[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 134 (Friday, November 19, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11653-S11660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   IMPROVING EDUCATION RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 
                        2004--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 1350, the IDEA bill, that the 
conference report be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon 
the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are now considering 
the conference report on the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Improvement Act. This bill reauthorizes IDEA, our Federal law governing 
special education services for children with disabilities.
  As we close in on the 30-year anniversary of the Federal role in 
special education, I think it important to highlight where we were, 
where we are and

[[Page S11654]]

where we are going to ensure that children with disabilities are 
provided a high-quality education that prepares them for life outside 
the classroom.
  Almost 30 years ago, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act 
opened schoolhouse doors for children with disabilities. Prior to that 
landmark legislation, most students with disabilities did not attend 
public school. Indeed, many States had laws excluding certain children 
with disabilities from their schools, including the blind, deaf, 
emotionally disturbed or children with mental retardation.
  Today, special education programs have been established in virtually 
every school district in America. The overwhelming majority of children 
with disabilities--about 96 percent--learn in regular schools with 
other children, not in state institutions or separate facilities. In 
fact, half of students with disabilities spend 80 percent or more of 
their day in regular classrooms. Those students are increasingly 
gaining access to higher education, too. College enrollment rates among 
students with disabilities have more than tripled.
  Clearly, we have come a long way from the time when our students with 
disabilities were excluded from public schools. Still, we know that 
there is much to be done to ensure that children with disabilities get 
a better education and that we make it easier for schools to provide 
that education to these students.
  With this understanding, we have worked for more than two years to 
improve IDEA, keeping the needs of children with disabilities, whom we 
have a duty to serve, foremost in our thoughts, while balancing 
concerns of equity and fairness.
  With significant input from parents, educators and disability groups, 
as well as the recommendations of the President's Commission on 
Excellence in Special Education, both the House and Senate passed bills 
that would have done much to improve IDEA and to ensure that children 
with disabilities receive a quality results-based education. But 
important differences remained.
  After weeks of sometimes intense negotiations, our conference 
committee ironed out those differences and reached agreement yesterday 
on a final report, bringing us one step closer to enacting important 
reforms that will benefit the more than 6.5 million children served by 
IDEA, as well as their parents, teachers, and schools.
  The conference report before us focuses on improved academic results 
for children with disabilities; frees special education teachers from 
bureaucratic requirements, and offers them important flexibility; helps 
parents and schools work together better; creates the safest possible 
classroom environment for all students; and strikes an appropriate 
balance between protecting the educational rights of children with 
disabilities, while making IDEA less litigious.
  This report does five very important things.
  First, it reinforces the most basic goal under IDEA: making sure 
students are learning. The report shifts focus away from compliance 
with burdensome and confusing rules, and places a renewed emphasis on 
our most fundamental concern making sure that children with 
disabilities receive a quality education.
  Specifically, the report: ensures States focus on improved academic 
results and functional performance for students with disabilities; 
clarifies methods for measuring student progress by replacing arbitrary 
benchmarks and short-term objectives with academic assessments under 
NCLB, including alternate assessments; provides for a national study of 
valid and reliable alternate assessment systems and how alternate 
assessments align with State content standards; and allows for the 
development of new approaches to determine whether students have 
specific learning disabilities by clarifying that schools are not 
limited to using the IQ-achievement discrepancy model that relies on a 
``wait to fail'' approach.
  Second, it enables teachers to better serve their students by: 
clarifying what it means to be a highly qualified special education 
teacher, and offering flexibility to new teachers who teach multiple 
subjects, and to teachers teaching children with severe cognitive 
disabilities; making it easier for special education teachers to both 
enter into and remain in the field of special education; focusing more 
resources and attention on professional development for both general 
and special education teachers serving children with disabilities; 
creating a paperwork reduction demonstration program to increase the 
time teachers spend on instruction and decrease the time they spend 
complying with cumbersome, bureaucratic requirements; and eliminating 
paperwork by eliminating short-term objectives for most students and 
reducing the number of times per year that procedural safeguards 
notices must be sent to parents.
  Third, it facilitates a better relationship between parents and 
schools, and improves parental involvement and options by: providing 
parents with increased information and access to resources to support 
them though dispute resolution and due process; encouraging early 
mediation and prompt resolution of disputes; providing new 
opportunities for parents and schools to meet in order to resolve 
problems before going to a due process hearing; allowing parents and 
schools to agree to make changes to an IEP during the year without 
having to convene a formal IEP meeting; and increasing parental 
involvement in IEP meetings by allowing use of teleconferencing, video 
conferencing, and other means of participation.
  Fourth, this report ensures safety and improves discipline for all 
children by: making the discipline provisions in current law easier to 
understand and implement and more fair and equitable; ensuring that 
positive behavioral interventions and supports remain an option on the 
IEP; and empowering schools to discipline children whose behavior is 
not the direct result of their disability.
  Fifth, it provides fiscal relief to school districts by: including a 
7-year discretionary glide path to full funding through the 
discretionary appropriations process; providing new resources to assist 
school districts in delivering a free appropriate public education to 
high-need children who may require expensive services; simplifying 
funding for grants, making future years' funding levels and amounts 
more predictable; and giving districts flexibility to shift some local 
funding for certain programs to other ESEA priorities as federal IDEA 
funding increases.
  I thank all members of the conference committee and their dedicated 
staff for their hard work on this report and their cooperative spirit 
in working toward this day. It is certainly an endeavor of which we can 
all be proud.
  I can think of no finer way to bring my tenure as chairman of the 
Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to a close than 
by completing action on this legislation.
  In particular, I would like to thank: Senator Kennedy, and his staff, 
Connie Garner and Roberto Rodriguez; Senator Bingaman and his staff, 
Michael Yudin; Senator Sessions and his staff, John Little and Prim 
Formby; Senator Alexander and his staff, Kristin Bannerman; Congressman 
Boehner, and his staff, David Cleary, Melanie Looney, Krisann Pearce, 
and Sally Lovejoy; Congressman Miller, and his staff, Alex Nock; 
Legislative Counsel attorneys Mark Foster and Mark Synnes, without 
whose assistance we could not have conferenced this bill in 6 weeks; 
and Department of Education staff Karen Quarles, Christy Wolfe, Suzanne 
Sheridan, Paul Riddle, Carol Cichowski, Bill Knudsen and Michele Rovins 
for their superb technical assistance.
  Finally, I thank members of my own staff. Both Annie White and Denzel 
McGuire spent countless hours shepherding this legislation, and meeting 
with parents, educators, school groups and disability groups, while 
working to improve policy and reach compromises on the many difficult 
issues herein. Without their tireless efforts and passion for helping 
students with disabilities to achieve their fullest potential, we most 
certainly would not be here today. I would also like to recognize the 
efforts of Bill Lucia, Courtney Brown, and Kelly Scott.
  I am hopeful that we will quickly approve this conference report, so 
that the President can sign this important legislation into law.


                            Attorney's Fees

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to clarify

[[Page S11655]]

an oversight with Senator Gregg that is important for the record.
  Senator Gregg, a sentence in the Statement of Managers' language of 
the conference report that provided the explanation for the attorney's 
fees language was inadvertently left out. By adding at Note 231 
sections detailing the limited circumstances in which local educational 
agencies and State educational agencies can recover attorney's 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, attorney's 
fees may only be awarded to defendants in civil rights cases where the 
plaintiffs claims are frivolous, without foundation or brought in bad 
faith. Is that your understanding as well?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is correct 
and that is my understanding as well.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today the Senate will pass H.R. 1350, the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 
legislation which has my support.
  This important legislation, which reauthorizes the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act, is a compromise that protects the civil 
rights of children with disabilities, while ensuring that teachers, 
principals, and administrators have the essential tools to improve 
these children's academic or functional skills and knowledge. It is the 
culmination of months of hard-fought bipartisan and bicameral 
negotiations in an attempt to strike the balance between these 
competing interests and overall. This bill improves upon current law.
  As an original cosponsor of the Senate version of this bill and the 
sponsor of an earlier bill on personnel preparation and development, I 
am pleased that most of the provisions I authored on the recruitment, 
preparation, support, and professional development of special education 
teachers, general education teachers, principals, administrators, 
related services personnel, and others working with children with 
disabilities have been included in the final version of the bill before 
us today. First, the bill requires states, through the renamed State 
Personnel Development Grants, to target 100% of the funding under this 
competitive grant for professional development activities--an increase 
of 25% from current law. These grants will help achieve our goal of 
ensuring that there is a highly qualified teacher in every classroom in 
America. Furthermore, the bill sends funding to states via a formula 
once funding reaches $100 million, ensuring that teachers in every 
state benefit. Additionally, as a condition of receiving a State 
Personnel Development Grant, a state educational agency must submit a 
comprehensive plan that identifies and addresses the state's personnel 
needs. This and other new requirements will ensure that the state 
educational agency has the necessary expertise and strategies in place 
to boost the skills of teachers and in turn improve the education of 
children with disabilities.
  Retaining special education teachers new to the profession is a 
particular area of concern in our States. According to data from the 
National Clearinghouse for Professions in Special Education, the 
turnover rate of special education teachers in their first 3 years of 
teaching is exceptionally high--much higher than the comparative rate 
for general education teachers. Annual attrition rates for special 
education teachers are 6 percent for those who leave the field entirely 
and an additional 7.4 percent who transfer to general education. High 
turnover is costly both for school districts, which must repeatedly 
fill the same positions, and for students, who lose the advantage of 
being taught by experienced special education teachers. As such, I am 
pleased that the bill establishes a new grant program for institutions 
of higher education to help beginning special educators. Funding is 
authorized for incorporating an extended, such as a fifth year, 
clinical learning opportunity to existing special education preparation 
programs or for the creation or support of teacher-faculty 
partnerships, such as professional development schools, that provide 
high-quality and ongoing mentoring to new special education teachers so 
that they will remain in the field.
  The legislation also enhances existing IDEA personnel preparation 
programs to ensure that all teachers and other personnel have the 
skills, knowledge, and leadership training to improve results for 
students with disabilities, including working collaboratively in 
regular classroom settings, addressing the needs of limited English 
proficient students with disabilities, preventing the misidentification 
of children with disabilities, working with parents to improve the 
education of their children, and utilizing positive behavioral 
interventions to address the conduct of children with disabilities that 
impedes their learning or that of others in the classroom.
  There are other highlights as well. This bill aligns the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act with the No Child Left Behind Act by 
requiring states to ensure that all special education teachers are 
highly qualified by the 2005-2006 school year, including allowing 
teachers to meet the standard through the high objective uniform state 
standard of evaluation or HOUSSE; requires the uniformity of electronic 
versions of instructional materials and provides for the establishment 
of a National Instructional Materials Access Center to give schools a 
one-stop shop for textbooks and other educational materials for 
students who are blind or possess another disability which necessitates 
alternate formats; expands the current definition of related services 
to include school nurse services; strengthens early intervention and 
preschool programs for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with 
disabilities, including permitting states to create a system that gives 
parents the choice to have their child continue early intervention 
services until the age of five; establishes a new program aimed at 
developing and enhancing behavioral supports in schools while improving 
the quality of interim educational settings; enhances planning and 
transition services for children with disabilities; advances the 
monitoring and enforcement of IDEA; and improves services for homeless 
and foster care students with disabilities.
  Teachers, principals, and administrators are also given flexibility 
to more effectively provide an education to all students. There are new 
approaches to resolving complaints to head off litigation and to 
reducing paperwork, along with a clearer framework for the discipline 
of children with disabilities.
  I thank my colleagues, Senators Kennedy and Gregg, and their staffs, 
for their excellent work on this important bipartisan legislation. One 
staff member, Connie Garner, deserves special recognition for her 
tireless efforts to make this law work for students, parents, teachers, 
and schools.
  This is significant legislation for the people of Rhode Island and 
across the nation, and I am pleased to support it. I will also continue 
to press for full funding of IDEA to provide 40% of the excess cost of 
providing special education services--a promise Congress made in 1975 
when IDEA was first enacted. Funding for IDEA services has only 
recently reached nearly 19 percent--just under halfway to fulfilling 
that promise. While we have taken a number of positive steps with this 
bill to ensure a high quality, free appropriate public education for 
children with disabilities, we must bridge the funding gap so these 
children receive the educational assistance and support they need and 
deserve.


                                teachers

  Mr. President, I am pleased that our bill now requires special 
education teachers to be fully certified by the state. Prohibiting 
temporary or emergency certification is an important step forward and 
one that brings IDEA in line with NCLB. It is important that teachers 
who are fully certified in special education have the unique knowledge 
and skills needed to effectively teach students with disabilities. 
Parents should know that the label of ``fully certified special 
education teacher'' means that the teacher has demonstrated both 
knowledge and skill in special education practices. Senator Kennedy, is 
it your understanding that full state certification in special 
education includes a demonstration of such knowledge and skill?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, Senator Reed, that is my understanding. Well-
prepared special education teachers are

[[Page S11656]]

critical to our goal of providing a quality education for all children 
with disabilities. Such teachers need to be prepared with the skills 
and expertise needed to teach children with disabilities. Those skills 
may include the teaching of a standards-based reform curriculum to 
students with disabilities, helping students access technology-based 
learning tools, or adapting materials and learning environments for 
students with disabilities.
  In addition to traditional special education preparation programs at 
our colleges and universities, some alternative routes to certification 
offer important and useful options to addressing the special education 
teacher shortage--especially in rural and urban school systems with 
hard-to-staff schools. Some of our alternative routes have produced 
special education teachers with great skill and knowledge.
  Mr. REED. I thank Senator Kennedy for that clarification.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I support a bipartisan, bicameral 
reauthorization of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act, 
IDEA. I want to start by thanking my fellow conferees and their staff 
for all of their hard work in putting together the bipartisan, 
bicameral legislation we are considering today. While we may still have 
some disagreements about the substance of the bill, getting to this 
point in a bipartisan way is no small achievement, and I know we are 
all better for it.
  Nothing pleases me more than to move forward with a reauthorization 
that the education, the disability, and the parent and student 
community have been eagerly waiting for: a bill that will ensure that 
students with disabilities get the services they are entitled to while 
providing school systems with a greater degree of flexibility in 
implementing the law.
  The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 
emphasizes accountability and improved results, improves monitoring and 
enforcement of the law, and works to reduce litigation by providing new 
opportunities for parents and schools to address concerns and disputes.
  The bill reduces paperwork by streamlining State and local paperwork 
requirements, provides earlier access to services and supports for 
infants, toddlers and preschoolers with disabilities, and properly puts 
added emphasis on transition services so that special education 
students leave the system ready to be full productive citizens, whether 
they choose to go on to college or a job. Like No Child Left Behind, 
this bill also increases and improves opportunities for parental 
involvement and supports special education teachers in becoming 
``highly qualified'' to do their jobs.
  I am particularly pleased that the IDEA conference agreement contains 
provisions that I, along with Senators Cochran, Harkin and Bunning, 
originally introduced as the Instructional Materials Accessibility Act, 
IMAA. These important provisions will greatly aid blind and print-
disabled students by ensuring that they receive their textbooks and 
other instructional materials in the formats that they require, such as 
Braille, at the same time as their sighted peers.
  Far too often, blind, visually-impaired and print-disabled students 
wait months for their State or local school districts to convert their 
textbooks into Braille or another alternative format. At the same time, 
school districts face exorbitant costs for these conversions. The 
Instructional Material Accessibility Act provisions included in this 
reauthorization will mandate the adoption of one uniform electronic 
file format that will greatly ease the process of converting learning 
materials into alternative formats, such as Braille.
  Secondly, the IMAA provisions will create a repository for these 
formats so that they can be disseminated to local school districts 
quickly and cost effectively.
  We often hear today the pledge that we will leave no child behind. 
May I suggest that we also make every effort to ensure that we leave no 
blind child behind. The adoption of these important provisions will go 
a long way toward ensuring that blind, visually-impaired and print-
disabled students are not left behind in the classroom.
  And while I am disappointed that the bill does not contain a 
provision to provide mandatory full-funding of IDEA, I believe that the 
monetary targets that have been provided, are at least pointing us in 
the right direction. Still, I think it is important to remind everyone, 
yet again, that thirty years ago when we passed IDEA, we made a 
commitment to, over time, cover 40 percent of the State cost of 
servicing students with special needs.
  We have yet to make good on this commitment. Today the Federal 
Government supports less than 20 percent of the cost of the program. 
That is not even half of the 40 percent we promised 29 years ago. 
States and municipalities are bearing more than their share of 
responsibility for meeting disabled students' needs. States and 
municipalities need our help. As I have said before, I cannot accept 
the argument that because our economy is faltering, or we are a Nation 
at war, we cannot provide our children and their families with the 
critical educational resources they need. Investment in education is no 
less important in a weak economy or while our Nation is at war.
  Almost 30 years ago, Congress passed the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act to help States provide all children with 
disabilities with a free, appropriate public education in the least 
restrictive environment possible. Since that time, this law has made an 
incredible difference in the lives of millions of American children and 
their families.
  Fundamentally, this is a good bill--one that will help guarantee the 
full potential of all our children while assisting school districts in 
their efforts to deliver special education services in an efficient 
manner. That is why I will support it.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as the 108th Congress comes to a close, 
the House and the Senate are considering a significant legislative 
initiative, the Individuals with Disabilities Education, UDEA, 
Improvement Act. The purpose of the IDEA Improvement Act is to 
reauthorize the law that was enacted 29 years ago, the Education for 
All Handicapped Children Act. That law, now known as IDEA, was based 
upon a series of court decisions in the early 1970s that found that 
children with disabilities were no different than other children and 
were, and still are, entitled to a free and appropriate education.
  I was one of the original authors of the 1975 law. A key provision of 
that law was the inclusion of language that committed the federal 
government to pay 40 percent of the national average per pupil 
expenditure for each disabled child's education. Unfortunately, this is 
a commitment that has yet to be met. This year, my own state of Vermont 
had to spend $22 million in state funds to make up the shortfall from 
the Federal Government.
  I do not believe the bill before us, the IDEA Improvement Act of 
2004, will provide the Federal funding to sufficiently accommodate all 
children with disabilities. As we approach the 30th anniversary of the 
original IDEA law, it is unconscionable that we, the Congress, will 
have once again failed to fulfill our commitment to pay the 40 percent 
share we promised almost three decades ago. In fact, as of today, we 
are not even halfway there.
  I voted against the Senate version of this bill earlier this year, 
primarily because of the funding issue, and I am opposed to the passage 
of the House-Senate IDEA Improvement Act conference report.
  In addition to the funding problem, I have serious concerns about two 
other provisions. The IDEA Improvement Act aligns itself with the No 
Child Left Behind standard for teacher quality. Unfortunately, the 
definition here is as flawed as it is in the NCLB Act. I had hoped the 
bill would recognize the balance between providing children with 
quality instruction and the difficulties in recruiting and retaining 
quality teachers. In Vermont today, more than one-fifth of special 
educator positions are not filled by qualified personnel. I believe 
that this bill will make that statistic worse, not better.
  Another issue that is troubling to me is the diversion of IDEA funds 
to other education programs. This bill allows school districts to 
reduce local spending equal to 50 percent of all new federal IDEA 
funds, from fiscal year 2005 forward, and use them for other 
educational purposes. This flexibility is available if school districts 
are in compliance with IDEA. This means that in

[[Page S11657]]

a few years, the vast majority of school districts in the country will 
be able to shift billions of dollars that had been spent on special 
education to other areas. I have been fighting for years to increase 
the amount of money available for special education, and this provision 
risks derailing the progress that we have made. I am gravely concerned 
about this provision and its impact. School districts that are 
underfunded by No Child Left Behind will be tempted to fix that problem 
by cutting corners in IDEA and using that money for other programs. 
This sets a terrible example for future education legislation.
  Although I oppose the final passage of this bill, several provisions 
improve upon current law. Most importantly, the bill maintains the 
constitutionally guaranteed rights of children with disabilities.
  The bill greatly improves the monitoring and enforcement procedures 
for compliance with the law. Previously, states not in compliance were 
not necessarily sanctioned. In fact, in many situations, the only 
mechanism for enforcing the law was moving forward with a lawsuit. This 
new legislation calls for increased federal oversight and provides more 
enforcement tools at the state level.
  Although I am opposing the passage of the IDEA Improvement Act, I 
would like to especially thank Senator Kennedy and his staff for their 
efforts during this process, especially Connie Garner, whose hard work 
is greatly appreciated.
  It is my hope that we will not wait until the next authorization to 
continue to work together to improve the IDEA program and the funding 
that is so desperately needed for all children with disabilities. Next 
year will mark 30 years of federal underfunding. When will we recognize 
that our children have waited long enough?
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Gregg and Senator Kennedy, 
Chairman Boehner and Representative Miller for their leadership on this 
important issue. I also thank my colleagues and fellow conferees from 
both the House and Senate for their hard work on an issue that is vital 
to our children's education and their future, as well as ours.
  When Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
into law 30 years ago, it represented the strength of the Federal 
commitment to ensuring that all students would receive the support they 
need to reach their full potential. Congress made its position clear: 
all disabled students would be guaranteed a free and appropriate public 
education.
  This legislation advances that concept that has been preserved in 
spirit and refined to make it more effective over time. It does so 
while staying true to the original intent of Congress. I am pleased to 
be able to support this legislation, and I would like to speak briefly 
on a few issues that are of great concern to me and the people of 
Wyoming that I represent.
  As a rural State, Wyoming has many small schools where teachers are 
responsible for multiple subjects. Our special education teachers are 
in this position more often than other teachers in our State, simply 
because we do not have a lot of students and our special education 
classrooms are often very small and include several grade levels. My 
home county, Campbell County, currently has around 7,000 students. That 
is an entire county. I am aware that some States have more students 
enrolled in a single high school than we have in that entire county, 
which at 5,000 square miles, is bigger than the State of Delaware.
  This legislation makes an important clarification to the Highly 
Qualified Teacher standard established by the No Child Left Behind Act. 
It defines highly qualified in a way that is consistent with No Child 
Left Behind, but it also provides flexibility for States, like Wyoming, 
that have a large number of special education teachers responsible for 
more than one subject. This change will ensure that disabled children 
will be taught by a highly qualified teacher and it also recognizes the 
reality of rural States and the challenges we have in recruiting and 
retaining teachers.
  This bill also provides flexibility for States and school districts 
who are responsible for the largest portion of special education 
funding. An important change is the flexibility for States to use the 
same flexibility provided to districts if they provide 100 percent of 
the State's non-Federal education spending. Many of our districts in 
Wyoming and the State as a whole will benefit from this flexibility. 
They will be better able to support education programs serving our 
students' best interests, rather than having their hands tied by 
Federal law.
  I am also pleased that we were able to reach consensus on the need to 
improve the due process and discipline sections under the current IDEA 
legislation. The amount of unnecessary litigation surrounding the 
provision of services for students with disabilities has become a 
burden for many districts, and it has been a problem that 
disproportionately affects small, rural districts. By adding mediation 
and other forms of alternative dispute resolution, we have given 
parents and schools the tools they need to resolve complaints outside 
of the courtroom. These changes represent a common sense approach to 
what has become a serious problem. I believe the revised due process 
and discipline sections address concerns we've heard from parents of 
students with disabilities and teachers, principals and administrators. 
They encourage parents and school leaders to work cooperatively to meet 
the needs of disabled children, which is in everyone's best interest.
  I am pleased that we have been able to finish work on this important 
legislation before the close of the 108th Congress so these important 
improvements can be enacted.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will applaud passage of the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act. IDEA is based on the American 
principle of equal opportunity. IDEA recognizes that students have a 
civil right to a free, appropriate public education, even if they have 
special needs that require additional resources.
  We still have a long way to go to meet the Federal Government's 
promise to fund 40 percent of special education, and we are working on 
that challenge. However, this bill that meets my highest priority--
protecting the right of children with disabilities to a free, 
appropriate public education. In addition, this bill takes critical 
steps towards improving monitoring, enforcement, and public reporting. 
Our laws are only meaningful if we are willing to enforce them, and the 
provisions in this bill will help us do just that. I am pleased that 
this bill contains provisions that I fought for to provide the 
additional funding that school districts--especially small, rural 
districts or districts with major medical facilities--really need to 
provide FAPE for children whose disabilities result in extremely high 
costs. The bill also contains important improvements to early 
intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities.
  I am particularly pleased that we were able to improve services for 
homeless and foster children with disabilities and children with 
disabilities in military families in this bill. I would like to thank 
my colleague, Senator DeWine, and his staff, Mary Beth Luna, for 
working with me on these important provisions. These provisions are a 
major victory for America's most vulnerable disabled students. The bill 
ensures that a high quality education will follow them whenever they 
have to move to another school. The bill improves special education 
services and coordination of services for children with disabilities 
who transfer school districts; clarifies which appropriate adults can 
advocate for children with regard to their special education services, 
including when the parents cannot be located or are uninvolved with the 
child; improves coordination between McKinney-Vento and IDEA and 
overall representation of homeless and foster children in IDEA, and 
strengthens and expands early intervention services for infants and 
toddlers with disabilities who are homeless, in foster care, or in 
military families.
  While I do believe that this bill takes critical steps to improve 
special education in this country, I am disappointed that the Federal 
Government continues to fail to meet the funding promises under IDEA. 
Nearly 30 years ago, the Federal Government made a commitment of equal 
opportunity to the Nation's children with disabilities. With that 
commitment, we promised that the Federal Government would uphold its 
end of the bargain and pay 40 percent of the average per student cost 
for every special education

[[Page S11658]]

student. Today, however, the Federal Government is paying about half of 
that cost.
  Over the past few years, IDEA has received significant increases. 
However, according to the Congressional Research Service, at increases 
of $1 billion each year, the Federal Government will never fulfill the 
promise of funding at 40 percent. Further, even if annual increases 
were $1 billion plus inflation, we will not reach the promised level of 
40 percent until 2035--more than 30 years from now.
  Local schools are already struggling with the requirements of the No 
Child Left Behind Act, the lack of promised federal funding, and the 
dismal fiscal picture facing our state and local governments. I know we 
can do better for America's disabled students. Let's not make them wait 
another 30 years to fully-fund this law. I look forward to working with 
my colleagues to ensure that the Federal Government fulfills the 
promises of IDEA next year.
  I want to thank Senator Kennedy, Chairman Gregg, Chairman Boehner, 
and Congressman Miller for their leadership on this bill. I also want 
to thank their staffs, Connie Garner, Denzel McGuire, Bill Lucia, Sally 
Lovejoy, David Cleary, Melanie Looney, Alex Nock, and Alice Cain for 
all of their hard work on this bill. The time and effort that they and 
their staff have put into this bill really show in the quality of the 
final product, which I am pleased to support.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are finally 
reauthorizing this important legislation, the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act. I thank Senator Kennedy, Senator Gregg, 
Congressman Boehner, and Congressman Miller. I know how hard you worked 
on this bill. You tackled complicated issues and found common ground. I 
appreciate your efforts.
  Overall, I think this is a good bill. It's not perfect. I know there 
are Marylanders who will be disappointed. I've heard from parents who 
are concerned that this bill rolls back the guarantee of a quality 
education for their children. And I've heard from teachers, principals, 
and school superintendents who want to know where the resources will 
come from, because this bill doesn't fully fund IDEA. But I'm going to 
vote for it because we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
  This bill takes important steps towards improving special education 
for students, families, and schools. It sets a clear path for fully 
funding IDEA. It protects the rights of students. It simplifies 
complicated rules and makes it easier for schools and parents to 
navigate--not litigate. And it allows schools to help students who need 
special attention, but not necessarily special education.
  I've talked to Marylanders about this, like the women of Delta Sigma 
Theta Sorority. They see their children being racially sidelined--
pushed into special education when what they really need is special 
attention. I'm so pleased that we are doing something in this bill to 
stop racial sidelining.
  My top priority in this reauthorization was full funding. I think 
it's a shame that the bill doesn't fully fund IDEA. But I'm pleased it 
takes the first step towards full funding by authorizing specific 
funding levels for each year, until we get to full funding in 2008.
  Why is this important? The Federal Government is supposed to pay 40 
percent of the cost of educating children with disabilities, yet it has 
never paid more than 18 percent. That means local districts must make 
up the difference by skimping on special ed, cutting from other 
education programs, or raising taxes. I don't want to force States and 
local school districts to forage for funds, cut back on teacher 
training, or delay school repairs because the Federal Government has 
failed to live up to its commitment to special education. As a member 
of the Appropriations Committee I will fight to put this money in the 
Federal checkbook so special education is not a hollow promise.
  Parents today are under a lot of stress, sometimes working two jobs 
just to make ends meet. They're trying to find day care for their kids 
and elder care for their own parents. The Federal Government shouldn't 
add to their worries by not living up to its obligations. With the 
Federal Government not paying its share of special ed these parents 
have a real question in their minds: Will my child will have a good 
teacher? Will the classes have up-to-date textbooks? Will they be 
learning what they need to know?
  Parents of disabled children face such a tough burden already. Caring 
for a disabled child can be exhausting. School should not be one of the 
many things they worry about, particularly when the laws are already on 
the books to guarantee their child a public school education.
  Special education has made such a huge difference in the lives of 
students with disabilities. It gives disabled children a chance to 
succeed in school and in life. I want to do what's best for families 
and schools. Parents and students need to be able to count on a quality 
education. That's why I'm voting for this legislation. But know that I 
will continue to fight for full funding of IDEA, because I don't want 
special education to be a hollow promise.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am so pleased to be here today to talk 
about the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 
2004. This legislation represents a significant step forward in 
advancing the academic achievement of millions of children with 
disabilities. The purpose of this bill is to improve the educational 
and functional outcomes for students with disabilities.
  I believe this legislation accomplishes this goal by: aligning IDEA 
to the requirements of No Child Left Behind; protecting the civil 
rights of children with disabilities; providing new opportunities for 
schools and parents to resolve disputes equitably; simplifying the 
discipline provisions and makes it easier for schools to administer the 
law; reducing unnecessary paperwork burdens; providing quality services 
and instruction for children from early childhood through graduation; 
providing resources to support teachers, principals, and other school 
personnel; providing local school districts with significant 
flexibility in the use of Federal IDEA dollars; and holding States and 
local school districts accountable for implementation of the law.
  This legislation represents a truly bipartisan effort. This process 
did not happen overnight, however. The Senate began working on this 
bill in the fall of 2002, and after years of work and negotiation, 
passed it earlier this spring by an overwhelming vote of 95 to 3. The 
House passed its own version of the bill in 2003, but it passed largely 
along partisan lines. The House-passed bill and the Senate version were 
very different bills. But in the end, I am pleased to say, both parties 
in both Houses of Congress worked diligently, and in good faith, to 
pass the best bill possible. Earlier this week, Senate and House 
Conferees approved the legislation by a decided vote of 29 to 1. I 
would like to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the HELP 
Committee for their commitment to passing this legislation. Their 
staffs, Denzel McGuire and Connie Garner, have worked tirelessly on 
behalf of our Nation's students with disabilities, and deserve 
recognition.
  IDEA is sometimes seen as a controversial piece of legislation. It is 
a unique blend of civil rights law and state grant program, and as a 
result, often pits the constitutional rights of children with 
disabilities to a free appropriate public education against the 
flexibility teachers need to teach. While this bill is certainly not 
perfect, I believe it strikes a good, fair balance.
  Earlier this year, this country celebrated 50 years of public school 
desegregation. In the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education, 
Chief Justice Warren wrote that ``in the field of public education, the 
doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place.'' This decision 
literally opened the doors of our public schools to all children, 
regardless of race.
  But, the doors to a public education did not open quite so quickly 
for children with disabilities. Prior to enactment of IDEA in 1975, 
children with disabilities were still being segregated. More than one 
million students were excluded from public schools, and another 3.5 
million did not receive appropriate services. Many States had laws 
excluding certain students, including those who were blind, deaf, or 
labeled ``emotionally disturbed'' or ``mentally retarded.'' The 
likelihood of exclusion was significantly greater for children

[[Page S11659]]

with disabilities living in low-income, ethnic and racial minority, or 
rural communities.
  Parents, however, began asserting their children's rights to attend 
public schools, using the same equal protection arguments used on 
behalf of the African American children in Brown; the 14th Amendment of 
the U.S. Constitution guarantees their children equal protection under 
the law. Recognizing the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection 
under the law, Congress enacted the law now known as IDEA, creating the 
statutory right to a free appropriate public education in the least 
restrictive environment.
  We have come a long way since that law was first enacted. In 2001, we 
passed the No Child Left Behind Act. In that legislation, we recognized 
that every child has the capacity to learn, and we required our States 
to improve the academic achievement of all children. For the first 
time, we held schools accountable for the academic achievement of 
students with disabilities.
  By all accounts, this challenge is great. States and schools try 
their best with both inadequate resources and inadequate technical 
assistance from the Department of Education. But, we cannot allow ``a 
pass'' for these children. We cannot turn our back on the six million 
children with disabilities and their families. It is our obligation to 
ensure that students with disabilities count too.
  This legislation ensures that local school districts measure the 
performance of students with disabilities on State or district-wide 
assessments, including alternate assessments aligned to the State's 
academic content standards or alternative standards. The legislation 
also ensures that students with disabilities are taught by highly 
qualified teachers, and sets forth rigorous yet flexible criteria for 
States to meet. The legislation requires special education teachers to 
be certified in special education, have at least a bachelor degree, and 
demonstrate appropriate subject knowledge. The bill, however, gives 
states significant flexibility in determining how a teacher meets those 
standards.
  It is essential that children with disabilities have access to, and 
succeed in, the general education curriculum. The due process and 
procedural safeguard provisions are the most important means of 
protecting the constitutional rights of children with disabilities to a 
free appropriate public education. This legislation maintains these 
vital civil rights protections.
  Yet, we also recognize that IDEA is sometimes seen as too litigious 
and confrontational. Accordingly, we have created new opportunities for 
parents and schools to address concerns before the need for a due 
process hearing, and encourage parents and schools to resolve 
differences by clarifying that mediation is available at any time.
  Further, this bill addresses the problems associated with discipline, 
which is often viewed as complex and difficult to administer. The bill 
simplifies the framework for schools to administer the law, while 
ensuring the rights and the safety of all children. It requires schools 
to determine if a child's behavior was the result of his or her 
disability or poor implementation of their Individualized Education 
Program, IEP, when considering a disciplinary action. It requires that 
schools conduct functional behavioral assessments and give behavioral 
interventions to students who are disciplined beyond 10 days, in order 
to prevent future behavior problems. And, the bill provides resources 
to help develop and enhance behavioral supports in schools while 
improving the quality of interim alternative education settings.

  We also recognize that too many teachers get bogged down in 
burdensome paperwork chores. According to the Department of Education, 
53 percent of special education teachers reported that paperwork and 
other routine duties interfered with their job of teaching students to 
a great extent. Clearly, the amount of paperwork involved in a special 
education teacher's job is a problem. I am pleased that this bill takes 
significant steps to reduce the paperwork burden.
  For example, under this legislation: teachers will have increased 
access to technology; teachers and other staff will conduct fewer 
evaluations; IEPs and IEP meetings will be simplified; procedural 
safeguards notices will not be provided multiple times in a year, 
unless there are special circumstances; the Department of Education 
will create model forms to show States and districts how to meet the 
requirements of IDEA while reducing paperwork; and up to 15 States will 
be allowed to participate in a ``Paperwork Reduction Demonstration.'' 
This demo would allow states to waive burdensome statutory and 
regulatory requirements that interfere with a teacher's ability to 
teach, while at the same time ensuring that a State does not impinge 
upon the constitutional rights of children with disabilities to a free 
appropriate public education.
  The bill also expands services to students with disabilities in many 
ways. The legislation ensures educational services for homeless and 
foster students with disabilities, as well as for other students who 
frequently transfer from one school to another. The bill improves 
access to instructional materials for students who are blind or for 
students with other visual disabilities. It also provides extensive 
early intervention services for children ages zero through 5, 
increasing the focus on school readiness activities. The bill improves 
the IEP process, making it easier for parents and teachers to more 
meaningfully develop a student's education plan. And, the bill 
significantly improves transition services to ensure that students with 
disabilities are prepared for postsecondary education or employment.
  This legislation recognizes that approximately \2/3\ of the students 
with disabilities in this country spend a majority of the school day in 
general education classrooms, and accordingly provides local school 
districts with significant flexibility in the use of its Federal IDEA 
dollars. For example, a local school district may use up to 15 percent 
of its IDEA funds to develop an educational support system to help 
students who have not been identified as needing special education, but 
who require additional academic and behavioral supports to succeed in 
the general education curriculum. Or, a school district may reduce its 
maintenance of effort by up to 50 percent of its increases in Federal 
funds to support other educational activities.
  One of the most critical features of this bill is the level of 
support provided to teachers, principals, and other school personnel. 
We all know the difference a well-prepared, highly qualified teacher 
can make in the life of a student. This legislation provides personnel 
development grants to States to help recruit, prepare, and retain 
highly qualified special educators. It also provides grants to 
institutions of higher education to focus exclusively on training for 
beginning special educators through extended clinical experience or 
teacher-faculty partnerships.
  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this legislation holds States 
and school districts accountable for the academic and functional 
achievement of students with disabilities. It provides the Secretary of 
Education and the States with the authority and the tools to implement, 
monitor, and enforce the law.
  We recognize the potential burden these provisions might place on 
State departments of education, and accordingly have increased the 
amount of funds States may reserve for statewide activities to carry 
out these provisions. In addition, we have authorized the Secretary to 
set-aside a portion of its funds to provide technical assistance to 
States to help implement these provisions.
  In order to ensure the constitutional right to a free appropriate 
public education for children with disabilities, the Department of 
Education must have the tools necessary to enforce compliance with 
IDEA. The Department of Education has found widespread noncompliance 
with the law and regulations, with more than half of the violations 
directly related to the provision of student services.
  In 2003, New Mexico served nearly 64,000 students under IDEA. I 
strongly believe these provisions are absolutely necessary to ensuring 
that these students receive the special education and related services 
they are entitled to.
  This legislation takes a significant step forward in providing the 
millions of students with disabilities the accountability, tools, and 
resources necessary to access, and succeed in, the general education 
curriculum. While I

[[Page S11660]]

am certainly disappointed that we have not provided full funding, and 
we have not addressed all of the issues to the complete satisfaction of 
parents, teachers, and schools, I am confident that this bill will help 
students with disabilities achieve to their highest potential.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased that Congress is in the 
final stage of reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, IDEA. While I am glad that the bill emerged in a 
bipartisan way, I am still frustrated that Congress has yet again 
failed to fulfill its promise to fully fund IDEA. With IDEA still 
drastically underfunded, schools are left without the necessary 
resources to provide the best services to children with disabilities, 
and our communities are burdened with an unfulfilled federal promise.
  In my home State of New Jersey, school budgets are capped by law at 3 
percent annual growth. Therefore, districts often have to cut other 
programs to accommodate mandated and rising special-education costs. 
Or--local property taxpayers, who already are overburdened--have to pay 
increased taxes to cover expenses that the Federal Government should be 
sharing.
  I have received many letters, phone calls, and emails from concerned 
constituents urging Congress to fulfill the promise of full funding for 
the services mandated under IDEA. I have supported efforts to require 
full funding of IDEA and intend to continue the fight so that every 
child receives the free and appropriate public education the law 
guarantees and we can ease the burden on our local communities.
  In addition, I would like to highlight one specific issue related to 
IDEA that has not only affected the children of New Jersey, but 
children across this nation. That is the staggering increase in the 
number of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, ASD. Recent 
epidemiology studies have shown that autism spectrum disorders are ten 
times more prevalent than they were just 10 years ago, making ASD the 
second most common developmental disability. While there is currently 
much debate and still no conclusive evidence as to the cause of this 
alarming trend, it is clear that this trend will continue. Equally 
clear is the critical need for Congress to address the issue of early 
intervention and effective treatment for children diagnosed with ASD.
  Scientific evidence has proven that early intervention is a key to 
success when treating ASD. Over the last 20 years, experts have 
developed effective strategies for the correction of autism disorder, 
and research shows that with the early application of an effective 
therapy, substantial gains can be accomplished toward the remediation 
of autistic disorder in many children. With autism diagnoses 
escalating, expanding access to treatment, especially at an early age, 
is vital to improving the outcomes for children affected by ASD. That 
is why I introduced the Teacher Education for Autistic Children Act or 
TEACH Act. I worked closely with New Jersey Center for Outreach and 
Community Services for the Autism Community, NJCOSAC, Autism Coalition 
for Research and Education, and Parents of Autistic Children to create 
this legislation that addresses the needs of autistic children by 
bringing more qualified teachers into the classroom, helping families 
receive the support and services they need for their children, and 
ensuring quality vocational programs to assist people with autism 
transition from school to work.
  I am happy to report that some critical provisions of the TEACH Act 
have been included in the IDEA conference report currently being 
considered by the Senate. These provisions will make Federal funds 
available to develop and improve programs for children with autism, 
using research grounded in science. The grants will help ensure quality 
professional development for special education teachers by providing 
in-service training to schools and personnel who teach children with 
ASD. With the demand for services grossly outpacing the supply of 
qualified teachers and therapists, these provisions are critical to 
increasing the number of special education teachers trained to teach 
children diagnosed with ASD and help them reach their full potential.
  I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to the entire HELP 
Committee for their tireless efforts in working with me to get this 
essential language included in the bill. In particular, I would like to 
single out Connie Garner for her dedication and diligent work on behalf 
of children with special needs. I look forward to continuing to work on 
this important issue with my colleagues in Congress and with the autism 
community to ensure that all children with ASD have access to quality 
teachers trained in providing cutting-edge treatments.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will note that is a significant piece 
of legislation that just passed. I serve on that committee. We spent 
several years working on it. We have improved some of the discipline 
problems. We have reduced some of the paperwork. I believe maybe there 
is more we can still do, but that is a big deal for hundreds of 
thousands of teachers and students all over our country.

                          ____________________