Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 134 (Friday, November 19, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 134 (Friday, November 19, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H10006-H10022]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1350, INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2004

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 858 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 858

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 1350) to reauthorize the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, and for other purposes. All
points of order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
This rule waives all points of order against the conference report
for H.R. 1350 and against its consideration, and provides that the
conference report shall be considered as read.
Mr. Speaker, shortly after my second son, Alex, was born in 1994, my
father gave me some healthy words of advice when he said that Alex
Sessions would be the greatest thing that would ever happen to our
family. He knew and understood that in fact Alex was a very special
baby. He was born with Downs Syndrome. The past 10 years have
reaffirmed my father's words to me, and Alex has become one of the
greatest parts of our family's life.
Ten years later, Alex is a very happy third grader at Lakewood
Elementary in Dallas, Texas; and Alex has the support of numerous
teachers, students, and parents who provide him with remarkable
educational lessons and invaluable friendships. For each of the last 2
years, Alex has been rewarded with the school's highest citizenship
honor, to be a Lakewood Super Stallion.
In the last 3 weeks, Alex has successfully written for the first time
his first and last name. While these are great personal achievements
for Alex and our entire family, stories like these are being told all
across the country because of the extra efforts of those dedicated
educators who are working diligently with these wonderful children
under landmark Federal legislation known as IDEA, or Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act.
Several decades ago, Congress passed this legislation to guarantee
children with disabilities full access to a fulfilling and appropriate
public education. And while I have talked today about the many
successes and achievements of this important program, there are also
areas within the law that could and can use improvement and adjustment.
I am proud to support the bipartisan legislation that is before us
today to reauthorize and improve this most important education program
to ensure that the true promise and intent of this act is carried out
to the fullest extent of our abilities as Congressmen.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1350 creates an educational atmosphere focusing on
the future of our most vulnerable children. It builds on the existing
strengths of IDEA, while modernizing and improving the program to
guarantee that children with disabilities have the most appropriate
tools to fully utilize their gifts. The changes that we are making in
IDEA will give children measurable goals to ensure they reach their
postsecondary living and employment goals.
H.R. 1350 directly addresses perhaps the greatest problem facing
IDEA, the effective monitoring and enforcement of the act. Effective
July 1, 2005, it will give the Secretary of Education clear authority
to enforce standards to monitor and enforce whether or not schools are
in compliance with IDEA, authority that has been lacking since the
inception of this education initiative. States will be empowered to
create an acceptable set of standards; and if they are not met, the
Secretary of Education will now have the tools necessary to take
appropriate and reasonable action to work with State and local
educators to remedy the situation.
This conference report provides Congress with a 6-year glidepath to
fully fund IDEA by 2011. Under President Bush's leadership, funding for
all education programs, in particular IDEA, have been a high priority.
In his first term, President Bush increased IDEA funding to States by
$4.8 billion, or what we would know as a 76 percent increase. This
Republican-controlled Congress, which I am proud to be a part of, has
increased the Federal share of IDEA funding to 19 percent in 10 years,
whereas our predecessors in the Democrat-controlled Congresses only
allowed the Federal share of IDEA costs to reach 7 percent.
H.R. 1350 also restores trust and constructive dialogue to the
relationship between parents and school personnel promoting an earlier
resolution to problems before they end up in court. This legislation
creates the opportunity for a resolution session within 30 days of a
complaint being filed to quickly resolve the problem. The constant
threat of litigation creates an atmosphere of distrust between parents
and schools, an environment that harms everyone involved.
Today's legislation also solves another problem that has plagued IDEA
for too long. Today, many children with reading problems are
misidentified as learning disabled and wrongly placed in special
education classes, a costly mistake which siphons away valuable funding
from students who truly need IDEA services. To address this issue, H.R.
1350 requires districts with significant over-identifying of students
to operate early intervention programs to reduce over-identification,
eliminating the outdated IQ discrepancy, a model that relies on a wait-
to-fail approach, and introduces a response to intervention model that
identifies specific learning disabilities before the students are at a
failing grade level.
I am proud of this new IDEA legislation. Because of the important
resources that H.R. 1350 provides to our schools, it may one day help
my son Alex to further meet his goals of learning to read.
I am pleased to note that the House version of this legislation
successfully passed through the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, and then through the House in April of 2003. Today's
conference report enjoys the overwhelming bipartisan support of its
conferees, and I am confident that this report will enjoy wide
bipartisan margins in both Houses before it is signed by President
Bush.
I would ask that all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
demonstrate their commitment to the special education needs of our
country's disabled children by supporting this conference report. I
would like to thank the House sponsor of this legislation, the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and the chairman of the Committee
on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner),
for their dedicated hard work in producing the conference report.
I would also like to take a minute to commend the conferees from both
bodies that have labored to produce this fine product, including the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), Senator Edward Kennedy,
and Senator Judd Gregg.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule
and the underlying legislation.

[[Page H10007]]

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

{time} 0945

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I would like to express my appreciation to
the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member, for returning to
this House a bipartisan-supported conference report on the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act.
Last year, when the House first considered H.R. 1350 which
reauthorized the IDEA, I felt compelled to oppose that bill. It
undermined, in my opinion, the basic rights of children in need of
special education to quality education. It undermined the rights of
these students' families, and it failed our States and local school
districts to effectively provide special education services for these
students. Worse yet, the Republican leadership refused to allow any
amendment addressing the need to provide full funding for the Federal
share of special education to even be debated in this body. It was the
House at its very worst.
Today is a very different day. We have before us a bipartisan-
supported bill. We have a bill that maintains the basic civil rights of
children with disabilities. We have a conference report that addresses
long-standing problems with IDEA monitoring and enforcement by the U.S.
Department of Education.
We have a bill that has added protections for children with special
needs who have fallen between the cracks for too long; in particular,
the 1.3 million children who experience homelessness each year and the
500,000 children in foster care. These children, who are moved around
and change schools frequently, disproportionately suffer from learning
and physical disabilities than children from stable homes, but they
have greater difficulty accessing special education services. This bill
now ensures that their individual education plans can travel with them
so they are not denied services or regress further when moving from
school to school.
From the bottom of my heart, I thank the conferees for remembering
these children and addressing this problem in this bill.
This bill also helps schools resolve conflicts over providing special
education services and reduce litigation. It should result in reducing
the over-identification and misidentification of nondisabled children,
especially among minorities and other disadvantaged communities. It
reduces paperwork requirements, improves transition services, and
strengthens methods for measuring student progress, all of which should
improve the academic achievement of special education students.
This bill, however, is not perfect. For example, I believe we still
have a long way to go toward ensuring a seamless system for infants,
toddlers, and preschoolers with disabilities, let alone successfully
preparing and transitioning these children into K-12 special education
programs.
And, most importantly, this bill still does not guarantee mandatory
funding for the Federal share of IDEA State grants. This year alone,
special education funding is $2.5 billion short of what Republicans
promised in their budget and only half of what has been authorized
under the IDEA. This leaves already cash-strapped schools without the
support needed to ensure that all students, no matter their
disabilities, receive the same education opportunities.
Mr. Speaker, I remain deeply concerned that Congress will continue to
break its promise to our States, our local schools and our special
needs children and families to provide the 40 percent Federal share of
funding for federally mandated special education programs and services.
For 30 years we have failed to keep our word to fully fund this law,
and I see nothing in this bill to reassure me that Congress will meet
even the more modest funding targets set in this bill. We seem
perfectly able to ignore, back away from, or reduce our commitment.
I believe it is well past time for Congress to step up to the plate
and fulfill its promise to fully fund the Federal share of special
education programs. Until we do so, local and State education budgets
will have to continue to rob from other education programs in order to
pay for mandatory special education services, breeding unnecessary
resentment towards the children and families who require these programs
and placing increased stress on scarce education dollars.
I promise my colleagues, I promise the children and families and
schools in the Third Congressional District of Massachusetts that I
will continue to fight for full mandatory funding of the Federal share
of IDEA. I hope President Bush will finally make this funding a
priority in his budget next year.
Mr. Speaker, even with these concerns, I believe this conference
report is an important step forward for our special education programs
and services, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to
support the conference report on H.R. 1350.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last night, late in the Committee on Rules, the ranking
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller), came before our committee and
talked with great confidence and exuberance about the hard work that
had been produced by not only the conferees but also that proud
committee. Today, I am very pleased to have that chairman, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who has worked diligently for the
past few years not only with me as a parent with a child who falls
under IDEA but also with all Members who bring thoughts and ideas about
encouraging our teachers and our parents and our children to achieve
greater things. I would like to publicly say that not only the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) but also what the
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) has done has been of great
service to our country, and I would like to thank him for that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman
Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule. The
conference report on the reauthorization of IDEA represents the
culmination of 3 years of effort to strengthen and renew special
education. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), who
I have worked closely with over these last 3 years on all of his
efforts to help us strengthen and renew this program. I know it is an
issue he feels very strongly about, and I want to thank him for his
leadership.
I also thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who is the
subcommittee chairman on the Subcommittee on Education Reform, the
author of this bill. He worked this bill through the committee and
through the House and through this conference, and without his strong
leadership we would not be here today.
I think the bill that we will have before us soon is a tremendous
achievement of compromise, vision, determination, and bipartisanship.
I want to thank my partner in this process over the last 4 years, the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member on
our committee. While we have had disagreements on many occasions, in
the end I think what the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller)
and I both believe is we have a responsibility to legislate on
education and workforce matters and at the end of the day we were able
to come together and produce this bipartisan conference report.
In crafting this bill, we listened to parents, teachers, students,
and advocates. We listened to the President's Commission on Excellence
in Special Education, and the principles around the creation of this
bill are very similar to the principles that the Commission on
Excellence in Special Education came forward with as well.
We listened to schools, the people on the front lines of educating
children with special needs. We began this process with the principles
of No Child Left Behind firmly embedded in our minds. In No Child Left
Behind, we put a system in place to ensure that students

[[Page H10008]]

with disabilities, along with all students, are getting access to the
education that they deserve. In this bill, we are making sure that the
rules help special education teachers and parents get the most out of
that system, instead of making it harder for them.
This bill is an across-the-board win for parents, teachers and
students with disabilities. I urge my colleagues to support the rule
today.
I will have more to say when we get into the bill itself about the
changes made in this bill that truly will help students with special
needs, their parents, and the teachers and school administrators who
often in the past have been at serious conflict. We attempt to reduce
that conflict in this bill to make it easier for these students to get
an education and make it easier for school administrators and special
ed teachers to be able to provide these services to the most special of
our children.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on
Education Reform.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I did not support this bill, H.R. 1350,
when it first came out of our subcommittee and then our full committee
and then passed the House. But, since then, there has been a lot of
bipartisan effort, and now I believe we can achieve what we were aiming
for.
We can have and will continue to set aside our political differences
so that we work together in our children's best interests. For that I
thank our conference chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner);
our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller);
the chairman of my subcommittee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle); and the conferees from both the House and the Senate.
I believe that this process, if we follow it, can and must be the
standard for the new Congress. Imagine a Congress that puts children
before politics. That would be something in and of itself. Today, we
are setting an example. We have raised the bar. We have set a standard
that together, both sides of the aisle, both the House and the Senate
have said, oh, my, let us put children first.
Let us support the rule, support the bill and support the countless
students and parents and teachers and school administrators who
advocate for children with disabilities who have come to us to make
certain that we understand how IDEA works for them and where it does
not work. In this bill today we are making a difference in the lives of
people who are affected day in and day out by what we will be voting
for.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today we are having a discussion about some of America's greatest
gifts, and that is our children with disabilities. An observation I
would make is the kind words on both sides have come as a result of a
lot of hard work, a lot of hard work not only within this body but also
with the Senate. It also came as a result of a lot of hard work where
members of that committee and subcommittee had to go out all across
America and listen to parents and listen to educators and to listen to
people. Certainly the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) was
a huge part of this success.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, however, I would like to suggest that the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) was a great leader in this
process. He made sure of the strength of his argument so this law would
make a difference. So I, like the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman
Boehner), stand here to say that the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman
Castle) has done a great job on behalf of so many students.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) for not just managing this rule today but for his own
personal interest in this legislation. He and I have had several
discussions about this. His input was extremely helpful. For that, I am
certainly personally appreciative. The gentleman's interest is typical
of a number of Members who spoke to me and others about their concerns
about this particular legislation.
The gentleman is correct. This legislation, as much as anything we
deal with in the Committee on Education and the Workforce, really
embraces a wide scope of all of America in terms of the interest which
is there. Virtually all school districts, many parents, and many
interest groups deal with the issues of children with disabilities. I
am delighted that we were able to work this legislation out in
conference with the Senate.

{time} 1000

Obviously I do rise in support of H. Res. 858; and as the sponsor of
the underlying bill, H.R. 1350, I also support all aspects of the bill
which is before us.
I think it is important maybe to understand how all this came about,
because it was not easy. It took a long time to do it. In preparation
for this, our committee had seven different hearings. We launched a
Web-based project a couple of years ago called Great IDEAs which was
designed to solicit input from stakeholders in special education across
the Nation. We received literally thousands of responses from teachers,
school administrators, parents of children with special needs, and
others familiar with the unique needs of children with disabilities.
Many of those are incorporated in H.R. 1350.
The process in terms of the bill itself began 19 months ago in the
House of Representatives; and that bill, which was called the Improving
Education Results For Children With Disabilities Act, aimed to improve
current law by focusing on improved education results, reducing the
paperwork burden for special education teachers, and addressing the
problem of overidentification of minority students as disabled. In
addition, the bill sought to reduce litigation and reform special
education finance and funding. I am pleased to say the conference
report includes all these important reforms.
It is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to sit here and say all that in
a couple of sentences when in reality each of those different policies
took many, many hours and even days and months of negotiation in order
to work out all the differences that existed amongst the groups and
blend it together into something that is supported by everybody today.
Obviously, we have worked with the Senate. I say ``we.'' I give
tremendous credit to the staff on both sides of the aisle here and in
the Senate staff as well for their great work in the past 6 weeks in
very, very serious negotiations to get all of this worked out. And so
the resulting conference report which we have before us today will make
tremendous strides in helping to achieve a quality education and
services for children with special needs.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge swift approval of the rule and
hopefully, following that, swift approval of the underlying bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) who is a member of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for
yielding me this time. I want to commend the leadership of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, from Chairman Boehner and
Ranking Member George Miller to Subcommittee Chairman Castle and
Ranking Member Woolsey, all the members of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce, the work that was done in the conference committee
for trying to produce this bipartisan bill. That is why today I am
proud to stand in support of the rule and also in support of the
reauthorization of IDEA.
Mr. Speaker, this is an incredibly important program that was created
in the mid-1970s. It was created under the premise that every child in
America should have access to a quality education, including children
with special needs. Since that time, the schools throughout the Nation
have brought these kids in, have embraced them, have dealt with issues
in regards to the authorization language, in regards to funding issues;
but fundamentally it is a program that works and is working for our
children with special needs.
This legislation, I think, goes to clean up a lot of the problems
that were inherent in IDEA. The gentleman

[[Page H10009]]

from Delaware just referenced some of the paperwork burden that our
special education teachers have been straddled with for so many years.
There has been the issue of disciplinary problems in the classroom that
I think we have reached a good compromise on now. It was the goal in
this reauthorization bill to improve the quality of the teachers in the
classroom dealing with these children with special needs, the second
most important determinant on how well our kids are going to perform
just behind parental involvement. It does strive to increase student
performance and educational achievement. Overall, this is a very good
bipartisan bill, and I would recommend my colleagues today to support
this reauthorization bill.
But there are also some things in the future that we have to stay
focused on and continue to work on and that is the impact of No Child
Left Behind and the new standards and the testings and the impact it is
going to have on these children with special needs and the fact that
under No Child Left Behind, every child is supposed to be 100 percent
in conformance of the rules that were written by the Department of
Education by 2014. We just know now that there are some children that
are not going to be able to obtain that high standard. Unless we are
willing to start telling the schools that by 2014 every one of them is
going to be failing, I think we need to be a little bit more realistic
in our approach to these children and what is going to be required, but
without leaving any child behind.
But I think another big problem that we are going to have to continue
to slug out here starting with this omnibus coming up but also in
future years is the funding of IDEA. The Congress has never lived up to
the full cost share promise that was made, the 40 percent cost share
for IDEA funding. This means the financial burden has been left at the
local level. It is affecting property taxes back in the State of
Wisconsin, which are going up way too much; and it is starting to pit
students against students in the classroom over the allocation of the
limited resources that we are allotting for IDEA and also now for No
Child Left Behind.
I am disheartened to hear some of the figures coming out of the
omnibus discussions where the President was requesting a $1 billion
plus-up for IDEA. It looks like we are only going to get about $600
million. That is far short because this last fiscal year we were only
funding it at 19 percent of the 40 percent full cost share. We can do
better. For $10 billion, we could fully fund IDEA and get up to that 40
percent cost share and alleviate the financial burden that is
straddling so many of our school districts throughout the Nation. It is
just a question of priority, a priority of what we are going to place
first as an investment in our budget, whether it is going to be the
children and the future of our Nation or whether it is going to be
other priorities that we are going to see in this omnibus.
Let us face it, Mr. Speaker. By the end of this year, we will have
allocated close to $200 billion for what is taking place right now in
Iraq. We are hearing rumors now that the administration is going to
come back early next year requesting another 70 to $75 billion in Iraq.
With just a fraction of that amount, we could fully fund IDEA, fully
fund No Child Left Behind, give the schools, give the teachers, give
the parents the resources they need to make sure that every child has
the opportunity that they need to succeed in this country and in this
world. That is what is at stake.
While we have got a good bill to support today, I think there is more
work that we have to stay focused on and try to work in a bipartisan
fashion to address the implications of No Child Left Behind with IDEA
students and the element of full funding for this program. Hopefully,
we will have the same type of bipartisan spirit as we move forward in
the future.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. Initially, I would like
to thank 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 over 2
years of work on the important legislation that the rule makes in
order.
I am pleased that this conference agreement includes a new provision
that is similar to bipartisan legislation I sponsored with the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) to help provide
specialized textbooks to students with visual disabilities. The law we
are reauthorizing today, the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, requires that all disabled students be provided with educational
opportunities. For students with visual disabilities, this includes
access to specialized instructional materials, such as braille, large
print and audio textbooks. Translating a textbook into these successful
formats, however, is a cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive
process for States and school districts. As a result, visually impaired
students oftentimes receive their textbooks long after school has
started and can be needlessly left behind their sighted peers.
The legislation before us today will help solve this problem. It
creates a centralized clearinghouse that States and local school
districts can use to obtain electronic copies of textbooks to be
translated into the appropriate format for visually impaired students.
That is a simple solution that will make a big difference in the
quality of education provided to visually impaired students. I commend
my colleagues for the work they have done to include this provision in
this legislation and urge support of the rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as speaker after speaker on our side has already said,
this is a much improved conference report from the bill that we
originally saw before this House a few months ago. It is supported. It
deserves bipartisan support. I hope my colleagues will support the
rule. I hope they will support the final passage of this conference
report.
Mr. Speaker, this may very well be the last rule that I manage for
our side in the 108th Congress. So I wanted to take this opportunity to
pay tribute to the ranking Democrat on the committee, my friend Martin
Frost. He is one of the smartest Members to serve in this body. He
became an expert in the rules of the House, and he fought the good
fight every single day for people and for causes that oftentime get
overlooked in this body. I think our Nation is better because of his
service, and I think we will miss him.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) offered a resolution in the
Rules Committee last night, and we got to pay our tributes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) then; but I wanted to take this
opportunity just to express publicly my appreciation for his service
not only to this Congress but to the people of this country.
I also want to say that we are going to miss our colleagues Sue
Myrick and Tom Reynolds who are leaving the Rules Committee to take on
other committee assignments. Both of them have been good and strong
members of the committee, and I have enjoyed working with them.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the
majority and the minority Rules staff. These men and women work
incredibly hard, probably harder than most people could possibly
appreciate. In particular, let me thank Mr. Frost's staff who have
served this House to the best of their abilities. They have done a
wonderful job under difficult circumstances, and they deserve to be
thanked for their service. As a former staffer myself, I have a special
appreciation for the work that members of the staff do.
Specifically, I want to recognize Kristi Walseth, who is the staff
director; Askia Suruma; Sophie Hayford, who also served with my old
boss and former Rules Committee chairman, Joe Moakley; John Williams;
Shannon Meissner; Jane Hamilton; and Jeff Rosenthal for their work and
their dedication in this House and to the causes that they believe in
during the 108th Congress.
I also want to thank the associate staff on our side: Fred Turner who
has served with great distinction for Alcee Hastings; Rosaline Cohen
who has worked very hard for Louise Slaughter; and Keith Stern who has
served me incredibly well and worked incredibly hard on behalf of this
Congress for all their work as well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H10010]]

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I, too, would join with the gentleman from Massachusetts in
enunciating our support of not only the staff members of the Rules
Committee and for the hard work that they put in day in and day out and
night in and night out but also would join in support of what the
gentleman from Massachusetts said when he talked about our colleague
Martin Frost. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has served for 26
years as a distinguished Member of not only the House of
Representatives but also in his service to the people of the 24th
Congressional District of Texas. During that period of time the
gentleman from Texas has distinguished himself as a person who would
articulate not only the position of the Democrat Party but also a
position that was very successful in support of veterans all across
this country and in many other issues that he so deeply believed in,
including a major piece of legislation which was known as the Amber
Alert system for children who had been taken from their parents.
Mr. Speaker, I include for printing in the Congressional Record a
resolution that was passed by the Rules Committee last night, November
18, 2004:

Resolution of the House Committee on Rules November 18, 2004

Whereas, Martin Frost has served the United States House of
Representatives and the citizens of the United States with
excellence since first elected to this body in 1978;
Whereas, Martin Frost began developing his extensive
political and legislative expertise as a reporter for
Congressional Quarterly, and then as a practicing attorney in
the Dallas area, while honorably serving the country as a
member of the United States Army Reserves;
Whereas, Martin Frost has represented the constituents of
the 24th district of Texas, serving the citizens of the
Dallas and Fort Worth areas for 26 years in the House of
Representatives with outstanding diligence and passion. He
has taken on issues of importance to the diverse population
of his district, such as the active- and reserve-duty
military, and Medicare, and has been an integral figure in
the creation of the nationwide AMBER Alert system for missing
children;
Whereas, Martin Frost has utilized his status as the
highest ranking Southern Democrat in the House, and as a
senior member of the Texas delegation, to address concerns
vital to his region, such as transportation issues, veterans
affairs and youth violence;
Whereas, Martin Frost has exemplified himself as a model of
leadership of the Democratic Party in the House, serving in
the capacity of chairman of the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee, as well as chairman of the House
Democratic Caucus during his career in Washington, proving
himself to be an astute policy and political strategist;
Whereas, the Committee on Rules has benefitted greatly by
the service of Martin Frost since his appointment to the
committee as a freshman in 1978, most recently through his
leadership as Ranking Minority Member of the Committee,
acting as a sounding board for the Democratic delegation in
advocating legislative priorities and providing his extensive
knowledge of the House rules and practices garnered from his
26 year service to the Committee to ensure success in
fulfilling its jurisdictional duties;
Whereas, the tenure of Martin Frost in this United States
Congress has been characterized by honesty, integrity, and a
general willingness to work together with colleagues, on a
variety of important issues: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Committee on Rules, That its Members
express their deep appreciation for the service Martin Frost
has selflessly given to the country, our citizens, the House
Rules Committee, and the United States House of
Representatives, and wish him the best of luck and godspeed
on all future endeavors.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his
resolution last night and for his words today.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for his comments, also, about our
colleague from Texas (Mr. Frost).
Mr. Speaker, we have also earlier thanked a number of people, the
Members of Congress who were a part of making this bill, IDEA,
successful. Certainly we will have in a few minutes the opportunity to
hear from Chairman Boehner once again and his colleague, the ranking
member, George Miller, from California. Both of these gentleman spent
an incredible number of hours working together. We have heard obviously
from the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). We will also hear
from the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
But I think it is important that we also say that there have been a
number of people who have worked behind the scenes to make this bill
successful and they really come from both sides of this great hall, the
Senate and the House. I would like to personally thank Connie Garner
from the office of Senator Kennedy; David Cleary from the office of
Chairman Boehner. David has worked tirelessly not only on behalf of
these children but also doing town hall meetings to make sure that we
got this right. Melanie Looney, who is also from Chairman Boehner's
office; Alex Nock, who is from Mr. Miller's office; Denzel McGuire from
the office of Senator Judd Gregg.
I would also like to thank from my staff Bobby Hillert and from the
White House Elan Liang for their hard work to make sure that this
document not only enunciated a better policy but also took in all the
feedback from educators, parents and students from across this country
who wake up every day to make IDEA better.
I do, too, encourage all my colleagues to support this bipartisan
piece of legislation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.

{time} 1015

The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 858, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1350) to reauthorize the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution
858, the conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
November 17, 2004, at page H9895.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

General Leave

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 1350.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the H.R. 1350
conference report. Three years ago we began a process to strengthen and
improve special education for the 6\1/2\ million American students
participating under the Individuals with Disability Education Act.
Today we have a final reform bill that will help us achieve that goal.
The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Education Reform of my committee was the author of this
bill that we passed in the House in April of 2003. I think he deserves
great credit for his leadership throughout this process. He wrote a
good bill and worked to ensure that these important reforms will be
enacted in a bipartisan manner. The final bill we produced is closely
aligned with the findings of President Bush's Commission on Excellence
in Special Education, and with the bill that we passed in the House
again in April of 2003.
We set out with one fundamental goal in mind, and that was to improve
the educational results for students with disabilities. And I believe
that we have accomplished that goal with the bill that we have before
us today.
We included important provisions to give parents more choices and
greater control when it comes to their child's education. We increased
the focus on academic results and more closely aligned special
education with the No Child Left Behind Act. The No Child Left Behind
Act was the most sweeping Federal education reform in decades for
students with disabilities. For the first time we ensured that States
would include children with disabilities in their accountability
systems. We made it clear that all children, and I

[[Page H10011]]

mean all children, including those with disabilities, deserve a high-
quality education.
The bill before us today will build on No Child Left Behind. We are
making sure the rules under IDEA helps special education teachers,
parents, and students get the most out of that system instead of making
it harder for them. To support teachers and schools, we included steps
to reduce the crushing paperwork burden that is keeping teachers out of
the classroom and in many cases driving teachers out of the profession
altogether. We also restore common sense to school discipline to keep
schools safe for all students and hold students accountable for their
actions. Students will have the same punishment for the same infraction
unless the disciplinary problem is the direct result of a child's
disability.
We also give States and schools the clarity they have been seeking on
what it means to be a highly qualified special education teacher. In No
Child Left Behind we said that every child shall learn from a highly
qualified teacher and children in special ed are no exception. We added
flexibility, though, for States and teachers to meet the highly
qualified definition when it comes to special ed teachers, but we did
not do anything to slow down the progress States are making in reaching
that goal. We are going to cut down on costly and unnecessary
litigation in special education, and we are going to hold attorneys
liable for frivolous lawsuits. That is important because we need to
restore a sense of trust between parents and schools. We want to
encourage cooperation to do what is best for students and to get there
we need to cut down on damaging lawsuits.
Our bill also puts the Federal Government on a 6-year glide path to
reaching our original goal of funding up to 40 percent of the excess
cost of educating students with special needs. And as we get closer to
that goal, we are also going to give local communities more control
over how they spend their own local dollars. And we are keeping special
education funded through the discretionary appropriations process.
I just want to take a moment to thank a number of people. As I
mentioned before, I want to thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle) for his hard work. But we would not be here without the help of
several other people. The gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller), while we had disagreements on the House-passed bill, we came
together at this late hour of this session to do what our job is to do,
and that is to reauthorize this law and to do it in such a way to bring
a bipartisan product to the floor of the House today.
But it would not have been possible without the help of the other
body, and I have to thank the chairman of the Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor & Pensions committee Judd Gregg for his
willingness to work with us and the ranking member of that committee,
Senator Ted Kennedy. We had a small window of opportunity, and the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I sat down with
Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy and looked them in the eye and said
we are going to be fair, we are going to do this right, and if we work
together, we can in fact produce a strong bill, which we have. And we
would not be here without the help of all of those people involved.
I also want to thank some of my staff and others who have worked on
this. David Cleary, without whose help we would not be here at all,
period. He did a great job in guiding this process. Melanie Looney on
my staff, and also I want to thank Sally Lovejoy, who heads up our
education section; Krisann Pearce, who I referred to as the adult the
other day. I should probably refer to her as the calming, steady
influence over some of my more hyperactive staff. And I want to thank
Brad Thomas, who joined us just a couple of months ago and got thrown
in into this process at the end.
From the gentleman from Delaware's (Mr. Castle) office, Sarah
Rittling and from the gentleman from California's (Mr. George Miller)
office I want to thank Alex Nock for his great work as well.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is the next step in our effort to reform
education in America, and I think it is going to make a real difference
in the lives of millions of American students who are participating in
special education. And as most of my colleagues know, I have gotten
rather passionate about this. I am beginning to sound more like the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) than the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) himself. But I do believe that all kids
deserve a chance at a good education regardless of their color,
regardless of where they grew up, or regardless if they may have a
disability. And I think the bill that we have today does in fact move
us in a direction to help more kids, especially special ed kids, to get
a chance at good education.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the H.R. 1350 conference
report. Three years ago we began a process to strengthen and improve
special education for the six and a half million American students
participating under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Today, we have a final reform bill that will help us achieve that goal.
Representative Castle was the author of the bill we passed in the
House in April of 2003, and he deserves great credit for his leadership
throughout the process. He wrote a good bill, and he worked to ensure
these important reforms will be enacted in a bipartisan manner.
The final bill we produced is closely aligned with the findings of
President Bush's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, and
with the bill we passed in the House in April of 2003. We set out with
one fundamental goal in mind: to improve educational results for
students with disabilities. I believe this bill will accomplish that
goal.
We included important provisions to give parents more choices and
greater control when it comes to their children's education. We
increased the focus on academic results, and more closely aligned
special education with the No Child Left Behind Act.
The No Child Left Behind Act was the most sweeping Federal education
reform in decades for students with disabilities. For the first time,
we ensured States would include children with disabilities in their
accountability systems. We made it clear that all children, including
children with disabilities, deserve a high quality education.
The bill before us today will build on NCLB. We're making sure the
rules under IDEA help special education teachers and parents get the
most out of that system, instead of making it harder for them.
To support teachers and schools, we included steps to reduce the
crushing paperwork burden that is keeping teachers out of the
classroom. We also restored common sense to school discipline to keep
schools safe for all students, and hold students accountable for their
actions. Students will have the same punishment for the same
infraction, unless the discipline problem is the direct result of a
child's disability.
We also give States and schools the clarity they have been seeking on
what it means to be a highly qualified special education teacher. In No
Child Left Behind, we said every child should learn from a highly
qualified teacher. Children in special education are no exception. We
added flexibility for States and teachers to meet the highly qualified
definition, but we didn't do anything to slow down the progress States
are making to reach that goal.
We're going to cut down on costly and unnecessary litigation in
special education, and we're going to hold attorneys liable for
frivolous lawsuits. That's important, because we need to restore a
sense of trust between parents and schools. We want to encourage
cooperation to do what is best for students. To get there, we need to
cut down on damaging lawsuits.
I also want to point out one oversight. A sentence in the Statement
of Managers' language of the Conference Report that provided the
explanation for the attorneys' fees language was inadvertently left
out. By adding at Note 231 sections detailing the limited circumstances
in which LEAs and SEAs can recover attorneys' fees, specifically
Sections 615(i)(3)(B)(i)(II) and (III), the Conferees intend to codify
the standards set forth in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S.
412 (1978). According to Christiansburg, attorneys' fees may only be
awarded to defendants in civil rights cases where the plaintiff's
claims are frivolous, without foundation or brought in bad faith.
Our bill also puts the Federal government on a 6-year glide path to
reaching our original funding goal of up to 40 percent of the excess
cost of educating students with disabilities. As we get closer to that
goal, we're also going to give local communities more control over how
they spend their own, local dollars. And we're keeping special
education funded through the discretionary appropriations process.
I'd like to take a moment to thank members of the staff who have been
so instrumental in producing this great bill. With my staff, I'd like

[[Page H10012]]

to thank David Cleary and Melanie Looney, who did a remarkable job
crafting this bill and negotiating the final conference report. I'd
also like to thank Sally Lovejoy, Krisann Pearce, and Brad Thomas. From
Representative Castle's office I'd like to thank Sarah Rittling, and
from Representative Miller's office I'd like to thank Alex Nock.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is the next step in our effort to reform
education in America. It will make a real difference in the lives of
millions of American students participating in special education. I
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
Mr. Speaker, with the No Child Left Behind Act, we made a commitment
to America's students, parents, and schools. We said that every child
in America deserves a high quality education, and no child should be
left behind.
I think that commitment was particularly important to students with
disabilities. For too many years, these students have been allowed to
fall between the cracks. Many States excluded them from accountability
systems, wrongly assuming these children can't learn.
They can learn, and they should. They deserve the same high quality
education as the rest of this Nation's students. They deserve the same
high quality teachers, and the same focus on their academic results.
H.R. 1350 fulfills that vision. It says that special education is
important. It makes clear that we must focus on breaking down
bureaucracy and building up results. This is an important bill for
students participating in special education, and I urge my colleagues
to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my
remarks by also thanking people because I think many people are
surprised, myself included, that we are here today.
This has been a rather toxic season in the political arena and in
this Congress. There is not a lot of evidence that there is a lot of
bipartisan action taking place in the Congress of the United States.
But in this committee on this subject we were able to work through all
of those environmental concerns about the atmosphere and arrive at
legislation that is going to be very good for those children with
special needs.
And I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), our
chairman, for all of his time, his effort, his political skill within
his caucus and I think within my caucus, too, to get us to this point.
And to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who, as we all know,
is absolutely committed to getting good legislation on the books, to
write good law, and to do it on behalf of our Nation's school children
to see that they get a good opportunity at the education that should be
offered to them.
I want to thank Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Judd Gregg for their
cooperation in deciding even before the election that we would take a
shot at getting this passed before this session closed down, and we
were able to do it. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) on our side, who managed this legislation for
the minority, who took it from the early days when it was clearly very
confrontational, to smoothing out some of the rough spots and finally
helping us arrive at the compromised positions that maintain the
integrity of IDEA, to also improve IDEA and make sure that our
commitment to these young children and their educational opportunities
are clear as a matter of Federal law.
I want to thank the staff on our side, Alex Nock and Alice Cain, Ruth
Friedman and Lloyd Hoowich, for all of their help. This was long hours
by the staff. And on the Republican side, David Cleary, Sally Lovejoy,
Melanie Looney, Krisann Pearce for all of their help in working with
people on the Democratic side. And on the Senate Republican side,
Denzel McGuire, Bill Lucia; Senate Democrats Connie Garner, Roberto
Rodriguez, and Michael Yudin for their help.
This would not have been done had these people not been able to come
together and work their way through bills that were different in many
ways. But the fact of the matter was it did happen, and I think the
children with special needs who need this law are going to be well
served, as are their parents, as are their schools, and as are their
teachers.
I have a special connection to this law because I was in Congress and
served as one of the original authors of this law when it was first
passed in 1974. And in 1974 when we surveyed the Nation's schools and
the State systems of school, we found that children were, on an
ordinary basis, on a regular basis, excluded from the classrooms of
this Nation. They were put into basements. They were put into
segregated schools. They were put into separate classrooms. They were
not allowed to come into classrooms if they were in a wheelchair, if
they needed assistance for their physical disabilities; and a dramatic
percentage of minority students, were labeled as retarded, were labeled
as having an inability to take advantage of an education in numbers
that defied any statistical understanding that any population would be
labeled in that fashion.
Hundreds of thousands of children mislabeled and therefore not
allowed to go to the schools of this Nation. And at that time we passed
the Education for all Handicapped Children, as it was called in those
days. And from that time forward, this law has become one of the basic
civil rights laws of this Nation for those children with special needs,
for their families, and for those schools, recognizing the commitment
that this Congress made to these children and their families, that they
would get a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive
environment to make sure that, where possible, these children would be
in the mainstream classrooms of our Nation's schools. They would be
able to participate with their peers on a regular basis. They would be
able to enjoy the benefits of that educational opportunity, that no
longer by simple reason of their special needs would they be
segregated, no longer by reason of their special needs would they be
discriminated against.
This has not been a smooth road to make sure that these children
would have educational opportunity and have access to that free and
appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. It has been
a struggle. It has been a struggle for our school districts. It has
been a struggle for our taxpayers. It has been a struggle for the
families of these children.
But each and every time we have made progress, and we do so again
with this legislation. We make sure that they will, in fact, have
qualified teachers. But we make sure that we do not drive the teachers
from the teaching field by the law that we have passed here. We have
provided that kind of flexibility so we can have the best of both
worlds.

{time} 1030

We can have qualified teachers, and we can make it workable for those
teachers and for the school districts. We make sure that those children
who might act out in class, who might be a discipline problem can be
separated from the general population if they are a danger, but we also
make sure that we do not discontinue their educational opportunities in
that separate setting, however restrictive it might be. And there is a
process for doing that, both to protect that child, to protect their
educational opportunity, and to protect the general school population,
a very important change.
We make sure that, while trying to enforce this law, that we make
every effort to make sure that the child has access to a workable,
individualized education plan. But we also want to make sure that, in
the enforcement of those efforts, we do not engage in frivolous
lawsuits, we do not engage in trying to extort the school district into
positions. So we make sure that you can have access to those programs,
but you do not get to take advantage of the taxpayers and the efforts
that are being made.
From 1974 onward, I have had hundreds and hundreds of parents who
have come to me and said, or written to me from all over the country,
that, but for this law, my child would not have gotten an education;
but for this law, my child would not have been able to be in the public
schools. Some of those were long letters of the detailed effort by
parents, taking months and thousands of dollars, to challenge the right
of their child to be in an educational setting, along with the rest of
the schoolchildren in this Nation.

[[Page H10013]]

But it is this law that made it possible, and it is law that we
extend with this reauthorization. It is this law that we extend the
civil rights protections of our Constitution to the Nation's
schoolchildren, to those children with special needs, and it is this
law that gives their parents a voice and a say in the direction of
their education. It is this law that makes sure that the educational
establishments of this country respond to those needs. And it is this
law that tries to provide the means to work that out by offering
alternative dispute resolution, by offering mediation, by offering a
means by which parents and teachers and school personnel can sit down
together and, at the end of that day, that child will have a chance at
that educational opportunity, and the district will be in a position to
provide it.
But there is something that is still lacking in this law, and that is
the funding of this legislation. This is the funding of this
legislation. Back in 1974, we said we would pick up 40 percent of the
excess cost of the education of these children, and we have not done
it. We have not done it as Democrats. We have not done it as
Republicans. In the last few years, we have made a rather substantial
march on that effort, but we still never get there under the budget.
Yet we have Members of Congress voting for full funding and mandatory
funding of special education. We have Members signing letters to the
President asking for full funding of special education. We have votes
in the Senate, a majority, bipartisan votes demanding full funding for
special education. But somehow we can never get there. And even in this
legislation, I am glad to see that we have laid out a roadmap for over
the next 7 years, I believe it is, we will arrive at full funding.
But I am worried that later tonight, as we pass an omnibus
appropriations bill, we will not even meet the target in this
legislation before the ink is dry or even before the President has
signed it.
The President said he has not fully funded No Child Left Behind
because he did not read the bill. I want the President to read this
bill, because the compact with these parents and with this Congress is
that we are going to reach full funding in 7 years. And if we do not,
if we do not, the full educational opportunity for these students and
for the other students is not going to be realized because the funding
is not following this legislation. It is very important that that
happen and that we start to keep our commitments on special education,
that we start to keep our commitments on No Child Left Behind.
It is not enough, and we cannot continue the practice. We did it when
we were in control. It is not enough to put figures into authorizations
and tell people that is the law, that is what we have done, and then
look behind and say we never intended to do that. We should say what we
mean, and we should mean what we say. If we cannot do it in 7 years,
then tell the public when we are going to do it. But this is the
statement of the Congress that we will reach full funding in those 7
years, and I think that is most important.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an editorial from this
morning's Washington Post.

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

Making Progress

It is a rare piece of legislation nowadays that makes it
through the House and the Senate, let alone a House-Senate
conference, without ill will, partisan shouting and layers of
added pork. For that reason alone, the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Improvement Act, now heading toward
the House and Senate floors, deserve a moment's attention.
From the beginning, Republicans, Democrats and advocates were
all part of the debate about this law, which reauthorizes the
federal rules and funding for special education. Staffers for
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), chairman of the Senate education
committee, as well as those working for Sen. Edward M.
Kennedy (Mass.), the ranking Democratic member, also
solicited the opinions of outsiders who were not part or
organized groups, to better understand the real problems
faced by students, parents and teachers. Congressional
offices on the House side, notably those of Reps. John A.
Boehner (R-Ohio) and George Miller (D-Calif.), did the same.
The result is a law that doesn't address every problem with
special education but that does grapple with some of the
tougher ones. Unlike most education bills, this one involves
civil rights issues, namely the right of disabled students to
receive appropriate, free education, just like other
children. While reinforcing this principle, the law also
addresses, for example, the contentious question of whether
schools can discipline or expel unruly students with
disabilities: they can, but only after an appropriate process
and only if they ensure that the special services the child
was receiving are not discontinued.
While attitudes cannot be legislated, the law also tries to
reduce some of the adversarial tension that has built up
between schools and parents in recent years by reducing
paperwork, by providing alternatives to litigation and by
eliminating some of the more trivial bureaucratic
requirements. The law also brings special education in line
with the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act,
establishing the qualifications required for special
education teachers, providing funding for teachers to get
those qualifications if they don't have them already and
taking some steps toward establishing alternatives to assess
the progress of disabled children.
Ultimately, the test for Congress is not whether this bill
finally becomes law, which seems likely, but whether the
goodwill surrounding it continues. The special education
debate is not over, nor should it be. It is legitimate to ask
about the costs of this law, both in terms of time and money;
equally, it is legitimate to ask whether schools comply with
it because they genuinely believe that special education is
worthwhile or because they have to. The answers to both
questions will affect the quality of the education all
children receive. As different lessons are learned about what
works best, for disabled children and for schools,
legislators will need to keep the law flexible, and their
naturally partisan tempers under control.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on the committee--the
gentleman from Delaware, the gentlewoman from California, and the
gentleman from Ohio--for all of their hard work on this legislation and
their genuine efforts to make this a bipartisan bill.
IDEA is a program that is very important to me personally. I was one
of the original authors of the legislation in 1975 that made an
historic commitment to the special needs children of the country--and
their parents--to assure them the opportunity for a public education
that would allow them to take full advantage of their gifts and have a
full opportunity to participate in American society.
In opposed the IDEA bill passed by the House last year because I
believed it undermined that bond between Congress and the special needs
community. For me and for millions of American families, IDEA is more
than an education law; it is a pact that never again will we abandon
special needs children and cut them off from the educational services
they need and deserve.
While I voted against the House version of the bill, I am pleased
that the conference committee reversed many of the House positions
opposed by longtime supporters of IDEA.
As a result, I support the conference report before us today because
it maintains the basic civil rights of children with disabilities and
their families. I am hopeful that our changes will improve their
quality and access to a free and appropriate education.
One of the most important decisions we had to make in conference was
whether or not children could be, in effect, punished because of their
disability. I am very pleased that we took the necessary steps to
ensure that children cannot be unfairly punished.
We had the good sense to include one of the most important provisions
in current law: The manifestation determination requirement that school
districts consider whether a child's behavior was the result of their
disability when considering disciplinary action.
It is only fair to consider whether the child could control their
behavior and whether they could understand the consequences of their
behavior. These questions are clearly relevant and I am pleased that
they will continue to be treated as relevant.
Our agreement also ensures that children who are subject to
discipline cannot be put in alternative placements for unlimited
periods of time and that, if suspended, they will continue to receive
educational services. These measures will help these children continue
on the path toward graduation rather than dropping out--and provide for
the safety of other children and school personnel.
Let me also mention two improvements to current law that I believe
are particularly beneficial. First, I am pleased that the conference
report addresses long-standing problems with IDEA monitoring and
enforcement. The Department of Education is required to monitor key
IDEA issues.
These issues include making sure States educate children in the least
restrictive environment and take steps to prevent minority students,
from being disproportionately identified, as is too often the case.
Once identified, these children are more likely to be placed in lower
quality, substantially segregated environments and are more likely to
be suspended or expelled.
When a State is out of compliance for two years, our agreement
requires the Secretary to take an enforcement action.

[[Page H10014]]

These changes give the Department of Education the means to both
identify problems and the authority and tools necessary to help solve
them through a range of options, including advice, technical
assistance, and support.
Second, I support the improved outreach and services for children
who--through no fault of their own--move and change schools frequently.
It is only right that we take steps that protect the 500,000 children
in foster care and the 1.3 million children who experience homelessness
each year.
Children who are homeless suffer from disabilities nearly four times
more than children who are from stable homes, but they have great
difficulty accessing special education services. Even when they have
Individualized Education Plans, their IEPs often have not moved with
them and the process must start over.
After months without adequate services, a child may regress so far
that she or he can lost a whole school year. Our agreement improves
coordination between schools and ensures that the child's IEP must
transfer with them and be used until the new school district and parent
can develop a new IEP.
Despite these important improvements, a fundamental problem continues
to jeopardize all of our best efforts. Congress continues to ignore our
30-year old pledge to fully fund this law.
When we originally passed it in 1975, we made a simple promise: The
Federal government would provide states with 40 percent of the total
costs of special education--not 100 percent--just 40 percent. But we
have never fulfilled our promise. As of today, we are providing nearly
20 percent of special education costs--less than half of what we
promised three decades ago.
Our conference report tries to help. I'm pleased that it recommits
Congress to providing States with the full 40 percent by laying our
authorization levels each year that would allow us to meet the goal by
the year 2011.
Obviously, this is not as soon as I would like or our children need,
but at least it is a blueprint for getting us there. But the blueprint
involves substantial increases each year, including this year--and I am
dismayed that this year's increase may already be in jeopardy.
We must mean what we say and say what we mean--it's time to put our
money where our mouth is and appropriate these funds once and for all.
I urge all of my colleagues, especially those on the appropriations
committee, to make this a top priority. What could possibly be a better
investment in our country than helping our children develop and grow to
their full potential?
We have just gone through the experience of No Child Left Behind
where the President and Congress promised to fund the new law at levels
that were necessary to ensure schools would be able to meet the new
goals. And before the ink was dry on that law the president broke his
promise on funding. Now we are $27 billion in the red on our commitment
to No Child Left Behind and America's public schools.
As Members vote to approve this conference report, and I hope they
do, we must be prepared to stand by the commitment this bill makes to
properly fund special education.
The bottom line for me is to ensure that all children--including all
children with disabilities--have access to public education that
propels them toward participation in American society to the fullest
extent possible. I believe that this conference agreement moves us in
that direction, and I am pleased to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Education Reform and the author of the bill that we have before us
who has done a great job.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that I think without the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Boehner's) patience and will to continue to deal with what
was a tough issue and tough politics perhaps in the beginning, we
probably would not be here today. I would just like to thank him for
that. I think he has just done an incredible job.
I stood at a press conference after we did the conference a couple
days ago, and I looked at the cast of people who were there, including
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) who just spoke, and
Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman
Boehner), and I realized that it was an unlikely group to come together
in terms of being very liberal, very strong, and very conservative and
very strong. But I also realized that every single one of those
individuals had the interests of children at heart, which is hopefully
what we have done in this legislation and hopefully what we have
captured in this legislation.
I would just like to thank everybody that had anything to do with
that: Members of Congress, a lot of whom were personally involved with
this; all of the staff people who worked on this on both sides and in
both Chambers who did a wonderful job, particularly in my case Sarah
Rittling on my staff did an extraordinary job. The gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey) was opposed to this initially, and we were
able to resolve those differences. She and I have had some good fortune
this year, the nutrition bill and this, and some other things, and I
think we are both proud of our achievements, even though we have our
differences from time to time. I cannot thank everybody enough.
Obviously, I rise in support of this legislation. We have been
waiting a long time to get to this point, and today marks an important
day for the millions of children with disabilities. As a sponsor of
H.R. 1350, I have been deeply involved over the past 3 years in working
to find a balanced approach to ensure children with disabilities
receive the services they deserve to help them reach their potential
and succeed in school. All of us have listened to thousands of parents
and educators about what we can do to make the system better for the
children. The resulting bill represents delicately crafted, bipartisan
language that will ensure children with special needs receive the high-
quality education they deserve.
For too many years, children with disabilities were simply denied
access to public education. However, with the passage of the Education
of All Handicapped Children Act in 1975, the doors of educational
opportunity were opened. Today, more than ever, students with
disabilities have an opportunity to accomplish their goals.
According to the Department of Education, about 6.6 million students
currently participate in these programs in schools across the Nation.
Of those, almost 50 percent of students with disabilities spend 80
percent or more of their day in regular education classrooms.
Tremendous strides have been made, and today we will be giving
students, parents, and educators the tools to do even more, as I always
believe we can do better. Now, more than ever, in the spirit of No
Child Left Behind, we must make sure that children with disabilities
are given access to an education that maximizes their unique abilities
and gives them the tools to be successful, productive members of our
communities.
The Improving Education Results for Children With Disabilities Act
aims to improve current law by focusing on improved education results,
reducing the paperwork burden for special education teachers, reducing
litigation, and restoring trust between parents and school districts,
and focusing on monitoring and enforcement of the law. I know my
colleagues in the Senate share many of these goals, and our final
conference agreement surely reflects our shared desire to strengthen
special education through these common sense approaches.
Today I would like to pay particular attention to reforms in H.R.
1350 that will focus on academic progress and efforts to reduce over-
identification. One of the great benefits of the No Child Left Behind
Act is that we have raised expectations that will hold school districts
accountable for the annual progress of all of their students, including
students with disabilities.
Although we have made great progress in including students with
disabilities in the regular classroom, we now must make equally great
progress in ensuring that they receive a quality education in the
regular classroom. We have therefore carefully aligned IDEA with No
Child Left Behind to ensure students with disabilities are included in
the accountability system of States and school districts.
Furthermore, H.R. 1350 includes reforms that would reduce the number
of students that are misidentified or overrepresented in special
education programs. Minorities are often significantly overrepresented
in special education programs. In fact, African Americans are nearly
three times more likely to be labeled as mentally retarded and almost
twice as likely to be

[[Page H10015]]

labeled emotionally disturbed. Current methods of identifying children
with disabilities lack validity or reliability. As a result, thousands
of children are inappropriately identified every year, while many
others are not identified early enough or at all. We have, therefore,
reformed the manner in which children are identified.
As recommended by the President's Commission on Excellence in Special
Education, H.R. 1350 provides local school districts flexibility to use
funds for early intervention services for students before they are
identified as needing special education. Currently, too many children
with reading problems are identified as learning disabled and placed in
special education classes.
Today is an exciting day for the special needs of our children, and I
would urge all of us to support H.R. 1350.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the time
of the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 1350,
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. I
did not support this bill when it first passed out of the committee,
and I did not support it when it passed out of the House. But now I
believe it is an example of what we can achieve when we set aside our
political differences and work together in our children's best
interests.
For that, I thank my conference chairman, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner); our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Miller); the chairman of my subcommittee, the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. Castle); and the conferees from both Houses. I echo the thanks of
the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) to every one of our staff
who have worked so hard. There is not one of us who does not know and
believe that, without them, we would not be here today.
But I would also like to thank another group, and that is my
Subcommittee on Education Reform dealing with special education.
Because my Democratic members of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny Davis),
the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Grijalva), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), and
the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette), they were my backbone. They
came to every single hearing. They participated. They were at every
markup. They had their additions and their changes, and they were
always keeping me and the subcommittee and the committee in general
aware that children are our number one interest, not politics.
I believe that the process we followed here in the House and then
with the conference can become and must become the standard for the
next Congress. Imagine: A Congress that puts children before politics.
I also want to thank the countless students, parents, teachers,
school administrators, and others who advocate for children with
disabilities, because that is the group that makes sure that we
understood how IDEA works for them, the people who are affected day in
and day out by what we are doing today.
In this bill, we have protected the right of a child with a
disability not to be punished for conduct she cannot control because of
her disability. That does not mean that we are going to give kids with
disabilities a free pass to misbehave. What it means is that we are
going to make sure they get the support they need so that they can be
fully engaged in learning.
We have also protected the rights of parents to play an active and
effective role in their children's education. Now, some people might
think that those particular provisions pit kids with disabilities and
their parents against schools and teachers. I do not. I know that
schools and teachers are committed to educating all children and that
they believe this bill will help them do just that. I believe it will
do just that, also.
For example, we have provided flexibility to ensure that children
with disabilities will be taught by highly-qualified teachers. We have
provided new opportunities for parents and schools to work out their
concerns without having to file complaints. We have provided greater
flexibility for parents and schools to change a child's individualized
education program without every member of the child's IDP team having
to meet and to meet by telephone or other alternative means, if the
parent and the school agree.

{time} 1045

And I am especially pleased that there is another way this bill will
help schools and that is because we have included bipartisan language
that I developed along with my colleague, the gentleman from California
(Mr. McKeon). The language makes it clear that Federal funds for IDEA
go to schools to use for special education, not for States to use to
get out of paying for their required funding or not for States to use
to solve their general budget problems. That is something that my home
State of California has been doing, and according to the American
Association of School Administrators, this practice cost California and
their schools $120 million in the year 2003 alone. I am going to keep
working to see that Congress's intent to stop it is enforced.
I am also going to keep working to see that Congress keeps its
promise to fully fund our commitments to IDEA. I am disappointed again
that this bill does not require full funding of IDEA now. I know it
does over 7 years. I want it now, even though virtually every single
member of Congress routinely says that they support full funding. But I
am pleased to support this report because I think it is good for
parents, teachers, schools, but most importantly because it will help
students with disabilities and special needs reach their potential.
I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to improve
educational opportunities for all of our children and to ensure that
the funding required to achieve these goals will be eventually and
immediately put into place.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Keller), one of our conferees working this bill out
between the House and Senate and someone who has worked on this since
he came to Congress.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation because special education
funding, teacher quality, and school safety will all go up while
unnecessary paperwork requirements and frivolous lawsuits will go down.
This is a good bill, and it deserves our support.
Mr. Speaker, as the only Member of Congress from Florida who serves
on the Committee on Education and the Workforce and as one of only five
House Republicans to serve on the IDEA Conference Committee, I wanted
to learn firsthand about the key issues impacting our special education
students. So I helped teach an elementary school education class in
Orlando, Florida. I also met with high school special education
teachers. And I invited the leading special education expert from my
hometown, Orange County Public School System, Harriet Brown, to come
and testify before Congress.
From this experience I learned three important things. First, I
learned that special education teachers are forced to spend up to 2
hours a day completing paperwork instead of teaching.
Second, I learned that much of this paperwork is defensive in nature
because of the fear and threat of frivolous lawsuits.
Third, I learned that there was a student who jeopardized the safety
of a middle school in Orlando by bringing a gun to school, yet he could
not be expelled for 1 year, which is the normal penalty, because he was
an ``exceptional education'' student even though his disability had
nothing to do with bringing the firearm to school.
I am pleased to say that all three of these problems have been fixed
in this

[[Page H10016]]

legislation. First, the paperwork reduction legislation I authored is
specifically included in this bill. As a result, the Secretary of
Education will now develop model forms which will streamline and reduce
the paperwork volume, and 15 States will be free of various paperwork
requirements under a new pilot program.
Second, to reduce lawsuits, attorneys' fees will now be awarded to
the prevailing party, and if a lawsuit is determined to be frivolous,
the lawyer that filed that suit will personally be responsible for
paying the other side's costs. There will be a 2-year statute of
limitations.
Third, a student who brings a gun to school can now be expelled for
up to 1 year under the Gun Free Schools Act if his behavior was not
directly caused by the disability.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, our investment in special education is now at
the highest level in the history of the United States. From 1995 until
today, Congress has increased special education funding from $2.3
billion to $11.1 billion. That is an increase of $8.8 billion, or 383
percent.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will dramatically improve the lives of
disabled children in Orlando, Florida, and all across this Nation. I
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) who was head of this subcommittee
when we first started talking about reauthorizing IDEA.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time. I also thank her for her excellent and her tireless work on this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. This
legislation is a remarkable improvement over the House bill and
deserves the support of us today. The bill represents a good compromise
reflecting the views of schools, disability advocates and, most
importantly, parents.
The bill protects the civil rights of children with disabilities in
critical areas. The bill ensures compliance with IDEA's key provisions
through a strong monitoring and enforcement system.
This system will lead States to fix problems before children with
disabilities fail to receive a free appropriate public education.
This bill also makes IDEA work for all stakeholders: students,
parents, teachers, school administrators, and school districts. First,
the legislation provides new opportunities for parents and schools to
address concerns before the need to file a lawsuit arises.
Second, the bill increases parental involvement in IEP meetings by
allowing the use of teleconferencing, video conferencing, and other
alternative means of participation.
Third, the legislation requires initial evaluations to occur within
60 days of referral, ensuring that children get the help they need. The
conference report also provides fiscal relief for school districts. The
bill allows school districts which are in compliance with IDEA to
replace a portion of their local expenditures with Federal funding.
This will allow school districts to begin to realize the promise we
made 30 years ago to provide the Federal share of special education
costs. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, the bill also improves discipline
and ensures the safety of disabled and nondisabled children alike.
The bill requires schools to determine if a child's behavior was the
result of their disability or poor implementation of their IEP when
considering a disciplinary action. In addition, the bill prevents
schools from placing children with disabilities in alternative
placements for unlimited periods of time.
Despite its positive aspects, Mr. Speaker, the main failure of this
legislation is that it does not immediately meet the promise of full
funding of IDEA. We made this promise nearly 30 years ago and have
consistently failed to meet it.
Soon we will have an appropriations bill on this floor, hopefully
today, that will not even meet the levels we have authorized in this
bill. While I support this conference report, we need to do a better
job of living up to our promises. This bill puts us on that path; and I
therefore urge that we pass it.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), a member of the committee, a conferee, and one
who feels passionately about this issue.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I rise today in strong support of the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Improvement Act conference report.
This excellent bipartisan agreement is a win for parents, teachers,
schools and, most importantly, students with disabilities. I was
pleased to be a part of the conference committee and would like to
thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); the subcommittee chairman,
the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle); and the ranking member, the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for their dedicated work
in producing this bipartisan conference report. I particularly
congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for his excellent
work on No Child Left Behind and also on this bill.
This bill sets in motion important reforms that will help schools,
parents, and teachers ensure that all students with disabilities
receive a quality education. First, the conference report gives local
schools more flexibility and greater financial control over special
education funding. Although Congress has increased funding for special
education by almost 400 percent in the past 10 years, bringing annual
funding to $11.1 billion, the Federal Government is not yet meeting its
goal of paying 40 percent of special education costs.
I am pleased that this bill puts us on the track to do that.
Taxpayers within my district and throughout the Nation have had to make
up the cost difference. Last year, voters in my district approved a
special milage to raise millions in additional special education
funding. I am very proud of my community for their willingness to
provide extra funding for special education.
This new bill will help such communities as the Federal share of
special education costs continues to increase. Communities will be
allowed more flexibility in the way educational resources are spent by
enabling schools to redirect a share of their own local resources for
other educational purposes.
Next, while everyone involved in a child's education plays an
important role, I would like to particularly commend the parents of
students with disabilities. Throughout my career as an educator and as
a Member of Congress, I have been struck by the dedication and active
participation many of these parents have towards ensuring their
children's success. I truly believe that children, and especially
children with special needs, learn best when they have at least one
parent who is actively involved in their education.
This conference report supports all parents by giving more
opportunity for them to be active participants in their children's
educational experience by expanding parental rights and options. For
example, the conference report enables parents and school districts to
agree to change the student's Individualized Education Plan, known as
the IEP, without holding formal meetings as is required under current
law. The bill also requires parents to select supplemental educational
services for their children when they attend a school that is in need
of improvement because students with disabilities are not making
adequate yearly progress. Both of these are marked improvements over
current law.
Finally, the conference report builds upon the sweeping education
reforms of the No Child Left Behind Act and emphasizes academic results
for children with special needs. For too many years, students with
disabilities were allowed to fall between the cracks as they were left
out of accountability systems.
This bill solves that problem, and I strongly encourage my colleagues
to join me in voting for this bill.
Finally, the conference report builds upon the sweeping education
reforms of the No Child Left Behind Act and emphasizes academic results
for children with special needs. For too many years, students with
disabilities were allowed to fall between the cracks as they were left
out of accountability systems. Now, States and schools are being held
accountable for ensuring that students with disabilities are indeed
learning. The conference report strikes an important balance between
accountability and flexibility by maintaining the No Child Left Behind
requirement that all children be taught by highly qualified teachers,

[[Page H10017]]

while providing some key flexibility for special education teachers who
teach multiple subjects or teach only children with severe mental
impairments.
I strongly support this excellent conference report and urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of it.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a member of the full committee.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Woolsey) for yielding me time and also for the excellent work she
did on this bill. I also want to add my congratulations to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), as well as
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) who did do a good job and
who went to conference and brought back a bill that I believe is going
to get great support in this House.
While the final proposed version of IDEA does not meet 100 percent of
the things that I and my constituents might have wanted if left to our
own drafting devices, it does reach a reasonable compromise; and for
that reason I support it.
Back in April of 2003, I spoke against this bill in the House version
of H.R. 1350. Subsequently, I urged adoption of the bill that was a lot
closer to the Senate version and, in fact, in committee I joined a
number of colleagues on various proposed amendments that would have
moved the House bill in that direction if they had passed. They did
not. Those amendments were close votes and, sadly, they were along
party lines; but I am glad to say that the conference report
essentially incorporates the provisions that we sought in committee
with at least one notable exception and that is the funding.
The heart of IDEA lies in the protection of children with
disabilities and the individualization of their education to account
for those disabilities. Therefore, the conferees were, I believe, wise
to retain language requiring a determination of whether misbehavior was
a manifestation of a child's disability or not. That ensures that no
child is unfairly punished for their disabilities.
In addition to improving the House's version of discipline
provisions, the conference report improves the monitoring and
enforcement aspects to ensure the States actually comply with the law.
It worked a fair compromise on early intervention. It does a much
better job than existing law in addressing transition services for
older students, a task I believe that we are going to have to pick up
in the Workforce Investment Act as we reauthorize it in 2005, and I
understand that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has expressed a
similar desire.
It sets standards for highly qualified teachers and focuses the
resources on their professional development and preparing them for this
specialized field. While it does not satisfy everyone, it does work out
a compromise on these families and students' civil rights. That is a
significant improvement over the House version of this bill.

{time} 1100

So the major issue still remaining, of course, is the funding. We did
take the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. LaTourette) bill and my bill, which
would close a loophole. The Spending Integrity Act would close that
loophole that otherwise would have let districts use up to 20 percent
of additional funding for noneducational purposes, and this is
important to close that, but we are still falling short in that
mandatory full funding is not provided.
We have a commitment to reach that goal by 2011, and I hope that
everybody who is involved in making that commitment will be just as
vigorous in making sure that it becomes an actuality. But given last
night's vote on once again raising the debt ceiling of this Nation
another $800 billion and realizing that the budgets that have been
proposed by this administration continually fall short, there is no
assurance that that is going to be met. We have a lot of work to do to
make sure we move in that direction.
We authorize and appropriate too little this year and presumably in
future years. It is a serious problem that mars an otherwise reasonable
compromise, but, Mr. Speaker, with that reservation in mind, I will
vote for this conference report.
Again, I want to thank all of the constituents that worked on this
bill with us, as well as all the people in the committee and the
leaders in conference.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a member of our committee.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the IDEA conference report.
I want to thank the conferees and our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner), for their hard work throughout this process.
I am also pleased that my report language to make IDEA consistent
with McKinney-Vento provisions was included. This will go a long way in
ensuring that homeless children with special needs get the services
they need to succeed.
In order to create a more cooperative environment for special needs
students, the conference report contains a number of badly needed
reforms, all of which will help parents and teachers trust each other.
When that happens, they can create the most positive environment for
the children.
I would like to address the fears that some of my constituents had
about the discipline provision. Many in the disability community were
very concerned that children could be shut out of the educational
process. We all agree that a child should not be punished for behavior
that is the result of a disability, and the conference report requires
schools to determine if this is the case. If a student is misbehaving
and it is not due to his or her disability, school officials can
discipline that child in the same manner they would any other child.
Schools are given the resources to deal with the most severe case of
weapons possession, illegal drugs or severe bodily harm, but the
legislation specifies that the students cannot be denied services. If a
behavior is attributable to a student's disability, the student will
get the support he needs so that his behavior does not become an
impediment to his own learning or that of other classmates.
Special needs students have the right to the services they need, but
other students have the right to learn in a safe environment.
The IDEA compromise is a common-sense approach to improving special
education. The reforms will shift the focus onto students and their
needs instead of on the legal process. At the same time, it protects
the right of student and their families.
I am proud to support this legislation and urge my colleagues to do
so as well.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Georgia (Ms. Majette), who is leaving the committee and who will be
missed.
Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time and for her leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 1350,
and I also rise to thank my colleagues and the leadership on both sides
of the aisle, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for their
leadership.
I would like to thank the staff of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce and for their hard work, as well as my staff, especially Dr.
Michael Goodman, Ms. Michaeleen Crowell and Mr. Will Thomas.
It has been my honor and privilege to serve on the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, and I am very pleased to support this
conference report, the result of more than 2 years of hard work and one
of the first items that came up on the agenda when I became a Member of
this august body.
I would also like to thank the hardworking Members of the Georgia
delegation from the committee, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Burns and
Mr. Isakson, who I know will continue to serve the interests of the
great State of Georgia and children across the country.
I know that each and every one of us has been working as hard as we
can in this endeavor, and it has been my honor and privilege to serve.
I will miss all of my colleagues, and I urge all of

[[Page H10018]]

them to continue to move towards full funding of IDEA.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining on both
sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Woolsey) has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a member of our committee, the
coach.
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to have a chance to speak
in support of H.R. 1350. I am pleased that this bill has evolved into
what appears to be a very bipartisan bill. I would like to thank the
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. Castle), chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform, and
Members on the other side for all of their work.
There are three or four points that I would like to make that I think
are particularly noteworthy regarding this bill.
First of all, it provides clear academic achievement goals for
children with disabilities. In the past, once a child was identified as
having a learning disability, oftentimes they were assigned to
mediocrity, and there was no attempt to improve that child's learning
situation.
Secondly, and maybe most importantly, it provides early intervention
strategies to prevent children from being identified or misidentified
as children with disabilities. If we get to children early enough with
remedial help, many times children who would be labeled as disabled are
simply not labeled as such and are able to be mainstreamed. Fifteen
percent of the funds for IDEA are being used for this early
intervention strategy, and I think that is critical.
Also, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) pointed out earlier,
and I think this also is a very important point, the current
legislation reduces paperwork related to IDEA which is particularly
burdensome to teachers.
Also, this legislation clarifies what the term ``highly qualified
teacher'' means. So often in Federal legislation we throw out a term
and we do not specify what it is, and here we have a clear
identification of what the term means.
Then, of course, lastly, I would mention the issue that comes up all
the time when we talk to educators. That is, simply a lack of funding.
People have locked onto the idea that 40 percent of the funding for
IDEA was supposed to be Federal. It was authorized, and, of course, we
have fallen far short of that. In 1995, IDEA was funded 6 percent
federally. Today, it is 20 percent. So that is a remarkable increase,
and we are on a 6-year path to meet the 40 percent funding.
So I urge support. It is a good bill, and I would like to thank those
involved with authoring the bill.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
San Diego, California (Mrs. Davis) and want to recognize her as one of
the most informed members of our subcommittee.
(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues
for all their fine work on this reauthorization, and I rise in support
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 because I
believe it will clarify and improve the support for students who have
special needs.
Many of us, as my colleagues heard, are disappointed that this
reauthorization does not respond to the congressional promises of 1975
by making funding for IDEA an entitlement. While the authorization
language suggests that full funding will be met by 2011, the Labor-HHS
bill, the appropriations bill for 2005, does not match this commitment.
So we have to ask ourselves, will starting with a baby step get us to
the finish line on time?
There were a number of aspects of the Senate bill that were
incorporated in this, and I certainly support those, but I do want to
point out that it does not include so many improvements which we had
offered in the House bill that professionals who worked with special
education students offered would clarify and streamline services, and I
remain committed to providing the flexibility and common sense while
assuring that a student's reasonable needs are met in a timely fashion
with full participation and information for parents.
I was particularly concerned that responsibility for States to
provide related services such as mental health for special needs
children be clear. IDEA part B funds should be used for educational
purposes, not to supplant State responsibilities. This is enormously
important to my district and to California, and I appreciate the
efforts of the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) to work with me
on this issue and of the Senate Members to provide the language.
I believe that this is, on balance, a bill with significant
improvements, and I am certainly committed to monitoring its
implementation so that we can continue to look for ways to see that our
neediest students are served with dignity and meet with success.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), a member of our committee.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time, and I
commend him for his excellent work on getting things done on this vital
issue.
Being one of the last speakers, I know a lot of things have been said
about this bill. I do not want to take too much time to reiterate some
of them, but let me tell my colleagues what this bipartisan agreement
does.
It improves communications between parents and appropriate school
personnel related to the development of the individual education plan.
It reduces the number of reevaluations required for students whose
disability does not change as they age and progress through school.
They ensure that the Federal dollars for IDEA flow to the local
districts and cannot be diverted for other State purposes. Very
important.
Continues to send the majority of Federal funds to local school
districts where children are served.
It protects parents from being forced to medicate their children.
The NCLB ensures, of course, that all children will be taught by
highly qualified teachers. All children need to be taught by highly
qualified teachers, and special education teachers are particularly in
demand. To meet that goal, the NCLB is providing dramatic funding
increases for teacher quality grants, and funds can be used for
training and professional development specifically for special
education teachers.
Two other things about this bill today that have not been said. The
first is that it takes a major issue off the front burner as this
committee works to help our kids in the next Congress so that we can
focus on higher education and Head Start. This issue now is behind us,
and to do it in the waning hour is a terrific accomplishment not only
for the committee but for every Member, particularly my chairman.
For the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), my chairman, this is
always a very tough weekend for him. It is the weekend that the
Wolverines beat the Ohio State Buckeyes, and he is usually in a very
foul mood about four o'clock tomorrow afternoon. He will be very happy
today with this passage, and I am sorry that he will be so unhappy
tomorrow with the score put up on the board.
God bless the Wolverines.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the full committee.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time, and I am
pleased that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the other
conferees have succeeded in providing legislation that will help ensure
the basic rights of children with disabilities to see that they get a
free, excellent and appropriate education.
I still believe that we must work toward mandatory funding of IDEA.
It appears this year in our appropriations we are going to slip farther
away from our goal of providing 40 percent of the additional cost of
educating these students. We need to work to provide a full Federal
share of funding to educate these students.

[[Page H10019]]

I am pleased that the conference report removed a cap on the number
of students that schools may identify as having a disability. The
Federal Government should fulfill its obligation to provide for the
education of every disabled child, not according to some arbitrary
ceiling.
We all recognize the need for teachers to maintain discipline, but I
am pleased to see that this legislation will continue to regard as
relevant whether a child's disability is the cause of specific behavior
before the discipline is brought to the child.
I strongly support the added protections for children who, through no
fault of their own, move and change schools frequently so that their
IEPs will transfer with them and be based and be used at the new school
so that the parent and the new school can then work to develop a new
IEP as appropriate.
I am pleased to see that the bill includes a provision related to
educational media services which ensures visually impaired and print-
disabled students will continue to have access to recorded education
materials. IDEA funding received by organizations like Recording for
the Blind and Dyslexic are critical to providing textbooks and reading
material to students around the Nation.
I hope that in the future we will be able to work in a bipartisan
manner on properly funding this legislation, but, while we work on
that, I think this authorization bill provides a useful basis.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the dean of the Ohio delegation and
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education and Related Agencies, my good friend.
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time,
and I certainly want to compliment the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman
Boehner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for producing a
good bill.
In our committee, we hear a lot of testimony from parents and
educators about the importance of this legislation, of these programs,
and we have done everything possible to increase the funding each year
to ensure that every student that has a need gets a quality experience
in the IDEA program.
One of the things that this bill strengthens is those features along
with giving greater choice and control to parents and local school
districts, and, therefore, it will ensure that we do meet the goal of
recognizing the need of every student and respond to the educators and
parents that testify in my committee about the importance of this to
their child and to their school.
I compliment them again, all the Members that participated in the
conference committee, for producing a good bill that we can all take
pride in.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has
4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey)
has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, could you tell me how much time we have
remaining on this side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis), the voice of our subcommittee, who represents
Illinois.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend, first of all,
the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from
California (Ranking Member George Miller), as well as the gentleman
from Delaware (Chairman Castle) and the gentlewoman from California
(Ranking Member Woolsey), for the tremendous leadership they have
displayed in bringing us to this point.
There are many good features of this legislation, and one that I am
most pleased with is the fact that the conference report deals
seriously with the whole question of the fact that in many places there
are disproportionate numbers of certain population groups who are being
placed in special education, especially African American males. The
conference report deals in a serious way with the issue. It allows and
suggests that school districts deal with it and permits them to use
some of the resources. This is a hotbed issue in many communities
throughout the country.
I want to commend the conferees for dealing seriously with it. It is
a good piece of legislation. It is a good bill, and I am proud to
support it.

{time} 1115

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield \1/2\ minute to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield \1/2\ minute to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Langevin) is recognized for 1 minute.
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for yielding
me this time, and I rise today in strong support of conference report
H.R. 1350.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to commend most especially
the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner),
and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller), as well as the members of the committee, for their leadership
in bringing us to where we are today. Time and time again both the
ranking member and the chairman have shown an extraordinary commitment
to people with disabilities, most especially children with
disabilities; and it is because of their strong leadership and the hard
work of the committee that we are where we are today.
And how appropriate it is that on the 30th anniversary of the passage
of the Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act that we are
where we started in the sense that it was passed with bipartisan
support when it was first passed, and we are again here today
celebrating the 30th anniversary with bipartisan support once again.
Children with disabilities will benefit a great deal from the
reauthorization of this act. They are faced with so many disadvantages
in so many ways, but IDEA truly helps level the playing field for them
and helps them truly reach for their goals and dreams. My
congratulations to all those who worked so hard to bring us to this
point.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, over the last 4 years that I have had the pleasure of
chairing the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I think we have
come an awful long way in terms of transforming the Federal role in
education and trying to help all of our kids in our country get a
chance at a good education. And I think we have been fortunate to be
able to do almost all of this in a broad bipartisan way.
The bill before us today is the result of a lot of commitment and
hard work on the part of Members on both sides of the aisle. And while
we have heard an awful lot of talk about IDEA and how we are
transforming it, I think there is one important point that continues to
be lost on many people. When we passed No Child Left Behind, we created
a new paradigm for how we are going to judge the education of our
special-needs students.
By disaggregating data in four subgroups in each school, including
those with special needs, what we have done is we have asked schools to
focus on results for our special education students as opposed to being
burdened with a lot of paperwork, dotting I's, crossing T's and
worrying about lawsuits. Now schools are judged on the results that
they produce for these children.
There was some resistance to this, of course, because we still have
people in America who think that students with special needs cannot
learn. But that is nonsense, and I think all of us understand that have
worked on this that these children can learn, and should learn, and
society and our country owe them an opportunity to learn.
So schools now are having to produce results. And as a result the
Individuals With Disabilities and Education Act itself had to be more
integrated with No Child Left Behind, which we have

[[Page H10020]]

done in this conference report; and we needed to take the shackles off
of our local school administrators and teachers so that they could
focus on producing results as opposed to dotting more I's and crossing
more T's and having the burdens of paperwork and lawsuits coming at
them.
So I am proud of the bill that we have before us. It is not exactly
what I would do, certainly not exactly what the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) or the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Woolsey) would want. But that brings me to my last point.
The Congress, over the last few years, the last several sessions, let
us call it 5 years, 6 years, 8 years, has been gripped in an awful lot
of partisan strife. And what we have shown on No Child Left Behind,
what we have shown on the Child Nutrition Act reauthorization we had
earlier this year, the Vote Rehabilitation Act, and again today on IDEA
reauthorization is that we can in fact work together.
I really do want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from California
(Mr. George Miller), the ranking Democrat. He referred to us last night
in the Committee on Rules as the political odd couple, and we are. I
would describe myself as a mainstream conservative Republican, the
gentleman from California I would describe as a liberal Democrat.
Neither one of us is shy about our opinions. But there is an issue here
that I think can help not only the progress in our own committee but
the progress in this House, and that is to learn to trust one another.
The gentleman from California and I began this process, this journey,
4 years ago by developing a trust with each other. And while we may
disagree on many issues every day, he and I both know that we can trust
each other and trust our word. I went to the gentleman from California
and I went to Senators Ted Kennedy and Judd Gregg back in September.
And as highly partisan as things were leading up to the election, I
looked them in this eye and said we can do this. We can do this if we
trust each other, all work together, and there is a small opening that
we may actually be able to finish this bill this year.
The reason we are here today is because we did in fact trust one
another. We worked together. And I think once again we have produced an
example of what can occur in this House each and every day if we are
willing to put our partisan differences aside once in a while and think
about why we are here and the trust and responsibilities that the
American people have given us in order to do their work and not ours.
I thank all my colleagues.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise today in support of the
conference report on H.R. 1350, the Improving Education Results for
Children with Disabilities Act. While the bill before us is not
perfect, it is a vast improvement from the bill the House passed over
19 months ago and represents a bipartisan effort to improve the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
There does remain a glaring problem that has yet to be resolved with
respect to IDEA. Congress has yet to fully fund IDEA at the 40-percent
level that was the original promise Congress made almost 30 years ago.
Without this funding, we will continue to overburden local school
districts with costs of Federal mandates relative to special education
programs. This is unfair.
Too often we fund education on the cheap--shortchanging title I, the
No Child Left Behind Act, Pell Grants . . . the list goes on and on. We
need to set an example by staying true to our word. Until Congress
agrees to fulfill its 30-year promise to fund IDEA, we really can't say
we're leaving no child behind.
In closing, I reiterate my support for the bill before us and remain
hopeful that in the 109th Congress we will finally fully fund this
important act.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference
report for the Individual on the reauthorization of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA.
When the IDEA reauthorization passed the House in April, I voted
against this bill because I was concerned that the House bill did not
provide the assistance students with disabilities deserve and I had
real concerns with the way the House bill sought to discipline disabled
students.
Thankfully, the Conference Committee worked in a bipartisan manner
and worked for what was best for our children with disabilities. I am
pleased that this bill seeks to finally meet out funding goals by
increasing authorization levels for grants to States. These new levels
are set to fulfill our commitment of providing 40 percent of the
national average of educating a child.
Even though I am pleased with a lot of what is contained in this
conference report, I still have concerns about some of the provisions.
I don't want this bill to be the next ``No Child Left Behind Act''--a
bill that has great promise, but a bill that Congress and the President
fails to fully fund. The gains in this reauthorization will be for
naught unless this Congress backs up this bill with the appropriations
necessary.
While changes have been made to the original House bill, we need to
make sure that the Department of Education does the enforcement
necessary to make sure students are not punished for behavior that is
caused by their disability. I think we should all agree that under no
circumstance should a child be punished for the behavior that has been
caused by their disability.
This bill goes a long way to ensuring all students the education
opportunities they deserve. I expect that this conference report will
pass by a wide margin. I ask my colleagues to remember your vote today
when it comes to actually appropriating funding for this bill. Today we
make a commitment to disabled students across this country, let's not
forget them during future votes on educational funding.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my colleagues
on the bipartisan agreement on special education and in support of the
conference report on H.R. 1350. This agreement is an example of what we
can achieve when we place the interests of our Nation's children,
parents, and teachers before politics. In particular, I want to note
the leadership of Chairman Boehner and Ranking Member Miller on this
issue. On this bill, and several other pieces of legislation this year,
they have been devoted advocates for children with disabilities.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--known as IDEA--is a
civil rights law. It establishes that every child has a right to a free
and appropriate public education. As a nation, we have long held sacred
the belief that education is a path to success, a way for any
individual to rise above challenging circumstances and achieve his or
her dreams. I can personally attest to the fact that this rings true in
a special way for children with disabilities. Education is essential to
leveling the playing field for children who face obstacles in life at
an early age. By recognizing that they have contributions to make and
dreams to fulfill, IDEA offers these children the hope and promise that
they can become fully productive members of society.
For these reasons, it has been my top priority to preserve the
philosophy behind IDEA and ensure that teachers and administrators are
given the appropriate resources to carry out this law. I did not
support the bill that came before the House of Representatives in the
spring of 2003, because it failed to preserve safeguards for students
with disabilities in instances where behavior problems may be a
manifestation of their disability. I also felt strongly that clear
standards for special education teachers must be established and
enforced; as they have been for other teachers under No Child Left
Behind. I felt that we could do better for our children with
disabilities.
I am delighted that negotiations between the House and the Senate
have resulted in a final product that does better. The conference
report that we are voting on today represents compromises by both
Republicans and Democrats; as such, it represents a clear willingness
to work together toward a future where all children receive a high
quality education in our Nation's public schools. This legislation
maintains the protections for children with disabilities in the
discipline process, reaffirms their right to due process, and
recognizes that highly trained professionals make all the difference in
providing an appropriate education for any student.
In the upcoming Congress, we will celebrate the 30th anniversary of
IDEA. How appropriate that a law which began as a bipartisan agreement
to commit federal resources to the educational needs of students with
disabilities is being reauthorized today in such an atmosphere of
cooperation between both parties.
We have made much progress in these last 30 years--the majority of
children with disabilities are now being educated in their neighborhood
schools in regular classrooms with their nondisabled peers, and college
enrollments among individuals receiving IDEA services have sharply
increased. We must continue to work to level the playing field for all
students. It is my sincere hope that this collaborative spirit and
commitment to children with disabilities is reflected in the
appropriations process and future legislation that offers the promise
of the American dream to our more vulnerable citizens. Let us take this
reauthorization process to pave the way to ensuring the full funding of
IDEA, giving schools and teachers the

[[Page H10021]]

resources they need to meet the goals for each and every child in their
classrooms.
I urge all my colleagues to support the conference report to H.R.
1350.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this
conference report to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act.
Let me at the outset thank Chairman Boehner, Subcommittee Chairman
Castle, our ranking member, Mr. Miller, and our subcommittee ranking
member, Ms. Woolsey--along with our Senate colleagues, the rest of the
conferees and their staff--for all of the hard work and long hours that
went into producing this agreement today.
This is not a perfect bill. But it is a significant improvement over
the House IDEA bill that I and most of my colleagues on this side of
the aisle felt compelled to oppose in April 2003, and I believe it
represents the best outcome that could reasonably have been expected in
our current legislative environment.
In particular, I am pleased to see that this legislation restores
some of the protections afforded to children with disabilities that the
House-passed IDEA bill would have taken away. Moreover, I fully support
the stepped-up monitoring and enforcement authority granted the
Secretary of Education under this bill. And I believe the compromise
reached with respect to certifying highly qualified special education
teachers is a good one.
However, while the conference report adopts the Senate's 7-year
authorization path to full funding, I remain concerned that the FY 2005
Omnibus Appropriations bill we will soon be considering will once again
fall short of the $12.3 billion authorized to fund this critical law.
This is the 30th year in a row we have failed to meet our IDEA funding
obligations--a record I consider to be an enduring disgrace. For that
reason, I believe more than ever that we should make IDEA funding
mandatory and place it on a near term, certain path to completion.
Toward that end, the very first bill I introduced in the 108th
Congress--the Keep Our Promises To America's Children and Teachers
(PACT) Act--would have fully funded IDEA as well as the No Child Left
Behind law. In the 109th Congress, I intend to make the Keep Our PACT
Act the very first bill I introduce again, and I invite all of my
colleagues to join with me in that effort.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the Reauthorization of Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act conference report is an improvement on the
current program. I have been committed to fulfilling the Federal
Government's promise of funding at least 40 percent of the IDEA program
like it was intended during its enactment in 1975. Even though this
bill does not immediately do that, it will by 2011. I am glad Congress
was able to work in a bipartisan manner for our children's future. I
hope we all keep faith with the spirit of this legislation.
This legislation contains new opportunities to make the program work
better for students, parents, teachers, and schools. It provides
opportunities for parents and schools to address concerns before the
need for due process hearings and fosters parental involvement in an
Individual Education Plan. The conference report also provides quality
service and instruction at all stages, from early childhood through
high school.
Now it is up to the future Congresses to live up to the promises of
this legislation and provide the funding to fulfill these programs.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I also want to point
out one oversight. A sentence in the Statement of Managers' language of
the Conference Report that provided the explanation for the attorneys'
fees language was inadvertently left out. By adding at Note 231
sections detailing the limited circumstances in which LEAs and SEAs can
recover attorneys' fees, specifically Sections 615(i)(3)(B)(i)(II) and
(III), the Conferees intend to codify the standards set forth in
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978). According to
Christiansburg, attorneys' fees may only be awarded to defendants in
civil rights cases where the plaintiff's claims are frivolous, without
foundation or brought in bad faith.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support H.R.
1350, the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act. IDEA is a fundamental civil rights program that provides
funds to states for the education of children with disabilities. As the
world of education faces the challenge of leaving no child behind, this
program takes on extra importance. Children with disabilities should
have as much opportunity as any child to reach and even exceed their
potential. However, since 1975, Congress has placed yet another
unfunded mandate on local communities. Since IDEA became law, Congress
has authorized spending of up to forty percent of the cost of the
average per pupil expenditure on special education. We in Congress have
failed to meet that commitment time after time. Fiscal Year 2004 meets
18.6 percent of that commitment, not even half of what we have
promised. And this represents the highest percentage since the law was
passed.
As a former teacher, member of a school board, State Senator, and now
Congressman, I have heard for years from numerous local officials,
school administrators, and teachers about the burden IDEA has placed on
their budgets and their classrooms. Our communities are dedicated to
meeting their moral obligation to provide an appropriate public
education for children with disabilities, but they must face the
difficult decisions of cutting nonessential school programs like arts,
music, and sports or raising property taxes. They would not be faced
with these decisions if the federal government lived up to its promises
and obligations.
At the beginning of this Congress, I introduced legislation, H.R.
823, to fully fund IDEA now because we have abdicated our
responsibility to fund this mandate for three decades. While I feel
strongly that we should reach full funding sooner rather than later, I
am pleased that H.R. 1350 provides a timeline towards full funding by
2011. However, I worry that the omnibus appropriations bill that we
will be voting on later today will fail to meet the figure authorized
for Fiscal year 2005 in the legislation we now debate. I hope the
positive legislating that we partake in now will be remembered later
today and in the coming years when IDEA funding is debated.
While we may focus on the financial impact of this legislation, it
has many important educational and moral implications. It aims to
improve the collaboration between parents, administrators, educators,
and students to provide the best possible education. This legislation
will help schools better identify students with disabilities and get
help to them sooner. It reduces unnecessary paperwork for teachers so
they can spend more time teaching and aims to cut down on litigation
between parents and school districts with early, effective dispute
resolution. The conferees wisely removed controversial discipline
provisions from the House bill while still achieving the goal of
improved and streamlined disciplinary procedures.
Yet, despite all the good provisions in this bill, the fact remains
that Congress and the President have a moral obligation to live up to
what has been promised and neglected for so long. Yet, once again,
Congress and the President are neglecting their moral obligation to
live up to their words.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope this bill achieves its goal of
improving special education and truly leaving no child behind. However,
I am cynical that the goal of full funding will be reached in the
timeline provided by this bill. You can be assured that IDEA will be on
my mind later today when voting on the omnibus appropriations bill for
Fiscal Year 2005 and that I will continue to be a strong advocate and a
active voice for children with disabilities.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the final version of
this bill to renew the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA).
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. This
legislation includes a number of positive provisions that will help
students with disabilities and the educators who serve them.
Specifically, I am pleased that this final version of the bill will
enhance the focus on professional development, early intervention, and
paperwork reduction.
I commend my colleagues for working in a bipartisan manner, an all-
too-infrequent-occurrence in this Congress, to achieve a consensus
bill. No legislation is perfect, and this bill is no exception.
Specifically, this falls short on making good on the promise of the
Federal Government to fund 40 percent of the costs of educating
disabled children. I will continue to make this effort a high priority
in the next Congress.
Last year, I voted against the House version of H.R. 1350 because of
its failure to improve current law regarding the education of disabled
children. I again commend the conferees on this legislation for
producing a final product worthy of support.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page H10022]]

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 397,
nays 3, not voting 32, as follows:

[Roll No. 537]

YEAS--397

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
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)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
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
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
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
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

NAYS--3

Flake
Garrett (NJ)
Paul

NOT VOTING--32

Berry
Cannon
Collins
Conyers
Cunningham
Dunn
Feeney
Frost
Gephardt
Hoeffel
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Kleczka
Lipinski
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
Meehan
Millender-McDonald
Murtha
Musgrave
Norwood
Quinn
Rahall
Rothman
Sanders
Saxton
Toomey
Velazquez
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1149

So the conference report 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. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was not
present for rollcall vote 537, on agreeing to the Conference Report for
H.R. 1350 to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, on November 19, 2004, I
missed rollcall vote No. 537 due to surgery. Rollcall vote 537 was on
final passage of the conference report on H.R. 1350, the Individuals
with Disabilities Education (IDEA) Improvement Act. Had I been present
I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote 537.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 537, adoption of the Conference
Report on H.R. 1350, to authorize the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, I was not present. I was attending the funeral of a
fallen soldier. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

____________________