[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 8]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 10424]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 IMPROVING EDUCATION RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 2003

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN

                            of rhode island

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 30, 2003

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1350) to 
     reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 
     and for other purposes:

  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1350, 
reauthorizing legislation for the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act. The reauthorization of IDEA is critical to the 
educational outcomes of millions of students with disabilities for 
years to come. I am sorely disappointed that H.R. 1350 represents a 
lack of commitment to fulfilling the promise of IDEA by failing to fund 
the law, and even proposes changes undermining the very philosophy of 
IDEA.
  IDEA was enacted with the clear intention of eliminating 
discrimination against students with disabilities by promising a free 
and appropriate education to children with disabilities. Even with the 
increases in IDEA funding over the last several years, the federal 
government has never lived up to its share of this promise, which was 
intended to be 40 percent of the cost of special education services. 
These recent increases touted on the floor of the House have only added 
up to 18 percent--hardly significant in a time of state budget crises. 
As schools are forced to dip into their general education budgets to 
make up for the shortfall in special education funding, all of 
America's students are losing out--and those with disabilities are 
being left behind.
  Every year, access to education for students with disabilities is 
subjected to the federal appropriations process--and every year, it 
comes up short. I am dismayed that H.R. 1350 fails to provide for 
mandatory funding, and outraged that the leadership allowed for 14 
amendments to be offered on this bill but denied my colleagues and me 
the opportunity to vote on two proposed amendments that would have 
guaranteed children with disabilities and their families the access to 
necessary resources for their education.
  Further, H.R. 1350 makes significant substantive changes counter to 
the philosophy of IDEA. One of many alarming changes is the elimination 
of a key civil rights protection providing safeguards for students with 
disabilities in instances where behavior problems may be a 
manifestation of their disability. Currently, IDEA sets up a structure 
for initial assessments and intervention plans, so that disruptive or 
problematic behavior can be avoided or mitigated. In instances where 
students with disabilities do violate a school code, IDEA currently 
requires administrators to determine if the offending behavior is a 
manifestation of a student's disability. If that is the case, then the 
student, teachers and parents can return to the original behavior plan 
and find a way to work together to avoid further problems. If that is 
not the case, the student can then be subjected to the same penalties 
as a non-disabled student would.
  I believe the current disciplinary review process is fair and in the 
best interest of all students. Even with these protections, students 
with disabilities are over-represented among students who are expelled. 
Yet, H.R. 1350 proposes to eliminate the provisions that require both 
consideration of a child's disability and use of functional behavioral 
assessments and intervention plans--denying students the safeguards 
that assure them access to educational services and placing them at 
significantly greater risk.
  I have also heard a strong sentiment against the proposed changes in 
the Individualized Education Program (IEP) from my constituents, and 
parents and educators across the country. H.R. 1350 contains a 
provision to eliminate the requirement of short-term benchmarks, 
resulting in a negative impact on the effective collaboration between 
home and schools providing appropriate education and related services 
to students with disabilities. Measuring student progress against 
short-term objectives is needed to ensure that student evaluations are 
regular and based on multiple criteria. 1 hear stories of students who 
have achieved the goals set in their one-year IEP in less than that 
time--this is something that should be acknowledged, celebrated and 
encouraged--not overlooked. Any steps toward imposing a three-year IEP 
are steps toward overlooking the progress made in the collaborations 
that are essential to IDEA.
  The reauthorizing legislation also fails to recognize a shortage of 
qualified personnel that has hampered the full implementation of IDEA 
for 25 years. H.R. 1350 eliminates language that sets standards for 
special education service providers. In the No Child Left Behind Act, 
Congress made it clear that every child should have a highly qualified 
teacher, yet H.R. 1350 removes the highest requirement provision--at a 
time when high standards were never more important. Every contentious 
issue related to IDEA--discipline, disproportionate representation of 
minorities, over-identification of students referred to special 
education--could be better addressed by ensuring an adequate supply of 
appropriately trained and highly qualified personnel. Ultimately, 
highly trained professionals make all the difference in providing an 
appropriate education for any student--students with disabilities are 
no different.
  I urge my colleagues to only support legislation that preserves the 
spirit and meaning of IDEA. I am disappointed that the reauthorizing 
legislation we are here to vote on today fails to live up to that 
standard, and I encourage my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1350.

                          ____________________