except
as provided in subsection (j)(4), during the pendency of any
proceedings conducted pursuant to this section, unless the
State or local educational agency and the parents otherwise
agree, the child shall remain in the then-current educational
placement of such child, or, if applying for initial
admission to a public school, shall, with the consent of the
parents, be placed in the public school program until all
such proceedings have been completed.''.
(k) Placement in Alternative Educational Setting.--Section
615 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20
U.S.C. 1415) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (k) as subsection (j); and
(2) by amending subsection (j) (as redesignated) to read as
follows:
``(j) Placement in Alternative Educational Setting.--
``(1) Authority of school personnel.--
``(A) In general.--School personnel under this section may
order a change in the placement of a child with a disability
who violates a code of student conduct policy to an
appropriate interim alternative educational setting, another
setting, or suspension, for not more than 10 school days (to
the extent such alternatives would be applied to children
without disabilities).
``(B) Additional authority.--Subject to subparagraph (C),
and notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, school
personnel under this section may order a change in the
placement of a child with a disability who violates a code of
student conduct policy to an appropriate interim alternative
educational setting selected so as to enable the child to
continue to participate in the general education curriculum,
although in another setting, and to progress toward meeting
the goals set out in the child's IEP, for not more than 45
school days (to the extent such alternative and such duration
would be applied to children without disabilities, and which
may include consideration of unique circumstances on a case-
by-case basis), except that the change in placement may last
beyond 45 school days if required by State law or regulation
for the violation in question, to ensure the safety and
appropriate educational atmosphere in the schools under the
jurisdiction of the local educational agency.
``(C) Services.--A child with a disability who is removed
from the child's current placement under subparagraph (B)
shall--
``(i) continue to receive educational services selected so
as to enable the child to continue to participate in the
general education curriculum, although in another setting,
and to progress toward meeting the goals set out in the
child's IEP; and
``(ii) continue to receive behavioral intervention services
designed to address the behavior violation so that it does
not recur.
``(2) Determination of setting.--The alternative
educational setting described in paragraph (1)(B) shall be
determined by the IEP Team.
``(3) Parent appeal.--
``(A) In general.--If the parent of a child with a
disability disagrees with any decision regarding placement or
punishment under this section, the parent may request a
hearing.
``(B) Authority of hearing officer.--If a parent of a child
with a disability disagrees with a decision regarding
placement of the child or punishment of the child under this
section, including duration of the punishment, the hearing
officer may determine whether the decision regarding such
action was appropriate.
``(4) Placement during appeals.--When a parent requests a
hearing regarding a disciplinary action described in
paragraph (1)(B) to challenge the interim alternative
educational setting or the violation of the code of student
conduct policy, the child shall remain in the interim
alternative educational setting pending the decision of the
hearing officer or until the expiration of the time period
provided for in paragraph (1)(B), whichever occurs first,
unless the parent and the State or local educational agency
agree otherwise.
``(5) Protections for children not yet eligible for special
education and related services.--
``(A) In general.--A child who has not been determined to
be eligible for special education and related services under
this part and who has engaged in behavior that violates a
code of student conduct policy, may assert any of the
protections provided for in this part if the local
educational agency had knowledge (as determined in accordance
with this paragraph) that the child was a child with a
disability before the behavior that precipitated the
disciplinary action occurred.
``(B) Basis of knowledge.--A local educational agency shall
be deemed to have knowledge that a child is a child with a
disability if, before the behavior that precipitated the
disciplinary action occurred--
``(i) the parent of the child has expressed concern in
writing (unless the parent is illiterate or has a disability
that prevents compliance with the requirements contained in
this clause) to personnel of the appropriate educational
agency that the child is in need of special education and
related services;
``(ii) the parent of the child has requested an evaluation
of the child pursuant to section 614; or
``(iii) the teacher of the child, or other personnel of the
local educational agency, has expressed concern in writing
about the behavior or performance of the child to the
director of special education of such agency or to other
personnel of the agency.
``(C) Conditions that apply if no basis of knowledge.--
``(i) In general.--If a local educational agency does not
have knowledge that a child is a child with a disability (in
accordance with subparagraph (B)) prior to taking
disciplinary measures against the child, the child may be
subjected to disciplinary measures applied to children
without disabilities who engaged in comparable behaviors
consistent with clause (ii).
``(ii) Limitations.--If a request is made for an evaluation
of a child during the time period in which the child is
subjected to disciplinary measures under paragraph (1) or
(2), the evaluation shall be conducted in an expedited
manner. If the child is determined to be a child with a
disability, taking into consideration information from the
evaluation conducted by the agency and information provided
by the parents, the agency shall provide special education
and related services in accordance with this part, except
that, pending the results of the evaluation, the child shall
remain in the educational placement determined by school
authorities.
``(6) Referral to and action by law enforcement and
judicial authorities.--
``(A) In general.--Nothing in this part shall be construed
to prohibit an agency from reporting a crime committed by a
child with a disability to appropriate authorities or to
prevent State law enforcement and judicial authorities from
exercising their responsibilities with regard to the
application of Federal and State law to crimes committed by a
child with a disability.
``(B) Transmission of records.--An agency reporting a crime
committed by a child with a disability shall ensure that
copies of the special education and disciplinary records of
the child are transmitted for consideration by the
appropriate authorities to whom it reports the crime.''.
(l) Rule of Construction.--Section 615 of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1415) is amended
by redesignating subsection (l) as subsection (k).
[[Page H3496]]
(m) Transfer of Parental Rights at Age of Majority.--
Section 615 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1415) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (m) as subsection (l); and
(2) by amending subsection (l) (as redesignated) to read as
follows:
``(l) Transfer of Parental Rights at Age of Majority.--
``(1) In general.--A State that receives amounts from a
grant under this part may provide that, when a child with a
disability reaches the age of majority under State law
(except for a child with a disability who has been determined
to be incompetent under State law)--
``(A) the public agency shall provide any notice required
by this section to both the individual and the parents;
``(B) all other rights accorded to parents under this part
transfer to the child;
``(C) the agency shall notify the individual and the
parents of the transfer of rights; and
``(D) all rights accorded to parents under this part
transfer to children who are incarcerated in an adult or
juvenile Federal, State, or local correctional institution.
``(2) Special rule.--If, under State law, a child with a
disability who has reached the age of majority under State
law, who has not been determined to be incompetent, but who
is determined not to have the ability to provide informed
consent with respect to the educational program of the child,
the State shall establish procedures for appointing the
parent of the child, or if the parent is not available,
another appropriate individual, to represent the educational
interests of the child throughout the period of eligibility
of the child under this part.''.
SEC. 206. MONITORING, ENFORCEMENT, WITHHOLDING, AND JUDICIAL
REVIEW.
Section 616 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1416) is amended--
(1) by amending the heading to read as follows:
``SEC. 616. MONITORING, ENFORCEMENT, WITHHOLDING, AND
JUDICIAL REVIEW.'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (c) as
subsections (e) through (g), respectively; and
(3) by inserting before subsection (e) (as redesignated)
the following:
``(a) Federal Monitoring.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall monitor
implementation of this Act.
``(2) Focused monitoring.--The primary focus of Federal
monitoring activities shall be to improve educational results
for all children with disabilities, while ensuring compliance
with program requirements, with a particular emphasis on
those requirements that are most closely related to improving
educational results for children with disabilities.
``(b) Indicators.--
``(1) Required indicators.--The Secretary shall examine
relevant information and data related to States' progress on
improving educational results for children with disabilities
by reviewing--
``(A) achievement results of children with disabilities on
State or district assessments, including children with
disabilities taking State or district assessments with
appropriate accommodations;
``(B) achievement results of children with disabilities on
State or district alternate assessments;
``(C) graduation rates of children with disabilities and
graduation rates of children with disabilities as compared to
graduation rates of nondisabled children; and
``(D) dropout rates for children with disabilities and
dropout rates of children with disabilities as compared to
dropout rates of nondisabled children.
``(2) Permissive indicators.--The Secretary also may
establish other priorities for review of relevant information
and data, including data provided by States under section
618, and also including the following:
``(A) Priorities for this part.--The Secretary may give
priority to monitoring on the following areas under this
part:
``(i) Provision of educational services in the least
restrictive environment, including--
``(I) education of children with disabilities with
nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate;
``(II) provision of appropriate special education and
related services;
``(III) access to the general curriculum with appropriate
accommodations;
``(IV) provision of appropriate services to students whose
behavior impedes learning; and
``(V) participation and performance of children with
disabilities on State and local assessments, including
alternate assessments.
``(ii) Secondary transition, including the extent to which
youth exiting special education are prepared for post-
secondary education, employment, and adult life, and are
participants in appropriate transition planning while in
school.
``(iii) State exercise of general supervisory authority,
including effective monitoring and use of complaint
resolution, mediation, and voluntary binding arbitration.
``(B) Priorities for part c.--The Secretary may give
priority to monitoring on the following areas under part C:
``(i) Child find and public awareness to support the
identification, evaluation and assessment of all eligible
infants and toddlers, including the provision of culturally
relevant materials to inform and promote referral.
``(ii) Provision of early intervention services in natural
environments, evaluation and assessment to identify child
needs and family needs related to enhancing the development
of the child, and provision of appropriate early intervention
services in natural environments to meet the needs of
individual children.
``(iii) Effective early childhood transition to services
under this part.
``(iv) State exercise of general supervisory authority,
including--
``(I) effective monitoring and use of other mechanisms such
as complaint resolution;
``(II) implementation of mediation and voluntary binding
arbitration; and
``(III) coordination of parent and child protections.
``(3) Data collection and analysis.--The Secretary shall
review the data collection and analysis capacity of States to
ensure that data and information is collected, analyzed, and
accurately reported to the Secretary. The Secretary may
provide technical assistance to improve the capacity of
States to meet data requirements.
``(c) Additional Priorities.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may develop additional
priorities for monitoring the effective implementation of
this Act.
``(2) Public comment.--The Secretary shall provide a public
comment period of at least 30 days on any additional priority
proposed under this part or part C.
``(3) Date of enforcement.--The Secretary may not begin to
enforce a new priority until one year from the date of
publication of the priority in the Federal Register as a
final rule.
``(d) Compliance.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall review State data to
determine whether the State is in compliance with the
provisions of this Act.
``(2) Lack of progress.--If after examining data, as
provided in section (b) or (c), the Secretary determines that
a State is not making satisfactory progress in improving
educational results for children with disabilities, the
Secretary shall take one or more of the following actions:
``(A) Advise the State of available sources of technical
assistance that may help the State address the lack of
progress, which may include assistance from the Office of
Special Education Programs, other offices of the Department
of Education, other Federal agencies, technical assistance
providers approved by the Secretary, and other federally
funded nonprofit agencies. Such technical assistance may
include--
``(i) the provision of advice by experts to address the
areas of noncompliance, including explicit plans for ensuring
compliance within a specified period of time;
``(ii) assistance in identifying and implementing
professional development, instructional strategies, and
methods of instruction that are based on scientifically based
research;
``(iii) designating and using distinguished
superintendents, principals, special education
administrators, regular education teachers, and special
education teachers to provide advice, technical assistance,
and support; and
``(iv) devising additional approaches to providing
technical assistance, such as collaborating with institutions
of higher education, educational service agencies, national
centers of technical assistance supported under part D, and
private providers of scientifically based technical
assistance.
``(B) Direct the use of State level funds for technical
assistance on the area or areas of unsatisfactory
performance.
``(C) Each year withhold at least 20 but no more than 50
percent of the State's funds under section 611(e), after
providing the State the opportunity to show cause why the
withholding should not occur, until the Secretary determines
that sufficient progress has been made in improving
educational results for children with disabilities.
``(3) Substantial non-compliance.--
``(A) Initial determination.--When the Secretary determines
that a State is not in substantial compliance with any
provision of this part, the Secretary shall take one or more
of the following actions:
``(i) Request that the State prepare a corrective action
plan or improvement plan if the Secretary determines that the
State should be able to correct the problem within one year.
``(ii) Identify the State as a high-risk grantee and impose
special conditions on the State's grant.
``(iii) Require the State to enter into a compliance
agreement under section 457 of the General Education
Provisions Act, if the Secretary has reason to believe that
the State cannot correct the problem within one year.
``(iv) Recovery of funds under section 452 of the General
Education Provisions Act.
``(v)(I) Withholding of payments under subsection (e).
``(II) Pending the outcome of any hearing to withhold
payments under subsection (e), the Secretary may suspend
payments to a recipient, suspend the authority of the
recipient to obligate Federal funds, or both, after such
recipient has been given reasonable notice and an opportunity
to show cause why future payments or authority to obligate
Federal funds should not be suspended.
``(B) Continued non-compliance.--
``(i) Secretarial action.--If the Secretary has imposed
special conditions on a grant under subparagraph (A)(ii) for
substantially the same compliance problems for three
consecutive years, and at the end of the third year the State
has not demonstrated that the violation has been corrected to
the satisfaction of the Secretary, the Secretary shall take
such additional enforcement actions as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate from among those actions
specified in clauses (iii) through (v) of subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall report to
Congress within 30 days of taking enforcement action pursuant
to this paragraph on the specific action taken and the
reasons why enforcement action was taken.''.
[[Page H3497]]
SEC. 207. ADMINISTRATION.
Section 617 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1417) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 617. ADMINISTRATION.
``(a) Responsibilities of Secretary.--In carrying out this
part, the Secretary shall--
``(1) cooperate with, and (directly or by grant or
contract) furnish technical assistance necessary to, the
State in matters relating to--
``(A) the education of children with disabilities; and
``(B) carrying out this part; and
``(2) provide short-term training programs and institutes.
``(b) Prohibition Against Federal Mandates, Direction, or
Control.--Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize
an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate,
direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or
school's specific instructional content, curriculum, or
program of instruction.
``(c) Confidentiality.--The Secretary shall take
appropriate action, in accordance with section 444 of the
General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g), to ensure
the protection of the confidentiality of any personally
identifiable data, information, and records collected or
maintained by the Secretary and by State and local
educational agencies pursuant to this part.
``(d) Personnel.--The Secretary is authorized to hire
qualified personnel necessary to carry out the Secretary's
duties under subsection (a) and under sections 618 and 661
without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States
Code, relating to appointments in the competitive service and
without regard to chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53
of such title relating to classification and general schedule
pay rates, except that no more than twenty such personnel
shall be employed at any time.
``(e) Pilot Program.--The Secretary is authorized to grant
waivers of paperwork requirements under this part for a
period of time not to exceed 4 years with respect to not more
than 10 States based on proposals submitted by States for
addressing reduction of paperwork and non-instructional time
spent fulfilling statutory and regulatory requirements.
``(f) Report.--The Secretary shall include in the annual
report to Congress under section 426 of the Department of
Education Organization Act information related to the
effectiveness of waivers granted under subsection (e)--
``(1) in reducing the paperwork burden on teachers,
administrators, and related services providers and non-
instructional time spent by teachers in complying with this
part, including any specific recommendations for broader
implementation; and
``(2) in enhancing longer-term educational planning,
improving positive outcomes for children with disabilities,
promoting collaboration between IEP Team members, and
ensuring satisfaction of family members, including any
specific recommendations for broader implementation.
``(g) Model Forms.--Not later than the date on which the
Secretary publishes final regulations to implement this part
(as amended by the Improving Education Results for Children
With Disabilities Act of 2003), the Secretary shall publish
and disseminate widely to States, local educational agencies,
and parent training and information centers--
``(1) a model individualized education program form;
``(2) a model form for the procedural safeguards notice
described in section 615(d); and
``(3) a model form for the prior written notice described
in section 615(b)(3);
that would be consistent with the requirements of this part
and be deemed to be sufficient to meet such requirements.''.
SEC. 208. PROGRAM INFORMATION.
Section 618 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1418) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 618. PROGRAM INFORMATION.
``(a) In General.--Each State and local educational agency
that receives assistance under this part, and the Secretary
of the Interior, shall provide data each year to the
Secretary--
``(1)(A) on--
``(i) the number and percentage of children with
disabilities, by race, ethnicity, and disability category,
who are receiving a free appropriate public education;
``(ii) the number and percentage of children with
disabilities, by race and ethnicity, who are receiving early
intervention services;
``(iii) the number and percentage of children with
disabilities, by race, ethnicity, and disability category,
who are participating in regular education;
``(iv) the number and percentage of children with
disabilities, by race, ethnicity, and disability category,
who are in separate classes, separate schools or facilities,
or public or private residential facilities;
``(v) the number and percentage of children with
disabilities, by race and ethnicity, and disability category
who begin secondary school and graduate with a regular high
school diploma, through the age of 21;
``(vi) the number and percentage of children with
disabilities, by race, ethnicity, and disability category,
who, for each year of age from age 14 to 21, stopped
receiving special education and related services because of
program completion or other reasons and the reasons why those
children stopped receiving special education and related
services;
``(vii) the number and percentage of children with
disabilities, by race and ethnicity, who, from birth through
age 2, stopped receiving early intervention services because
of program completion or for other reasons;
``(viii)(I) the number and percentage of children with
disabilities, by race, ethnicity, and disability category,
who under subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 615(j)(1), are
removed to an interim alternative educational setting;
``(II) the acts or items precipitating those removals;
``(III) the number of children with disabilities, by race,
ethnicity, and disability category, who are subject to long-
term suspensions or expulsions; and
``(IV) the incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary
actions, by race and ethnicity, including suspension and
expulsions;
``(ix) the number of complaints resolved through voluntary
binding arbitration; and
``(x) the number of mediations held and the number of
settlement agreements reached through mediation;
``(B) on the number and percentage of infants and toddlers,
by race and ethnicity, who are at risk of having substantial
developmental delays (as defined in section 632), and who are
receiving early intervention services under part C; and
``(C) on the number of children served with funds under
section 613(f); and
``(2) on any other information that may be required by the
Secretary.
``(b) Sampling.--The Secretary may permit States and the
Secretary of the Interior to obtain the data described in
subsection (a) through sampling.
``(c) Disproportionality.--
``(1) In general.--Each State that receives assistance
under this part, and the Secretary of the Interior, shall
provide for the collection and examination of data to
determine if significant disproportionality based on race and
ethnicity is occurring in the State and the local educational
agencies of the State with respect to--
``(A) the identification of children as children with
disabilities, including the identification of children as
children with disabilities in accordance with a particular
impairment described in section 602(3);
``(B) the placement in particular educational settings of
such children; and
``(C) the incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary
actions, including suspensions and expulsions.
``(2) Review and revision of policies, practices, and
procedures.--In the case of a determination of significant
disproportionality with respect to the identification of
children as children with disabilities, or the placement in
particular educational settings of such children, in
accordance with paragraph (1), the State or the Secretary of
the Interior, as the case may be--
``(A) shall provide for the review and, if appropriate,
revision of the policies, procedures, and practices used in
such identification or placement to ensure that such
policies, procedures, and practices comply with the
requirements of this Act;
``(B) shall require any local educational agency identified
under paragraph (1) to reserve the maximum amount of funds
under section 613(f) to provide comprehensive coordinated
prereferral support services to serve children in the local
educational agency, particularly children in those groups
that were significantly overidentified under paragraph (1);
and
``(C) shall require the local educational agency to
publicly report on the revision of policies, practices, and
procedures described under subparagraph (A).''.
SEC. 209. PRESCHOOL GRANTS.
Section 619 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1419) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 619. PRESCHOOL GRANTS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide grants under
this section to assist States to provide special education
and related services, in accordance with this part--
``(1) to children with disabilities aged 3 through 5,
inclusive; and
``(2) at the State's discretion, to 2-year-old children
with disabilities who will turn 3 during the school year.
``(b) Eligibility.--A State shall be eligible for a grant
under this section if such State--
``(1) is eligible under section 612 to receive a grant
under this part; and
``(2) makes a free appropriate public education available
to all children with disabilities, aged 3 through 5, residing
in the State.
``(c) Allocations to States.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall allocate funds among
the States in accordance with paragraph (2) or (3), as
appropriate.
``(2) Increase in funds.--If the amount available for
allocations to States under paragraph (1) is equal to or
greater than the amount allocated to the States under this
section for the preceding fiscal year, those allocations
shall be calculated as follows:
``(A)(i) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the
Secretary shall--
``(I) allocate to each State the amount it received for
fiscal year 1997;
``(II) allocate 85 percent of any remaining funds to States
on the basis of their relative populations of children aged 3
through 5; and
``(III) allocate 15 percent of those remaining funds to
States on the basis of their relative populations of all
children aged 3 through 5 who are living in poverty.
``(ii) For the purpose of making grants under this
paragraph, the Secretary shall use the most recent population
data, including data on children living in poverty, that are
available and satisfactory to the Secretary.
``(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), allocations under
this paragraph shall be subject to the following:
``(i) No State's allocation shall be less than its
allocation for the preceding fiscal year.
``(ii) No State's allocation shall be less than the
greatest of--
``(I) the sum of--
``(aa) the amount it received for fiscal year 1997; and
``(bb) one third of one percent of the amount by which the
amount appropriated under subsection (j) exceeds the amount
appropriated under this section for fiscal year 1997;
[[Page H3498]]
``(II) the sum of--
``(aa) the amount it received for the preceding fiscal
year; and
``(bb) that amount multiplied by the percentage by which
the increase in the funds appropriated from the preceding
fiscal year exceeds 1.5 percent; or
``(III) the sum of--
``(aa) the amount it received for the preceding fiscal
year; and
``(bb) that amount multiplied by 90 percent of the
percentage increase in the amount appropriated from the
preceding fiscal year.
``(iii) Notwithstanding clause (ii), no State's allocation
under this paragraph shall exceed the sum of--
``(I) the amount it received for the preceding fiscal year;
and
``(II) that amount multiplied by the sum of 1.5 percent and
the percentage increase in the amount appropriated.
``(C) If the amount available for allocations under this
paragraph is insufficient to pay those allocations in full,
those allocations shall be ratably reduced, subject to
subparagraph (B)(i).
``(3) Decrease in funds.--If the amount available for
allocations to States under paragraph (1) is less than the
amount allocated to the States under this section for the
preceding fiscal year, those allocations shall be calculated
as follows:
``(A) If the amount available for allocations is greater
than the amount allocated to the States for fiscal year 1997,
each State shall be allocated the sum of--
``(i) the amount it received for fiscal year 1997; and
``(ii) an amount that bears the same relation to any
remaining funds as the increase the State received for the
preceding fiscal year over fiscal year 1997 bears to the
total of all such increases for all States.
``(B) If the amount available for allocations is equal to
or less than the amount allocated to the States for fiscal
year 1997, each State shall be allocated the amount it
received for that year, ratably reduced, if necessary.
``(d) Reservation for State Activities.--
``(1) In general.--Each State may retain not more than the
amount described in paragraph (2) for administration and
other State-level activities in accordance with subsections
(e) and (f).
``(2) Amount described.--For each fiscal year, the
Secretary shall determine and report to the State educational
agency an amount that is 25 percent of the amount the State
received under this section for fiscal year 1997,
cumulatively adjusted by the Secretary for each succeeding
fiscal year by the lesser of--
``(A) the percentage increase, if any, from the preceding
fiscal year in the State's allocation under this section; or
``(B) the percentage increase, if any, from the preceding
fiscal year in the Consumer Price Index For All Urban
Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the
Department of Labor.
``(e) State Administration.--
``(1) In general.--For the purpose of administering this
section (including the coordination of activities under this
part with, and providing technical assistance to, other
programs that provide services to children with disabilities)
a State may use not more than 20 percent of the maximum
amount it may retain under subsection (d) for any fiscal
year.
``(2) Administration of part c.--Funds described in
paragraph (1) may also be used for the administration of part
C of this Act, if the State educational agency is the lead
agency for the State under that part.
``(f) Other State-Level Activities.--Each State shall use
any funds it retains under subsection (d) and does not use
for administration under subsection (e)--
``(1) for support services (including establishing and
implementing the mediation and voluntary binding arbitration
process required by section 615(e)), which may benefit
children with disabilities younger than 3 or older than 5 as
long as those services also benefit children with
disabilities aged 3 through 5;
``(2) for direct services for children eligible for
services under this section;
``(3) for activities at the State and local levels to meet
the performance goals established by the State under section
612(a)(16) and to support implementation of the State plan
under subpart 1 of part D if the State receives funds under
that subpart; or
``(4) to supplement other funds used to develop and
implement a Statewide coordinated services system designed to
improve results for children and families, including children
with disabilities and their families, but not to exceed one
percent of the amount received by the State under this
section for a fiscal year.
``(g) Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies.--
``(1) Subgrants required.--Each State that receives a grant
under this section for any fiscal year shall distribute all
of the grant funds that it does not reserve under subsection
(d) to local educational agencies in the State that have
established their eligibility under section 613, as follows:
``(A) Base payments.--The State shall first award each
agency described in paragraph (1) the amount that agency
would have received under this section for fiscal year 1997
if the State had distributed 75 percent of its grant for that
year under section 619(c)(3), as then in effect.
``(B) Allocation of remaining funds.--After making
allocations under subparagraph (A), the State shall--
``(i) allocate 85 percent of any remaining funds to those
agencies on the basis of the relative numbers of children
enrolled in public and private elementary and secondary
schools within the agency's jurisdiction; and
``(ii) allocate 15 percent of those remaining funds to
those agencies in accordance with their relative numbers of
children living in poverty, as determined by the State
educational agency.
``(2) Reallocation of funds.--If a State educational agency
determines that a local educational agency is adequately
providing a free appropriate public education to all children
with disabilities aged 3 through 5 residing in the area
served by that agency with State and local funds, the
State educational agency may reallocate any portion of the
funds under this section that are not needed by that local
agency to provide a free appropriate public education to
other local educational agencies in the State that are not
adequately providing special education and related
services to all children with disabilities aged 3 through
5 residing in the areas they serve.
``(h) Part C Inapplicable.--Part C of this Act does not
apply to any child with a disability receiving a free
appropriate public education, in accordance with this part,
with funds received under this section.
``(i) Definition.--For the purpose of this section, the
term `State' means each of the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary $500,000,000 for fiscal year
2004 and such sums as may be necessary for each subsequent
fiscal year.''.
TITLE III--INFANTS AND TODDLERS WITH DISABILITIES
SEC. 301. SECTIONS 631 THROUGH 638 OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT.
Sections 631 through 638 of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1431-1438) are amended
to read as follows:
``SEC. 631. FINDINGS AND POLICY.
``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that there is an urgent
and substantial need--
``(1) to enhance the development of infants and toddlers
with disabilities and to minimize their potential for
developmental delay;
``(2) to reduce the educational costs to our society,
including our Nation's schools, by minimizing the need for
special education and related services after infants and
toddlers with disabilities reach school age;
``(3) to minimize the likelihood of institutionalization of
individuals with disabilities and maximize the potential for
their independently living in society;
``(4) to enhance the capacity of families to meet the
special needs of their infants and toddlers with
disabilities; and
``(5) to enhance the capacity of State and local agencies
and service providers to identify, evaluate, and meet the
needs of historically underrepresented populations,
particularly minority, low-income, inner-city, and rural
populations.
``(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States to
provide financial assistance to States--
``(1) to develop and implement a statewide, comprehensive,
coordinated, multidisciplinary, interagency system that
provides early intervention services for infants and toddlers
with disabilities and their families;
``(2) to facilitate the coordination of payment for early
intervention services from Federal, State, local, and private
sources (including public and private insurance coverage);
``(3) to enhance their capacity to provide quality early
intervention services and expand and improve existing early
intervention services being provided to infants and toddlers
with disabilities and their families; and
``(4) to encourage States to expand opportunities for
children under 3 years of age who would be at risk of having
substantial developmental delay if they did not receive early
intervention services.
``SEC. 632. DEFINITIONS.
``As used in this part:
``(1) At-risk infant or toddler.--The term `at-risk infant
or toddler' means an individual under 3 years of age who
would be at risk of experiencing a substantial developmental
delay if early intervention services were not provided to the
individual.
``(2) Council.--The term `council' means a State
interagency coordinating council established under section
641.
``(3) Developmental delay.--The term `developmental delay',
when used with respect to an individual residing in a State,
has the meaning given such term by the State under section
635(a)(1).
``(4) Early intervention services.--The term `early
intervention services' means developmental services that--
``(A) are provided under public supervision;
``(B) are provided at no cost except where Federal or State
law provides for a system of payments by families, including
a schedule of sliding fees;
``(C) are designed to address family-identified priorities
and concerns that are determined by individualized family
service plan team to relate to enhancing the child's
development in any one or more of the following areas--
``(i) physical development;
``(ii) cognitive development;
``(iii) communication development;
``(iv) social or emotional development; or
``(v) adaptive development;
``(D) meet the standards of the State in which they are
provided, including the requirements of this part;
``(E) include--
``(i) family training, family therapy, counseling, and home
visits;
``(ii) special instruction;
``(iii) speech-language pathology and audiology services;
``(iv) occupational therapy;
``(v) physical therapy;
[[Page H3499]]
``(vi) psychological services;
``(vii) service coordination services;
``(viii) medical services only for diagnostic or evaluation
purposes;
``(ix) early identification, screening, and assessment
services;
``(x) health services necessary to enable the infant or
toddler to benefit from the other early intervention
services;
``(xi) social work services;
``(xii) vision services;
``(xiii) assistive technology devices and assistive
technology services; and
``(xiv) transportation and related costs that are necessary
to enable an infant or toddler and the infant's or toddler 's
family to receive another service described in this
paragraph;
``(F) are provided by qualified personnel, including--
``(i) special educators;
``(ii) speech-language pathologists and audiologists;
``(iii) occupational therapists;
``(iv) physical therapists;
``(v) psychologists;
``(vi) social workers;
``(vii) nurses;
``(viii) registered dietitians;
``(ix) family therapists;
``(x) vision specialists, including ophthalmologists and
optometrists;
``(xi) orientation and mobility specialists; and
``(xii) pediatricians and other physicians;
``(G) to the maximum extent appropriate, are provided in
natural environments, including the home, and community
settings in which children without disabilities participate;
and
``(H) are provided in conformity with an individualized
family service plan adopted in accordance with section 636.
``(5) Infant or toddler with a disability.--The term
`infant or toddler with a disability'--
``(A) means an individual under 3 years of age who needs
early intervention services because the individual--
``(i) is experiencing developmental delays, as measured by
appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures in one or
more of the areas of cognitive development, physical
development, communication development, social or emotional
development, and adaptive development; or
``(ii) has a diagnosed physical or mental condition which
has a high probability of resulting in developmental delay;
``(B) may also include, at a State's discretion, at-risk
infants and toddlers; and
``(C) may also include, at a State's discretion, a child
aged 3 through 5, who previously received services under this
part and who is eligible for services under section 619, if--
``(i) services provided to this age group under this part
include an educational component that promotes school
readiness and incorporates scientifically based pre-literacy,
language, and numeracy skills; and
``(ii) parents are provided a written notification of their
rights and responsibilities in determining whether their
child will continue to receive services under this part or
participate in preschool programs assisted under section 619.
``SEC. 633. GENERAL AUTHORITY.
``The Secretary shall, in accordance with this part, make
grants to States (from their allotments under section 643) to
assist each State to maintain and implement a statewide,
comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary, interagency
system to provide early intervention services for infants and
toddlers with disabilities and their families.
``SEC. 634. ELIGIBILITY.
``In order to be eligible for a grant under section 633, a
State shall provide assurances to the Secretary that the
State--
``(1) has adopted a policy that appropriate early
intervention services are available to all infants and
toddlers with disabilities in the State and their families,
including Indian infants and toddlers with disabilities and
their families residing on a reservation geographically
located in the State; and
``(2) has in effect a statewide system that meets the
requirements of section 635.
``SEC. 635. REQUIREMENTS FOR STATEWIDE SYSTEM.
``(a) In General.--A statewide system described in section
633 shall include, at a minimum, the following components:
``(1) A definition of the term `developmental delay' that
will be used by the State in carrying out programs under this
part.
``(2) A State policy that is in effect and that ensures
that appropriate early intervention services based on
scientifically based research are available to all infants
and toddlers with disabilities and their families, including
Indian infants and toddlers and their families residing on a
reservation geographically located in the State.
``(3) A timely, comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation
of the functioning of each infant or toddler with a
disability in the State, and a family-directed identification
of the needs of each family of such an infant or toddler, to
appropriately assist in the development of the infant or
toddler.
``(4) For each infant or toddler with a disability in the
State, an individualized family service plan in accordance
with section 636, including service coordination services in
accordance with such service plan.
``(5) A comprehensive child find system, consistent with
part B, including a system for making referrals to service
providers that includes timelines and provides for
participation by primary referral sources.
``(6) A public awareness program focusing on early
identification of infants and toddlers with disabilities,
including the preparation and dissemination by the lead
agency designated or established under paragraph (10) to all
primary referral sources, especially hospitals and
physicians, of information to be given to parents, especially
to inform parents with premature infants, or infants with
other physical risk factors associated with learning or
developmental complications, on the availability of early
intervention services under this part and of services under
section 619 of this Act, and procedures for assisting such
sources in disseminating such information to parents of
infants and toddlers.
``(7) A central directory that includes information on
early intervention services, resources, and experts available
in the State and research and demonstration projects being
conducted in the State.
``(8) A comprehensive system of personnel development,
including the training of paraprofessionals and the training
of primary referral sources respecting the basic components
of early intervention services available in the State that--
``(A) shall include--
``(i) implementing innovative strategies and activities for
the recruitment and retention of early education service
providers;
``(ii) promoting the preparation of early intervention
providers who are fully and appropriately qualified to
provide early intervention services under this part; and
``(iii) training personnel to coordinate transition
services for infants and toddlers served under this part from
a program providing early intervention services under this
part and under part B (other than section 619), to a
preschool program receiving funds under section 619, or
another appropriate program; and
``(B) may include--
``(i) training personnel to work in rural and inner-city
areas; and
``(ii) training personnel in the emotional and social
development of young children.
``(9) Subject to subsection (b), policies and procedures
relating to the establishment and maintenance of standards to
ensure that personnel necessary to carry out this part are
appropriately and adequately prepared and trained, including
the establishment and maintenance of standards that are
consistent with any State-approved or recognized
certification, licensing, registration, or other comparable
requirements that apply to the area in which such personnel
are providing early intervention services.
``(10) A single line of responsibility in a lead agency
designated or established by the Governor for carrying out--
``(A) the general administration and supervision of
programs and activities receiving assistance under section
633, and the monitoring of programs and activities used by
the State to carry out this part, whether or not such
programs or activities are receiving assistance made
available under section 633, to ensure that the State
complies with this part;
``(B) the identification and coordination of all available
resources within the State from Federal, State, local, and
private sources;
``(C) the assignment of financial responsibility in
accordance with section 637(a)(2) to the appropriate
agencies;
``(D) the development of procedures to ensure that services
are provided to infants and toddlers with disabilities and
their families under this part in a timely manner pending the
resolution of any disputes among public agencies or service
providers;
``(E) the resolution of intra- and interagency disputes;
and
``(F) the entry into formal interagency agreements that
define the financial responsibility of each agency for paying
for early intervention services (consistent with State law)
and procedures for resolving disputes and that include all
additional components necessary to ensure meaningful
cooperation and coordination.
``(11) A policy pertaining to the contracting or making of
other arrangements with service providers to provide early
intervention services in the State, consistent with the
provisions of this part, including the contents of the
application used and the conditions of the contract or other
arrangements.
``(12) A procedure for securing timely reimbursements of
funds used under this part in accordance with section 640(a).
``(13) Procedural safeguards with respect to programs under
this part, as required by section 639.
``(14) A system for compiling data requested by the
Secretary under section 618 that relates to this part.
``(15) A State interagency coordinating council that meets
the requirements of section 641.
``(16) Policies and procedures to ensure that, consistent
with section 636(d)(5)--
``(A) to the maximum extent appropriate, early intervention
services are provided in natural environments; and
``(B) the provision of early intervention services for any
infant or toddler occurs in a setting other than a natural
environment only when early intervention cannot be achieved
satisfactorily for the infant or toddler in a natural
environment.
``(b) Policy.--In implementing subsection (a)(9), a State
may adopt a policy that includes making ongoing good-faith
efforts to recruit and hire appropriately and adequately
trained personnel to provide early intervention services to
infants and toddlers with disabilities, including, in a
geographic area of the State where there is a shortage of
such personnel, the most qualified individuals available who
are making satisfactory progress toward completing applicable
course work necessary to meet the standards described in
subsection (a)(9), consistent with State law within 3 years.
``(c) Treatment of Children Aged 3 through 5.--
``(1) In general.--If a State includes children described
in section 632(5)(C) in the system described in section 633,
the State shall be considered to have fulfilled any
obligation under part
[[Page H3500]]
B with respect to the provision of a free appropriate public
education to those children during the period in which they
are receiving services under this part.
``(2) Construction.--Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be
construed to alter or diminish the rights and protections
afforded under this part to children described in such
paragraph.
``SEC. 636. INDIVIDUALIZED FAMILY SERVICE PLAN.
``(a) Assessment and Program Development.--A statewide
system described in section 633 shall provide, at a minimum,
for each infant or toddler with a disability, and the
infant's or toddler's family, to receive--
``(1) a multidisciplinary assessment of the unique
strengths and needs of the infant or toddler and the
identification of services appropriate to meet such needs;
``(2) a family-directed assessment of the resources,
priorities, and concerns of the family and the identification
of the supports and services necessary to enhance the family
's capacity to meet the developmental needs of the infant or
toddler; and
``(3) a written individualized family service plan
developed by a multidisciplinary team, including the parents,
as required by subsection (e), including a description of the
appropriate transition services for the child's entrance in
school.
``(b) Periodic Review.--The individualized family service
plan shall be evaluated once a year and the family shall be
provided a review of the plan at 6-month intervals (or more
often where appropriate based on infant or toddler and family
needs).
``(c) Promptness After Assessment.--The individualized
family service plan shall be developed within a reasonable
time after the assessment required by subsection (a)(1) is
completed. With the parents' consent, early intervention
services may commence prior to the completion of the
assessment.
``(d) Content of Plan.--The individualized family service
plan shall be in writing and contain--
``(1) a statement of the infant's or toddler 's present
levels of physical development, cognitive development,
communication development, social or emotional development,
and adaptive development, based on objective criteria;
``(2) a statement of the family 's resources, priorities,
and concerns relating to enhancing the development of the
family 's infant or toddler with a disability;
``(3) a statement of the major goals expected to be
achieved for the infant or toddler and the family, including
pre-literacy and language skills, as developmentally
appropriate for the child, and the criteria, procedures, and
timelines used to determine the degree to which progress
toward achieving the goals is being made and whether
modifications or revisions of the goals or services are
necessary;
``(4) a statement of specific early intervention services
based on peer-reviewed research, to the extent practicable,
necessary to meet the unique needs of the infant or toddler
and the family, including the frequency, intensity, and
method of delivering services;
``(5) a statement of the natural environments in which
early intervention services will appropriately be provided,
including a justification of the extent, if any, to which the
services will not be provided in a natural environment;
``(6) the projected dates for initiation of services and
the anticipated length, duration, and frequency of the
services;
``(7) the identification of the service coordinator from
the profession most immediately relevant to the infant's or
toddler's or family's needs (or who is otherwise qualified to
carry out all applicable responsibilities under this part)
who will be responsible for the implementation of the plan
and coordination with other agencies and persons, including
transition services; and
``(8) the steps to be taken to support the transition of
the toddler with a disability to preschool or other
appropriate services.
``(e) Parental Consent.--The contents of the individualized
family service plan shall be fully explained to the parents
and informed written consent from the parents shall be
obtained prior to the provision of early intervention
services described in such plan. If the parents do not
provide consent with respect to a particular early
intervention service, then only the early intervention
services to which consent is obtained shall be provided.
``SEC. 637. STATE APPLICATION AND ASSURANCES.
``(a) Application.--A State desiring to receive a grant
under section 633 shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary
may reasonably require. The application shall contain--
``(1) a designation of the lead agency in the State that
will be responsible for the administration of funds provided
under section 633;
``(2) a designation of an individual or entity responsible
for assigning financial responsibility among appropriate
agencies;
``(3) information demonstrating eligibility of the State
under section 634, including a description of services to be
provided to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their
families through the system;
``(4) if the State provides services to at-risk infants and
toddlers through the statewide system, a description of such
services;
``(5) a description of the State policies and procedures
requiring the referral of a child under the age 3 who is
involved in a substantiated case of child abuse or neglect
consistent with section 635(a)(5) or who is born and
identified with fetal alcohol effects, fetal alcohol
syndrome, neonatal intoxication, or neonatal physical or
neurological harm resulting from prenatal drug exposure;
``(6) a description of the uses for which funds will be
expended in accordance with this part;
``(7) a description of the procedure used to ensure that
resources are made available under this part for all
geographic areas within the State;
``(8) a description of State policies and procedures that
ensure that, prior to the adoption by the State of any other
policy or procedure necessary to meet the requirements of
this part, there are public hearings, adequate notice of the
hearings, and an opportunity for comment available to the
general public, including individuals with disabilities and
parents of infants and toddlers with disabilities;
``(9) a description of the policies and procedures to be
used--
``(A) to ensure a smooth transition for toddlers receiving
early intervention services under this part to preschool or
other appropriate services, including a description of how--
``(i) the families of such toddlers will be included in the
transition plans required by subparagraph (C); and
``(ii) the lead agency designated or established under
section 635(a)(10) will--
``(I) notify the local educational agency for the area in
which such a child resides that the child will shortly reach
the age of eligibility for preschool services under part B,
as determined in accordance with State law;
``(II) in the case of a child who may be eligible for such
preschool services, with the approval of the family of the
child, convene a conference among the lead agency, the
family, and the local educational agency at least 90 days
(and at the discretion of all such parties, up to 6 months)
before the child is eligible for the preschool services, to
discuss any such services that the child may receive; and
``(III) in the case of a child who may not be eligible for
such preschool services, with the approval of the family,
make reasonable efforts to convene a conference among the
lead agency, the family, and providers of other appropriate
services for children who are not eligible for preschool
services under part B, to discuss the appropriate services
that the child may receive;
``(B) to review the child's program options for the period
from the child's third birthday through the remainder of the
school year; and
``(C) to establish a transition plan;
``(10) a description of State efforts to promote
collaboration between Early Head Start programs, child care,
and services under part C of this Act; and
``(11) such other information and assurances as the
Secretary may reasonably require.
``(b) Assurances.--The application described in subsection
(a)--
``(1) shall provide satisfactory assurance that Federal
funds made available under section 643 to the State will be
expended in accordance with this part;
``(2) shall contain an assurance that the State will comply
with the requirements of section 640;
``(3) shall provide satisfactory assurance that the control
of funds provided under section 643, and title to property
derived from those funds, will be in a public agency for the
uses and purposes provided in this part and that a public
agency will administer such funds and property;
``(4) shall provide for--
``(A) making such reports in such form and containing such
information as the Secretary may require to carry out the
Secretary's functions under this part; and
``(B) keeping such records and affording such access to
them as the Secretary may find necessary to ensure the
correctness and verification of those reports and proper
disbursement of Federal funds under this part;
``(5) provide satisfactory assurance that Federal funds
made available under section 643 to the State--
``(A) will not be commingled with State funds; and
``(B) will be used so as to supplement the level of State
and local funds expended for infants and toddlers with
disabilities and their families and in no case to supplant
those State and local funds;
``(6) shall provide satisfactory assurance that such fiscal
control and fund accounting procedures will be adopted as may
be necessary to ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting
for, Federal funds paid under section 643 to the State;
``(7) shall provide satisfactory assurance that policies
and procedures have been adopted to ensure meaningful
involvement of underserved groups, including minority, low-
income, and rural families, in the planning and
implementation of all the requirements of this part; and
``(8) shall contain such other information and assurances
as the Secretary may reasonably require by regulation.
``(c) Standard for Disapproval of Application.--The
Secretary may not disapprove such an application unless the
Secretary determines, after notice and opportunity for a
hearing, that the application fails to comply with the
requirements of this section.
``(d) Subsequent State Application.--If a State has on file
with the Secretary a policy, procedure, or assurance that
demonstrates that the State meets a requirement of this
section, including any policy or procedure filed under this
part (as in effect before the date of the enactment of the
Improving Education Results for Children With Disabilities
Act of 2003), the Secretary shall consider the State to have
met the requirement for purposes of receiving a grant under
this part.
``(e) Modification of Application.--An application
submitted by a State in accordance with this section shall
remain in effect until the State submits to the Secretary
such modifications as the State determines necessary. This
section shall apply to a modification of an application to
the same extent and in the same manner as this section
applies to the original application.
[[Page H3501]]
``(f) Modifications Required by the Secretary.--The
Secretary may require a State to modify its application under
this section, but only to the extent necessary to ensure the
State's compliance with this part, if--
``(1) an amendment is made to this Act, or a Federal
regulation issued under this Act;
``(2) a new interpretation of this Act is made by a Federal
court or the State's highest court; or
``(3) an official finding of noncompliance with Federal law
or regulations is made with respect to the State.
``SEC. 638. USES OF FUNDS.
``In addition to using funds provided under section 633 to
maintain and implement the statewide system required by such
section, a State may use such funds--
``(1) for direct early intervention services for infants
and toddlers with disabilities, and their families, under
this part that are not otherwise funded through other public
or private sources;
``(2) to expand and improve on services for infants and
toddlers and their families under this part that are
otherwise available;
``(3) to provide a free appropriate public education, in
accordance with part B, to children with disabilities from
their third birthday to the beginning of the following school
year; and
``(4) in any State that does not provide services for at-
risk infants and toddlers under section 637(a)(4), to
strengthen the statewide system by initiating, expanding, or
improving collaborative efforts related to at-risk infants
and toddlers, including establishing linkages with
appropriate public or private community-based organizations,
services, and personnel for the purposes of--
``(A) identifying and evaluating at-risk infants and
toddlers;
``(B) making referrals of the infants and toddlers
identified and evaluated under subparagraph (A); and
``(C) conducting periodic followup on each such referral to
determine if the status of the infant or toddler involved has
changed with respect to the eligibility of the infant or
toddler for services under this part.''.
SEC. 302. SECTIONS 641 THROUGH 645 OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT.
Sections 641 through 645 of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1441-1445) are amended
to read as follows:
``SEC. 641. STATE INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COUNCIL.
``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--A State that desires to receive
financial assistance under this part shall establish a State
interagency coordinating council.
``(2) Appointment.--The council shall be appointed by the
Governor. In making appointments to the council, the Governor
shall ensure that the membership of the council reasonably
represents the population of the State.
``(3) Chairperson.--The Governor shall designate a member
of the council to serve as the chairperson of the council, or
shall require the council to so designate such a member. Any
member of the council who is a representative of the lead
agency designated under section 635(a)(10) may not serve as
the chairperson of the council.
``(b) Composition.--
``(1) In general.--The council shall be composed as
follows:
``(A) Parents.--At least 20 percent of the members shall be
parents of infants or toddlers with disabilities or children
with disabilities aged 12 or younger, with knowledge of, or
experience with, programs for infants and toddlers with
disabilities. At least one such member shall be a parent of
an infant or toddler with a disability or a child with a
disability aged 6 or younger.
``(B) Service providers.--At least 20 percent of the
members shall be public or private providers of early
intervention services.
``(C) State legislature.--At least one member shall be from
the State legislature.
``(D) Personnel preparation.--At least one member shall be
involved in personnel preparation.
``(E) Agency for early intervention services.--At least one
member shall be from each of the State agencies involved in
the provision of, or payment for, early intervention services
to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families
and shall have sufficient authority to engage in policy
planning and implementation on behalf of such agencies.
``(F) Agency for preschool services.--At least one member
shall be from the State educational agency responsible for
preschool services to children with disabilities and shall
have sufficient authority to engage in policy planning and
implementation on behalf of such agency.
``(G) Agency for health insurance.--At least one member
shall be from the agency responsible for the State governance
of health insurance.
``(H) Head start agency.--At least one representative from
a Head Start agency or program in the State.
``(I) Child care agency.--At least one representative from
a State agency responsible for child care.
``(J) Mental health agency.--At least one representative
from the State agency responsible for children's mental
health.
``(K) Child welfare agency.--At least one representative
from the State agency responsible for child protective
services.
``(L) Office of the coordinator for the education of
homeless children and youth.--At least one representative
designated by the Office of the Coordinator.
``(2) Other members.--The council may include other members
selected by the Governor, including a representative from the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, or where there is no BIA-operated
or BIA-funded school, from the Indian Health Service or the
tribe or tribal council.
``(c) Meetings.--The council shall meet at least quarterly
and in such places as it deems necessary. The meetings shall
be publicly announced, and, to the extent appropriate, open
and accessible to the general public.
``(d) Management Authority.--Subject to the approval of the
Governor, the council may prepare and approve a budget using
funds under this part to conduct hearings and forums, to
reimburse members of the council for reasonable and necessary
expenses for attending council meetings and performing
council duties (including child care for parent
representatives), to pay compensation to a member of the
council if the member is not employed or must forfeit wages
from other employment when performing official council
business, to hire staff, and to obtain the services of such
professional, technical, and clerical personnel as may be
necessary to carry out its functions under this part.
``(e) Functions of Council.--
``(1) Duties.--The council shall--
``(A) advise and assist the lead agency designated or
established under section 635(a)(10) in the performance of
the responsibilities set forth in such section, particularly
the identification of the sources of fiscal and other support
for services for early intervention programs, assignment of
financial responsibility to the appropriate agency, and the
promotion of the interagency agreements;
``(B) advise and assist the lead agency in the preparation
of applications and amendments thereto;
``(C) advise and assist the State educational agency
regarding the transition of toddlers with disabilities to
preschool and other appropriate services; and
``(D) prepare and submit an annual report to the Governor
and to the Secretary on the status of early intervention
programs for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their
families operated within the State.
``(2) Authorized activity.--The council may advise and
assist the lead agency and the State educational agency
regarding the provision of appropriate services for children
from birth through age 5. The council may advise appropriate
agencies in the State with respect to the integration of
services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and at-
risk infants and toddlers and their families, regardless of
whether at-risk infants and toddlers are eligible for early
intervention services in the State.
``(f) Conflict of Interest.--No member of the council shall
cast a vote on any matter that would provide direct financial
benefit to that member or otherwise give the appearance of a
conflict of interest under State law.
``SEC. 642. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION.
``Sections 616, 617, and 618 shall, to the extent not
inconsistent with this part, apply to the program authorized
by this part, except that--
``(1) any reference in such sections to a State educational
agency shall be considered to be a reference to a State's
lead agency established or designated under section
635(a)(10);
``(2) any reference in such sections to a local educational
agency, educational service agency, or a State agency shall
be considered to be a reference to an early intervention
service provider under this part; and
``(3) any reference to the education of children with
disabilities or the education of all children with
disabilities shall be considered to be a reference to the
provision of appropriate early intervention services to
infants and toddlers with disabilities.
``SEC. 643. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.
``(a) Reservation of Funds for Outlying Areas.--
``(1) In general.--From the sums appropriated to carry out
this part for any fiscal year, the Secretary may reserve up
to one percent for payments to Guam, American Samoa, the
Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands in accordance with their respective needs.
``(2) Consolidation of funds.--The provisions of Public Law
95-134, permitting the consolidation of grants to the
outlying areas, shall not apply to funds those areas receive
under this part.
``(b) Payments to Indians.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, subject to this
subsection, make payments to the Secretary of the Interior to
be distributed to tribes, tribal organizations (as defined
under section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act), or consortia of the above entities
for the coordination of assistance in the provision of early
intervention services by the States to infants and toddlers
with disabilities and their families on reservations served
by elementary and secondary schools for Indian children
operated or funded by the Department of the Interior. The
amount of such payment for any fiscal year shall be 1.25
percent of the aggregate of the amount available to all
States under this part for such fiscal year.
``(2) Allocation.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary of
the Interior shall distribute the entire payment received
under paragraph (1) by providing to each tribe, tribal
organization, or consortium an amount based on the number of
infants and toddlers residing on the reservation, as
determined annually, divided by the total number of such
children served by all tribes, tribal organizations, or
consortia.
``(3) Information.--To receive a payment under this
subsection, the tribe, tribal organization, or consortium
shall submit such information to the Secretary of the
Interior as is needed to determine the amounts to be
distributed under paragraph (2).
``(4) Use of funds.--The funds received by a tribe, tribal
organization, or consortium shall be used to assist States in
child find, screening, and other procedures for the early
identification of Indian children under 3 years of age and
for
[[Page H3502]]
parent training. Such funds may also be used to provide early
intervention services in accordance with this part. Such
activities may be carried out directly or through contracts
or cooperative agreements with the BIA, local educational
agencies, and other public or private nonprofit
organizations. The tribe, tribal organization, or consortium
is encouraged to involve Indian parents in the development
and implementation of these activities. The above entities
shall, as appropriate, make referrals to local, State, or
Federal entities for the provision of services or further
diagnosis.
``(5) Reports.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
paragraph (2), a tribe, tribal organization, or consortium
shall make an annual report to the Secretary of the Interior
of activities undertaken under this subsection, including the
number of contracts and cooperative agreements entered into,
the number of children contacted and receiving services for
each year, and the estimated number of children needing
services during the year following the year in which the
report is made. The Secretary of the Interior shall include a
summary of this information on an annual basis to the
Secretary of Education along with such other information as
required under section 611(h)(3)(E). The Secretary of
Education may require any additional information from the
Secretary of the Interior.
``(6) Prohibited uses of funds.--None of the funds under
this subsection may be used by the Secretary of the Interior
for administrative purposes, including child count, and the
provision of technical assistance.
``(c) State Allotments.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and
(3) from the funds remaining for each fiscal year after the
reservation and payments under subsections (a) and (b), the
Secretary shall first allot to each State an amount that
bears the same ratio to the amount of such remainder as the
number of infants and toddlers in the State bears to the
number of infants and toddlers in all States.
``(2) Minimum allotments.--Except as provided in paragraph
(3) no State shall receive an amount under this section for
any fiscal year that is less than the greater of--
``(A) one-half of one percent of the remaining amount
described in paragraph (1); or
``(B) $500,000.
``(3) Ratable reduction.--
``(A) In general.--If the sums made available under this
part for any fiscal year are insufficient to pay the full
amounts that all States are eligible to receive under this
subsection for such year, the Secretary shall ratably reduce
the allotments to such States for such year.
``(B) Additional funds.--If additional funds become
available for making payments under this subsection for a
fiscal year, allotments that were reduced under subparagraph
(A) shall be increased on the same basis they were reduced.
``(4) Definitions.--For the purpose of this subsection--
``(A) the terms `infants' and `toddlers' mean children
under 3 years of age; and
``(B) the term `State' means each of the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
``(d) Reallotment of Funds.--If a State elects not to
receive its allotment under subsection (c), the Secretary
shall reallot, among the remaining States, amounts from such
State in accordance with such subsection.
``SEC. 644. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``For the purpose of carrying out this part, there are
authorized to be appropriated $447,000,000 for fiscal year
2004 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal
years 2005 through 2009.''.
TITLE IV--NATIONAL ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES
SEC. 401. NATIONAL ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE EDUCATION OF
CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES.
Part D of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(20 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:
``PART D--NATIONAL ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES
``SEC. 651. FINDINGS.
``The Congress finds the following:
``(1) The Federal Government has an ongoing obligation to
support activities that contribute to positive results for
children with disabilities, enabling them to lead productive
and independent adult lives.
``(2) Systemic change benefiting all students, including
children with disabilities, requires the involvement of
States, local educational agencies, parents, individuals with
disabilities and their families, teachers and other service
providers, and other interested individuals and
organizations, to develop and implement comprehensive
strategies that improve educational results for children with
disabilities.
``(3) State educational agencies, in partnership with local
educational agencies, parents of children with disabilities,
and other individuals and organizations, are in the best
position to improve education for children with disabilities
and to address their special needs.
``(4) An effective educational system serving students with
disabilities should--
``(A) maintain high academic standards and clear
achievement goals for children, consistent with the standards
and expectations for all students in the educational system,
and provide for appropriate and effective strategies and
methods to ensure that all children with disabilities have
the opportunity to achieve those standards and goals;
``(B) clearly define, in objective, measurable terms, the
school and post-school results that children with
disabilities are expected to achieve; and
``(C) promote transition services, as described in section
602(31), and coordinate State and local education, social,
health, mental health, and other services, to address the
full range of student needs, particularly the needs of
children with disabilities who need significant levels of
support to participate and learn in school and the community.
``(5) The availability of an adequate number of qualified
personnel is critical in order to serve effectively children
with disabilities, fill leadership positions in
administrative and direct-service capacities, provide teacher
training, and conduct high-quality research to improve
special education.
``(6) High-quality, comprehensive professional development
programs are essential to ensure that the persons responsible
for the education or transition of children with disabilities
possess the skills and knowledge necessary to address the
educational and related needs of those children.
``(7) Models of professional development should be
scientifically based and reflect successful practices,
including strategies for recruiting, preparing, and retaining
personnel.
``(8) Continued support is essential for the development
and maintenance of a coordinated and high-quality program of
research to inform successful teaching practices and model
curricula for educating children with disabilities.
``(9) A comprehensive research agenda should be established
and pursued to promote the highest quality and rigor in
research on special education and related services, and to
address the full range of issues facing children with
disabilities, parents of children with disabilities, school
personnel, and others.
``(10) Technical assistance, support, and dissemination
activities are necessary to ensure that parts B and C are
fully implemented and achieve quality early intervention,
educational, and transitional results for children with
disabilities and their families.
``(11) Parents, teachers, administrators, and related
services personnel need technical assistance and information
in a timely, coordinated, and accessible manner in order to
improve early intervention, educational, and transitional
services and results at the State and local levels for
children with disabilities and their families.
``(12) Parent training and information activities assist
parents of a child with a disability in dealing with the
multiple pressures of parenting such a child and are of
particular importance in--
``(A) creating and preserving constructive relationships
between parents of children with disabilities and schools by
facilitating open communication between such parents and
schools, encouraging dispute resolution at the earliest point
in time possible, and discouraging the escalation of an
adversarial process between such parents and schools;
``(B) ensuring the involvement of such parents in planning
and decision-making with respect to early intervention,
educational, and transitional services;
``(C) achieving high-quality early intervention,
educational, and transitional results for children with
disabilities;
``(D) providing such parents information on their rights,
protections, and responsibilities under this Act to ensure
improved early intervention, educational, and transitional
results for children with disabilities;
``(E) assisting such parents in the development of skills
to participate effectively in the education and development
of their children and in the transitions described in section
602(31);
``(F) supporting the roles of such parents as participants
within partnerships seeking to improve early intervention,
educational, and transitional services and results for
children with disabilities and their families; and
``(G) supporting those parents who may have limited access
to services and supports due to economic, cultural, or
linguistic barriers.
``(13) Support is needed to improve technological resources
and integrate technology into the lives of children with
disabilities, parents of children with disabilities, school
personnel, and others through curricula, services, and
assistive technologies.
``Subpart 1--State Professional Development Grants
``SEC. 652. PURPOSE.
``The purpose of this subpart is to assist State
educational agencies in reforming and improving their systems
for professional development in early intervention,
educational, and related and transition services in order to
improve results for children with disabilities.
``SEC. 653. ELIGIBILITY AND COLLABORATIVE PROCESS.
``(a) Eligible Applicants.--A State educational agency may
apply for a grant under this subpart for a period of not less
than 1 year and not more than 5 years.
``(b) Partners.--
``(1) Required partners.--In order to be considered for a
grant under this subpart, a State educational agency shall
enter into a partnership agreement with local educational
agencies, at least one institution of higher education in the
State, and other State agencies involved in, or concerned
with, the education of children with disabilities.
``(2) Optional partners.--In addition, a State educational
agency may enter into a partnership agreement with any of the
following:
``(A) The Governor.
``(B) Parents of children with disabilities ages birth
through 26.
``(C) Parents of nondisabled children ages birth through
26.
[[Page H3503]]
``(D) Individuals with disabilities.
``(E) Organizations representing individuals with
disabilities and their parents, such as parent training and
information centers.
``(F) Community-based and other nonprofit organizations
involved in the education and employment of individuals with
disabilities.
``(G) The lead State agency for part C.
``(H) General and special education teachers, related
services personnel, and early intervention personnel.
``(I) The State advisory panel established under part C.
``(J) The State interagency coordinating council
established under part C.
``(K) Institutions of higher education within the State.
``(L) Individuals knowledgeable about vocational education.
``(M) The State agency for higher education.
``(N) The State vocational rehabilitation agency.
``(O) Public agencies with jurisdiction in the areas of
health, mental health, social services, and juvenile justice.
``(P) Other providers of professional development that work
with students with disabilities.
``(Q) Other individuals.
``SEC. 654. APPLICATIONS.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Submission.--A State educational agency that desires
to receive a grant under this subpart shall submit to the
Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and
including such information as the Secretary may require.
``(2) State plan.--The application shall include a plan
that addresses the State and local needs for the professional
development of administrators, principals, teachers, related
services personnel, and individuals who provide direct
supplementary aids and services to children with
disabilities, and that--
``(A) is integrated, to the maximum extent possible, with
State plans under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as appropriate; and
``(B) is designed to enable the State to meet the
requirements of section 612(a)(15) of this Act.
``(b) Elements of State Plan.--Each State plan shall--
``(1) describe a partnership agreement that--
``(A) specifies--
``(i) the nature and extent of the partnership among the
State educational agency, local educational agencies, and
other State agencies involved in, or concerned with, the
education of children with disabilities, and the respective
roles of each member of the partnership; and
``(ii) how such agencies will work in partnership with
other persons and organizations involved in, and concerned
with, the education of children with disabilities, including
the respective roles of each of these persons and
organizations; and
``(B) is in effect for the period of the grant;
``(2) describe how grant funds, including part B funds
retained for use at the State level under sections 611(e) and
619(d), and other Federal funds will be used to support
activities conducted under this subpart;
``(3) describe the strategies the State will use to
implement the plan to improve results for children with
disabilities, including--
``(A) how the State will align its professional development
plan with the plans submitted by the State under sections
1111 and 2112 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965;
``(B) how the State will provide technical assistance to
local educational agencies and schools to improve the quality
of professional development available to meet the needs of
personnel that serve children with disabilities; and
``(C) how the State will assess, on a regular basis, the
extent to which the strategies implemented under this subpart
have been effective in meeting the achievement goals and
indicators in section 612(a)(16);
``(4) describe, as appropriate, how the strategies
described in paragraph (3) will be coordinated with public
and private sector resources; and
``(5) include an assurance that the State will use funds
received under this subpart to carry out each of the
activities specified in the plan.
``(c) Competitive Awards.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants under
this subpart on a competitive basis.
``(2) Priority.--The Secretary may give priority to
applications on the basis of need.
``(d) Peer Review.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall evaluate
applications under this subpart using a panel of experts who
are qualified by virtue of their training, expertise, or
experience.
``(2) Composition of panel.--A majority of a panel
described in paragraph (1) shall be composed of individuals
who are not employees of the Federal Government.
``(3) Payment of fees and expenses of certain members.--The
Secretary may use available funds appropriated to carry out
this subpart to pay the expenses and fees of panel members
who are not employees of the Federal Government.
``(e) Reporting Procedures.--Each State educational agency
that receives a grant under this subpart shall submit annual
performance reports to the Secretary. The reports shall--
``(1) describe the progress of the State in implementing
its plan;
``(2) analyze the effectiveness of the State's activities
under this subpart and of the State's strategies for meeting
its goals under section 612(a)(16); and
``(3) identify any changes in such strategies needed to
improve its performance.
``SEC. 655. USE OF FUNDS.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Activities.--A State educational agency that receives
a grant under this subpart shall use the grant funds, subject
to subsection (b), for the following:
``(A) Professional development.--
``(i) Carrying out programs that support the professional
development of early intervention personnel, related services
personnel, and both special education and regular education
teachers of children with disabilities, such as programs
that--
``(I) provide teacher mentoring, team teaching, reduced
class schedules, and intensive professional development;
``(II) use standards or assessments for guiding beginning
teachers that are consistent with challenging State student
academic achievement standards and with the definition of
professional development in section 9101 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965;
``(III) promote collaborative and consultive models of
providing special education ad related services; and
``(IV) increase understanding as to the most appropriate
placements and services for all students to reduce
significant racial and ethnic disproportionality in
eligibility, placement, and disciplinary actions.
``(ii) Encouraging and supporting the training of special
education and regular education teachers and administrators
to effectively integrate technology into curricula and
instruction, including training to improve the ability to
collect, manage, and analyze data to improve teaching,
decisionmaking, school improvement efforts, and
accountability.
``(iii) Providing professional development activities that
improve the knowledge of special education and regular
education teachers concerning--
``(I) the academic and developmental needs of students with
disabilities; and
``(II) effective instructional strategies, methods, and
skills, use of challenging State academic content standards
and student academic achievement standards, and use of State
assessments, to improve teaching practices and student
academic achievement.
``(iv) Providing professional development activities that--
``(I) improve the knowledge of special education and
regular education teachers and principals and, in appropriate
cases, related services personnel and paraprofessionals,
concerning effective instructional practices;
``(II) provide training in how to teach and address the
needs of students with different learning styles;
``(III) involve collaborative groups of teachers and
administrators;
``(IV) provide training in methods of--
``(aa) positive behavior interventions and supports to
improve student behavior in the classroom;
``(bb) scientifically based reading instruction, including
early literacy instruction; and
``(cc) early and appropriate interventions to identify and
help students with disabilities;
``(V) provide training to enable special education and
regular education teachers, related services personnel, and
principals to involve parents in their child's education,
especially parents of low-income and limited English
proficient children with disabilities; or
``(VI) train administrators and other relevant school
personnel in conducting facilitated individualized education
program meetings.
``(v) Developing and implementing initiatives to promote
retention of highly qualified special education teachers,
including programs that provide--
``(I) teacher mentoring from exemplary special education
teachers, principals, or superintendents;
``(II) induction and support for special education teachers
during their first 3 years of employment as teachers; or
``(III) incentives, including financial incentives, to
retain special education teachers who have a record of
success in helping students with disabilities improve their
academic achievement.
``(vi) Carrying out programs and activities that are
designed to improve the quality of the teacher force that
serves children with disabilities, such as--
``(I) innovative professional development programs (which
may be provided through partnerships including institutions
of higher education), including programs that train teachers
and principals to integrate technology into curricula and
instruction to improve teaching, learning, and technology
literacy, are consistent with the requirements of section
9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,
and are coordinated with activities carried out under this
part; and
``(II) development and use of proven, cost-effective
strategies for the implementation of professional development
activities, such as through the use of technology and
distance learning.
``(B) State activities.--
``(i) Reforming special education and regular education
teacher certification (including recertification) or
licensing requirements to ensure that--
``(I) special education and regular education teachers have
the training and information necessary, including an
understanding of the latest scientifically valid education
research and its applicability, to address the wide variety
of needs of children with disabilities across disability
categories;
``(II) special education and regular education teachers
have the necessary subject matter knowledge and teaching
skills in the academic subjects that the teachers teach;
``(III) special education and regular education teacher
certification (including recertification)
[[Page H3504]]
or licensing requirements are aligned with challenging State
academic content standards; and
``(IV) special education and regular education teachers
have the subject matter knowledge and teaching skills,
including technology literacy, necessary to help students
meet challenging State student academic achievement
standards.
``(ii) Carrying out programs that establish, expand, or
improve alternative routes for State certification of special
education teachers for individuals who demonstrate the
potential to become highly effective special education
teachers, such as individuals with a baccalaureate or
master's degree (including mid-career professionals from
other occupations), paraprofessionals, former military
personnel, and recent college or university graduates with
records of academic distinction.
``(iii) Carrying out teacher advancement initiatives for
special education teachers that promote professional growth
and emphasize multiple career paths (such as paths to
becoming a career teacher, mentor teacher, or exemplary
teacher) and pay differentiation.
``(iv) Developing and implementing mechanisms to assist
local educational agencies and schools in effectively
recruiting and retaining highly qualified special education
teachers.
``(v) Reforming tenure systems, implementing teacher
testing for subject matter knowledge, and implementing
teacher testing for State certification or licensing,
consistent with title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
``(vi) Developing and implementing mechanisms to assist
schools in effectively recruiting and retaining highly
qualified special education teachers.
``(vii) Funding projects to promote reciprocity of teacher
certification or licensing between or among States for
special education teachers, except that no reciprocity
agreement developed under this clause or developed using
funds provided under this subpart may lead to the weakening
of any State teaching certification or licensing requirement.
``(viii) Developing or assisting local educational agencies
to serve children with disabilities through the development
and use of proven, innovative strategies to deliver intensive
professional development programs that are both cost-
effective and easily accessible, such as strategies that
involve delivery through the use of technology, peer
networks, and distance learning.
``(ix) Developing, or assisting local educational agencies
in developing, merit-based performance systems, and
strategies that provide differential and bonus pay for
special education teachers.
``(x) Supporting activities that ensure that teachers are
able to use challenging State academic content standards and
student academic achievement standards, and State
assessments, to improve instructional practices and improve
the academic achievement of children with disabilities.
``(xi) Coordinating with, and expanding, centers
established under section 2113(c)(18) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to benefit special education
teachers.
``(2) Contracts and subgrants.--Each such State educational
agency--
``(A) shall, consistent with its partnership agreement
under section 654(b)(1), award contracts or subgrants to
local educational agencies, institutions of higher education,
and parent training and information centers, as appropriate,
to carry out its State plan under this subpart; and
``(B) may award contracts and subgrants to other public and
private entities, including the lead agency under part C, to
carry out such plan.
``(b) Use of Funds for Professional Development.--A State
educational agency that receives a grant under this subpart
shall use--
``(1) not less than 90 percent of the funds it receives
under the grant for any fiscal year for activities under
subsection (a)(1)(A); and
``(2) not more than 10 percent of the funds it receives
under the grant for any fiscal year for activities under
subsection (a)(1)(B).
``(c) Grants to Outlying Areas.--Public Law 95-134,
permitting the consolidation of grants to the outlying areas,
shall not apply to funds received under this subpart.
``SEC. 656. STATE GRANT AMOUNTS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make a grant to each
State educational agency whose application the Secretary has
selected for funding under this subpart in an amount for each
fiscal year that is--
``(1) not less than $500,000, nor more than $2,000,000, in
the case of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and
``(2) not less than $80,000, in the case of an outlying
area.
``(b) Factors.--The Secretary shall set the amount of each
grant under subsection (a) after considering--
``(1) the amount of funds available for making the grants;
``(2) the relative population of the State or outlying
area; and
``(3) the types of activities proposed by the State or
outlying area, including--
``(A) the alignment of proposed activities with paragraphs
(14) and (15) of section 612(a);
``(B) the alignment of proposed activities with the plans
submitted under sections 1111 and 2112 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965; and
``(C) the use, as appropriate, of scientifically based
research.
``SEC. 657. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
subpart $44,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may
be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
``Subpart 2--Scientifically Based Research; Technical Assistance; Model
Demonstration Projects; Dissemination of Information; and Personnel
Preparation Programs
``SEC. 661. PURPOSE.
``The purpose of this subpart is to provide Federal funding
for scientifically based research, technical assistance,
model demonstration projects, information dissemination, and
personnel preparation programs to improve early intervention,
educational, and transitional results for children with
disabilities.
``SEC. 662. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
``(a) Comprehensive Plan.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop and
implement a comprehensive plan for activities carried out
under this subpart (other than section 663) in order to
enhance the provision of educational, related, transitional,
and early intervention services to children with disabilities
under parts B and C. The plan shall include mechanisms to
address educational, related services, transitional, and
early intervention needs identified by State educational
agencies in applications submitted under subpart 1.
``(2) Public comment.--The Secretary shall provide a public
comment period of at least 30 days on the plan.
``(3) Distribution of funds.--In implementing the plan, the
Secretary shall, to the extent appropriate, ensure that funds
are awarded to recipients under this subpart to carry out
activities that benefit, directly or indirectly, children
with disabilities of all ages.
``(4) Reports to congress.--The Secretary shall annually
report to the Congress on the Secretary's activities under
this subsection, including an initial report not later than
the date that is 12 months after the date of the enactment of
Improving Education Results for Children With Disabilities
Act of 2003.
``(b) Eligible Applicants.--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subpart, the following entities are eligible to apply for a
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under this subpart:
``(A) A State educational agency.
``(B) A local educational agency.
``(C) A public charter school that is a local educational
agency under State law.
``(D) An institution of higher education.
``(E) Any other public agency.
``(F) A private nonprofit organization.
``(G) An outlying area.
``(H) An Indian tribe or a tribal organization (as defined
under section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b)).
``(I) A for-profit organization if the Secretary finds it
appropriate given the specific purpose of the competition.
``(2) Special rule.--The Secretary may limit the entities
eligible for an award of a grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement to one or more categories of eligible entities
described in paragraph (1).
``(c) Special Populations.--
``(1) Application requirement.--In making an award of a
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under this subpart,
the Secretary shall, as appropriate, require an applicant to
demonstrate how the applicant will address the needs of
children with disabilities from minority backgrounds.
``(2) Required outreach and technical assistance.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
Secretary shall reserve at least two percent of the total
amount of funds appropriated to carry out this subpart for
either or both of the following activities:
``(A) Providing outreach and technical assistance to
historically black colleges and universities, and to
institutions of higher education with minority enrollments of
at least 25 percent, to promote the participation of such
colleges, universities, and institutions in activities under
this subpart.
``(B) Enabling historically black colleges and
universities, and the institutions described in subparagraph
(A), to assist other colleges, universities, institutions,
and agencies in improving educational and transitional
results for children with disabilities, if such grant
applicants meet the criteria established by the Secretary
under this subpart.
``(d) Priorities.--The Secretary, in making an award of a
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under this subpart,
may, without regard to the rulemaking procedures under
section 553 of title 5, United States Code, limit
competitions to, or otherwise give priority to--
``(1) projects that address one or more--
``(A) age ranges;
``(B) disabilities;
``(C) school grades;
``(D) types of educational placements or early intervention
environments;
``(E) types of services;
``(F) content areas, such as reading; or
``(G) effective strategies for helping children with
disabilities learn appropriate behavior in the school and
other community-based educational settings;
``(2) projects that address the needs of children based on
the severity or incidence of their disability;
``(3) projects that address the needs of--
``(A) low-achieving students;
``(B) underserved populations;
``(C) children from low-income families;
``(D) children with limited English proficiency;
``(E) unserved and underserved areas;
``(F) rural or urban areas;
``(G) children whose behavior interferes with their
learning and socialization;
``(H) children with intractable reading difficulties; and
``(I) children in public charter schools;
``(4) projects to reduce inappropriate identification of
children as children with disabilities, particularly among
minority children; and
``(5) any activity that is expressly authorized in this
subpart or subpart 3.
[[Page H3505]]
``(e) Applicant and Recipient Responsibilities.--
``(1) Development and assessment of projects.--The
Secretary shall require that an applicant for, and a
recipient of, a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement for
a project under this subpart--
``(A) involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of
individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in
planning, implementing, and evaluating the project; and
``(B) where appropriate, determine whether the project has
any potential for replication and adoption by other entities.
``(2) Additional responsibilities.--The Secretary may
require a recipient of a grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement for a project under this subpart--
``(A) to share in the cost of the project;
``(B) to prepare the research and evaluation findings and
products from the project in formats that are useful for
specific audiences, including parents, administrators,
teachers, early intervention personnel, related services
personnel, and individuals with disabilities;
``(C) to disseminate such findings and products; and
``(D) to collaborate with other such recipients in carrying
out subparagraphs (B) and (C).
``(f) Application Management.--
``(1) Standing panel.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish and use a
standing panel of experts who are qualified, by virtue of
their training, expertise, or experience, to evaluate
applications under this subpart (other than section 663)
that, individually, request more than $75,000 per year in
Federal financial assistance.
``(B) Membership.--The standing panel shall include, at a
minimum--
``(i) individuals who are representatives of institutions
of higher education that plan, develop, and carry out high-
quality programs of personnel preparation;
``(ii) individuals who design and carry out scientifically-
based research targeted to the improvement of special
education programs and services;
``(iii) individuals who have recognized experience and
knowledge necessary to integrate and apply scientifically-
based research findings to improve educational and
transitional results for children with disabilities;
``(iv) individuals who administer programs at the State or
local level in which children with disabilities participate;
``(v) individuals who prepare parents of children with
disabilities to participate in making decisions about the
education of their children;
``(vi) individuals who establish policies that affect the
delivery of services to children with disabilities;
``(vii) individuals who are parents of children with
disabilities ages birth through 26 who are benefiting, or
have benefited, from coordinated research, personnel
preparation, and technical assistance; and
``(viii) individuals with disabilities.
``(C) Term.--No individual shall serve on the standing
panel for more than 3 consecutive years.
``(2) Peer-review panels for particular competitions.--
``(A) Composition.--The Secretary shall ensure that each
subpanel selected from the standing panel that reviews
applications under this subpart (other than section 663)
includes--
``(i) individuals with knowledge and expertise on the
issues addressed by the activities authorized by the subpart;
and
``(ii) to the extent practicable, parents of children with
disabilities ages birth through 26, individuals with
disabilities, and persons from diverse backgrounds.
``(B) Federal employment limitation.--A majority of the
individuals on each subpanel that reviews an application
under this subpart (other than section 663) shall be
individuals who are not employees of the Federal Government.
``(3) Use of discretionary funds for administrative
purposes.--
``(A) Expenses and fees of non-federal panel members.--The
Secretary may use funds available under this subpart to pay
the expenses and fees of the panel members who are not
officers or employees of the Federal Government.
``(B) Administrative support.--The Secretary may use not
more than 1 percent of the funds appropriated to carry out
this subpart to pay non-Federal entities for administrative
support related to management of applications submitted under
this subpart.
``(g) Program Evaluation.--The Secretary may use funds
appropriated to carry out this subpart to evaluate activities
carried out under the subpart.
``(h) Minimum Funding Required.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall ensure that, for each fiscal year, at least the
following amounts are provided under this subpart to address
the following needs:
``(A) $12,832,000 to address the educational, related
services, transitional, and early intervention needs of
children with deaf-blindness.
``(B) $4,000,000 to address the postsecondary, vocational,
technical, continuing, and adult education needs of
individuals with deafness.
``(C) $4,000,000 to address the educational, related
services, and transitional needs of children with an
emotional disturbance and those who are at risk of developing
an emotional disturbance.
``(2) Ratable reduction.--If the total amount appropriated
to carry out this subpart for any fiscal year is less than
$130,000,000, the amounts listed in paragraph (1) shall be
ratably reduced.
``(i) Eligibility for Financial Assistance.--Effective for
fiscal years for which the Secretary may make grants under
section 619(b), no State or local educational agency or
educational service agency or other public institution or
agency may receive a grant under this subpart which relates
exclusively to programs, projects, and activities pertaining
to children aged 3 through 5, inclusive, unless the State is
eligible to receive a grant under section 619(b).
``SEC. 663. RESEARCH TO IMPROVE RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES.
``(a) National Center for Special Education Research.--
``(1) Establishment.--
``(A) In general.--There is established, in the Institute
of Education Sciences established under section 111 of the
Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-279;
116 Stat. 1944) (hereinafter in this section referred to as
`the Institute'), the National Center for Special Education
Research.
``(B) Commissioner.--The National Center for Special
Education Research shall be headed by a Commissioner for
Special Education Research (hereinafter in this section
referred to as `the Commissioner'). The Commissioner shall be
appointed by the Director of the Institute (hereinafter in
this section referred to as `the Director') in accordance
with section 117 of the Education Sciences Reform Act of
2002. The Commissioner shall have substantial knowledge of
the Center's activities, including a high level of expertise
in the fields of research and research management.
``(2) Applicability of education science reform act of
2002.--Parts A and E of the Education Sciences Reform Act of
2002, as well as the standards for peer review of
applications and for the conduct and evaluation of research
under sections 133(a) and 134 of such Act, shall apply to the
Secretary, the Director, and the Commissioner in carrying out
this section.
``(b) Competitive Grants.--The Director shall make
competitive grants to, or enter into contracts or cooperative
agreements with, eligible entities to expand the fundamental
knowledge and understanding of the education of infants,
toddlers, and children with disabilities in order to improve
educational results for such individuals, in accordance with
the priorities determined under this section.
``(c) Authorized Activities.--Activities that may be
carried out under this section include research activities--
``(1) to improve services provided under this Act in order
to improve academic achievement for children with
disabilities;
``(2) to investigate scientifically based educational
practices that support learning and improve academic
achievement and progress for all students with disabilities;
``(3) to examine the special needs of preschool-aged
children and infants and toddlers with disabilities,
including factors that may result in developmental delays;
``(4) to investigate scientifically based related services
and interventions that promote participation and progress in
the general education curriculum;
``(5) to improve the alignment, compatibility, and
development of valid and reliable assessment methods for
assessing adequate yearly progress, as described under
section 1111(b)(2)(B) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(B));
``(6) to improve the alignment, compatibility, and
development of valid and reliable alternate assessment
methods for assessing adequate yearly progress, as described
under such section 1111(b)(2)(B);
``(7) to examine State content standards and alternate
assessments for students with a significant cognitive
impairment in terms of academic achievement, individualized
instructional need, appropriate educational settings, and
improved post-school results;
``(8) to examine the educational and developmental needs of
children with high-incidence and low-incidence disabilities;
``(9) to examine the extent to which overidentification and
underidentification of children with disabilities occurs, and
the causes thereof;
``(10) to improve reading and literacy skills for children
with disabilities;
``(11) to examine and improve secondary and postsecondary
education and transitional needs of children with
disabilities;
``(12) to examine methods of early intervention for
children with disabilities who need significant levels of
support;
``(13) to examine universal design concepts in the
development of assessments, curricula, and instructional
methods as a method to improve educational results for
children with disabilities;
``(14) to improve the professional preparation for
personnel who provide educational and related services to
children with disabilities, including children with low-
incidence disabilities, to increase academic achievement of
children with disabilities;
``(15) to examine the excess costs of educating a child
with a disability and expenses associated with high-cost
special education and related services; and
``(16) to examine the special needs of limited English
proficient children with disabilities.
``(d) Plan.--The National Center for Special Education
Research shall propose to the Director a research plan, with
the advice of the Assistant Secretary for Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services, that--
``(1) is consistent with the priorities and mission of the
Institute of Educational Sciences and the mission of the
Special Education Research Center and includes the activities
described in paragraph (3);
``(2) shall be carried out pursuant to subsection (c) and,
as appropriate, be updated and modified; and
``(3) carries out specific, long-term research activities
that are consistent with the priorities and mission of the
Institute of Educational Sciences, and are approved by the
Director.
``(e) Implementation.--The National Center for Special
Education Research shall implement the plan proposed under
subsection (d) to carry out scientifically valid research
that--
[[Page H3506]]
``(1) is consistent with the purposes of this Act;
``(2) reflects an appropriate balance across all age ranges
of children with disabilities;
``(3) provides for research that is objective and that uses
measurable indicators to assess its progress and results;
``(4) includes both basic research and applied research,
which shall include research conducted through field-
initiated studies and which may include ongoing research
initiatives;
``(5) ensures that the research conducted under this
section is relevant to special education practice and policy;
``(6) synthesize and disseminate, through the National
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance as
well as activities authorized under this part, the findings
and results of education research conducted or supported by
the National Center for Special Education Research; and
``(7) assist the Director in the preparation of a biennial
report, as a described in section 119 of the Education
Sciences Reform Act of 2003.
``(f) Applications.--An eligible entity that wishes to
receive a grant, or enter into a contract or cooperative
agreement, under this section shall submit an application to
the Commissioner at such time, in such manner, and containing
such information as the Commissioner may reasonably require.
``SEC. 664. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS,
DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION, AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF SCIENTIFICALLY BASED
RESEARCH.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make competitive
grants to, or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements
with, eligible entities including regional resource centers
and clearinghouses to provide technical assistance, support
model demonstration projects, disseminate useful information,
and implement activities that are supported by scientifically
based research.
``(b) Required Activities.--Funds received under this
section shall be used to support activities to improve
services provided under this Act, including the practices of
professionals and others involved in providing such services
to children with disabilities, that promote academic
achievement and improve results for children with
disabilities through--
``(1) implementing effective strategies for addressing
inappropriate behavior of students with disabilities in
schools, including strategies to prevent children with
emotional and behavioral problems from developing emotional
disturbances that require the provision of special education
and related services;
``(2) improving the alignment, compatibility, and
development of valid and reliable assessments and alternate
assessments for assessing adequate yearly progress, as
described under section 1111(b)(2)(B) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965;
``(3) providing training for both regular education
teachers and special education teachers to address the needs
of students with different learning styles;
``(4) identifying innovative, effective, and efficient
curricula designs, instructional approaches, and strategies,
and identifying positive academic and social learning
opportunities, that--
``(A) provide effective transitions between educational
settings or from school to post school settings; and
``(B) improve educational and transitional results at all
levels of the educational system in which the activities are
carried out and, in particular, that improve the progress of
children with disabilities, as measured by assessments within
the general education curriculum involved; and
``(5) demonstrating and applying scientifically based
findings to facilitate systemic changes, related to the
provision of services to children with disabilities, in
policy, procedure, practice, and the training and use of
personnel.
``(c) Authorized Activities.--Activities that may be
carried out under this section include activities to improve
services provided under this Act, including the practices of
professionals and others involved in providing such services
to children with disabilities, that promote academic
achievement and improve results for children with
disabilities through--
``(1) applying and testing research findings in typical
service settings to determine the usefulness, effectiveness,
and general applicability of such research findings in such
areas as improving instructional methods, curricula, and
tools, such as textbooks and media;
``(2) supporting and promoting the coordination of early
intervention and educational services for children with
disabilities with services provided by health,
rehabilitation, and social service agencies;
``(3) promoting improved alignment and compatibility of
general and special education reforms concerned with
curricular and instructional reform, and evaluation of such
reforms;
``(4) enabling professionals, parents of children with
disabilities, and other persons to learn about, and
implement, the findings of scientifically based research, and
successful practices developed in model demonstration
projects, relating to the provision of services to children
with disabilities;
``(5) conducting outreach, and disseminating information,
relating to successful approaches to overcoming systemic
barriers to the effective and efficient delivery of early
intervention, educational, and transitional services to
personnel who provide services to children with disabilities;
``(6) assisting States and local educational agencies with
the process of planning systemic changes that will promote
improved early intervention, educational, and transitional
results for children with disabilities;
``(7) promoting change through a multistate or regional
framework that benefits States, local educational agencies,
and other participants in partnerships that are in the
process of achieving systemic-change outcomes;
``(8) focusing on the needs and issues that are specific to
a population of children with disabilities, such as the
provision of single-State and multi-State technical
assistance and in-service training--
``(A) to schools and agencies serving deaf-blind children
and their families;
``(B) to programs and agencies serving other groups of
children with low-incidence disabilities and their families;
``(C) addressing the postsecondary education needs of
individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing; and
``(D) to schools and personnel providing special education
and related services for children with autism spectrum
disorders;
``(9) demonstrating models of personnel preparation to
ensure appropriate placements and services for all students
and reduce disproportionality in eligibility, placement, and
disciplinary actions for minority and limited English
proficient children; and
``(10) disseminating information on how to reduce racial
and ethnic disproportionalities identified under section 618.
``(d) Balance Among Activities and Age Ranges.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary shall ensure that there is an
appropriate balance across all age ranges of children with
disabilities.
``(e) Linking States to Information Sources.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary shall support projects that
link States to technical assistance resources, including
special education and general education resources, and shall
make research and related products available through
libraries, electronic networks, parent training projects, and
other information sources, including through the activities
of the National Center for Evaluation and Regional Assistance
established under the Education Sciences Reform Act.
``(f) Applications.--
``(1) In general.--An eligible entity that wishes to
receive a grant, or enter into a contract or cooperative
agreement, under this section shall submit an application to
the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing
such information as the Secretary may require.
``(2) Standards.--To the maximum extent feasible, each
applicant shall demonstrate that the project described in its
application is supported by scientifically valid research
that has been carried out in accordance with the standards
for the conduct and evaluation of all relevant research and
development established by the National Center for Education
Research.
``(3) Priority.--As appropriate, the Secretary shall give
priority to applications that propose to serve teachers and
school personnel directly in the school environment.
``SEC. 665. PERSONNEL PREPARATION PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE
SERVICES AND RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall, on a competitive
basis, make grants to, or enter into contracts or cooperative
agreements with, eligible entities--
``(1) to help address State-identified needs for qualified
personnel in special education, related services, early
intervention, and regular education, to work with children
with disabilities;
``(2) to ensure that those personnel have the necessary
skills and knowledge, derived from practices that have been
determined, through scientifically valid research, to be
successful in serving those children;
``(3) to encourage increased focus on academics and core
content areas in special education personnel preparation
programs;
``(4) to ensure that regular education teachers have the
necessary skills and knowledge to provide instruction to
students with disabilities in the regular education
classroom;
``(5) to provide high-quality professional development for
principals, superintendents, and other administrators,
including training in--
``(A) instructional leadership;
``(B) behavioral supports in the school and classroom;
``(C) paperwork reduction;
``(D) promoting improved collaboration between special
education and general education teachers;
``(E) assessment and accountability;
``(F) ensuring effective learning environments; and
``(G) fostering positive relationships with parents; and
``(6) to ensure that all special education teachers
teaching in core academic subjects are highly qualified.
``(b) Personnel Preparation; Authorized Activities.--
``(1) In general.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall support activities, including activities for
high-incidence and low-incidence disabilities, consistent
with the objectives described in subsection (a).
``(2) Authorized activities.--Activities that may be
carried out under this subsection include the following:
``(A) Promoting activities undertaken by institutions of
higher education, local educational agencies, and other local
entities--
``(i) to improve and reform their existing programs, and to
support effective existing programs, to prepare teachers and
related services personnel--
``(I) to meet the diverse needs of children with
disabilities for early intervention, educational, and
transitional services; and
``(II) to work collaboratively in regular classroom
settings; and
``(ii) to incorporate best practices and scientifically
based research about preparing personnel--
``(I) so they will have the knowledge and skills to improve
educational results for children with disabilities; and
[[Page H3507]]
``(II) so they can implement effective teaching strategies
and interventions to ensure appropriate identification, and
to prevent the misidentification or overidentification, of
children as having a disability, especially minority and
limited English proficient children.
``(B) Developing, evaluating, and disseminating innovative
models for the recruitment, induction, retention, and
assessment of highly qualified teachers to reduce shortages
in personnel.
``(C) Developing and improving programs for
paraprofessionals to assist in the provision of special
education, related services, and early intervention services,
including interdisciplinary training to enable them to
improve early intervention, educational, and transitional
results for children with disabilities.
``(D) Demonstrating models for the preparation of, and
interdisciplinary training of, early intervention, special
education, and general education personnel, to enable the
personnel to acquire the collaboration skills necessary to
work within teams to improve results for children with
disabilities, particularly within the general education
curriculum.
``(E) Promoting the transferability, across State and local
jurisdictions, of licensure and certification of teachers and
administrators working with such children.
``(F) Developing and disseminating models that prepare
teachers with strategies, including behavioral interventions,
for addressing the conduct of children with disabilities that
impedes their learning and that of others in the classroom.
``(G) Developing and improving programs to enhance the
ability of general education teachers, principals, school
administrators, and school board members to improve results
for children with disabilities.
``(H) Supporting institutions of higher education with
minority enrollments of at least 25 percent for the purpose
of preparing personnel to work with children with
disabilities.
``(I) Developing and improving programs to train special
education teachers with an expertise in autism spectrum
disorders.
``(c) Low-Incidence Disabilities; Authorized Activities.--
``(1) In general.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall support activities, consistent with the
objectives described in subsection (a), that benefit children
with low-incidence disabilities.
``(2) Authorized activities.--Activities that may be
carried out under this subsection include activities such as
the following:
``(A) Preparing persons who--
``(i) have prior training in educational and other related
service fields; and
``(ii) are studying to obtain degrees, certificates, or
licensure that will enable them to assist children with low-
incidence disabilities to achieve the objectives set out in
their individualized education programs described in section
614(d), or to assist infants and toddlers with low incidence
disabilities to achieve the outcomes described in their
individualized family service plans described in section 636.
``(B) Providing personnel from various disciplines with
interdisciplinary training that will contribute to
improvement in early intervention, educational, and
transitional results for children with low-incidence
disabilities.
``(C) Preparing personnel in the innovative uses and
application of technology to enhance learning by children
with low-incidence disabilities through early intervention,
educational, and transitional services.
``(D) Preparing personnel who provide services to visually
impaired or blind children to teach and use Braille in the
provision of services to such children.
``(E) Preparing personnel who provide services to deaf and
hard-of-hearing children by providing direct language and
communication access to the general education curriculum
through spoken or signed languages, or other modes of
communication.
``(F) Preparing personnel to be qualified educational
interpreters, to assist children with low-incidence
disabilities, particularly deaf and hard-of-hearing children
in school and school-related activities and deaf and hard-of-
hearing infants and toddlers and preschool children in early
intervention and preschool programs.
``(3) Definition.--As used in this section, the term `low-
incidence disability' means--
``(A) a visual or hearing impairment, or simultaneous
visual and hearing impairments;
``(B) a significant cognitive impairment; or
``(C) any impairment for which a small number of personnel
with highly specialized skills and knowledge are needed in
order for children with that impairment to receive early
intervention services or a free appropriate public education.
``(4) Selection of recipients.--In selecting recipients
under this subsection, the Secretary may give preference to
applications that propose to prepare personnel in more than
one low-incidence disability, such as deafness and blindness.
``(5) Preparation in use of braille.--The Secretary shall
ensure that all recipients of assistance under this
subsection who will use that assistance to prepare personnel
to provide services to visually impaired or blind children
that can appropriately be provided in Braille will prepare
those individuals to provide those services in Braille.
``(d) Leadership Preparation; Authorized Activities.--
``(1) In general.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall support leadership preparation activities
that are consistent with the objectives described in
subsection (a).
``(2) Authorized activities.--Activities that may be
carried out under this subsection include activities such as
the following:
``(A) Preparing personnel at the graduate, doctoral, and
postdoctoral levels of training to administer, enhance, or
provide services to improve results for children with
disabilities.
``(B) Providing interdisciplinary training for various
types of leadership personnel, including teacher preparation
faculty, related services faculty, administrators,
researchers, supervisors, principals, and other persons whose
work affects early intervention, educational, and
transitional services for children with disabilities.
``(e) Applications.--
``(1) In general.--Any eligible entity that wishes to
receive a grant, or enter into a contract or cooperative
agreement, under this section shall submit an application to
the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing
such information as the Secretary may require.
``(2) Identified state needs.--
``(A) Requirement to address identified needs.--Any
application under subsection (b), (c), or (d) shall include
information demonstrating to the satisfaction of the
Secretary that the activities described in the application
will address needs identified by the State or States the
applicant proposes to serve.
``(B) Cooperation with state educational agencies.--Any
applicant that is not a local educational agency or a State
educational agency shall include information demonstrating to
the satisfaction of the Secretary that the applicant and one
or more State educational agencies or local educational
agencies will cooperate in carrying out and monitoring the
project.
``(3) Acceptance by states of personnel preparation
requirements.--The Secretary may require applicants to
provide assurances from one or more States that such States--
``(A) intend to accept successful completion of the
proposed personnel preparation program as meeting State
personnel standards or other requirements in State law or
regulation for serving children with disabilities or serving
infants and toddlers with disabilities; and
``(B) need personnel in the area or areas in which the
applicant proposes to provide preparation, as identified in
the States' comprehensive systems of personnel development
under parts B and C.
``(f) Selection of Recipients.--
``(1) Impact of project.--In selecting recipients under
this section, the Secretary shall consider the impact of the
project proposed in the application in meeting the need for
personnel identified by the States.
``(2) Requirement on applicants to meet state and
professional standards.--The Secretary shall make grants
under this section only to eligible applicants that meet
State and professionally recognized standards for the
preparation of special education and related services
personnel, if the purpose of the project is to assist
personnel in obtaining degrees.
``(3) Preferences.--In selecting recipients under this
section, the Secretary may--
``(A) give preference to institutions of higher education
that are educating regular education personnel to meet the
needs of children with disabilities in integrated settings
and educating special education personnel to work in
collaboration with regular educators in integrated settings;
and
``(B) give preference to institutions of higher education
that are successfully recruiting and preparing individuals
with disabilities and individuals from groups that are
underrepresented in the profession for which they are
preparing individuals.
``(g) Service Obligation.--
``(1) In general.--Each application for funds under
subsections (b) and (c) shall include an assurance that the
applicant will ensure that individuals who receive a
scholarship under the proposed project will subsequently
provide special education and related services to children
with disabilities for a period of 2 years for every year for
which assistance was received or repay all or part of the
cost of that assistance, in accordance with regulations
issued by the Secretary.
``(2) Leadership preparation.--Each application for funds
under subsection (d) shall include an assurance that the
applicant will ensure that individuals who receive a
scholarship under the proposed project will subsequently
perform work related to their preparation for a period of 2
years for every year for which assistance was received or
repay all or part of such costs, in accordance with
regulations issued by the Secretary.
``(h) Scholarships.--The Secretary may include funds for
scholarships, with necessary stipends and allowances, in
awards under subsections (b), (c), and (d).
``SEC. 666. STUDIES AND EVALUATIONS.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Progress assessment.--The Secretary shall, in
accordance with the priorities determined under this section
and in section 663, directly or through competitive grants,
contracts, or cooperative agreements, assess the progress in
the implementation of this Act, including the effectiveness
of State and local efforts to provide--
``(A) a free appropriate public education to children with
disabilities; and
``(B) early intervention services to infants and toddlers
with disabilities and infants and toddlers who would be at
risk of having substantial developmental delays if early
intervention services were not provided to them.
``(2) Delegation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary shall designate the Director of the
Institute for Education Sciences to carry out this section.
``(3) Authorized activities.--In carrying out this
subsection, the Secretary may support objective studies,
evaluations, and assessments, including studies that--
``(A) analyze issues identified in the research agenda in
section 663(d);
``(B) meet the standards in section 663(c); and
``(C) undertake one or more of the following:
``(i) An analysis of the measurable impact, outcomes, and
results achieved by State educational agencies and local
educational agencies
[[Page H3508]]
through their activities to reform policies, procedures, and
practices designed to improve educational and transitional
services and results for children with disabilities.
``(ii) An analysis of State and local needs for
professional development, parent training, and other
appropriate activities that can reduce the need for
disciplinary actions involving children with disabilities.
``(iii) An assessment of educational and transitional
services and results for children with disabilities from
minority backgrounds, including--
``(I) data on--
``(aa) the number of minority children who are referred for
special education evaluation;
``(bb) the number of minority children who are receiving
special education and related services and their educational
or other service placement;
``(cc) the number of minority children who graduated from
secondary programs with a regular diploma in the standard
number of years; and
``(dd) the number of minority children who drop out of the
educational system without a regular diploma; and
``(II) the performance of children with disabilities from
minority backgrounds on State assessments and other
performance indicators established for all students.
``(iv) A measurement of educational and transitional
services and results of children with disabilities served
under this Act, including longitudinal studies that--
``(I) examine educational and transitional services and
results for children with disabilities who are 3 through 17
years of age and are receiving special education and related
services under this Act, using a national, representative
sample of distinct age cohorts and disability categories; and
``(II) examine educational results, transition services,
postsecondary placement, and employment status of individuals
with disabilities, 18 through 21 years of age, who are
receiving or have received special education and related
services under this Act.
``(v) An identification and report on the placement of
children with disabilities by disability category.
``(b) National Assessment.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a national
assessment of activities carried out with Federal funds under
this Act in order--
``(A) to determine the effectiveness of this Act in
achieving its purposes;
``(B) to provide timely information to the President, the
Congress, the States, local educational agencies, and the
public on how to implement the Act more effectively; and
``(C) to provide the President and the Congress with
information that will be useful in developing legislation to
achieve the purposes of this Act more effectively.
``(2) Public comment.--
``(A) Plan.--Not later than 12 months after the date of
enactment of the Improving Education Results for Children
With Disabilities Act of 2003, the Secretary shall publish in
the Federal Register for public comment a comprehensive plan
for developing and conducting the national assessment.
``(B) Comment period.--The Secretary shall provide a public
comment period of at least 30 days on such plan.
``(3) Scope of assessment.--The national assessment shall
assess the--
``(A) implementation of programs assisted under this Act
and the impact of such programs on addressing the
developmental needs of, and improving the academic
achievement of, children with disabilities to enable them to
reach challenging developmental goals and challenging State
academic content standards based on State academic
assessments;
``(B) types of programs and services that have demonstrated
the greatest likelihood of helping students reach the
challenging State academic content standards and
developmental goals;
``(C) implementation of the professional development
activities assisted under this Act and the impact on
instruction, student academic achievement, and teacher
qualifications to enhance the ability of special education
teachers and regular education teachers to improve results
for children with disabilities; and
``(D) effectiveness of schools, local educational agencies,
States, other recipients of assistance under this Act, and
the Secretary in achieving the purposes of this Act by--
``(i) improving the academic achievement of children with
disabilities and their performance on regular statewide
assessments as compared to nondisabled children, and the
performance of children with disabilities on alternate
assessments;
``(ii) improving the participation of children with
disabilities in the general education curriculum;
``(iii) improving the transitions of children with
disabilities at natural transition points;
``(iv) placing and serving children with disabilities,
including minority children, in the least restrictive
environment appropriate;
``(v) preventing children with disabilities, especially
children with emotional disturbances and specific learning
disabilities, from dropping out of school;
``(vi) addressing the reading and literacy needs of
children with disabilities;
``(vii) reducing the overidentification of children,
especially minority and limited English proficient children,
as having a disability;
``(viii) improving the participation of parents of children
with disabilities in the education of their children; and
``(ix) resolving disagreements between education personnel
and parents through alternate dispute resolution activities
including mediation and voluntary binding arbitration.
``(4) Interim and final reports.--The Secretary shall
submit to the President and the Congress--
``(A) an interim report that summarizes the preliminary
findings of the assessment not later than 30 months after the
date of the enactment of the Improving Education Results for
Children With Disabilities Act of 2003; and
``(B) a final report of the findings of the assessment not
later than 5 years after the date of the enactment of such
Act.
``(c) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall provide an annual
report to the Congress that--
``(1) summarizes the research conducted under section 663;
``(2) analyzes and summarizes the data reported by the
States and the Secretary of the Interior under section 618;
``(3) summarizes the studies and evaluations conducted
under this section and the timeline for their completion;
``(4) describes the extent and progress of the national
assessment; and
``(5) describes the findings and determinations resulting
from reviews of State implementation of this Act.
``SEC. 667. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out
sections 663, 664, and 666 $171,861,000 for fiscal year 2004
and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal
years 2005 through 2009. There are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out section 665 $90,000,000 for fiscal
year 2004 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the
fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
``Subpart 3--Supports To Improve Results for Children With Disabilities
``SEC. 671. PURPOSES.
``The purposes of this subpart are to ensure that--
``(1) children with disabilities and their parents receive
training and information on their rights, responsibilities,
and protections under this Act, in order to develop the
skills necessary to cooperatively and effectively participate
in planning and decisionmaking relating to early
intervention, educational, and transitional services;
``(2) parents, teachers, administrators, early intervention
personnel, related services personnel, and transition
personnel receive coordinated and accessible technical
assistance and information to assist them in improving early
intervention, educational, and transitional services and
results for children with disabilities and their families;
and
``(3) appropriate technology and media are researched,
developed, and demonstrated, to improve and implement early
intervention, educational, and transitional services and
results for children with disabilities and their families.
``SEC. 672. PARENT TRAINING AND INFORMATION CENTERS.
``(a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary may make grants
to, and enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with,
parent organizations to support parent training and
information centers to carry out activities under this
section.
``(b) Required Activities.--Each parent and community
training and information center that receives assistance
under this section shall--
``(1) provide training and information that meets the needs
of parents of children with disabilities living in the area
served by the center, including underserved parents and
parents of children who may be inappropriately identified, to
enable children with disabilities--
``(A) to meet developmental and challenging academic
achievement goals that have been established for all
children; and
``(B) to be prepared to lead productive independent adult
lives to the maximum extent possible;
``(2) ensure that the training and information provided
meets the needs of low-income parents and parents of children
with limited English proficiency;
``(3) serve the parents of infants, toddlers, and children
with the full range of disabilities;
``(4) assist parents--
``(A) to better understand the nature of their children's
disabilities and their educational, developmental, and
transitional needs;
``(B) to communicate effectively and work collaboratively
with personnel responsible for providing special education,
early intervention, transition services, and related
services;
``(C) to participate in decisionmaking processes and the
development of individualized education programs under part B
and individualized family service plans under part C;
``(D) to obtain appropriate information about the range,
type and quality of options, programs, services, and
resources available to assist children with disabilities and
their families in school and at home;
``(E) to understand the provisions of this Act for the
education of, and the provision of early intervention
services to, children with disabilities; and
``(F) to participate in activities at the school level
which benefit their children;
``(5) assist parents in resolving disputes in the most
expeditious way possible, including encouraging the use, and
explaining the benefits, of alternative methods of dispute
resolution, such as the use of individualized education
program facilitators and mediation and voluntary binding
arbitration processes described in section 615(e);
``(6) assist parents to understand the availability of, and
how to effectively use, procedural safeguards under this Act;
``(7) network with appropriate clearinghouses, including
organizations conducting national dissemination activities
under subpart 2 and the Institute of Educational Sciences,
and with other national, State, and local organizations and
agencies, such as protection and advocacy agencies, that
serve parents and families of children with the full range of
disabilities; and
[[Page H3509]]
``(8) annually report to the Secretary on--
``(A) the number and demographics of parents to whom it
provided information and training in the most recently
concluded fiscal year; and
``(B) the effectiveness of strategies used to reach and
serve parents, including underserved parents of children with
disabilities.
``(c) Optional Activities.--A parent training and community
and information center that receives assistance under this
section may--
``(1) provide information to teachers and other
professionals to assist them in improving results for
children with disabilities; and
``(2) assist students with disabilities to understand their
rights and responsibilities under section 615(l) on reaching
the age of majority.
``(d) Application Requirements.--Each application for
assistance under this section shall identify with specificity
the special efforts that the applicant will undertake--
``(1) to ensure that the needs for training and information
of underserved parents of children with disabilities in the
area to be served are effectively met; and
``(2) to work with community-based organizations, including
those that work with low-income parents and parents of
children with limited English proficiency.
``(e) Distribution of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make at least 1
award to a parent organization in each State, unless the
Secretary does not receive an application from such an
organization in each State of sufficient quality to warrant
approval.
``(2) Selection requirement.--The Secretary shall select
among applications submitted by parent organizations in a
State in a manner that ensures the most effective assistance
to parents, including parents in urban and rural areas, in
the State.
``(f) Quarterly Review.--
``(1) Requirements.--
``(A) Meetings.--The board of directors or special
governing committee of each organization that receives an
award under this section shall meet at least once in each
calendar quarter to review the activities for which the award
was made.
``(B) Advising board.--Each special governing committee
shall directly advise the organization's governing board of
its views and recommendations.
``(2) Continuation award.--When an organization requests a
continuation award under this section, the board of directors
or special governing committee shall submit to the Secretary
a written review of the parent training and information
program conducted by the organization during the preceding
fiscal year.
``(g) Definition of Parent Organization.--As used in this
section, the term `parent organization' means a private
nonprofit organization (other than an institution of higher
education) that--
``(1) has a board of directors--
``(A) the majority of whom are parents of children with
disabilities ages birth through 26;
``(B) that includes--
``(i) individuals working in the fields of special
education, related services, and early intervention; and
``(ii) individuals with disabilities; and
``(C) the parent and professional members of which are
broadly representative of the population to be served,
including low-income and limited English proficient parents
of children with disabilities; or
``(2) has--
``(A) a membership that represents the interests of
individuals with disabilities and has established a special
governing committee that meets the requirements of paragraph
(1); and
``(B) a memorandum of understanding between the special
governing committee and the board of directors of the
organization that clearly outlines the relationship between
the board and the committee and the decisionmaking
responsibilities and authority of each.
``SEC. 673. COMMUNITY PARENT RESOURCE CENTERS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to, and
enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with, local
parent organizations to support parent training and
information centers that will help ensure that underserved
parents of children with disabilities, including low-income
parents, parents of children with limited English
proficiency, and parents with disabilities, have the training
and information they need to enable them to participate
effectively in helping their children with disabilities--
``(1) to meet developmental goals and, to the maximum
extent possible, those challenging standards that have been
established for all children; and
``(2) to be prepared to lead productive independent adult
lives, to the maximum extent possible.
``(b) Required Activities.--Each parent training and
information center assisted under this section shall--
``(1) provide training and information that meets the
training and information needs of parents of children with
disabilities proposed to be served by the grant, contract, or
cooperative agreement;
``(2) carry out the activities required of parent training
and information centers under paragraphs (2) through (7) of
section 672(b);
``(3) establish cooperative partnerships with the parent
training and information centers funded under section 672;
and
``(4) be designed to meet the specific needs of families
who experience significant isolation from available sources
of information and support.
``(c) Definition.--As used is this section, the term `local
parent organization' means a parent organization, as defined
in section 672(g), that either--
``(1) has a board of directors the majority of whom are
from the community to be served; or
``(2) has--
``(A) as a part of its mission, serving the interests of
individuals with disabilities from such community; and
``(B) a special governing committee to administer the
grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, a majority of the
members of which are individuals from such community.
``SEC. 674. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR PARENT TRAINING AND
INFORMATION CENTERS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may, directly or through
awards to eligible entities (as defined in section 662(b)),
provide technical assistance for developing, assisting, and
coordinating parent training and information programs carried
out by parent training and information centers receiving
assistance under sections 672 and 673.
``(b) Authorized Activities.--The Secretary may provide
technical assistance to a parent training and information
center under this section in areas such as--
``(1) effective coordination of parent training efforts;
``(2) dissemination of scientifically based research and
information;
``(3) promotion of the use of technology, including
assistive technology devices and assistive technology
services;
``(4) reaching underserved populations, including parents
of low-income and limited English proficient children with
disabilities;
``(5) including children with disabilities in general
education programs;
``(6) facilitation of transitions from--
``(A) early intervention services to preschool;
``(B) preschool to elementary school;
``(C) elementary school to secondary school; and
``(D) secondary school to postsecondary environments; and
``(7) promotion of alternative methods of dispute
resolution, including mediation and voluntary binding
arbitration.
``SEC. 675. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND
UTILIZATION; AND MEDIA SERVICES.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall competitively make
grants to, and enter into contracts and cooperative
agreements with, eligible entities (as defined in section
662(b)) to support activities described in subsections (b)
and (c).
``(b) Technology Development, Demonstration, and
Utilization.--
``(1) In general.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall support activities to promote the
development, demonstration, and utilization of technology.
``(2) Authorized activities.--The following activities may
be carried out under this subsection:
``(A) Conducting research on, and promoting the
demonstration and use of--
``(i) innovative and emerging technologies for children
with disabilities; and
``(ii) improved transfer of technology from research and
development to practice.
``(B) Supporting research, development, and dissemination
of technology with universal-design features, so that the
technology is accessible to individuals with disabilities
without further modification or adaptation.
``(C) Demonstrating the use of systems to provide parents
and teachers with information and training concerning early
diagnosis of, intervention for, and effective teaching
strategies for, young children with reading disabilities.
``(D) Supporting the implementation of research programs.
``(E) Communicating information on available technology and
the uses of such technology to assist children with
disabilities.
``(c) Educational Media Services; Optional Activities.--In
carrying out this section, the Secretary may support--
``(1) educational media activities that are designed to be
of educational value in the classroom setting to children
with disabilities;
``(2) providing video description, open captioning, or
closed captioning of television programs, videos, or other
materials with an education-based content for use in the
classroom setting when such services are not provided by the
producer or distributor of such information, including
programs and materials associated with new and emerging
technologies such as CDs, DVDs, video streaming, and other
forms of multimedia;
``(3) distributing materials described in paragraphs (1)
and (2) through such mechanisms as a loan service; and
``(4) providing free educational materials, including
textbooks, in accessible media for visually impaired and
print-disabled students in elementary, secondary,
postsecondary, and graduate schools.
``(d) Applications.--Any eligible entity (as defined in
section 662(b)) that wishes to receive a grant, or enter into
a contract or cooperative agreement, under this section shall
submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such
manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may
require. For purposes of subsection (c)(4), such entity
shall--
``(1) be a national, nonprofit entity with a track record
of meeting the needs of students with print disabilities
through services described in paragraph (4);
``(2) have the capacity to produce, maintain, and
distribute in a timely fashion, up-to-date textbooks in
digital audio formats to qualified students; and
``(3) have a demonstrated ability to significantly leverage
Federal funds through other public and private contributions,
as well as through the expansive use of volunteers.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 674
$32,710,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be
necessary for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out sections
[[Page H3510]]
672 and 673 $26,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as
may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2005 through
2009.''.
SEC. 402. CONTINUATION OF FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY PARENT AND
RESOURCE CENTERS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary
of Education is authorized to use amounts made available for
a fiscal year to carry out subpart 3 of part D of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (as added by
section 401) to continue to provide funding under grants made
to, or contracts or cooperative agreements entered into with,
local parent organizations under section 683 of such Act (as
such section was in effect on October 1, 2002).
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order
except those printed in House Report 108-79. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 108-79.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Castle
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer Amendment No.
1.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Castle:
Strike sections 104 through 107 of the bill and insert the
following (and conform the table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 104. GAO REPORTS.
(a) Paperwork Study.--
(1) Review.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a review
of all Federal requirements under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, and the requirements of a
reasonable sample of State and local educational agencies
relating to such Act, to determine which requirements result
in excessive paperwork completion burdens for teachers,
related services providers, and school administrators.
(2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall prepare
and submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
report that contains the results of the review under
paragraph (1).
(b) Disability Definitions.--
(1) Review.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a review of--
(A) variation among States in definitions, and evaluation
processes, relating to the provision of services under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to children
having conditions described in section 602(a)(3) of such Act
using the terms ``emotional disturbance'', ``other health
impairments'', and ``specific learning disability''; and
(B) the degree to which these definitions and evaluation
processes conform to scientific, peer-reviewed research.
(2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall prepare
and submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
report that contains the results of the review under
paragraph (1).
(c) Distance Learning Professional Development Programs.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study
on existing or developing professional development programs
for special education personnel delivered through the use of
technology and distance learning.
(2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a
report containing the findings from the study conducted under
paragraph (1) to the appropriate congressional committees.
(d) Limited English Proficient Children With
Disabilities.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study
on how limited English proficient students are being served
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
(2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of the Improving Education Results for Children
With Disabilities Act of 2003, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit a report containing the findings
from the study conducted under paragraph (1) to the
appropriate congressional committees.
(e) Definition.--In this section, the term ``appropriate
congressional committees'' means the Committee on Education
and the Workforce of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the
Senate.
In section 611(a)(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (as amended by section 201 of the bill), strike
``subparagraphs (A) and (B) of''.
In section 611(e)(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (as amended by section 201 of the bill), strike
``4 percent'' and insert ``40 percent''.
In section 611(i)(2) of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (as amended by section 201 of the bill), strike
``$13,374,398,000'' and insert ``$13,574,398,000''.
In section 614(a)(1)(D)(i)(I) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (as amended by section 204 of the
bill), strike ``602(3)(A) or 602(3)(B)'' and insert
``602(3)''.
In section 614(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (as amended by section 204 of the
bill), strike ``, to the extent practicable,''.
In section 614(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (as amended by section 204 of the
bill), add at the end before the semicolon the following: ``,
unless it is clearly not feasible to do so''.
Strike subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 615(f)(3) of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (as amended
by section 205(f) of the bill), and insert the following:
``(B) Subject matter of hearing.--No party shall be allowed
to raise issues at the due process hearing that were not
raised in the complaint, discussed during the meeting
conducted pursuant to paragraph (1)(B), or properly disclosed
pursuant to paragraph (2), unless both parties agree
otherwise.''.
In section 617(b) of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (as amended by section 207 of the bill), after
``content,'' insert ``academic achievement standards and
assessments,''.
In section 665(c)(2) of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (as amended by section 401 of the bill), insert
the following:
``(G) Preparing personnel who provide services to children
with low-incidence disabilities with limited English
proficiency.
In section 665(d)(2)(B) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (as amended by section 401 of the
bill), add at the end before the semicolon the following: ``,
including children with disabilities with limited English
proficiency''.
In the matter preceding subclause (I) of section
666(a)(3)(C)(iii) of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, strike ``backgrounds, including'' and insert
``backgrounds or are limited English proficient, including''.
In items (aa) through (dd) of section 666(a)(3)(C)(iii)(I)
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, strike
``of minority'' each place it appears and insert ``of such''.
In section 666(a)(3)(C)(iii)(II) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, strike ``children with
disabilities from minority backgrounds'' and insert ``such
children with disabilities''.
In section 675(c)(2) of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, strike ``videos, or other materials with an
education based content for use in the classroom setting''
and insert ``videos or other materials that would be
appropriate for use in the classroom setting, or news (until
the end of fiscal year 2006),''.
Strike section 402 of the bill (and conform the table of
contents accordingly).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), the vice chairman of the
Subcommittee on Education Reform.
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, as I have traveled my district, I hear a
lot of concerns from teachers, administrators and parents, and the most
common concerns that I have heard reflect on excessive paperwork and
litigation.
This bill obviously addresses those. We attempt to streamline the
administrative process. It provides for less legislation through
arbitration.
The second major issue we have talked about a great deal here today
is funding. I am convinced that the chairman of the committee, the
subcommittee chairman and others, are fully committed to full funding
of 40 percent within the next 7 years. The track record pretty much
backs this up. In the last 8 years, we have seen a 300 percent increase
in funding for IDEA. So we are very convinced that this full funding
will occur.
The third issue I would like to address is over identification. We
find that some schools have 40 to 50 percent of their student body
identified as learning disabled, and, generally speaking, this is
simply due to reading difficulties. So if we have adequate Head Start
and early learning programs, we can eliminate this process.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the bill. It is a good bill, and I
appreciate the chairman's offering it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we worked with the majority on this amendment. We do
not oppose it, and would hope that it could be passed right now.
[[Page H3511]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, first I appreciate the bipartisan support for the
amendment. Secondly, I think it would be worth taking this 2 minutes to
try to read what is actually in this amendment so we will know what we
are voting for.
It is a technical amendment, it clarifies and consolidates a series
of GAO reports that were added during the consideration of the bill by
the Committee on Education and Workforce.
It redefines the percentage of funds that the State can reserve out
of its State level activities for programs designed to serve children
with disabilities with high cost, special education-related services
needs to reflect the common understanding.
It updates authorization levels that were modified by the fiscal year
2004 budget resolution. This level reflects the increased funding in
the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution included for IDEA Part B State
Grants.
It clarifies that evaluations are provided to children in the
language and form designed to obtain useful information and includes
longstanding terminology used throughout the implementing regulations
and elsewhere in the Act.
It modifies language in the section prohibiting the Federal control
of curriculum to ensure that this exact language is included in the No
Child Left Behind Act. This is an important change, by the way, that
ensures consistent language addressing local control over the
curriculum.
It revises language in the Part D programs to ensure that the needs
of limited English-proficient children with disabilities are met
through the training of school personnel and effective data collection.
It modifies the section regarding support for captioning programs to
enable news programs to be captioned until 2006, which is when Federal
Communications Commission requirements require all news programs to be
captioned.
These amendments, Mr. Chairman, continue our well-balanced approach
toward improving IDEA. As with the remainder of the bill, these
improvements will result in improved services for students and improved
achievement for students.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding
me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the text any California amendment,
but opposing the bill.
I guess some people are wondering why I have concern about this
legislation. Having my first two terms in Congress on the Committee on
Education and Workforce, but also for many years as a State legislator
in the State Senate in Texas on the Education Committee, it has been
frustrating, both in Congress and as a legislator dealing with IDEA and
the special-ed programs.
For more than a quarter of a century, the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, has helped countless disabled youth
to complete their education and become contributing members of our
society. I see it every day when I go home every weekend.
Although this program has succeeded in its efforts to ensure that all
American children receive a free and appropriate public education, this
Congress, and I am not talking about the majority Republican, I am
talking about my first term when we were in the majority, although IDEA
was not up for reauthorization, we failed to fully fund IDEA. This is
my sixth term, and for five of those terms, as Democrats, we have not
been in the majority, so somewhere along the way you are going to have
to quit pointing back a decade ago and saying ``it is your all's
fault.''
I am sure that almost every Member of Congress, at one point or
another, expressed their support for full funding of IDEA. But when it
comes down to putting our money where our mouths are, we once again
come up short.
I know the frustration, because we see it in our schools, we see it
on our State level, we see it with our parents, instead of requiring
Congress to live up to the promise and fully fund the 40 percent of
IDEA costs that we agreed to do originally, this legislation continues
to leave the funding subject to the appropriations process.
Children with disabilities have a hard enough time making it in this
world. We should not make them compete against all the other very
worthwhile projects that we have. We should live up to the promise and
provide mandatory funding for IDEA.
We also should not make it harder for students to receive their
education by the provisions in this bill on discipline. I do not want
somebody bringing guns or knives or scissors to school to hurt someone,
but I also know we should not let minor infractions cause a student to
be removed from an educational setting that works for them.
Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the bill and support for the
amendment.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a member of the committee.
{time} 1315
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of both this amendment and the
underlying bill.
We all agree that we need to fully fund IDEA. This legislation will
get us there sooner than ever before. We will be at 21 percent, over
half of our promise, by 2004. We will reach full funding in 7 years.
But this bill contains more than financial matters. It makes it
easier for parents and schools to meet to discuss the needs of a
student. It frees teachers and administrators from a mountain of
required paperwork that takes time away from their students.
Some parents have expressed concern over the 3-year Individualized
Education Plan, or IEP. They are afraid that it may undermine their
children's rights. I want to reassure them that this is simply an
option. The parents must agree to a 3-year plan. Just like under
current law, they can request a new IEP at any time.
Every single one of the due process rights parents have is continued
under H.R. 1350. This bill will make special education work for all
students.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a member of the committee.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey), my friend and the ranking member of the subcommittee, for
yielding me this time and also for the work that she has put in with
this important legislation. It has been invaluable. I also want to
commend the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), my good friend, the
chairman of the subcommittee, with the way he has conducted the process
leading up to today's legislation, the outreach he has provided across
the aisle and throughout the Nation looking for input on what I think
is the most important piece of education legislation that we will be
dealing with in this session of Congress. I do support the technical
amendment before us right now.
This, Mr. Chairman, is an important piece of education legislation.
It is about allowing children with special needs in our country to have
access to quality education that the rest of our children now have. I
think there was room for improvement on a variety of provisions. I
think in a lot of respects this bill moves in the right direction to
improving it: streamlining the IEP process, trying to reduce the
paperwork burden, trying to increase some flexibility with regard to
the disciplinary issues at the local level, and emphasizing the
importance of professional development.
I especially appreciate the acceptance of a few amendments that I
offered in committee during markup, one that does emphasize
professional development and distance learning opportunities for our
teachers and administrators, and one that calls for a GAO study that
would encompass the entire country to determine what online materials
are currently available for our teachers and administrators so that
they can upgrade their skills.
But I especially appreciate a new provision that was accepted in
committee that I offered that permits States to
[[Page H3512]]
establish and implement costs and risk-sharing funds, consortiums and
cooperatives to assist students with severe disabilities. This is an
area that is the fastest-growing area of education funding at the local
level. Children who normally would not have survived to school age are
surviving today because of the miracle of the advancement of medical
research and technologies. But they are also bringing with them some
exceptionally high costs that school districts have borne.
The amendment I put forward allows school districts to address these
high-risk and exceptionally expensive students.
We do have to work much harder in this Congress, this year and the
years ahead, to try to achieve the full funding which virtually every
Member of this body is on record of supporting. I appreciate the fact
that the majority party has a 7-year trend line to get to full funding
on that. I am a little bit skeptical in regards to the institutional
willingness and the willingness of the administration to make sure we
achieve full funding. This is the granddaddy of unfunded mandates that
our local school districts have been wrestling with since the creation
of this bill back in the 1970s. We must do a better job so that we can
stop pitting student against student in the classroom and end this
controversy where it is merely a matter of political and institutional
will to do what I think we all recognize must be done, and that is make
sure the resources follow the rhetoric after today's debate. I am
confident, in working again with the chairman of the subcommittee and
others who are like-minded on this issue, that we are going to focus
very closely in regard to the appropriation process and hold people to
their word. Because if No Child Left Behind is any indication, I am
skeptical that we are going to get there.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
We have no further speakers, and I think we have 1 minute. I will
just close by encouraging all of us to support the technical amendment.
I do not think there is any disagreement about that, so we can go on to
the other amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in House Report 108-79.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Vitter
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Vitter:
In section 104 of the bill--
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following
new sentence: ``As part of such review, the Comptroller
General shall include recommendations to reduce or eliminate
the excessive paperwork burdens described in the preceding
sentence.''; and
(2) in subsection (b), after ``Act,'' insert ``and once
every 2 years thereafter,''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I bring before the House an important amendment with regard to a
central problem in IDEA and that is the excessive burden of excessive
paperwork. I think there is great clarity and great consensus on this
point that in the present system there is just too much paperwork
required which drains resources and takes up the time of teachers who
could otherwise be with students who need their help.
National surveys show that teachers of special needs students spend
between a quarter and a third of each work week on regulatory
compliance rather than education. That is ridiculous. Parents,
overwhelmed by the system's complexity, often turn to IDEA lawyers for
advice. That has become the norm rather than the exception. That is
ridiculous. Teachers of special needs students always cite excessive
paperwork and too many meetings as leading reasons for their decision
to cease teaching special needs students, thus exacerbating a serious
existing shortage of personnel. In fact, the National Association of
Elementary School Principals supports dramatic paperwork reduction,
saying that the proposals ``eliminate the dual-discipline system,
streamline the due process system, and encourage professional
development for principals.''
In light of this background, my amendment is very straightforward. It
does two things. Number one, in part A of the GAO review section, it
mandates that the review will include recommendations to reduce or
eliminate the excessive paperwork burdens. Number two, in part B of
that GAO report section, it requires that a GAO report be submitted 2
years after the date of enactment and resubmitted every 2 years. The
benefit of this is very clear. We want a regular way to track progress
and to demand progress on reducing this excessive paperwork burden.
So in those two simple, but important, ways, this amendment
emphasizes the need to reform, streamline, and update the forms and
requirements mandated on both teachers and parents.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the committee for all of its hard
work in bringing forward a very positive bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in
opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Kind) is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
only to say that we have no objection to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I also want to thank him for his amendment.
I do not want to prolong this debate, because I am in agreement with
the other two speakers. But I think it is important to understand the
impact of paperwork and the meetings and the whole process of dealing
with IDEA. There is not a person in this Chamber who does not wish to
help children with disabilities to be educated. But part of the problem
is that a lot of the teachers drop out of the system, a lot of them
just cannot face all of the bureaucracy that goes along with it. I
believe that the Vitter amendment moves strongly in the direction of
making sure that we are providing oversight to that and doing that
through a GAO report.
I might also, from a personal point of view, just say that I believe
it is one of the reasons that I am happy that we do go through this
reauthorization process every 5 or 6 years, which is necessary under
the discretionary form of spending which we have. I think it is very,
very important that we, as Members of Congress, do keep an eye on this.
So I do support the amendment, and I encourage all of my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote; and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed
in House Report 108-79.
amendment no. 3 offered by mr. bradley of new hampshire
Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I
offer amendment No. 3.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H3513]]
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire:
In section 611(e)(2)(A)(i) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (as proposed to be amended by
section 201 of the bill)--
(1) strike ``$500,000'' and insert ``$750,000''; and
(2) strike the parenthetical provision.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the gentleman from
New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).
Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
There are two ways that States are able to administer IDEA
requirements. One way is for States to have $500,000 of administrative
funds as part of the grant that are capped, but with an inflation
adjustment; or, alternatively, States are able to use up to 20 percent
of that grant for administration purposes. However, small States such
as mine, New Hampshire, generally do not qualify for this provision to
be able to use the 20 percent figure because it is less than the
$500,000.
This $500,000 cap, which was authorized as part of the
reauthorization law in 1997, therefore places large administrative
burdens on small States such as New Hampshire as the accountability
standards of not only the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act,
but also the No Child Left Behind law have increased. This increases
costs to small States, federally mandated costs on States such as mine.
Some of the issues that are involved are greater accountability
requirements, improving academic performance, expanded data collection,
as well as fiscal accounting requirements.
What my amendment does is lift the cap from $500,000 to $750,000.
Amendment No. 3 does not increase costs to the Federal Government, as
there is nothing that mandates the expenditure of these funds. Rather,
it allows States to spend up to this new cap, as needed, in order to
comply with the accountability provisions of this law and the No Child
Left Behind law as it affects special education.
So for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to say that we do not, on this side of the aisle, oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance
of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by gentleman
from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed
in House Report 108-79.
amendment no. 4 offered by ms. woolsey
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment
No. 4.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentlewoman from California the designee of the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis)?
Ms. WOOLSEY. For the time being, yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. Woolsey:
In section 602(8)(C) of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (as proposed to be amended by section 101 of
the bill), add at the end before the semicolon the following:
``that is reasonably calculated to provide educational
benefit to enable the child with a disability to access the
general curriculum''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey), as the designee of the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis), and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Amendment No. 4 would change the definition of a free appropriate
public education, the language changed in the Supreme Court decision
known as Rowley, which states that the goal of a child with
disabilities is the same as all other children, to have educational and
related services necessary for that child to access the general
curriculum.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1330
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
Mr. CASTLE. Although I do not oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I
ask to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle) is recognized for the time in opposition.
There was no objection.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we have had discussions on this, and it is our judgment
that this is an amendment we should support. This clarifies what
services are required to be provided by school districts. It specifies
that the educational program and services provided under it must be
reasonably calculated to provide an educational benefit that enables a
child with a disability to access the general curriculum.
Children with disabilities should be provided instruction and
services at public expense that meet the State's educational standards
for the appropriate grade level that are reasonably calculated to
enable the child to make progress in the general education curriculum
and advance from grade to grade. That is what both No Child Left Behind
and IDEA are really all about.
School districts have to provide the necessary services, but the act
does not and should not require school districts to provide all
services simply because a service exists that might have some benefit.
Essentially, this has been a matter of litigation, and it has been a
matter of some interest. Our judgment is that the amendment encompasses
improvements to IDEA. For that reason, I would encourage support for
it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
For the purposes of legislative history, the intent of this amendment
is to codify the interpretation of FAPE contained in the Supreme Court
decision Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School
District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, today Ms. Woolsey, as my
designee, offered a very simple amendment to H.R. 1350, the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. It does not change the law or the
educational or related services that have long been provided in this
act to each child with a disability--a free appropriate public
education.
The language is simply designed to assure that when parents and
teachers sit down at the table to craft an educational program
appropriate for an individual child with a disability, everyone is on
the same page about the goal.
The 18 words added to the definition are taken directly from an
existing Supreme Court decision, Rowley, which provided controlling
language on this issue. However, since most of us do not spend our time
reading Supreme Court opinions, this places the language into the
definition within the law, where it will be easily found. They are
words that all of us can understand.
I want to share them with you. The phrase now reads that a ``free
appropriate public education means special education and related
services that'' are: Free--provided at public expense, under public
supervision and without charge; meet the standards of the State
education agency; and include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or
secondary school education in the State involved. This amendment adds
to that sentence the definition ``reasonably calculated to provide
educational benefit to enable the child with a disability to access the
general curriculum.''
Educators of special-needs children who requested placement of these
words in the law believe it will help them work with parents as part of
the child's Individual Education Program teams to be able to test their
proposals against a clear standard. It gives parents a tool to assure
that school districts are not dumbing down the goals of education for
their children as happened too often in the past. It enables all
parties to look at the promise and make sure the child''s needs are
served.
[[Page H3514]]
In response to questions from some Members, I would point out that
this does not in any way change the results of that individual program
as to whether the child is mainstreamed or not--only that the goal of
the child's education is to access the curriculum content offered to
all students.
During the long period of time during which the Education Committee
members have been struggling with making this reauthorization of IDEA a
better bill, there have been some key themes. Funding is, of course,
one, including helping local school districts recover costs for non-
educational expenses. Some of these issues need continued work as this
bill moves ultimately to conference.
However, another theme has been reducing conflict which leads to
expensive litigation over choosing the program that will best help the
special needs student. I believe that this simple placement of existing
language into the context of the definition will help achieve this goal
of reducing conflict in providing an appropriate education to each
child.
I urge your support of this amendment.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed
in House Report 108-79.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. DeMint
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 5.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. DeMint:
In section 612(a)(10)(A) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, as proposed to be amended by the
bill, add at the end the following:
``(vii) Parent option program.--If a State has established
a program described in section 664(c)(11) (whether statewide
or in limited areas of the State) that allows a parent of a
child with a disability to use public funds to pay some or
all of the costs of attendance at a public or private
school--
``(I) funds allocated to the State under section 611 may be
used to supplement those public funds, if the Federal funds
are distributed to parents who make a genuine independent
choice as to the appropriate school for their child;
``(II) the authorization of a parent to exercise this
option fulfills the State's obligation under paragraph (1)
with respect to the child during the period in which the
child is enrolled in the selected school; and
``(III) a private school accepting those funds shall be
deemed, for both the programs and services delivered to the
child, to be providing a free appropriate public education
and to be in compliance with section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794).
In section 664(c)(9) of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, as proposed to be inserted by the bill, strike
``and'' at the end;
In section 664(c)(10) of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, as proposed to be inserted by the bill, strike
the period at the end and insert ``; and''.
In section 664(c) of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, as proposed to be inserted by the bill, add at
the end the following:
``(11) supporting the post-award planning and design, and
the initial implementation (which may include costs for
informing the community, acquiring necessary equipment and
supplies, and other initial operational costs), during a
period of not more than 3 years, of State programs that allow
the parent of a child with a disability to make a genuine
independent choice of the appropriate public or private
school for their child, if the program--
``(A) requires that the child--
``(i) have been determined to be a child with a disability
in accordance with section 614;
``(ii) have spent the prior school year in attendance at a
public elementary or secondary school unless the child was
served under section 619 or part C during such year; and
``(iii) have in effect an individualized education program
(as defined in section 614(d)(1)(A));
``(B) permits the parent to receive from the eligible
entity funds to be used to pay some or all of the costs of
attendance at the selected school (which may include tuition,
fees, and transportation costs);
``(C) prohibits the selected school from discriminating
against eligible students on the basis of race, color, or
national origin; and
``(D) requires the selected school to be academically
accountable to the parent for meeting the educational needs
of the student.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask for Members' consideration of my
amendment to promote specialized education and to empower parents with
children who have special needs.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and
my colleagues on the Committee on Education and the Workforce for their
hard work and determination in bringing this bill to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I have concerns with special education today. Instead
of meeting the needs of the children who are truly disabled, special
education is becoming a label for every child that learns differently
or has not been taught basic skills. Nearly one in eight of U.S.
schoolchildren is currently considered disabled. As a result, education
for truly disabled children is becoming less and less special.
My amendment permits States and encourages States to develop new,
innovative systems that promote customization of special education.
Giving States the flexibility to develop new and innovative approaches
to serving the needs of disabled children will help those children
receive the customized and truly special education that they deserve.
Children with special needs deserve education services that are
customized to their unique needs. This legislation will ultimately
provide parents with more resources and opportunities for their
children with disabilities. I am confident my colleagues will support
giving States the option to develop creative solutions to educating
special needs children.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek to control time in opposition?
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the DeMint
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is
recognized for the time in opposition.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. Federal funds should
not be used for private school vouchers for any children, but it is
particularly dangerous to do this for children with disabilities.
Vouchers undermine the very foundation of IDEA. IDEA guarantees
children with disabilities a free and appropriate public education and
provides important safeguards to the child and the parents to ensure
that education is received.
When a special education child takes a voucher to a private school,
all guarantees of rights under IDEA are lost. The McKay voucher program
in Florida, which allows children with disabilities to use vouchers to
go to private schools, is a perfect example of the pitfalls of an IDEA
voucher program.
In the Florida special education voucher program, there are no State
reviews of the education and services being provided, and there are no
civil rights protections if the parents are not happy with the
education and services their child is receiving.
Under the Florida IDEA voucher program, private schools can and do
charge parents additional tuition and fees above the voucher, making it
difficult or impossible for low-income parents to benefit from a
voucher program.
Contrary to what people claim, vouchers do not increase parents'
choice. Private schools can and do discriminate for a variety of
reasons. They can refuse to take a student for any reason, including
the student's disability. So when it comes to vouchers, it is not the
parents who have the choice; it is the private school. Whatever choices
a private school makes, it does not have to let parents or the public
know why.
Vouchers give private schools public taxpayer dollars, but the
private schools are not held to any of the same standards of
accountability that public schools are held to. Public schools must
hold open meetings and make their test scores, dropout rates, and other
basic information public. Private schools are subject to no public
oversight.
Accountability to the child, to the parents, and to the public is the
touchstone of IDEA, and also, supposedly, No Child Left Behind. We must
not allow vouchers to jeopardize that accountability. I urge my
colleagues to reject this amendment.
[[Page H3515]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague, the gentleman
from South Carolina, for offering this amendment and congratulate him
on his effort in promoting new and innovative ways to deal with
children with special needs.
These children require the utmost in flexibility in their education;
and the amendment before us encourages innovative options and provides
States with much-needed flexibility.
The amendment would accomplish three goals. First, it encourages
States to establish innovative solutions by providing seed money to
develop new programs. Second, it answers the call of parents of
children with disabilities to ensure that educational opportunities are
not withheld and that States may choose to implement as much or as
little flexibility as the State deems appropriate. Third, it allows
States to use Federal dollars in flexible programs already utilizing
State resources to provide services for children with special needs.
The amendment does not, as has been claimed by some critics, provide
vouchers. It simply affords States the flexibility they are seeking to
provide individualized options for students with disabilities.
This amendment is not a mandate in any way, shape, or form; but it
makes new options available for States who choose, these are only for
States who choose, to want to look at new options and new technology
and more flexibility in terms of meeting the needs of special needs
children, of all of their children in their State.
Each participating State must determine which approach and what type
of program will best serve the children with disabilities in their
State, including options such as public schools, charter schools, or
private schools, whatever is in the best interests of the child. So
children with disabilities today deserve every effort that can be made
to provide them with a high-quality education, and their options and
the options of the States should not be limited.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Yesterday, it
was choice. Today, it is options. Tomorrow, there is no telling what we
will call it. But by whatever name we may call it, however we may cloak
it, this is about vouchers.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, in innovations, but not innovations that
supplant the due process clause of the United States Constitution. That
is exactly what this amendment will accomplish.
Let us take, for instance, just the issue of choice, if I might use
that term today. I know that the proponents of this amendment talk all
the time about providing choice for parents and teachers. This
amendment provides little choice for parents and students, but provides
the ultimate choice to schools and administrators.
It allows these schools to cream, if I might use that term, off all
of those children that may be a little bit disabled; but those children
whose parents would like to have them participate who may be a little
more disabled than the schools would like to tolerate, this amendment
will allow those children to be rejected, and take away any choice or
any option from those children to participate.
So, Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is in the best interests of
public education and choice for parents that we reject this amendment.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, it may have been about choice the other day, it may
have been about options the other day; it is about children today. No
lesser authority than the United States Supreme Court has authorized
the portability of Federal funds for students with special education
needs.
There is not a Member of this body that does not represent a State
that does not have students whose tuition to private schools is paid in
full under their eligibility because of IDEA and because the State
determines that it cannot meet the needs of those children.
This is not about mandating choice to a parent. This is about giving
the option of portability to a public school system that determines
that might be necessary in a special ed case; for example, a student
with severe hearing disability who goes on to an audio trainer in a
rural system who might be able to serve a semester or a year in another
institution to learn how to use that audio trainer; or a cerebral palsy
student profoundly disabled and handicapped who, through assistive
technology, may have the ability to learn how to function in the public
school classroom.
Should we say no if a State makes that determination, and a parent
chooses, to send most of the money which is theirs, the State's, to
follow that student? I think not.
I understand the legitimate debate, and I understand the
smokescreens; but I married a special education teacher. I worked all
my life with handicapped children. I am not for blind programs that
seem to fix things that do not; but I am 100 percent for the
flexibility to address the uniquely specified needs, sometimes only
temporarily, on behalf of a child who deserves the opportunity to enjoy
the richness of life that every one of us without those disabilities
enjoys right now in this House.
It is an effort to make a start. It is not a mandate; it is
permissive. It is about children and their parents and a better life
for both of them.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the Committee.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to address for a
moment the issue of accountability within the special education system.
I know when I was a board member in San Diego, I would hear
repeatedly about how difficult it was in many cases to keep up without
accountability. Yet we know that it is important.
I am pleased that during our discussion on this bill, that we talked
about the need to reduce the paperwork and to find ways that we would
be accountable, and yet we would make it reasonable and easier for our
schools to respond and to address the needs of our children. I commend
the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for that work
within the committee.
But please, we need to be careful that we not give up accountability
when we suggest that any school would be able to deal with those
issues. The people who work with special education in our communities
and in our public school systems, they have been doing this for a long
time.
{time} 1345
They understand the importance of it and they make sure that it works
for our children. I cannot imagine what it would be like to throw that
open to a tuition system or a voucher system that really had little
understanding of that.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time and congratulate the chairman of the committee for bringing this
piece of legislation forward.
I think the amendment that is being proposed by my colleague is
important. It is an important amendment to the underlying legislation.
We have made significant progress in the IDEA legislation, and this
amendment would take it one step further. Currently, educational choice
does exist under IDEA; but too often educational choice exists only for
those parents who are wealthy enough to litigate to get their child
placed somewhere else. With the important changes in this bill to
reduce costly and needless litigation, we must restore to parents
opportunities to ensure that their child receives the best education
possible.
[[Page H3516]]
This amendment is very straightforward. It does not require anything.
What it says is it will allow the State to use research and innovation
dollars to research and develop new education systems for IDEA children
that promote customization.
The intent here is very simple. Let us make sure we get the right
program, the right resources, and the right skills necessary and match
them with the child and allow the State the opportunity to experiment
and innovate to move this process forward. This is a very, very good
amendment. I hope that we have the opportunity to put this in place and
let the States move forward and help all of our children.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentlewoman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very bad idea. This law was built
up about guaranteeing to these children and to their families that they
would have certain rights that would provide them an access to a free
and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. And
over the years we have built up a system of accountability to make sure
that that education was, in fact, provided to these children.
Now we come along with this voucher amendment where immediately upon
the exchange of money from the school district to the private school,
or from the parent to the private school, those rights are eviscerated.
Because this bill deems upon acceptance of the voucher that these
children are getting a free and appropriate education. We do not know
whether they will or not. If the children decide they are not and they
come back to the public school system, does the school system get to
bring some of the money back? Is the money stuck over there? Does the
school system now have to pony up additional money to educate that
child? I think the answer is yes, they do because they have an
obligation.
The fact of the matter is these schools, they do not have to accept
the child if the disability is too expensive. They do not have to
accept the child. They get to pick and choose among the children. The
public schools have to take the children as they come to give them a
free and appropriate education. These schools do not have to be
certified. They do not have to be qualified. They do not have to be
State licensed.
What happens to the money? You just get to take this money, the
taxpayers' money and not have these accountabilities. I can understand
the desire; and, in fact, the law provides for parents who think their
children can get a better education at a private school with special
skills or special talents or a record of handling these children in the
appropriate way. They can petition to go to these schools.
In 1997, we had so many people leaving the system that we said you
cannot do that because you are sticking the school district for so much
money. And there was no process, there was no determination whether or
not this was a suitable placement. Now you can just opt out. If the
parent is lucky and if the child is lucky and it works, fine. If it
does not, the school district is out the money, the child is out the
education, and we are back in the stew.
This is just an unacceptable amendment. Nobody is required to make
adequate yearly progress with these children under Leave No Child
Behind. There is no accountability under that. There is for the school.
There is no accountability in this legislation. There is no
accountability under, in many instances, State law. So I do not
understand. The President, the Congress decided that we are going to
build a system of accountability, and now, still, simply, you can opt
out of that.
If students need supplemental services, your legislation provides for
supplemental services without limit to provide for that child that is
hearing impaired, that is sight impaired, where they can get additional
services. I assume that is the purpose of the supplemental services.
But this voucher goes far beyond that.
This voucher simply gives some level of scholarship to the parents to
take. But that does not mean the parents will get into that school.
They may settle for a school that does not quite provide those
services. It turns out that does not work, and they are back in the
public school system. Meanwhile, the public school system trying to
hold on to a critical mass of people skilled to deal with the education
of children with disabilities, finds out that the cost per service per
child goes up.
Again, as we have seen in the McKay program, about 25 percent of
these people go out into those things. They get their scholarships.
They go to schools, and they are coming back. We do not know quite why
yet they are coming back; but obviously as they come back to the public
school system, they are more expensive than when they left.
There ought to be some screen to know that this, in fact, is going to
enhance the children's education. We understand and deal with, all the
time, parents who want another location for the child. That is not this
system. This is just a wide open voucher system without any
accountability. It ought to be rejected by the House.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on the opposition side. The
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) is recognized.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) has 2\1/
2\ minutes.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Florida set an example for the rest of the Nation by creating a
program giving parents of children with disabilities the choice they
deserve. The John McKay Scholarship Program was put in place to
increase parental choice by allowing the parents of children with
disabilities who had been attending a public school that was not
addressing their needs to decide where their child would excel the
most, be it private or parochial. Currently in Florida, those
scholarships are funded by the State.
In passing this amendment we would be able to reach more of the
374,000 students in Florida alone who are eligible for these
scholarships. Today, over 9,000 students utilize these scholarships to
receive the education they would otherwise not be afforded. Fifty
percent of those students qualify for free and reduced lunch, a higher
percentage of low-income students than in the general education
population in Florida. Thanks to these scholarships, we are helping low
income students receive services they deserve.
This amendment will allow States to participate if they wish, a
chance to benefit from the program like the McKay Scholarship Program;
a program, by the way, which has an 89 percent reenrollment rate by
those parents who are satisfied with the choice that the McKay
scholarship affords them.
Mr. Speaker, Florida has received very positive feedback from these
parents and from the educational system, and the McKay scholarship
continues to grow. Let us not turn our backs on these children who
deserve these educational services and let us continue to help them
achieve their goals.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concerns of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, but unfortunately they have apparently read the
propaganda from the Teachers' Union rather than reading the legislation
itself.
This legislation does not establish a voucher program. It establishes
no program at all. It simply encourages the States to innovate in a way
that will empower parents with more voluntary choices so that they can
meet the needs of their kids. It allows States to expand the rights of
parents with more choices, to expand the accountability by giving
parents more voluntary options.
Mr. Chairman, this vote today is a vote to empower parents and to do
what IDEA is supposed to do, and that is to provide personalized,
customized services for children with special needs.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the DeMint and
Musgrave amendments. These are thinly veiled efforts to privatize
special education in our public schools by means of vouchers.
[[Page H3517]]
Not only would vouchers divert much-needed funds from our public
schools, but children with disabilities who attend private schools with
these vouchers will be enrolled selectively and that is discriminatory.
The DeMint and Musgrave voucher amendments drain resources for
special education costs. Under these amendments, federal funding for
special education services for all disabled children would instead be
siphoned off to pay for private school tuition. These amendments would
take away Federal dollars from public schools, and place additional
burdens on schools and communities to serve more children with less
funds.
These voucher amendments would allow discrimination by private
schools and fail to provide real parental choice. Worried mothers of
disabled children from across the country have called my office
concerned that this bill and these amendments will make it harder for
them to educate their very dear and special children. These children
ought not to be ignored because of their special needs. How can we
justify to a mother of one of these beautiful children that their kid
is not deserving of an adequate education?
No child with a disability would be entitled to go to a private
school of their choice under the DeMint or Musgrave amendments. These
voucher amendments give veto power to private schools. The schools
choose which students they will accept, not the parents.
Children with multiple disabilities and those that require high cost
services would likely be excluded from the program. Further, the DeMint
voucher program will not pay the entire cost of tuition at a private
school, meaning that some families could not afford for their disabled
child to go to private school.
For these reasons and the fundamental unfairness of these amendments,
I urge my colleagues to oppose these amendments that deprive our
Nation's disabled from the education they deserve.
Mr. DeMint. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
DeMint) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed
in House report 108-79.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Musgrave
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mrs. Musgrave:
In section 612(a)(10)(A) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, as proposed to be amended by the
bill--
(1) redesignate clause (vi) as clause (vii); and
(2) insert after clause (v) the following:
``(vi) Local educational agency option.--A local
educational agency may elect to fulfill its obligations under
this subparagraph to children with disabilities enrolled by
their parents in private elementary and secondary schools in
the area served by the agency by offering certificates to all
such parents for necessary special education and related
services, if--
``(I) the certificates offered with respect to each child
have an annual aggregate value that is equal to the lesser
of--
``(aa) the per-pupil amount derived by dividing the
proportionate share of Federal funds calculated under clause
(i)(I) by the number of parentally-placed children with
disabilities determined under clause (i)(II); and
``(bb) the actual cost of the necessary special education
and related services for such child; and
``(II) the certificates may only be redeemed by the parents
at eligible special education and related services providers,
as determined by the local educational agency, that--
``(aa) provide information to the parents and such agency
regarding the progress of the child as a result of the
receipt of such services in a format and, to the extent
practicable, a language that the parents can understand;
``(bb) meet all applicable Federal, State, and local
health, safety, and civil rights laws;
``(cc) demonstrate that the provider has been lawfully
operating as a business for not less than 1 year; and
``(dd) provide assurances to such agency that the provider
is financially sound, is not in bankruptcy proceedings, and
is not the subject of an investigation or legal judgment
involving waste, fraud, or abuse on the part of the provider,
or any employee of the provider, with respect to funds under
the provider's control.
Clause (v)(II) shall not apply special education and related
services furnished pursuant to such certificates. At the
discretion of the local educational agency, and to the extent
consistent with State law, State and local funds may be used
to add to the value of such certificates.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I am offering today is all about
local control. It is all about meeting the needs of a group of children
that is in private schools, special ed students that are there; and
each one of us would certainly agree that we need to meet the needs of
these students. Quite frankly, they are not being met today. Although
these children generate funds and are in the count that the public
school uses, the Federal dollars flow to the public school, and then
these dollars very often do not reach the child in regard to purchasing
the special services that they need.
This amendment would rectify that by giving the local school
districts an option of issuing a certificate to the parents of these
special ed students on an average amount of $1,400 so that the parents
could purchase the services that these children need.
This makes great sense since we want to educate all children well.
The children in public school have due process right with their
parents.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Musgrave
amendment and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. Vouchers undermine
the very foundation of IDEA. IDEA guarantees children with disabilities
a free and appropriate public education and provides important
safeguards to the child and the parents to ensure that education is
actually received.
When a special education child takes a voucher to a private school,
all guarantees and rights under IDEA are lost. The McKay Voucher
Program in Florida, which allows children with disabilities to use
vouchers to go to private schools, is a perfect example of the pitfalls
of an IDEA voucher program gone wrong.
In the Florida special education voucher program, there are no State
reviews of the education and services being provided, and there are no
civil rights protections if parents are not happy with the education
and services their children or their child is receiving. Under the
Florida IDEA voucher program, private schools can and do charge parents
additional tuition and fees above the voucher making it difficult and
usually impossible for low income parents to benefit from vouchers.
Contrary to what some people claim, vouchers do not increase parents'
choice. Private schools can and do discriminate for a variety of
reasons. They can refuse to take a student for any reason including the
student's disability. So when it comes to vouchers, it is not the
parents who have the choice. It is the private school.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Franks).
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
Mr. Chairman, it has been said that the States are the laboratories
of the Nation. In Arizona at this time, when the special needs child
comes into the public system, oftentimes the public system recognizes
that they are not fully capable of meeting that special need at that
time and they provide a certificate for that child to go to a private
school or a private institution to meet that child's needs.
All the Musgrave amendment really does is to allow this same option,
and I emphasize the word ``option,'' to be given to public schools in
the context
[[Page H3518]]
of the IDEA legislation. This is not a Federal mandate. This is not
what people call vouchers. This is simply an option for the local
schools to do this. And in those cases where they do, it gives those
parents the opportunity to direct the resources on behalf of their
child.
Mr. Chairman, no one knows and loves these children more than these
parents. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for offering such a
noble amendment.
{time} 1400
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) has 3
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave)
has 3 minutes remaining.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), a member of the committee.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to this
amendment. Currently, IDEA guarantees every child with a disability a
free and an appropriate public education. Diverting public funds to
private and parochial schools through vouchers really undermines the
public school system, and it undermines that guarantee that we have
made to every youngster in this country. Vouchers would subsidize the
enrollment of children in private schools that are not accountable nor
subject to Federal civil rights laws.
Our Republican colleagues have pushed for accountability in education
through the Leave No Child Behind Act; yet if this amendment passes,
private schools would not be held to the same standards as public
schools. We all know that. Public schools accept all children; but
private and religious schools can and often do discriminate by
rejecting students due to academic standards, disabilities, behavior
problems, religious affiliations, and other criteria.
Public schools are simply that. They are public. Private and
parochial are simply that. They are private and they are parochial.
Under this amendment, private schools accepting voucher funds would not
be required to recognize any of the parental rights contained within
IDEA. It would be a step backwards.
We need to move forward in this new millennium. This is directly
opposite to what IDEA was created to do, giving parents a voice in
their children's education. Voucher programs will not pay for the
entire cost; and, therefore, it would simply subsidize those. I
strongly urge rejection of this amendment.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman
from Colorado, for yielding me this time.
I think this is an excellent amendment. Under current law, school
districts are required to identify all children who have disabilities
in a district, including private school children. All children. School
districts are also obligated to provide special education and related
services to these private school children as a group in an amount equal
to the proportionate amount of Federal funds generated by these
children to the district under IDEA.
Now, what does this mean? It means the school district receives a
certain amount of dollars to provide services to these children. Under
current law, however, no parentally placed private school child is
entitled to individual services, even though the school district
receives this money. The only requirement in the law is that the
school's disabled population as a group must be helped.
In practicality, what this means is that many of the students who
have been placed in a private or parochial school do not get the direct
services specific to their needs; and when those services are
available, they are often offered at times and at places that are
inconvenient to the child's parents.
I support the Federal investment in meeting the education needs of
all of our Nation's children with disabilities. Support this amendment.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
The arguments here are very similar to the previous amendment. One,
it is a very bad idea in terms of policy and accountability and
responsibility to these children, but it is also a bit of a hoax.
The idea that the parent can take the Federal share of the money,
which the gentlewoman says is $1,400, maybe as high as $1,800, and go
out and buy the same education they are going to get in the public
school system for their children on the school-year basis, well, where
does the rest of the money come from? At least if this bill had some
intellectual integrity, it would say take all the money the school
district is going to spend, take the $6,000 on a national average, give
that to the parent and let them try to find this education.
Obviously, if the parent cannot come up with the additional money,
they cannot provide for an education. Or if the child is severely
disabled, this will not begin to cover those services. Remember, most
of the people who go out to get these services end up suing the school
district for those services and the school pays the whole amount. They
pay $15,000, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, or $50,000 because of the kind
of intense services that these children need in order to qualify to get
a free and appropriate education.
That is not what this amendment is about. This is just a shuck and a
jive, that somehow you can go out and get these first-class services
for a severely disabled child for $1,400. Again, the bill allows for,
and I think it makes sense on one level, supplemental services. If
$1,400 will buy the kind of services for a child that is moderately
disabled or has a reading problem or something, and is labeled as
disabled, fine, give them the supplemental services. But the notion
someone can go out and buy an education for $1,400 is a hoax on the
parents.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the few times I have ever
been accused of shucking and jiving. It is not usually what I do for a
living.
The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has actually made a
couple of points that reinforce the point of this amendment. It is
absolutely true that school districts have come to us repeatedly and
said we do not have enough money to meet the IDEA standards to do the
individual development plans and to meet the needs of our special needs
students. It is the biggest complaint coming out of every school
district in the country.
If the schools actually are paying $6,000 to $7,000 a student, which
sometimes, quite frankly, I think is not an accurate claim, then they
should be the first ones lining up behind an amendment that says for
$1,400 we are going to take $6,000 to $7,000 pressure off your school
system. The opposition of those who say that they are against this
because there is not enough money, the parent can choose to go to the
school. If they cannot get the plan, then they do not get the money.
There are groups in this country, in private schools, who are
willing, through churches and others, to put up money to try to address
these types of needs. We as a Federal Government are prohibiting them
from addressing it and prohibiting those parents from getting the
opportunity to meet those needs.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The time of the opposition has
expired, and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) is
recognized.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
Currently, 7 percent of all students enrolled in Catholic schools are
identified as disabled. Less than 1 percent of them get services. They
generate $10 million in revenue for the schools in IDEA. The schools
actually get about $78,000 out of that $10 million generated.
So when we talk about equity issues and we come to this floor to talk
about the needs of all children, please consider the fact that these
are children
[[Page H3519]]
also. They happen to be in a different setting. They happen to be in a
school that is not a government school. But that should not determine
whether or not they are served.
We have time and time again stood on this floor arguing about whether
or not we are really talking about children in these bills that we pass
for education or whether or not we are just simply trying to support a
particular system, a particular way of educating children. Should our
concern not simply be about the children? We hear that word bandied
about, so often used to describe our motives here, but when it is a
child other than the one the government runs, we say they do not
deserve it.
This is a great amendment. I hope we support it.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time having expired, the question is on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado
(Mrs. Musgrave) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in House
Report 108-79.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Shadegg
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment
No. 7.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Shadegg:
In section 204 of the bill, strike ``Section 614'' and
insert ``(a) In General.--Section 614''.
In section 204 of the bill, add at the end the following:
(b) Findings; Sense of Congress.--
(1) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(A) Certain of the categories of disability that allow
students to qualify for benefits under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act have not been scientifically
established and, as a result, some children who do not have
actual learning disabilities are classified as having
disabilities under that Act.
(B) Nearly one in eight students is now labeled as
disabled.
(C) Over one-half of those students are classified as
having learning and behavioral challenges.
(D) Current definitions of disabilities in the Code of
Federal Regulations, particularly the definition of
``emotional disturbance'', are vague and ambiguous.
(E) The absence of reliable methods for distinguishing
children with a special learning disability from children who
have lower than expected achievement leads to over-
identification and misidentification of non-disabled students
as students with disabilities.
(F) The lack of consistently applied diagnostic criteria
for specific learning disabilities makes it possible to
diagnose almost any low or underachieving child as a student
with a disability.
(G) The President's Commission on Excellence in Special
Education (PCESE) found in its July 1, 2002, report, ``A New
Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and their
Families'', that many of the current methods of identifying
children with disabilities lack validity and, as a result,
thousands of children are misidentified every year, while
many others are not identified early enough or at all.
(H) The President's Commission also found that emotional
and behavioral difficulties could be prevented through
classroom-based approaches involving positive discipline and
classroom management.
(I) According to testimony from a March 13, 2003, hearing
before the Subcommittee on Education Reform of the Committee
on Education and the Workforce of the House of
Representatives, students are frequently referred to special
education because they are not succeeding in the general
education setting, and not because they are actually
disabled.
(J) Students with controllable behavioral problems are
often classified as having learning disabilities and
therefore are not held responsible for their own behavior.
(K) According to testimony by Secretary of Education Rod
Paige on October 4, 2001, before the Committee on Education
and the Workforce of the House of Representatives, our
educational system fails to teach many children fundamental
skills like reading, then inappropriately identifies some of
them as having disabilities, thus harming the educational
future of those children who are misidentified and reducing
the resources available to serve children with disabilities.
(2) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(A) students who have not been diagnosed by a physician or
other person certified by a State health board as having a
disability (as defined under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act) should not be classified as
children with disabilities for purposes of receiving services
under that Act; and
(B) students with behavioral problems who have not been
diagnosed by a physician or other person certified by a State
health board as having a disability should be subject to the
regular school disciplinary code.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and a Member in opposition each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this sense of the Congress amendment is
simple and straightforward. It is intended to direct IDEA funds to
those kids most in need.
We have a problem in this program at the present time of
overidentifying. It has been discussed in the literature. It was
discussed in the testimony before the committee. Quite frankly, all too
often, sadly, some children are identified as being qualified for this
program, and resources are devoted to them, when they are not, in fact,
truly disabled.
The purpose of this amendment is to express the sense of the Congress
that these resources should go to the truly disabled kids. We do not
amend the definition of disabled or mentally ill. We do not attack the
definition. We accomplish that by simply saying that the determination
of who qualifies to be in the program ought to be made by either a
psychiatrist or a psychologist or someone licensed by a State medical
board.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
(Mr. MURPHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) on the attempts he is making in this amendment
because I think it is critically important that we are working to
define very carefully those who are going to do evaluations on
children.
However, what I would like to suggest is that we continue to work on
this, perhaps that we move it to conference and try to refine some of
the wording. Because I think some of the aspects that deal with
physicians or trying to carefully define who may do these evaluations I
believe we will get some more mileage on. It has been an important
distinction over the years that I myself, as a psychologist, having
done hundreds of these evaluations, have struggled with in trying to
come up with the exact way to define special education and learning
disabilities and the right tests. It is an issue that the Congress has
been dealing with for many years as well and one that I think really
requires our continued attention.
So again I compliment the Members for working on this. I hope we can
continue to work on this and try to refine some of these definitions so
that we can get to this end perhaps by another means.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose
this amendment, and let me just basically state the reason why.
We have in this country right now 4,000 young people who kill
themselves every year in suicides. It is the third leading cause of
death in this age group. We need to consider that two-thirds of young
people who suffer from mental illness never even get help. Why? Because
there is a stigma. People do not believe that there is any truth to
mental illness.
While I am sure the gentleman who authored this amendment did not
intend for the amendment to have this impact, what I worry about is
that the impact of this amendment will be to further add to the stigma
that exists towards people with mental illness by saying, basically all
these kids really need is a good swift kick in the butt
[[Page H3520]]
and they ought to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
The fact of the matter is we know that there are some serious
emotional disturbances that these young people are facing. To suggest
that teachers right now in the classroom, administrators and principals
do not already know which children need special ed and which children
do not, I think is using the heavy hand of Congress to micromanage what
school districts are trying to do to help these children.
So I would just ask the Members of the House to take a good hard look
at this amendment and to consider the ramifications of voting for this
because I think there is an unintended effect of passing this amendment
that will further stigmatize people with mental illness.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to simply comment there is no intent to change the definition of mental
illness nor to stigmatize in any way.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for
yielding me this time.
As a Congress, we have a responsibility to not only fund special
education but also to make sure the dollars spent on special education
are targeted to the children who really need the extra assistance and
learning. Each year, thousands of children are wrongly identified as
needing special education while many others are not identified early
enough or at all.
{time} 1415
Mr. Chairman, this misidentification reduces the resources available
to serve children who are actually disabled. Furthermore, it gives some
children with controllable but negative behavior the ability to
misbehave without fear of punishing.
H.R. 1350 takes important strides in addressing the problem of
overidentification and the mislabeling of children with disabilities by
way of prereferral services and early intervention strategies.
It also takes important strides in reforming current discipline
procedures to make our schools safer for all of our children and
teachers.
The Shadegg amendment supports the efforts of this legislation before
us, and expresses a sense of Congress on reducing misidentification and
ensuring that our schools are safe. I encourage Members to vote for
this amendment.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate
myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Kennedy) because I think this amendment causes a great deal of trouble
in terms of the questions of the stigma of people.
I have talked to an awful lot of parents who have great qualms about
whether their children should be identified in special education
programs, whether to try to get the child into the program when they
know the child needs help or not because they are concerned about what
that means in the future. We have struggled with this in the committee
and on both sides of the aisle, this question of underidentification,
overidentification, and of the illnesses that we should be treating in
this setting.
I do not think that this language, and maybe it can be improved
before the end of this process, but I do not think that this language
is proper. It suggests that only a select number of people are fit to
pass judgment on whether or not these children are eligible or not, and
I think it does create a problem in terms of the question of mental
disability and of special education. I hope that we would not agree to
this amendment. I think it is very damaging on the front that we have
tried to make some progress on with the public.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), we are not too far off on what we want
to do here. Perhaps the gentleman does not like the language exactly
like it is, but I am also absolutely certain the gentleman does not
want children placed on the disability list when they should not be if
it takes away from other children. I think the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Shadegg) is doing the right thing. I am sorry it is just a sense
of Congress. It should be changed language in this legislation.
The system is suffering. We are putting people in disability
situations that are not, and that is harmful, I believe, to the system.
There are those that are being wrongfully identified, and I do not know
who should make that decision. A physician might be a good possibility.
If others are, it might be a smart idea to make sure we are right about
them and have people who are certified by the State health board.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, right now we have no child
psychiatrists in this country because there is no reimbursement because
we have a discriminatory health care system that does not acknowledge
mental illness as a health matter at all. So how we expect a very, very
limited number of people who are experts in this area to somehow begin
to determine all of these caseloads, I think, is absolutely
impractical, unless the gentleman would commit to me that he would work
with us to get mental health parity passed so we can get more
clinicians in the area of mental health.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, let me try to conclude this debate in the positive
spirit in which it has gone forward. I would be happy to work with
Members on the other side of the aisle. The gentleman from Rhode Island
said there are no child psychologists in America. I believe that is a
misstatement. There are many I know, and work with some in Arizona. I
would yield to the gentleman to correct that statement.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Obviously the gentleman understood what
I was saying. There are hardly any. Ask any of your friends, and they
will say there is a fraction of a percent in this country.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the
point. There are many.
But the point of the debate is that the goal of this sense of
Congress amendment is, in fact, to direct the resources that we have
for disabled children to those disabled children, and to make sure that
we are putting into the program those kids, those young people, those
children in our schools most in need. The reality is this is an
incredibly important program that I take great pride that the
Republican Congress has funded at an exceedingly higher level than it
was in the past, but those resources need to go to the children most in
need. I urge Members to support it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with
the gentleman to see us be more constructive with our funds. We know
there are a lot of ways to identify children that are going to have
emotional disturbances and learning disabilities as a result early on
before they get put into special education. This Congress and others
ought to be focusing more on putting in intervention services for those
children. That is where I think our attention should be, not
unintentionally making mental illness a stigma.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
The amendment was agreed to.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in House
Report 108-79.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Tancredo
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H3521]]
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
Strike subparagraph (A) of section 602(27) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (as proposed to
be amended by section 101 of the bill) and insert the
following:
``(A) In general.--The term `specific learning disability'
means a disorder due to a medically detectable and
diagnosable physiological condition relying on physical and
scientific evidence and not based on subjective criteria.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Much of the debate over this particular amendment, I think, we have
actually heard over the previous amendment. It goes to the same issue,
although this is not a sense of Congress, this is an amendment to the
bill. It is designed specifically for the purpose of trying to identify
those children who are truly in need of the services that we
appropriate money for here, and distinguish them from those children
who are not, but who are placed into these programs in ever-greater
numbers, thereby diluting the pool of resources available to serve
children who are truly in need.
This is a problem which has been with us since the beginning of this
program. It was hoped it would be addressed in the reauthorization.
That did not happen. The reauthorization does, in fact, what the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) was asking for a minute ago,
and that is emphasize early identification, and I am all for that. I do
not believe that will change the problem.
If children are being misidentified today, they will be misidentified
earlier. That is the real problem, misidentification, not the time at
which it happens. The problem is with it intrinsically.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
Tancredo amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment restricts local schools' methods of
identifying students as having learning disabilities by redefining the
language ``specific learning disability'' as a disorder ``due to a
medically detectable and diagnosable physiological condition relying on
physical and scientific evidence.''
Learning disabilities are not simply a medical condition that can
only be determined by a doctor. Current definition includes disorders
with psychological processes which have severe impact on learning and
behavior. The Tancredo amendment creates a new and very narrow medical
condition definition that would actually keep children from getting the
special education services that they need, and they need those services
so they can learn and be successful in school.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to talk about a very important
issue, and that is overidentification and misidentification of children
with suspected learning behavioral disabilities. If schools misdiagnose
a child, it not only affects their report card, but it affects their
future. We need to make sure that the right children receive special
education.
The Tancredo-Graves amendment seeks to address this problem which is
driving up the cost of IDEA and putting misdiagnosed kids into special
needs programs. The majority of kids with disabilities are medically
diagnosed and, therefore, receive special education services. Children
with learning and behavioral disorders should be no different.
The bottom line is if a child has a medical disability, whether it be
physical, mental, learning or behavioral, it should be diagnosed and
have a medical opinion from a medical professional in order to receive
the same special education services as those children that are
medically diagnosed.
The Tancredo-Graves amendment would protect parents, and most
importantly, it would protect children from being labeled with a
disability that they may not have.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this committee has
struggled long and hard over many years to try and reduce litigation in
this legislation. I think we have a magnet here in terms of litigation.
And I also think because the definition of ``medically detectable and
diagnosable physiological condition,'' I am not quite sure how we are
going to comply with that in the number of conditions that children
have. The number of means by which we now diagnose children I am not
sure fit within that definition. By the same token, I suggest that does
not mean that they are not properly enrolled in these programs and do
not have a disability that requires special attention in terms of their
ability to get an education. I think this is a really bad amendment,
and I would urge Members to oppose it.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, let me rise to support this amendment.
This language really needs to go to conference. It needs to be in the
bill. There are too many people placed in special education that should
not be in special education, and that harms the system and it also
harms those that should be in special education and the dollars that
flow to them. All I am saying is let us put the right people in special
ed, and those that should not be there not be there.
This amendment was read earlier stating, ``The term `specific
learning disability' means a disorder due to a medically detectable and
diagnosable physiological condition relying on physical and scientific
evidence,'' and then the reading stopped. The important part of this
language is, and I continue, ``and not based on subjective criteria.''
I do not know that part was not read out, but that is the part that is
so important because that is why so many people are in special
education that should not be in special education. I urge Members to
pass this and we will get into conference and talk further.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
{time} 1430
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, the problem we have in
this country right now is not that there are too many people who are
overidentifying themselves as having mental illness; it is that it is
too few people. And the notion that people are readily just going in
there and saying, oh, my child is disabled or I have a mental illness,
you have got to be kidding me. Two thirds of those who need the help
are not getting it, and if my colleagues think that the people who
really are going to be at the lower-end socioeconomic levels are going
to be able to go to a doctor, pay for it to try to get identified so
they can get this program, who do they think is going to get it under
their bill? I will tell them who. People with health insurance and
money. They are the only ones who are going to be able to afford to see
a doc to get this designation. In addition to that, this mentally
detectable and diagnosable, physiological condition, that has got
stigma and stereotype written all over it. It is language that is
basically for those who are concerned about this issue, code language
for discrimination against people with mental illness; and that is a
fact. And my colleagues can talk to anyone who leads any mental health
organization in this country, NAMI, National Alliance for the Mentally
Ill, any of those, and they will say this language here plays upon the
age-old stereotype of people with mental illness. And I urge my
colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
(Mr. MURPHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H3522]]
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I believe the Member is headed in an
important direction in terms of identifying a better way of evaluating
children. And speaking as the only Member of this Chamber who has done
hundreds of these tests, I would like to say medical doctors for the
most part do not have the training or the tools to do these
evaluations. We need to pursue a clearer definition. I am absolutely in
agreement on that, but I am not sure this is the correct way to do
this. Even the best neurologists, M.D., can say if brain tissue is
malformed or damaged; but they cannot say if the brain is functioning
properly and therefore give some explanation or diagnosis of such
concerns as Asperger's, autism, or dyslexia at this time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentlewoman from California
has 1 minute. The gentleman from Colorado has 1\1/2\ minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to repeat that this amendment creates a very narrow
medical condition definition, and it would keep children from getting
the special education services they need to learn and to be successful
in school.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, once again I would just
say, as my good friend has just said, the reason that doctors are not
trained in identifying mental illness is that we still are living in a
country where mental illness is not regarded as part of the body. In
other words, brains are not considered an organ of the body currently
in this country for purposes of insurance. So why should we be
surprised when there are not any doctors out there who can have the
training to do this? What the gentleman is doing is not helping us. It
is hurting us. So I would just ask my colleagues once again please vote
``no'' on the Tancredo amendment.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The dictionary definition of physiological psychology, a branch, by
the way, of physiology, is that it is concerned with the relationship
between the physical functioning of an organism and behavior. So I am
quite sure that this definition will cover the kinds of folks, the
kinds of problems that my colleague from the other side of the aisle
has brought to our attention. It is certainly not my intention to
discriminate against them. It is simply my intention to make sure that
only the children who need help, be it physical or mental, get that
help, and they are now being refused that help. We cannot get them into
the program. We cannot give them the help they need because of the many
kids who are there who should not be there. I sat through many
processes that were designed. As a teacher, I sat through the process
designed to determine which kids should go into special ed and which
kids should not, and I will tell my colleagues everything in that
process is designed to push the kid in. Everybody around that table is
usually there to say yes, including the parent, who does want an
excuse. More often than not, they do want an excuse for the problems
they are having, and a lot of problems are behavioral. There are all
kinds of kids in our classrooms today who are there in IDEA classrooms
and handicapped education because their IQ does not fit their
achievement level. But that is not necessarily a handicap and should
not be a definition of a handicapping condition. We have title I for
this kind of thing. That is the problem, too many put there
subjectively. It is not an attempt to discriminate between mental or
physical handicap one iota. I assure my colleagues I have a personal
concern about those issues. I assure them.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Tancredo) will be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed, in the following order: amendment No. 2
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), amendment No. 5
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), amendment
No. 6 offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), and
amendment No. 8 offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Vitter
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 108-79 offered
by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 413,
noes 0, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 150]
AYES--413
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
[[Page H3523]]
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--21
Becerra
Cannon
Combest
Dooley (CA)
Dreier
Foley
Frost
Gephardt
Honda
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kingston
Lampson
McCarthy (MO)
Otter
Owens
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Slaughter
Snyder
Tiahrt
Whitfield
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1457
Mr. NADLER and Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 150, had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 150, I was at the White
House for a bill signing. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 150, had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 150, the
Vitter amendment regarding the GAO study on IDEA paperwork, I was
unavoidably detained in a business meeting.
If I had been able to be present, I would have voted ``aye'' on
rollcall No. 150.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I missed the vote on the
Vitter amendment to H.R. 1350, Improving Education Results for Children
With Disabilities Act of 2003. Had I been present I would have voted
for the amendment.
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6, rule XVIII, the
remainder of this series will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. De Mint
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. DeMint) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182,
noes 240, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 151]
AYES--182
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Vitter
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOES--240
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Burr
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graves
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Becerra
Combest
Dreier
Gephardt
Honda
Kingston
McCarthy (MO)
Owens
Slaughter
Snyder
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
[[Page H3524]]
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry) (during the vote). Members are
reminded there are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1507
Mr. CULBERSON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SWEENEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 151, had
I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Musgrave
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 108-79 offered
by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176,
noes 247, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 152]
AYES--176
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kline
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Putnam
Radanovich
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Vitter
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--247
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Bass
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Burr
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graves
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (MI)
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--11
Becerra
Combest
Dreier
Gephardt
Honda
Kingston
McCarthy (MO)
Owens
Slaughter
Snyder
Whitfield
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded
there are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1514
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1515
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Tancredo
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The pending business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 54,
noes 367, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 153]
AYES--54
Akin
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilirakis
Blunt
Brown (SC)
Buyer
Cannon
Collins
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Duncan
Everett
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Graves
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hensarling
Hostettler
Istook
Jenkins
Jones (NC)
King (IA)
Linder
Manzullo
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Nethercutt
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Pitts
Ramstad
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Shadegg
Stearns
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tiahrt
Toomey
Wamp
Wicker
NOES--367
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
[[Page H3525]]
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Becerra
Combest
Dreier
Gephardt
Honda
Kingston
McCarthy (MO)
Owens
Rush
Slaughter
Snyder
Weller
Whitfield
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1523
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 9 printed in House Report 108-79.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Kirk
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 9.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Kirk:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO SAFE AND DRUG-FREE
SCHOOLS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Providing children with disabilities with a safe,
productive, and drug-free learning environment is a laudable
goal for our Nation's schools.
(2) Schools are a refuge for students, not a place where
drugs and violence are to be tolerated.
(3) Every child with a disability in the Nation deserves
access to a quality education, including a safe and drug-free
learning environment.
(4) Local educational agencies, school boards, schools,
teachers, administrators, and students all have a
responsibility to keep school facilities, including lockers,
drug-free.
(5) Random searches of student lockers to seize any illegal
drugs or drug paraphernalia has been known to work as an
effective method to address the problem of such drugs and
paraphernalia. The time of day in which lockers are to be
searched should be left to the discretion of the local
educational agency.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that safe and drug-free schools are essential for the
learning and development of children with disabilities.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend the gentleman from Ohio
(Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for
their hard work and dedication to improving our Nation's special
education system.
I also want to thank Sage Lansing of my staff for her work on this
issue.
Mr. Chairman, this issue of our education system is very important. I
had raised an issue of Impact Aid for our military men and women in a
conflict that is just ending today, and I hope and pray that the
committee takes up that issue at another time.
But I am here to talk about protecting the most vulnerable students
in our schools. My amendment before the House recognizes that special
education students face various challenges throughout their school day,
and not the least of which are the dangers posed by drugs on school
property.
My amendment recommends, but does not mandate, that random locker
searches are an effective way of reducing the severity of the drug
problem in a particular school. The decision to employ this technique
is left to the discretion of each school administrator.
Two high schools in my district, Libertyville High School and Vernon
Hills High School, have conducted locker searches which have been
hailed by parents, students, and staff as an effective and necessary
method for indicating to students that the use of and sale of drugs on
school property is not to be tolerated. These searches are a proactive
technique that will hopefully discourage students from using or selling
drugs in school.
A U.S. Supreme Court case entitled New Jersey v. T.L.O. in 1985 set
the precedent that school searches fall under the fourth amendment's
reasonableness standard. The majority Court opinion said: ``Striking
the balance between schoolchildren's legitimate expectations of privacy
and a school's equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in
which learning can take place requires some easing of the restrictions
in which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject. Thus,
school officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student
who is their authority.''
The goal of this amendment is not to infringe upon a student's right
to privacy; rather, it is intended to protect the entire school
community from the dangers and health problems associated with the use
and sale of illegal drugs.
I urge my colleagues to express their support for safe and drug-free
schools by supporting the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
[[Page H3526]]
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for his
amendment.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources, few things are as important as trying to maintain
order and safety in our schools.
This is a particular opportunity to point out what has been a current
interest and the personal interest of the director of SAMSA, Charles
Curry, on looking at co-occurring disorders.
Increasingly, we are seeing the narcotics traffickers, particularly
in urban centers but also in schools and elsewhere, prey upon the most
vulnerable population in this country: those people who have various
disabilities. We are seeing in many of the public housing areas now,
not only in the United States but around the world, the vulnerability
of this population to marketing and aggressive sales.
I think that the point that this amendment makes, that one of the
things that keeps our schools safer for these vulnerable students is to
make sure that the illegal narcotics stay out of the schools, is very
important. We need to have this resolution passed.
I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for calling
attention to the specific problem of drugs in schools, but also to the
co-occurring disorders that are such a challenge in our society.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), the ace of the House.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I
thank the gentleman for the caring amendment.
Both my daughters have gone through public school, and most of the
Members here have done the same thing. We know that a war on terrorism
is a war on drugs, as well.
If one is a mother with a child with special needs, or a child in a
mainstream, drugs are a problem. A hearing-impaired child that sells
cocaine in my opinion should be held accountable, because it has
nothing to do with the actual disability.
This bill goes beyond that. It protects our schools. It makes sure
that our schools and our lockers are free not just from drugs but from
weapons.
{time} 1530
We have seen Columbine and we have seen other issues that have
occurred and this helps solve that problem. We spoke yesterday in a
bipartisan way about Peter Yarrow and ``Don't Laugh at Me.'' All of
these issues are put in place to protect our students and our children,
and I commend the gentleman.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 10 printed in House Report 108-79.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Mc Keon
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. McKeon:
In section 611(f) of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (as proposed to be amended by section 201 of
the bill), add at the end the following:
``(4) Special rule for increased funds.--
``(A) In general.--If the amount available for allocations
to States under subsection (d)(1) for a fiscal year is equal
to or greater than the amount allocated to States for fiscal
year 2003, then each State may retain not more than the
amount of funds it had reserved under subsection (e)(1)(B)
for fiscal year 2003.
``(B) Exception.--In any fiscal year in which the
percentage increase of the amount available for allocations
to States under subsection (d)(1) is equal to or greater than
the rate of inflation, each State may increase its allocation
under subsection (e)(1)(B) by the amount allowed under
subsection (e)(4)(B), for the sole purpose of making grants
under subsection (e)(4)(A).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 1350, the
Improving Education for Children with Disabilities Act of 2003 which
will make dramatic improvements to the Nation's special education law.
The amendment that I, along with my colleague, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) am offering would amend current law to require
that any additional increases in Federal spending above fiscal year
2003 levels be passed down directly to the local level.
Over the past 2 years, the State of California has substituted
additional Federal education money for State funds, in most cases to
mask the budget deficit. In effect, the State has used Federal dollars
as the soul source of increase in special education over the last 2
years, allowing the State to spend the expected increase in Federal
dollars to the State on other programs.
In 2003, the State of California received an increase of $151.5
million in Federal funding to go towards educating special needs kids,
and in 2004, the State is slated to receive an increase of $82.8
million. This level is likely to be significantly higher for my State
if Congress provides the significant increases in special education
funding called for in the budget resolution.
Unfortunately, California school children have not seen the benefits
of increase in the Federal Government. While this practice may not
violate any law, I believe it violates the intent of our recent efforts
to increase Federal education funding and is harmful to our Nation's
school children.
In a Contra Costa Times article that appeared in February 2002, Sandy
Harrison, spokesman for the State finance department, said ``the
governor substituted the new Federal funds for State funds because it
was a tough budget year.''
Even though the redirection of funds in California was only supposed
to be for one year, the State has decided once again to use the Federal
money to replace State funding for special education. Of additional
concern is that this practice is no longer limited to only the State of
California. The States of Kansas, Iowa and Oregon are contemplating
similar efforts to retain Federal funding at the State level instead of
sending it down to the local level where it can make the most
difference.
Over the last few months and even during consideration of the bill by
the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, we tried many
avenues to deal with this concern. Unfortunately, most were unworkable
and would have been difficult to administer.
The one alternative that is easy to administer and immediately solves
the problem is to mandate that any additional Federal funding above
fiscal year 2003 be distributed straight to the local education
agencies.
The McKeon/Woolsey amendment has the strong support of teachers and
local school officials, those on the front lines in California who want
to ensure that children with disabilities receive the quality education
they deserve. For example, the L.A. County Office of Education which
serves as the Nation's largest regional education agency, assisting 81
school districts, serving 1.6 million students, responsible for serving
10,000 children with physical and mental disabilities said that this
amendment will help us meet our responsibility to provide the highest
quality education to our children by ensuring that funding reaches the
local level where it is most needed.
They go on to say that the amendment enhances our Nation's investment
in the future of our children and the attainment of our dreams and
aspirations. By passing H.R. 1350, Congress moves closer to following
through on a commitment made over 27 years ago to families and their
children with special needs. If States are allowed to usurp Federal
funds that are intended to supplement, not replace State funding, this
commitment will never be realized.
Special needs children in my State cannot afford to be stripped of
this desperately needed funding. Therefore, I am offering this
amendment so that
[[Page H3527]]
the unprecedented level of funding offered by Congress is not diluted
because of States unwillingness to make special education funding a
priority.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment, but I do not oppose it.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, there is strong bipartisan support for the McKeon/
Woolsey amendment, amendment No. 10, because it guarantees that from
now on, all increases in Federal IDEA funds go to local schools where
they belong.
My Republican colleague and I came together to offer this amendment
because we want to make certain that State do not use Federal increases
in IDEA funds to solve their State budget problems. We are aware of at
least 4 States, including our own California, that may be considering
using IDEA funding increases at the State level for other purposes.
While we all here in this room are sympathetic to State budget
problems, we agree that IDEA funding must not be used to solve those
problems. The McKeon/Woolsey amendment ensures this will not happen by
prohibiting States from keeping increases in IDEA funds for their own
use.
Whenever I talk to the educators in my local school districts, the
first thing they bring up is IDEA, and the first thing they bring up
about IDEA is funding. As we all know, the Federal government has a
long way to go to fully fund the Federal share of IDEA. It is our local
school districts who fulfill the responsibility of providing every
child with a free and appropriate public education. And it is these
school districts, not the States, who must benefit from federal IDEA
funds.
Local schools desperately need every penny of Federal IDEA funds, and
the McKeon/Woolsey amendment makes sure that they get them. I encourage
my colleagues to vote aye on the McKeon/Woolsey amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from San
Diego, California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have spent 12 years in this body,
both in the authorization and the Committee on Appropriations. My
sister-in-law is in charge of all special education in San Diego city
schools. She works for Alan Bersin. And what he has stated that he has
got two basic problems. One is that it is improper to say that the
governor is taking Federal education money and cutting IDEA. What he is
doing is reducing the State funds for IDEA and the Federal funds are
supposed to go above that to enhance the IDEA funding, and the governor
is doing that to balance his budget. This amendment prevents that.
There is much more that we could do in this body. I wish that we
could reduce the maximum amount of paperwork. In California it is
unbelievable. I wish we could cap lawyer fees, and put the money
directly towards students. We cannot do all of those things. We do not
have the votes on some of these issues. But this one is not only very
thoughtful, and I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Woolsey) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), it is not
only thoughtful, but it is needed to protect the funds that we have
appropriated in a bipartisan way for IDEA.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 11 printed in House Report 108-79.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Nethercutt:
In section 635(a)(16)(B) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (as proposed to be amended by
section 301 of the bill), add at the end before the period
the following: ``or in a setting that is most appropriate, as
determined by the parent and the individualized family
service plan team''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I propose today is intended to
expand the service opportunities available to young children under IDEA
in an appropriate facility or facilities in conjunction with a parent
and the best recommendations of the individualized family service plan
team. It is an expansion of services available to children, not a
contraction under IDEA.
The reason for this amendment is for the following purposes: In my
district of Spokane, Washington, eastern Washington, the City of
Spokane, we have a great facility called the Spokane Guild School. They
have a dedicated board of trustees and dedicated volunteers and
operational people from Dick Boyser to Rick Melanson and to Jim
O'Connell to many, many others who have looked at the services that are
provided by the Spokane Guild School and found them to be so superior
to other environments that may be available to young children who are
experiencing muscular conditions or neuromuscular conditions that need
attention at an early intervention age.
So what they have done over the years is determine that perhaps
existing law would exclude them from providing services for these
precious children because it is not necessarily in a natural
environment. But my amendment intends to make sure that the definition
of natural environment includes the kind of facilities like this, the
Spokane Guild School and many others in our State of Washington, and
perhaps around the country, so that the children are benefitted in
conjunction with the requests and expectations of parents and the IFSP
team. So this is not a threatening amendment. To the disability
community it is an enhancement.
About a year or so ago about the request or suggestion of Mr.
Melanson and others, we put $500,000 in to make sure that the
government of the United States understands the value of this kind of
environment for children suffering these kinds of conditions that need
desperate help at an early age. We were able to get that money in to do
some studies, to make sure that the model that exists in the State of
Washington through the Spokane Guild School may be replicated around
the rest of the country because it is enhancing for students and little
children, not diminishing.
I have had Undersecretary Bob Pasternak from the Department of
Education come to our district, and he did so willingly and with a
critical eye, but also a welcoming expectation about the great services
that are available even though they may not be precisely in a home
environment. I will speak for him and say that we were delighted to
have him come, and I believe he was delighted to be able to be there.
In the visit that Undersecretary Pasternak made, he made an
impression on us as a caring person in the bureaucracy of the
Department of Education and in government, but also a person who wants
to, in his best expectations, have children served properly who are
subject to the IDEA.
So we have a lot to offer in this environment. We have a State
legislature in my State, the Senate passed legislation that said,
Congress, please allow this expansion or interpretation of IDEA to
cover a place like the Spokane Guild School. It passed the House by 96
to nothing. It passed the Senate in our State 49 to nothing. So it is a
bipartisan, comprehensive, high-expectation measure that helps
children.
{time} 1545
So I would just urge the chairman of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce and the minority Member, certainly the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) are all dedicated
to the best interest of young children, and I would
[[Page H3528]]
hope this amendment could be accepted. It is a good amendment. It is
going to help children at the best level for the parents and for the
children and the team that supports the child. I urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume to have a
colloquy with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the gentleman for his amendment
and for his support of young children and their families. I understand
this amendment retains the integrity of the team process. We want to
preserve the team approach and the philosophy that the decisions of the
IFSP team are to be made in partnership with the family and the
providers in determining together what is appropriate for the child.
I also understand that this amendment is not meant to understate the
importance of even the youngest children with disabilities being able
to be with their peers in their neighborhoods, child care or Head
Start, or in other settings that will give them both the special
services they need but the opportunities to be part of their
communities. Is this correct?
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. The gentlewoman is correct. Her interpretation of my
amendment is exactly correct, and it is appropriate for children and
the team approach to making sure that services for children are
properly provided.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
very much.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Nethercutt) has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time
to urge passage of this amendment.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me suggest to our Members that our
friend from the State of Washington makes a valuable contribution to
the bill, and I would urge the Members to support his amendment.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the
chairman and thank the minority Members who support this amendment. It
is good for children, it is good for IDEA, and is a proper expansion,
or I should say interpretation of existing law.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 12 printed in House Report 108-79.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mrs. Davis of California
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on
behalf of my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta
Sanchez).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 offered by Mrs. Davis of California:
In section 665(b)(2)(I) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (as proposed to be amended by
section 401 of the bill), add at the end before the period
the following: ``, including to train school safety personnel
and first responders who work at qualified educational
facilities''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Loretta Sanchez amendment would include language in
the bill that would authorize the use of funds to develop and improve
programs to train school safety personnel and first responders who work
at educational facilities in the recognition of autism spectrum
disorders.
The goal of the amendment is to train school safety personnel and
other first responders to respond appropriately to persons exhibiting
behaviors and/or characteristics of developmental disabilities and/or
mental illness. We are not asking for additional funds in this
amendment, but rather to use those funds that have been designated for
this particular purpose.
Mr. Chairman, many years ago, back in the 1960s, I actually worked
with autistic children and their families; and I worked with them in an
institutionalized arena. I always marvel today that many of those
children who I knew in these hospitals in California are now in our
public school system. We have many children who years ago could not
benefit from the many advantages of our public school system, but they
are doing that today.
From time to time, unfortunately, they may display behaviors that
people do not understand very well. We have tremendous medicines today,
but now and then children either do not get those medications or for
one reason or another they are not being as effective as they could be.
What we need to be certain of is that people who are in the community
can observe these children, can respond to them effectively, can work
with bystanders as well who may in fact be troubled by their behaviors.
It is very important that if we have this funding mechanism
available, that we utilize it to the best benefit of our children. I am
very pleased that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez)
has brought this amendment forward. I think it will be of immeasurable
benefit. We need to be certain that the kind of aggressive or self-
injurious behavior that sometimes is present in these children is dealt
with appropriately.
Let us pass this amendment, understand its implications and its
benefits, and be certain that children who suffer from autism, and
there are many of them today in our country, autism affects nearly 1.5
million people, that these children have people who understand their
behaviors, can respond to them, can help them and can help those around
them in the school system, associates, friends, neighbors, to better
deal with their problem as well.
We have seen that where we have trained our first responders, even in
domestic violence, whatever it may be, to deal on the spot with the
situation as they see fit, that we have all benefited. I cannot think
of any better way to use these funds but in this way, and I am
delighted that my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Loretta Sanchez), is here to speak further about this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle) is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me say that we, on this side, are in support of this amendment. I
met, I think it was just yesterday actually, or the day before, but
with family groups in Delaware, my home State, where we are concerned
about autism; and this actually is one of the very areas they
discussed.
We realize these children are very gifted, and we realize this can be
very difficult. I happen to believe this is an amendment that has merit
and adds to the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's
remarks and appreciate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta
Sanchez) introducing this amendment.
Autism is one of the most misunderstood maladies that children have
and adults have in this country, and it is a growing problem. We have
one out of every 200 children in America now becoming autistic. It used
to be one in 10,000. It has been multiplied by 50 the number who are
affected.
[[Page H3529]]
Many of these children do have problems occasionally, where they flap
their arms, they will bang their heads against the wall, they will even
speak incoherently. It takes somebody who understands to be able to
deal with them. It is very difficult on parents, but it is more
difficult even for people who are trying to educate these children.
So I think this is a great amendment, and I appreciate the
gentleman's comments, and I appreciate the amendment of the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) in introducing this amendment.
The parents of these autistic children for the past 5 or 6 months
here in the Congress have been fighting a very difficult battle with
pharmaceutical companies, because they think, and I believe, that many
of these children were damaged by mercury in some of the vaccines that
we had. So they have had a tough fight, and I am glad to see that we
are showing a little concern about their problems by having this
amendment on the floor; and I assume it will be adopted without any
opposition.
So I thank the gentlewoman, and I thank the committee for accepting
it.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume just to simply say that I appreciate the opportunity to
have addressed this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) and ask unanimous consent that she be
allowed to control that time in order to speak further about the need
for this important amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) has 2 minutes remaining.
There was no objection.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, autism is currently the third most common developmental
disability. It is more common than Downs syndrome. A majority of the
public, including those who work in schools, do not really know, when
they see it, what is happening. They are unaware of how autism affects
people, and they are not trained well in how to work effectively with
individuals who have autism.
Autism interferes with the normal development of the brain in areas
of reasoning and social interaction, and so people with autism can, in
particular in more extreme cases, exhibit unusual responses that most
of us may not understand: aggressiveness, for example; committing self-
injury to themselves. It is a behavior that is of special concern
because in responding to situations, it is difficult. Especially if you
are in the classroom or in a school situation, or even in the learning
environment, how you respond to the child is important.
It is absolutely necessary to provide funding to train our special ed
teachers regarding autism disorders, and it is also important to
provide that training to school safety personnel and to other first
responders who deal with the school setting.
What we have had in the past are people, law enforcement sometimes,
who do not really understand what type of a child this may be.
Therefore, they may handle them in a different way, in an incorrect
way, where they might be more injurious towards the student. That is
why the Sanchez amendment would include language in this bill that
would authorize the use of funds to develop and to improve programs to
train school safety personnel and first responders who work with our
school facilities to recognize autism spectrum disorders.
The goal of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to train school safety
personnel and other first responders.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time just
to say that we are in support of the amendment. We actually think it is
a very good amendment on this side. We congratulate the gentlewoman,
and we hope that everybody will support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Davis).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 13 printed in House Report 108-79.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Wu
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Wu:
In section 654(c) of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (as proposed to be amended by section 401 of
the bill), strike paragraph (2) and insert the following:
``(2) Priority.--The Secretary may give priority to
applications--
``(A) on the basis of need; and
``(B) that provide for the establishment of professional
development programs regarding methods of early and
appropriate identification of children with disabilities.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
simply say that it is my intention to submit a written statement with
respect to this amendment, and I will make that request on behalf of
the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) as well.
Today, students with learning disabilities represent half of all
students served under IDEA.
During the 1990s, the number of students in this category
substantially increased by 34%. The President's Commission on
Excellence in Special Education asserts that 80% of these students are
identified as learning disabled because they have not learned how to
read. The report further asserts that up to 40% of learning disabled
students are in special education because they were never taught how to
read.
These children do not need special education, they need an education.
The problem is that children are being missidentified and over-
identified as learning disabled. Moreover, a recent National Research
Council report indicates that minority students are over-represented in
some special education categories, most notably mental retardation and
emotional disturbance.
The role of teacher referral is critical. Unfortunately, many general
education teachers are unprepared to identify students who may actually
be at risk for a learning disability.
The underlying bill does provide professional development and
research funding to reduce the over-identification of children and
disabilities, including minority children. Specifically, this bill
provides for a competitive grant program. Funding could be used for
teacher training in many areas, including how to properly identify
students with disabilities.
We must ensure that all states provide identification training. That
is why my amendment gives priority to applications that provide for the
establishment of professional development programs regarding methods of
early and appropriate identification of children with disabilities.
The President's Commission demonstrated that over-identification is a
problem that is rampant in our schools. My amendment would provide the
necessary training to ensure that teachers, administrators and
personnel are better equipped to determine if a child is learning
disabled.
I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I might inquire as to whether the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey), our ranking subcommittee chair, or the
chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner),
would care to take a moment to state their position on this amendment.
It is my intention to make no further statements at this point in time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WU. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to work with
my friend from Oregon. We have worked on this amendment during
committee, and we have worked on it since. The committee and I are in
full support of the gentleman's amendment and appreciate the
opportunity to work with him to help fine-tune this and would recommend
to our colleagues that we adopt the amendment.
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman very
much.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WU. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I support the
[[Page H3530]]
gentleman's amendment and congratulate him on introducing it.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank
Congressman Wu for his amendment that provides greater opportunities to
States in reducing over-identification of children with disabilities.
Each school district faces unique challenges in educating its youth.
This amendment allows school districts and teachers to improve their
ability to appropriately identify special education students. It also
provides more support for early intervention so school districts can
provide intensive reading and behavioral programs to help reduce the
number of children identified as having a learning disability.
Steps like this amendment combined with my bill entitled Teacher
Recruitment and Retention Act, which will provide $17,500 in loan
forgiveness for Special Education teachers, will demonstrate our
resolve to students with disabilities and those who teach them.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I support his amendment and I
support full funding of IDEA.
While I am pleased that this Congress is tackling the issue of
special education today, I am disappointed that this bill does not
substantively address several important issues including fully funding
IDEA and the misidentification of children with disabilities.
Misidentification is a serious problem in our schools. Many general
education teachers are not trained to identify learning disabilities
and students are placed in special education when all they need is a
little extra assistance. Not only is this detrimental to the student,
but it diverts precious funding away from students with serious
disabilities.
Full funding of IDEA has been one of my top priorities during my time
in Congress. When Congress first addressed this issue in 1975, we made
a commitment to provide children with disabilities access to a quality
public education. But not once in the past 28 years has Congress lived
up to its obligation to fund the services it requires states and school
districts to provide, despite a commitment that it would do so.
My home state of Oregon, like so many states around the country, is
suffering tremendous budget shortfalls. When the federal government
doesn't pay its share, the remaining costs don't just disappear. The
state and school districts are forced to pick up the additional costs,
putting additional strain on our education funding. Living up to our
promise and fully funding IDEA would help all States and all students.
It is high time we renew our commitment to all of our nation's
children and pay our share of the cost of IDEA.
I urge my colleagues to support the Wu amendment and support full
funding of IDEA.
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey) very much for her support, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 14 printed in House Report 108-79.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Pursuant to the rule, Mr. Chairman, I
offer amendment No. 14.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
Add at the end of the bill the following new title:
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. STUDY AND REPORT ON STATE COSTS UNDER THE
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT.
(a) Study.--The Secretary of Education shall conduct a
study on the amount of cost to States to comply with the
requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act.
(b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit
to Congress a report that contains the results of the study
conducted under subsection (a).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer what is probably one of the
simpler amendments that we will see today and, hopefully, for that
reason, a noncontroversial amendment to H.R. 1350, the Improving
Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act of 2003.
{time} 1600
Mr. Chairman, before I speak on that amendment, let me offer my
gratitude for all the work that the chairman and the ranking member of
the committee have expended on this effort and the sponsorship of this
legislation. Their efforts and work has basically seen to it that we
are addressing the educational needs of all children, including those
children with disabilities, to make sure that they receive a quality
education. I commend them for their efforts.
My amendment will require that the Secretary of Education, within a
2-year period of time from enactment of this Act, to submit back to
Congress a study and that study is to take a look at the cost to the
States to comply with this Act. I believe this is necessary because any
time that the Federal Government decides that it is going to involve
itself with the States and ask the States and the local school boards
to affect their education locally, it is imperative that the Federal
Government looks to the cost side of the equation and looks to how much
cost is being imposed on the local school districts and the States
respectively.
I believe after this study, Congress will be in a better position to
say how can we go forward and make sure that the goal of this bill is
complemented and enacted as both sides of the aisle wish it to be done.
I suggest that Members on both sides of the aisle look favorably on
this amendment.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Garrett) offers a very good amendment to the bill. We are, over the
next 7 years, doubling the amount of money we will be spending on
special ed. I think it is right to take a look at what are the total
costs associated with this program, and I think the gentleman makes a
good addition to the bill, and urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I include two letters for the Record on H.R. 1350.
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, April 29, 2003.
Hon. John Boehner,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Boehner: In recognition of the desire to
expedite floor consideration of H.R. 1350, the Improving
Education Results in Children with Disabilities Act of 2003,
the Committee on the Judiciary hereby waives consideration of
the bill. Section 205(i) makes changes to the attorneys' fees
provisions for IDEA cases, and these provisions fall within
the Committee on the Judiciary's Rule X jurisdiction.
However, given the need to expedite this legislation, I will
not seek a sequential referral based on their inclusion.
The Committee on the Judiciary takes this action with the
understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction over these
provisions is in no way diminished or altered. I would
appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional
Record during consideration of H.R. 1350 on the House floor.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, April 29, 2003.
Hon. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: This letter is to confirm our
agreement regarding H.R. 1350, ``Improving Education Results
for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003,'' which was
considered by the Committee on Education and the Workforce on
April 9 and 10, 2003. I thank you for working with me,
specifically regarding the amendments the Committee included
in H.R. 1350, changing the attorney fees of current law in
Section 615 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, as included in Section 205(i) of the Committee reported
bill, which is also within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on the Judiciary.
While this provision is within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on the Judiciary, I appreciate your willingness to
work with me in moving H.R. 1350 forward without the need for
a sequential referral to your Committee. I agree that this
procedural route should not be construed to prejudice the
jurisdictional interest and prerogatives of the Committee on
the Judiciary on this provision or any other similar
legislation and will not be considered as precedent for
consideration of
[[Page H3531]]
matters of jurisdictional interest to your Committee in the
future.
I thank you for working with me regarding this matter. I
will include a copy of your letter and this response in the
Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 1350 on the
House floor.
Sincerely,
John A. Boehner,
Chairman.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There being no further amendments in order,
the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Burton of Indiana) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman pro
tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 1350) to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 206, he
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 251,
nays 171, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 154]
YEAS--251
Aderholt
Akin
Andrews
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Majette
Manzullo
Marshall
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--171
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Baldwin
Ballance
Bartlett (MD)
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--12
Becerra
Combest
Dreier
Evans
Gephardt
Honda
Kingston
McCarthy (MO)
Owens
Slaughter
Snyder
Whitfield
{time} 1625
Messrs. LEWIS of Georgia, MILLER of North Carolina, and ROSS changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________