[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 9986-10062]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 IMPROVING EDUCATION RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 2003

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 206 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 206

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1350) to reauthorize the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purposes of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules met yesterday afternoon and 
granted a structured rule for H.R. 1350, Improving Education Results 
for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003. This rule makes a total of 
14 amendments in order, including 3 minority and 1 bipartisan 
amendment. I am very proud of not only the Committee on Rules, but also 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce for preserving the 
greatest hallmarks for democracy while setting the stage for today's 
votes on H.R. 1350. I believe inclusion, deliberation and full 
participation was achieved in making sure that this important Act is 
brought forward.
  Mr. Speaker, since I want original enactment in 1975, the purpose of 
IDEA has been to ensure free appropriate education is achieved 
nationwide for disabled students. When IDEA was first enacted, this was 
the goal. Today we are here to improve upon the things that we learned 
since the last IDEA reauthorization in 1997.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, as through IDEA, the Federal Government is, 
in fact, authorized to cover 40 percent of the costs that schools 
nationwide spend to educate special needs students. However, the 
Federal Government today picks up only about 18 percent of the total 
cost of educating our special needs students and we must do better than 
that.
  The good news this year, Mr. Speaker, is that the budget agreement 
reached by the House and the Senate this month includes an increase of 
$2.2 billion for special education in 2004. This unprecedented funding 
to increase for special education programs means that the Federal share 
of the special education will be brought up to 21 percent this year. 
The good work for the Committee on the Budget this year also 
establishes a clear pattern to reach our State goal of funding fully 40 
percent of the total cost of the special needs education within the 
next 7 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that from fiscal year 1996 
to fiscal year 2003, overall IDEA funding has increased by nearly 21 
percent, from $3.2 billion to $10 billion annually. In fact, the 2003 
funding level is more than a 15 percent increase over the 2002 funding 
level. This is a positive trend and proves that we are serious about 
attaining our goals and meeting our commitment to special education 
needs. But there is so much more that this bill does, more than just 
increasing funding. And I would like to provide some of the major 
provisions of H.R. 13 where Members of Congress will be able to see 
that this committee and the committee work that was done not only by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) but also the subcommittee 
chairman, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) really has made a 
difference in the life and ongoing life of IDEA.
  The underlying bill ensures that State will align their 
accountability systems for students with disabilities to the No Child 
Left Behind Act system and requires each child's Individual Education 
Plan, known as an IEP, to specifically address that child's academic 
achievement.
  H.R. 1350 makes significant changes to the Department of Education's 
activities on research of special education, establishes a center for 
special education research within the Institute of Education Science 
and authorizes the creation of a commissioner for special education 
research to oversee the Institute's research into special education and 
related services.
  It incorporates elements of the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Keller) 
Paperwork Reduction Bill, H.R. 464, including the 3-year individualized 
education plan known as IEP; it creates a 10-State pilot program that 
allows State to reduce the IEP paperwork burden on teachers in order to 
increase instructional time and resources and improves results for 
disabled students.
  For these and so many other reasons, Mr. Speaker, I have asked that 
you and each of my 434 other colleagues join me in supporting the dream 
of the greatest realization of our beloved, compassionate and 
democratic Nation. The realization that we have inherent worth and that 
here in America we will provide opportunity, love and compassion for 
every single one of our children.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, partisan battles are nothing new on the floor of this 
House,

[[Page 9987]]

but there are many matters where broad bipartisan agreement and good 
will have traditionally been the rule. Education for disabled and 
special needs children has been one of those issues notable for its 
profound bipartisan consensus.

                              {time}  1030

  Therefore, it is a sad day for this House as we consider the rule for 
H.R. 1350, the IDEA reauthorization. This is not a bipartisan rule, and 
this bill certainly does not reflect a broad bipartisan consensus. If 
anything, H.R. 1350 represents consensus breaking, undermining many of 
the hard-won and carefully constructed checks and balances of existing 
law.
  Education for disabled and special-needs children is a sensitive 
issue for all Americans. Some of our colleagues will be personally and 
directly affected by what we do here today. I am disappointed that we 
are considering this bill today because I believe we can do better and 
we should have done more to build a broad consensus around this bill 
among Members of this House and the constituencies most affected by 
this law.
  During consideration of this bill in the Committee on Rules last 
night, I told every Member who testified before the committee that I 
supported their right to offer their amendments on the floor today. 
Unfortunately, the majority did not join me in that support. I am 
disappointed the majority has denied the opportunity for many Members 
to offer their amendments, but I am most disappointed that the majority 
has stifled debate on mandatory funding by denying the Woolsey/Van 
Hollen/McCollum amendment and the Bass/Simmons amendment, both of which 
would have required mandatory funding for IDEA.
  There is a pattern in this body of saying one thing and doing 
another. The majority talks a good game about educating America's 
children but balks at providing the necessary funding when the time 
comes to back up their rhetoric with deeds. Today, we will hear about 
increases for special education in the budget resolution. But when it 
comes time to fully fund these programs, the majority denies debate on 
the only two amendments that would genuinely make that a reality.
  This bill reneges on our 28-year commitment to fully fund the Federal 
share of special education part B grants to States, what is commonly 
referred to as fully funding IDEA. It denies mandatory funding that 
would ensure the Federal Government finally lives up to its legal 
commitment to provide States with 40 percent of these costs.
  Time and time again Congress has passed meaningless sense of Congress 
resolutions supporting full funding for IDEA. But when it came to the 
point to require that these funds be provided, this bill, once again, 
turned its back on that promise. In fact, this bill actually sets caps, 
authorizing ceilings on the amount of funding that Congress may provide 
in any given year.
  Even those groups representing teachers, principals, and school 
administrations that do support many of the changes in H.R. 1350 
categorically state that the bill must be amended to require mandatory 
funding increases. Yet the majority on the Committee on Rules denied 
both Republican and Democratic amendments on this issue. So there will 
be no debate in the United States House of Representatives on the most 
critical issue facing special education today: Will the Congress 
finally put some money where its mouth has been for the past several 
years?
  H.R. 1350 also undermines due process and discipline protections for 
children with disabilities, placing new restrictions on the ability of 
parents to seek legal representation when a violation of the law has 
occurred. It might even bring us back to the time when children with 
disabilities could be removed from the classroom or, worse, refused a 
public education simply because they had disabilities.
  I have heard from so many parents of children with disabilities and 
from school counselors and other professionals about how this bill 
would adversely affect the lives and education of these children. Here 
is what one mother in my district wrote about H.R. 1350, and I quote:
  ``Leah is my 7-year-old daughter. She has Downs Syndrome. Leah is 
fully included in her class, learning to read and has many friends. Not 
only has she benefited from being in this class, I truly believe the 
children in Leah's school have benefited from knowing Leah and becoming 
her friend. I want Leah to continue in this inclusive environment 
because I feel this is the best way for her to develop independence and 
appropriate social skills for the future. But H.R. 1350 does not 
provide full funding for IDEA. H.R. 1350 would take away many 
protections for parents' rights that are in IDEA, called procedural 
safeguards. It is important for schools to give parents their rights so 
parents can use them to make sure their children get a good education. 
H.R. 1350 would prevent this. When you sign an important contract, you 
get notice of your rights. H.R. 1350 would let schools give a short 
description of rights to parents rather than fully explain these rights 
to parents, like they now have to do. Why are the schools so afraid for 
parents to know their rights?''
  Another woman from my district, the mother of a 12-year-old boy with 
autism, is also extremely disturbed by the changes contained in H.R. 
1350. She writes: ``Under H.R. 1350, procedural rights would be greatly 
reduced. As a parent dealing with large teams of school district staff, 
these rights are critical to me in ensuring that my child's unique and 
individual needs are considered. Both school staff and I work very hard 
with my child to meet society's expectations. However, it is the nature 
of his disability that sometimes he cannot obey student codes of 
conduct. To subject my child to a segregated placement at the sole 
discretion of school staff anytime a rule is violated would be 
terrifying. Although some of the proposed changes in H.R. 1350 may 
appear sensible on the surface, as a person who has dealt with special 
education, I can easily see what their real-world impact would be, and 
it would be disastrous.''
  I am sure my colleagues have received scores of similar letters from 
parents and grandparents of children who need special education, as 
well as letters from school counselors, psychologists, and therapists 
who work with and support these families. They are asking us and they 
are pleading with us to reject H.R. 1350.
  Surely we can find a way to give school administrators the 
flexibility they say they need without undermining the rights of the 
children and families they are charged to serve. Surely we can find a 
way to fulfill our promises and provide mandatory funding. We should 
send this bill back to committee and return with a genuine consensus on 
the IDEA reauthorization, as has been the tradition of this body for 
nearly 3 decades.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is opposed by nearly every major constituency 
directly involved in the lives of children requiring special education: 
parents, families, school counselors, psychologists and developmental 
specialists, disabilities advocates, and organizations involved in the 
professional development of teachers.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a list of organizations opposed 
to this bill:

       The Council for Exceptional Children
       The National Mental Health Association
       The Higher Education Consortium for Special Education
       The National Center for Learning Disabilities
       The American Academy of Pediatrics
       The School Social Work Association of America
       The National Down Syndrome Society
       Easter Seals
       American Society for Deaf Children
       National Coalition of Parent Centers
       Epilepsy Foundation
       Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs
       National Alliance of Pupil Services Organizations
       American Council of the Blind
       National Parent Teacher Association
       National Association of School Psychologists
       National Association of School Nurses
       American School Counselor Association
       American Psychological Association

[[Page 9988]]

       National Association for College Admission Counseling
       National Association of Social Workers
       The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and to oppose 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and with great respect to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I would 
tell him that I too have received a good number of letters which 
involve feedback from parents who are concerned about changes in the 
law; they are concerned about what any IDEA reauthorization would look 
like.
  As a parent of a son, a person who has Downs Syndrome and is affected 
with the afflictions that come with that syndrome, I can tell my 
colleagues that I too am concerned about these things and approached 
this entire effort with an open mind, instead of saying I do not want 
any changes. I said, what are the things that we have learned from 
time; what are the things that we think we can do to get closer to not 
only better inclusion but to have better results from our children who 
fall within the IDEA guidelines?
  Mr. Speaker, my son, who is 9 years old, and who is in first grade, 
is making progress. And I see where these things occur. But this 
committee and this subcommittee, under the leadership of the chairman, 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the gentleman from Delaware 
(Mr. Castle), have done things to go in and instead of keeping the 
status quo, they have gone in and made things dynamic. We are going to 
be more inclusive, we are going to provide more money, we are going to 
do those things that will enhance the relationship that a parent has in 
an IEP, which are these individual times processes that one goes 
through where they sit down and look at their child and try to map out 
and plan out a way for them to fully meet their needs and also those 
educational opportunities that are ahead of them.
  After looking at the entire package, not just a piece or a part, I am 
satisfied; and I believe that what has occurred here is a better bill. 
Is it perfect? Probably not. But under the current law, there are still 
parents and still students that suffer needlessly as a result of either 
people not understanding the law or people not complying completely. 
That will always be a part of the process. But the advantages of this 
new bill come about as a result of the intuitive nature of this 
committee and subcommittee, who wanted to enhance and learn from the 
past and make it better.
  So as a parent of a child who is affected by what this legislation 
will do, and as an advocate on behalf of this community, I am asking 
those people who have written in, those people who have called, and I 
have talked to a good number of them, to allow us an opportunity to 
speak fully about the entire bill, to put it into context; and I 
believe that by the end of today, as the smoke has cleared, as we have 
talked about it, the advantages will be very apparent for not only the 
parents but also the students that are impacted.
  It is ultimately the parents who are put out on the front line in 
trying to negotiate. Parents are scared and they are worried about 
this; but if we walk through the things that this bill will do, 
including providing more funding and more flexibility, they will see 
where the advantages will be true for each one of them and their 
children. So I would politely address the concerns that the gentleman 
from Massachusetts has, because it is a real question that does exist 
in real parents' minds; and I respect the gentleman for his discussion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Wilmington, Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Education Reform.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time, and I have a tremendous amount of empathy for 
his personal situation and have spent a great deal of time discussing 
that and his interest in this bill, as well as the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, who exhibited, I felt, at the hearing before the 
Committee on Rules, an understanding of the legislation as well.
  I think it is very important that we begin this debate by 
understanding several background areas. One is that this is legislation 
which was created in 1975 with the help of a number of people who are 
still here today. One of those Members is the ranking member on the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, and others who put language 
into this legislation, which I think has held up extraordinarily well 
over the past 30 or so years. I believe that the services that we 
provide to our children who have disabilities are tremendous, light 
years ahead of where we were just 30 years ago.
  I believe that Republicans and Democrats alike have worked together 
every 5 or 6 years in the reauthorization process, and I know it was 
very difficult 5 or 6 years ago when I went through it in order to put 
together legislation which will be helpful in improving what we are 
doing in helping children with disabilities. But I believe that the 
legislation before us is another step in that direction.
  Now, obviously, if this passes today, with some of the amendments 
which are before us, it will go into a conference with the Senate and 
may come out somewhat differently. But I would suggest that before the 
process is done, this may become both bipartisan and perhaps even some 
improvements in it from where it is at this point today, although I 
think it is a significant and good piece of legislation today.
  I do rise in support of H. Res. 206, which provides for the 
consideration of H.R. 1350, which is the Improving Results for Children 
With Disabilities Act of 2003. I offer my thanks to the chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for his latitude in 
making sure that this legislation was worked out. We are very 
appreciative of that. I also want to thank the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and 
members of the Committee on Rules, particularly the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions), for drafting what I find to be a fair and 
balanced rule.
  I think we need to know the background of that too. For almost 2 
years, we have been working to create a balanced piece of legislation 
to ensure that students with disabilities receive a quality education. 
In doing so, we have been committed to working with Democrats and 
parents and educators, and I think that rule today reflects that 
commitment. This has been an ongoing process, Mr. Speaker, which is 
exhibited in this rule.
  There are a number of amendments that are the result of dialogue we 
have had with the minority. There are a number of other amendments that 
did not have to be introduced because we adopted them as part of the 
legislation. We have a manager's amendment with some technical aspects, 
which I am sponsoring.
  But over the past 18 months, our committee, the House Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, has held seven different hearings on 
issues directly relating to the reauthorization of the Individuals With 
Disabilities on Education Act. And though that is probably not 
unparalleled, it is a little unusual to have that extensive number of 
hearings on any legislation in the House of Representatives.

                              {time}  1045

  On June 6, 2002, I helped launch a Web-based project called Great 
IDEAs, designed to solicit input from stakeholders in special education 
across the Nation. Since that time we have had more than 3,000 
responses from teachers, school administrators, parents of children 
with special needs, and others familiar with the unique needs of 
children with disabilities and incorporated many of these suggestions 
into H.R. 1350. So the point on that is there has been a great deal of 
effort put into the preparation of this legislation and the preparation 
of the rule which we have before us today.
  Turning to the bill, I believe that this bill employs commonsense 
reforms to reduce the excessive amount of paperwork requirements, and 
that is the

[[Page 9989]]

common complaint that we hear from everybody. It improves IDEA to 
provide greater parent involvement, seeks to reduce litigation, 
authorizes dramatic funding increases, and improves early intervention 
strategies.
  The excessive amount of paperwork requirement simply, frankly, 
overwhelms teachers and robs them of valuable time to educate their 
students. Teachers must have the ability to spend more time in the 
classroom rather than spending endless hours filling out unnecessary 
forms. Additionally, these provisions will allow school districts to 
retain and recruit highly qualified special education teachers.
  Throughout the bill we have made improvements to IDEA to provide 
greater flexibility to parents and greater input in developing the 
Individualized Education Program, which is known by the acronym IEP, 
for their child.
  The bill gives parents discretion over who attends IEP team meetings, 
how they are conducted, or whether to have one at all. We have improved 
the parent training and information centers and the community-parent 
resource centers to serve as valuable tools for parents trying to work 
with schools to get a quality education for their child.
  This bill seeks to reduce litigation and restore trust between 
parents and school districts by encouraging the use of alternative 
means or what we know as dispute resolution. All too often 
miscommunication damages this relationship and results in proliferation 
of litigation. Not only is this course of action costly, but it breeds 
an attitude of distrust.
  H.R. 1350 authorizes dramatic increases in funding for special 
education, creates a clear path to attain full funding of the Federal 
Government's 40 percent goal within 7 years. Let me go through that 
carefully. We are going to hear that a lot in the course of the next 4 
or 5 hours on the floor. Essentially, after IDEA was created, in the 
original language it said that the Federal Government will fund up to 
40 percent of the cost of the education of these children beyond the 
normal cost of education. The Federal Government for whatever reasons 
did not live up to that.
  Up until about 7 years ago, the Federal Government was funding 5 or 6 
percent of that cost. In the last 7 years, and I am proud that 
Republicans have been involved with this, although Democrats have been 
supportive as well, but over the last 7 years, we have increased that 
dramatically so that instead of funding 5 percent, we are now funding 
18 percent.
  In this year's budget resolution, that funding number will take us up 
to 21 percent. The President of the United States has indicated his 
complete willingness to fund this in rapid increases to get us to that 
40 percent in a 7-year glide path. This Congress, in the form of the 
Committee on Appropriations, has indicated doing it the same way. This 
is all under the discretionary spending which we have with constant 
review; and believe me, we need constant review of IDEA which is 
happening as a result of the fact that it is under discretionary 
spending. I do not believe when we go to mandatory spending we get 
those reviews.
  I believe that particular commitment to getting there in 7 years is 
going to work. The mandatory spending side of it, the amendments that 
we are seeing, although they are not in this particular legislation, 
have a 6-year path to get us to that 40 percent funding. The real 
differences are rather minimal in terms of when we would get there, and 
the commitment to do it. Some Members say we need to do it in a 
mandatory way or it is not going to happen.
  I do not agree with that. I have watched it happen year after year in 
most of the years that I have been in the Congress of the United 
States, and it is happening extremely well. I am proud of our record of 
dramatically increasing this funding for IDEA over the past 7 years and 
remain committed to building on that impressive record as far as the 
future is concerned. I am convinced that we are doing the right thing. 
We will hear a lot about it in a political sense today, but the bottom 
line is the commitment is there and that is happening.
  The bill also improves early intervention strategies. Currently too 
many children with reading problems are being identified as learning 
disabled and placed in special education classes they do not 
necessarily belong in. We have given local school districts the 
flexibility to use up to 15 percent of their funds for prereferral 
services for students before they are identified as needing special 
education. I think that is a very important provision because of some 
of the overidentification that goes on, particularly in the African 
American community.
  We also attempt to address that question of a disproportionate number 
of minority students wrongly placed in special education. We encourage 
school districts to provide positive behavioral interventions and 
support intensive educational interventions to prevent this 
overidentification and mis-
identification.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a lot in this legislation. It is very 
difficult, frankly, to take a significant piece of legislation and be 
able to comprehend it unless one has lived it for a long time. I will 
tell Members there are many people who have come to my office and left 
pictures of their children behind, which I have on my desk in both 
Wilmington and here in Washington, DC. There are many Members of 
Congress who are involved very personally with children with 
disabilities and are very concerned with what is in this legislation.
  Many steps have been taken in order to improve the legislation. We 
have tried to keep an open mind about amendments and suggestions and 
will do so through conference in order to help those children who truly 
need help in our schools. We are proud of our record and the 
legislation. I believe the Committee on Rules has done an outstanding 
job of sorting through amendments and preparing for today, and I would 
encourage everybody to support this rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, to respond to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), I 
wanted to make clear that those of us who have concerns about this bill 
do not want to maintain the status quo. We think this bill could be 
made much better. Our concerns are shared by a number of people who are 
directly impacted by this legislation, a number of constituency groups, 
parents, families, school counselors, psychologists, development 
specialists, disability advocates and other organizations. This is just 
a sampling of some of the correspondence I have received in the last 24 
hours. People have very, very deep and legitimate concerns about this 
bill; and I think we should have tried to get a broader consensus 
before we brought this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Woolsey), a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule 
because it will not allow Members of this Congress to vote on an 
amendment and to debate an amendment that would fully fund IDEA and 
make the funding mandatory. We all know how the funding process works 
around here. Authorization levels may be fine, budget numbers may help, 
but what really counts is appropriations. There are many, many 
competing demands on appropriations, so we should remove that 
competition when the Federal Government has made a commitment to fund 
an education program at any level because our schools need to be able 
to count on those funds. We have told them they are coming. They need 
to be able to count on them.
  To that end, Mr. Speaker, two amendments were submitted to the 
Committee on Rules, one by three Democrats and the other by three 
Republicans. Those amendments would have phased in full funding for the 
part B State grants in IDEA and at the same time made all new funding 
mandatory. Neither of these amendments were accepted; neither will be 
considered today. Without the opportunity to debate and vote on one or 
the other of these amendments, a vote for H.R. 1350

[[Page 9990]]

is a vote against fully funding special education programs, which in 
turn leaves our schools and our parents competing for scarce funds for 
needed programs that are needed equally for our special ed kids and for 
the rest of kids that need to be educated.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote down this rule and in so doing 
demand the opportunity to vote on an IDEA reauthorization bill that 
includes mandatory full funding.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) were at the Committee on Rules 
last night and spoke eloquently about their desire to ensure the 
funding levels. There are several issues there, but one of the most 
important ones was requiring that additional increases in funding above 
fiscal year 2003 levels be passed down directly to the local level.
  There was a very important discussion in the Committee on Rules about 
Governors and the responsibility they would have as they managed their 
State budgets. I would like to make sure that the Members of Congress 
understand this will be part of the debate that takes place today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us in 
supporting this rule so we may move to debate on the underlying 
legislation, the Improving Education Results for Children With 
Disabilities Act of 2003.
  This is a structured rule that makes in order a total of 14 
amendments to H.R. 1350. These amendments allow the House to work its 
will on a variety of important issues and topics. It is a fair rule, 
and I hope it is overwhelmingly approved.
  With respect to H.R. 1350, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education 
Reform, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, for all of the time and 
effort they have invested in bringing this important, well-crafted 
legislation to the House floor.
  Although IDEA has helped many children with special needs since it 
was enacted in 1975, some problems remain. The largest problem with 
IDEA is its focus on requiring compliance with complex rules, rather 
than producing the academic results that children with disabilities 
need. Streamlining and significant reforms are needed.
  H.R. 1350 represents a step in the right direction. Not only does it 
strengthen accountability and results for students, it also gives 
States the freedom to reduce paperwork that is often duplicative and 
unnecessary. Doing this will allow teachers to focus less on complex 
forms and more on spending time in the classroom teaching students with 
needs.
  Other reforms include greater flexibility for local school districts 
to improve early intervention strategies and thereby helping to lower 
the number of children who are improperly placed in special ed classes, 
and more innovative approaches to parental involvement and choice.
  When the IDEA law was originally enacted in the mid-1970s, the 
Federal Government promised to fund 40 percent of its costs. Although 
the Federal Government has made dramatic improvements in the last 8 
years by appropriating significantly higher funding, we are still 
falling short of the goal. However, to the credit of the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the full committee chairman, this bill puts 
the Federal Government on a glide path towards providing its full 40 
percent share of IDEA costs within 7 years.
  To those who would vote against a rule because it does not do what 
they did not do for the 22 years they controlled this House and the 
Senate and the White House is pure politics. It has nothing to do with 
children; it has nothing to do with special needs. When I came here 10 
years ago, IDEA was funded to the tune of 5 percent. It is now 18, soon 
to be 23, and on a glide path to 40 percent; and that is real 
significant progress. Opposition to this bill because it does not do 
what was failed to have been done for 25 years is sheer politics.
  I have always supported the right of children to a quality public 
education, and that remains a bedrock principle of mine. Unfortunately, 
in many local schools, special ed cannot be given the kind of 
treatment, attention, and care that it ought to receive. When this 
happens, families with special education children suffer.
  H.R. 1350 will move us toward our goal of working to give families 
with special education children the choices and the support they 
deserve. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this rule so we may 
proceed to debate the underlying legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) what we would like to see happen is all of us, including those 
on the majority side, keep their word to the American people, that we 
provide full funding for IDEA.
  There have been over 22 various resolutions and bills which have been 
voted on in this Chamber and the other body endorsing the idea of fully 
funding IDEA. We want them to keep their word. Let us put our 
appropriations where our rhetoric is.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the 
chairman of our subcommittee, for the gentleman's recognition and 
leading the committee toward an understanding of the disproportionately 
high number of African American males being placed in special 
education.
  I raised the issue in subcommittee in the form of an amendment, and 
the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), to his credit, led us through 
a discussion of that which led to what I am sure is a real adjustment 
and a way to handle that issue by dealing with this disproportionately 
high number of individuals in a special group.

                              {time}  1100

  With that having been said, since we did not get to the point, 
though, of dealing with full funding for the legislation and without 
the resources needed, I am afraid that we cannot take care of the 
problems. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the rule. I think we 
have had an opportunity and could have had an excellent piece of 
legislation, but I am afraid that it falls short because it short-
changes those in our society who need the help the most, children with 
disabilities.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire upon the time 
remaining for both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) has 8 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern) has 18 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to let the gentleman know 
that I would be pleased to have them consume several speakers so that 
we can get more closely aligned on the time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a valued member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me 
this time.
  I think it is extremely unfortunate that the Republican majority on 
the Committee on Rules has voted to deny this full body, all 435 
Members of this Congress, the opportunity today to vote up or down on 
meeting the education commitments we have made to America's children. 
We many years ago said that the Federal Government was going to pay for 
40 percent of the costs for special education; and as we sit here on 
this floor today, we are only at 18 percent. I know that in campaigns 
throughout this country when we all go before school boards, 
Republicans and Democrats, when we talk to parents

[[Page 9991]]

groups, we have all said how important it is to keep our promise and 
make that 40 percent commitment. I am very pleased and I want to thank 
the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee 
for giving us the opportunity to debate that very issue and vote on it 
in committee. I was disappointed that it failed on party lines, and I 
think it is important that this full House have an opportunity to 
debate that. This is the reauthorization bill. This is the one time for 
the next 5 years we are going to be taking up this issue. This is the 
time to do it.
  For those who say it is not important, we should leave it to the 
appropriations process, I would say to those listening it is the 
difference between giving a guarantee today and rolling the dice every 
year with the Committee on Appropriations, and we know from history 
that we have been unable to meet that commitment rolling the dice every 
year. Now is the time to make the guarantee. Just a little over a year 
ago, the President signed the No Child Left Behind bill and promised a 
great deal of more resources to our States and our school boards in 
exchange for numerous responsibilities that we put upon them; and yet 
just a little over a year later, we are already failing to make our 
commitment on No Child Left Behind. This year we are $9 billion short. 
We need to meet our commitments we made on special ed more than 20 
years ago. We need to meet our commitments we made in No Child Left 
Behind. We should not be pitting these groups against each other. There 
should not be competition in funds between special education and all 
other education. Let us vote today to provide our schools and our 
children the resources we have promised. Give this House an opportunity 
to do it. Why are we afraid to let 435 Members vote on that issue?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), another valued member of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the work he has 
put in in dealing with this rule as well as with the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce and a member of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth 
and Families in charge of the reauthorization of this bill. And while I 
will be supporting legislation at the end of the day, assuming the 
voucher amendments that will be offered today are not in fact adopted, 
I have to rise and express my opposition to the rule.
  I do appreciate most sincerely the effort that the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the subcommittee chairman, has put in with the 
outreach that he has provided to the members of the committee and also 
throughout the rest of the Nation in regards to the input on this 
important legislation; but this is really the most important education 
bill that is going to be appearing before this 108th session of 
Congress over the next couple of years, and all Members should have an 
opportunity to offer amendments and to express their concerns and to 
offer some improvements to the legislation that we have been working on 
for some time, not least of which the granddaddy of all the unfunded 
Federal mandates that is affecting our school district, which is full 
funding of special education.
  I cannot comment on the remarks of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) in regards to what happened in previous Congresses and why they 
did not fully fund it, but I do recognize a promise, and a promise that 
is not being kept, when I see it. We should have the opportunity today 
to offer an amendment requiring mandatory full funding of special 
education so we can get away from pitting student against student in 
our classrooms.
  This is an important piece of legislation. Children with special 
needs should have access to quality of education like any other child 
throughout the country, but this is an unfunded mandate because we have 
never lived up to the 40 percent cost share that was promised in the 
mid-1970s when it was first passed. We are on an encouraging trend 
line, though, to try to increase funding to that level, but excuse some 
of us on this side of the aisle if we are somewhat cynical or doubtful 
that this Congress or the administration is truly committed to 
achieving full funding in the 7 years that they claim they will achieve 
it under this legislation. It is just a little over a year since No 
Child Left Behind was passed; and yet, as my colleague before me just 
recognized, we are $9 billion short in funding that program.
  This should be an open rule. We should not be closing the debate 
process. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on it and bring back 
an open rule to have a discussion on this important topic.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule 
and the bill.
  In general, IDEA is a good program which works well. As a society, we 
have decided that all children have a right to a quality education. In 
1954 our country made it clear that ``all children'' included racial 
minorities, and under IDEA we made it clear that ``all children'' 
included those with disabilities. The dream that all children are 
entitled to a quality education is an expensive dream to achieve, but 
we have decided that we mean to achieve that goal.
  Many years ago, Congress promised to contribute 40 percent of the 
cost of achieving that goal, and this bill provides only a modest 
increase in authorization; but if No Child Left Behind is a guide, the 
appropriations will not follow. If we mandated the appropriations in 
the bill, we could be sure that the money would follow the 
authorization, but that mandate is not in the bill. We should remember, 
Mr. Speaker, that the Federal legislation to protect the educational 
rights of children with disabilities would not be necessary if school 
districts did a better job in carrying out their responsibilities.
  Prior to the Federal mandate of Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act, millions of children with disabilities receive no 
education at all. But this bill makes it more difficult for our 
children with disabilities to get the free and appropriate education to 
which they are entitled because many of the discipline provisions in 
the bill are inconsistent with that goal. Rather than making sure that 
children with disabilities are provided with good teachers who have 
appropriate training and professional development, the bill allows 
school districts to shuttle kids off to so-called interim alternative 
educational settings that will not provide a free and appropriate 
public education. In so doing, this bill makes it easier for local 
school systems to illegally place children with disabilities in 
inappropriate settings while at the same time reducing the parents' 
ability to challenge those placements. And so, Mr. Speaker, in the bill 
the removal of the current discipline protections will result in 
students with disabilities being expelled or removed for actions they 
cannot control.
  Mr. Speaker, the revised discipline provisions in the bill were added 
to give school districts an opportunity to avoid providing the most 
challenging students with disabilities free and appropriate education; 
yet we should remember that even with the current protections, students 
with disabilities are already overrepresented among students who are 
expelled from schools. The elimination of the current discipline 
safeguards will remove the only legal safeguards that currently exist 
for these students with disabilities.
  Mr. Speaker, for these reasons as well as others I ask my colleagues 
to oppose the rule and oppose final passage of H.R. 1350.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, wherever I have gone in my 
district meeting with my school superintendents and parents, teachers, 
and just proponents of good education for all of our children, one of 
the strongest

[[Page 9992]]

issues has been the full funding of the authorization for children with 
disabilities. Full funding, full funding is the cry all over America. I 
would have hoped today that we could have moved forward with the 
concept of full funding, and I am gratified that this legislation has 
finally come to the floor; but clearly we are missing the boat if we 
believe that we are going to be able to reach again to America's 
commitment to equal education for every child if we do not provide full 
funding for children with disabilities.
  And then, Mr. Speaker, I think it is clearly important that we again 
reassess these new provisions dealing with penalties for misbehavior in 
this legislation. Why are we penalizing the children who need the most 
help? Why are we penalizing the children who need the most incentive? 
Why are we penalizing the teachers who need the most help? We can find 
a much better guide, if the Members will, and provide the guiding mark 
for helping these children without providing them with extra burdens or 
penalties for misbehavior so they wind up being the children who are 
expelled and out of the system in the first place.
  Have my colleagues ever spoken to a parent of a disabled child? Their 
greatest plea is to give their child that opportunity. And here we come 
with a bill that, one, does not have full funding; and, two, creates 
these extraordinary burdens on the school system, the teachers, and the 
parents.
  I would also say that I think it is extremely important to support 
the McKeon-Woolsey amendment that clearly dictates to our school 
districts, and I know they are struggling with the funding resources 
that they have, to direct all funds beyond the administrative costs 
directly to the services so that all the moneys that we do have funded 
out of this legislation will directly go to serving our children.
  I would like us to come forward as we have attempted to do in a 
bipartisan manner. I certainly appreciate the work of the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, but we are falling short of America's 
children and America's promise of the educational opportunity for all 
children. If we do not provide full funding, we do not direct all 
moneys to the services and we get rid of these burdensome provisions, 
that will only send more special ed children into the streets away from 
equal opportunity of education for all of our children.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, before I was selected to the Committee 
on Appropriations, I was subcommittee chairman of the Committee on 
Education. I went through the IDEA bill and the reauthorization. Taking 
the parent groups and the schools and putting them in the same room is 
like putting a Persian cat and a Siamese cat together. It was very 
difficult. We actually basically put them in a room, gave them no bread 
or water, and told them to come out with a solution. The solution they 
came out with was pretty reasonable, and there was balance except that 
when the final bill came out, for example, the trial lawyers changed 
the intent, we said the first time a parent goes to the school we do 
not want a trial lawyer there because it will raise the funding and it 
will cost schools. And they said let the schools provide a lawyer. The 
schools do not need a lawyer. But they do, and what happened is they 
got around it when we established that rule that a parent would go to 
school, the trial lawyers would still be paid, and it would cost the 
additional money.
  I think the Democrats have really got their gall. For 20 years IDEA 
was supposed to be funded at 40 percent. The most it was ever funded 
was 5 percent of that 40 percent. When the Democrats had the White 
House, the House, and the Senate, they gave us the highest tax increase 
in history. They increased spending with a deficit at $330 billion 
forever; but, no, they did not increase the spending on IDEA. It stayed 
at 5 percent. Since we have taken the majority, we have put it up to 18 
percent, over a 262 percent increase; and it is on a climb, and it will 
go on to climb. But they want to put this program on a mandatory level, 
on autopilot. None of these changes would be possible. People will 
retire on active duty just like the other mandatory spending programs. 
The Democrats talk about fiscal responsibility. Let us put veterans, 
let us put IDEA, let us put Impact Aid, let us put all those other 
things on mandatory spending. The budget in this place will go out of 
sight and the deficit and the debt will also go up. The real problem is 
Gray Davis, the Governor of California. He is cutting the money at the 
State level and running the whole IDEA engine on Federal money. He is 
cutting IDEA.

                              {time}  1115

  He is cutting Impact Aid. He is cutting Title I. So if you want to 
improve IDEA stop him from stealing the money, I do not want to add new 
money and have Governor Davis steal it. I do not want to add new money 
though and have it go to the trial lawyers with these cottage 
organizations. But the Democrats will not do that, because that is 
where they get their campaign money.
  We need to change the system. Alan Bersin was Bill Clinton's Border 
Czar and is now the superintendent of the San Diego city schools. He 
has testified that IDEA is his biggest problem in schools. He wants to 
improve IDEA. IDEA has helped children with disabilities before they 
were left out. They were left behind. We are trying to improve the 
bill. But to make it mandatory after what the Democrats have done 
nothing for all of these years is hypocrisy and political demagoguery.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman from California who 
just spoke that the government made a commitment to provide States with 
40 percent of the costs for special education. We have broken that 
promise time and time again. We are breaking that promise again today. 
If the gentleman does not want to provide 40 percent of the costs to 
States, he can vote against one of the amendments that was offered in 
the Committee on Rules last night that was denied here on the floor 
today that would provide mandatory funding.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise in objection to the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the Individuals with Disabilities Act, also known as 
IDEA, has made progressive strides for children with disabilities since 
it was first introduced in 1975. H.R. 1350, which reauthorizes this 
landmark legislation, is before the House today. This bill has some 
very positive attributes and, I think, perhaps some very negative 
points.
  First, this bill provides for a 1-year statute of limitations on 
complaints for due process hearing. I think this is very helpful for 
school districts who are serving many of these students. The 1-year 
statute will prevent complaints from previous school years from 
reoccurring.
  But at the same time, this bill weakens protections for parents and 
students that are provided by the current law. The bill gives the 
option for a school district to develop an individual education plan 
for the child every 3 years. The current law provides for the IEPs to 
be done every year. Three years is too long, I think, to track a 
student's progress. This bill needs to maintain the continued IEP for 
every school year.
  Additionally, the bill allows students to be moved indefinitely to an 
alternative placement for any violation of a school's code of conduct. 
Current law allows a 45-day alternative placement unless it is for 
weapons, guns or drugs. Removing the child indefinitely may not be 
warranted by the facts of the particular situation of the child. The 
child should be entitled to a manifestation review to see if the 
disability has caused that conduct, but this bill eliminates the 
manifestation review that is in the current law. We should not 
permanently remove a child from school if the conduct was a result of 
his or her disability.

[[Page 9993]]

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to uphold the imposition of the 
rule so debate can continue on this bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Texas for 
yielding me time and for his great work working with myself and the 
members of our committee and others to help craft the bill that we have 
before us today.
  Let me also thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and 
the Committee on Rules for their consideration of what I think is a 
very fair rule for Members on both sides of the political aisle. There 
is great opportunity for Members to offer amendments.
  Let me also thank my good friend, the chairman of our Subcommittee on 
Education Reform, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for the 
tremendous work that he did, and the members of our committee and our 
staff, by the way, for all of their hard work in getting us here today.
  I will have a lot more to say about the bill when we actually get 
into the bill, but we are on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of conversation this morning about 
the issue of mandatory spending versus full funding. I just want to say 
that the amendments that were offered that were not made in order with 
regard to mandatory spending were not made in order because they 
violated the rules of the House. You cannot bring a mandatory funding 
amendment here without getting a waiver of the Budget Act. The fact is 
that neither of these amendments were crafted in such a way that they 
did not violate the rules of the House. That is why they were not made 
in order.
  Let me also say that mandatory funding for this program is the wrong 
way to fund the program. We would not be here today making the 
improvements in this bill to help children with special needs and to 
help our teachers, principals, school board members and superintendents 
if it had not been for the fact that we have this bill on a 5-year 
reauthorization track. It forces the Congress to step back and look at 
this Act and to determine, is it working the way we intended it? Are 
there better ways to achieve our objective?
  I would suggest to all of my colleagues that if it had been under 
mandatory spending, we know what happens with those programs; they get 
put on automatic pilot and are very seldom looked at. That is not in 
the best interests of special needs children, and it is not in the best 
interests of our schools.
  Let me also say what my colleague from California pointed to. The 
first 20 years of this Act Congress never really stepped up to the 
plate. Our friends on the other side of the aisle were in charge. Even 
in 1993 and 1994, when they had control of the House and Senate and the 
White House, there was no move made to make this a mandatory funding 
program. So why do we hear about it now?
  I would just suggest to my colleagues we do two things here in this 
town; we do public policy and we do politics. We would like to get the 
politics out of it, but it is kind of hard to take politics out of 
politics. But when we hear all of the discussion about mandatory 
funding, trust me, it is nothing more than politics.
  Since 1996, all you have to do is look at the chart next to me and 
see the dramatic increases in funding. 1997, a 33.7 percent increase in 
IDEA spending. In 1998, a 22.3 percent increase in spending; then we 
raised it another 13.2 percent in 1999; how about the year 2000, 16 
percent more on top of that; the year 2001, a 27.1 percent increase; or 
how about 2002, an 18.8 percent increase; or how about this year, 2003, 
a 17.8 percent increase.
  All of these are built on top of the previous increases. And in the 
budget resolution that we adopted just several weeks ago we called for 
a 24.8 percent increase in IDEA spending.
  For someone to suggest that we are not doing our job, we are not 
trying to meet our responsibilities, I think, misses the point 
entirely. In this bill that is before us, we have a glidepath to get 
from the 20 percent of funding, in round figures, 21 percent at the end 
of this year, to 40 percent. I think that is a reasonable approach, it 
is the right way to go, and none of us, none of us, should hang our 
heads when it comes to the question of whether we are meeting our 
obligations to fully fund IDEA.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to close for our side.
  Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of schools welcome children with 
disabilities as an integral part of their student body. They work with 
parents, teachers, medical professions and support personnel to provide 
these students with ``free appropriate public education.''
  Unfortunately, there are still children with disabilities who are 
denied the education they need, the education that they deserve, and 
the education that they are entitled to by law.
  H.R. 1350 does nothing. It does nothing to guarantee that the Federal 
Government will keep its commitment to fund 40 percent of the Part B 
grants to States.
  It is astonishing that the new argument why we are being denied the 
right to vote up or down on the issue of mandatory funding is these 
amendments would require a budget waiver. The majority provides budget 
waivers and every other kind of waiver for all of their amendments all 
the time. So the real reason why we are not having these amendments on 
the floor is because the majority does not want us to vote on an 
amendment that would require the Federal Government to keep its word to 
the American people.
  This bill also does not address the shortage of qualified special 
education teachers in a meaningful way. Currently unqualified and 
under-qualified special education teachers are teaching more than 
600,000 children with disabilities. By significantly weakening both the 
discipline protections and due process rights in current law, H.R. 1350 
makes it more likely that students with disabilities will be turned 
away from their neighborhood schools and segregated in alternative 
education settings until they eventually just drop out of school.
  If H.R. 1350 becomes law, children with disabilities will not just be 
left behind, they will be left far behind.
  Mr. Speaker, although this rule allows debate on several amendments, 
it denies the House the opportunity to debate the question of mandatory 
funding, the most fundamental question affecting special education 
programs. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule 
and to vote no on H.R. 1350.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank several people who have been a 
part of our success today, not just the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Boehner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle), but also 
from the Committee on Education and Workforce, David Cleary and Sally 
Lovejoy; from the staff of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), 
Sarah Rittling; from the Committee on Rules, Adam Jarvis and Eileen 
Harley; and from my staff, Bobby Hillert and Tucker Anderson.
  Mr. Speaker, this is about a decision that this House is going to 
make to debate today, IDEA. That is what the vote on the rule is about, 
are we going to proceed with regular order?
  I am in favor of what we are doing. I believe that the clay that we 
have put in front of us today will be a better model. We will rebuild 
IDEA and we will make it better than what it is today.
  As the parent of a child who will fall under IDEA, I can tell you 
obviously there are risks involved any time you get into a new 
circumstance. I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the 
opportunity that this great body has to make IDEA better for every 
single student, for the teachers and the administrators who will work 
underneath these new processes and the students who come into contact

[[Page 9994]]

with our children, will find that this will be a better way. We have 
learned from the last 7 years. We will learn on a going-forward basis. 
It is the right thing to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask every single one of my colleagues, please support 
the rule. Let us debate IDEA, and let us get it passed today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 211, 
nays 195, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 149]

                               YEAS--211

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bass
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Bachus
     Becerra
     Boehlert
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cubin
     Davis (AL)
     DeMint
     Dreier
     Gephardt
     Honda
     Hyde
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Lewis (GA)
     McCarthy (MO)
     Oberstar
     Owens
     Pomeroy
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Tauzin
     Whitfield


                Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson)(during the vote). The Chair 
announces that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1152

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ and Messrs. EDWARDS, DAVIS of Tennessee, and GUTIERREZ 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. GOSS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I was inevitably detained at the White 
House and was not able to be present on rollcall vote 149, providing 
for consideration of H.R. 1350; to reauthorize the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea'' on rollcall vote 149.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday April 30th I missed rollcall 
vote 149 due to attending an awards ceremony for the National Teacher 
of the Year at the White House. If I had been present I would have 
voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 149.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). Pursuant to House Resolution 206 
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 1350.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) as 
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Simpson) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1153


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1350) to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act, and for other purposes, with Mr. Simpson (Chairman pro tempore) in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we have a chance today to consider 
the Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act, 
H.R. 1350,

[[Page 9995]]

legislation that will strengthen our Nation's education law for 
children with special needs.
  I am very grateful for the work of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle) on this important legislation, and for all of the hard work all 
of our committee members have put into this project over the last 18 
months.
  I also want to thank the ranking member and my friend, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller), for his work during this process. 
While we are not in complete agreement with the bill that we have 
before us today, his efforts have been extraordinary and very helpful.
  The issues addressed in this bill are important ones for our 
constituents. I hear more comments from Members about IDEA than I do 
about any other Federal education program. Today is a chance to do 
something that will make a real difference in our schools.
  The bill that we have before us today is an important bill for our 
children and our schools. It is the next major step in education reform 
and the next step in the process of ensuring that Washington no longer 
spends billions of dollars a year on education programs without 
insisting on results for our children.
  This bill is important as an opportunity for us as legislators. The 
reforms in H.R. 1350 are strongly supported by teachers, school 
administrators, principals, and other educators, those who have been 
asked to do the most under the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act. 
This bill gives teachers and school leaders better tools to meet the 
high standards in No Child Left Behind, and they support it.
  When Republicans and Democrats came together some 16 months ago to 
pass No Child Left Behind, we vowed to bring a generation of failed 
Federal education policy to an end. We acknowledged that money alone 
has failed to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students 
and their peers. We declared that Washington would no longer pump 
billions of dollars a year into education without insisting on results 
for the children those dollars are supposed to serve.
  No Child Left Behind was the beginning of this process, not the end 
of it. The No Child Left Behind law requires that every child in 
America be given the chance to learn and succeed, including children 
with special needs. When we passed the law, we promised we would follow 
up by giving teachers and educators the tools they need to meet these 
high standards.
  We promised that we would revise laws like IDEA to ensure that the 
focus is on results being produced for our children, rather than on 
compliance with complicated rules and paperwork. We said that these 
things we could finally do, now that an accountability system was in 
place to ensure that parents know when their children are learning.
  Mr. Chairman, we are here today to make good on that commitment. The 
measure before us provides powerful reforms requested for years by 
teachers, principals, local educators, the people on the front lines of 
education in our country. The American Association of School 
Administrators, which represents some 14,000 educational leaders 
nationwide, calls H.R. 1350 ``the best special education policy 
revisions we have seen in decades.''
  The legislation aligns IDEA with No Child Left Behind and gives our 
school districts greater flexibility in reviewing the progress of a 
child by replacing benchmarks and short-term objectives with regular 
reporting requirements that are contained in No Child Left Behind.
  The bill before us reduces the paperwork burden on teachers. Good 
special education teachers are leaving the profession in frustration 
because of the IDEA paperwork burden, and there is a growing shortage 
of quality teachers in special education. This legislation before us 
allows parents to choose the option of a 3-year individualized 
education plan instead of an annual one.

                              {time}  1200

  And it is at the option of school to offer it and at the option of 
parents if they want to move to a 3-year plan. And the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Keller) has been promoting this idea for several years. I 
want to thank him for his contributions in this bill.
  H.R. 1350 will reduce the numbers of students that are misidentified 
or overrepresented in special education, a problem that particularly 
effects minority children. As the Civil Rights Project at Harvard 
University has shown, African Americans are nearly 3 times more likely 
to be labeled as mentally retarded under the current IDEA system and 
almost twice as likely to be labeled emotionally disturbed. Thousands 
of children every year are inappropriately identified, while many 
others are not identified at all.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), our colleague, gave us 
compelling testimony during committee sessions in the last Congress to 
help us address this, and I am proud to say that it is being addressed.
  H.R. 1350 gives local school districts new flexibility and resources 
to improve early intervention and reduce misidentification of children 
into special education. The bill before us would reduce destructive 
lawsuits and litigation in special ed, it encourages the use of 
mediation as early as possible, and creates new opportunities for 
voluntary binding arbitration.
  The bill encourages parental involvement and allows IDEA or school 
districts to use IDEA to support supplemental services for students 
with disabilities in high priority schools. It also allows parents to 
choose to keep their children with the same educational provider from 
the beginning of service until the child reaches school age. And I am 
grateful for the help from the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint) who helped devise these provisions.
  The bill also charts a clear path to full funding within 7 years. 
Thanks to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), it authorizes a 
systematic increase in special education aid to the State that would 
result in the Federal Government paying an unprecedented 21 percent of 
the total cost of special ed in America next year. And as the chart 
shows, as this chart shows, we have had unprecedented increases over 
the last 7 years. And the budget resolution that we passed just several 
weeks ago brings an increase this year of over $2 billion and 
authorizes an additional $2.5 billion next year. This is by far the 
highest percentage in history; and the Porter language will allow 
appropriators to increase IDEA spending through the traditional 
spending process, the same process that Congress has used to increase 
IDEA spending by almost 300 percent over the past 8 years.
  H.R. 1350, the bill before us, will enhance school safety, requiring 
districts to continue to provide educational services to students with 
disabilities while allowing the school district personnel to have one 
uniform discipline policy for our children. And the gentleman in 
Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has been a very effective member in leading the 
Congress to deal with this issue for many years. And I really do want 
to thank him for his willingness to work with the committee to craft 
the discipline provisions that we have in our bill.
  Let me just say as I close, I want to commend my colleague from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) for his leadership in bringing this legislation 
to this point. It is an excellent bill that will make a positive 
difference in the lives of parents with special needs children, 
teachers, school boards members and others, and I urge all of my 
colleagues today to join me in supporting this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this is a very 
important piece of legislation and I hope the Members will have an 
opportunity to listen to the debate. I wanted to thank my colleagues on 
the committee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner), the chairman of our committee, for the work

[[Page 9996]]

and effort they have put in on behalf of this legislation. We went 
through an extensive mark-up. We had an opportunity to offer a number 
of amendments. Unfortunately, most of them from our side were not 
accepted. But I believe that, in fact, this is a matter of good 
intentions by both sides of this debate.
  I must state, however, at this time I think this bill does 
considerable harm. I think that this bill falls short in protecting 
what is the basic civil rights of children with disabilities to get a 
free and appropriate education. That is the intent of the law. And I am 
concerned that this bill does not do what it says it should do with 
respect to guaranteeing the basic rights of those children.
  This bill also falls short on another front, and that is the 
guaranteed full funding of this Act. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner) is right, the Congress has done a much better job in the last 
6 or 7 years in providing those fundings, but the fact is that the 
promise that has been made to the local school districts has not been 
kept; and even this year in an appropriations bill passed just a couple 
of weeks ago, we are $1 billion 200 million behind that curve; and yet 
we will not be allowed to offer amendments to require that that funding 
be mandatory and that full funding be achieved by this legislation. 
That is a 30 year-old promise that we made, and it is unfortunate that 
we will not be allowed to have that amendment.
  Yes, many in the school establishment and the education establishment 
are for this Act. It probably makes their lives somewhat easier; but we 
ought to be thinking also about the rights of these children and the 
protections of these children and the needs of these children and their 
families; to make sure that, in fact, the educational opportunity is 
provided to these children with disabilities.
  It is for that reason that after reviewing this legislation that the 
National PTA, the Children's Defense Fund, the National Association of 
Education of Young Children, and so many other organizations have 
contacted the Members of Congress and said that this bill is 
unacceptable, that they oppose this bill because it does not provide 
that protection along with 14,000 other people who have sent e-mails 
and petitions against this legislation, representing the parents and 
families of these children who know how difficult it is to get that 
education for the children. And yet at the same time, when we have not 
met full funding, when we are weakening the rights of the children and 
the families, we also see that this legislation allows for the 
diversion of funds, some of which are for good purposes, but when you 
do not have the funding in place, you have to raise the question of 
whether or not this money ought to be diverted from the system. And 
also, we have to look at that diversion of these Federal funds targeted 
for the education of children with disabilities at a time when these 
funds at the local level are becoming more and more scarce because of 
the budget problems of our States that is now so well documented.
  Finally, let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I am deeply concerned about 
the waivers that are authorized in the name of paperwork reduction for 
the States. I am very concerned that this will allow the waivers of 
documentation to ensure access to a general education curriculum, 
documentation ensuring accommodations of State tests, information on a 
child's academic achievement, information on transition plans for post 
secondary education, procedural safeguard notices provided to parents 
so that they are aware of their rights, prior written notices to 
parents of the services and placements that their child will receive.
  These are fundamental to these families. It is fundamental to these 
children. It is fundamental to making sure that they can get the 
education that they have sought for their child so that the child will 
have a full opportunity to participate in American society. And yet we 
see as we go into the due process hearings, you go in to enforce your 
child's civil rights, that you would be barred from raising new issues 
at a process hearing even if the evidence surfaces. If there is new 
evidence that comes to the attention of the school and the parents, you 
cannot raise it in these hearings. You cannot raise it. You cannot. All 
they have to decide is whether or not you are getting a free and 
appropriate education. But if there are errors made, the parent cannot 
raise them. Why are we precluding these parents?
  The fact of the matter is that many school districts, we may not want 
to say it is one in our district, but there are a huge number of school 
districts that make it very difficult for parents to get the free and 
appropriate education, to get the services. Huge numbers of these 
children do not get services. They get put on the list for services. 
And there is a world of distinction between being on the list for 
services and getting services when your child is in an educational 
setting and you run the risk that they are going to fall further and 
further behind, and then you need additional services to have them 
catch up.
  Then we have a cap on attorneys fees on this legislation, which says 
that it is going to be harder and harder for low income parents to find 
a lawyer to take these cases to challenge the school districts where 
that educational opportunity is being denied. But the school district, 
there is no limitation on their use of tax dollars paid for by these 
parents to defend what they have done. Now, nothing there. It is just 
that you cannot get attorney's fees when you bring a case because your 
child has been denied that education.
  My concern, Mr. Chairman, is that this legislation is taking us back 
to another time. With the discipline provisions, where we are now going 
to determine this basic right to an education, this basic civil rights 
action based upon the code of conduct in individual schools, so that 
children with autism, children with cerebral palsy, severely 
emotionally disturbed children, are going to be determined by that code 
of conduct. You ought to read those codes of conduct and see whether or 
not that is how you would like your child to be measured up if they 
have Down syndrome, because unacceptable displays of affection are 
reasons for suspension.
  You say a school district would not do that, but these are the same 
school districts that are throwing Harry Potter out of school. So we 
cannot take the educational needs of these children and the civil 
rights protections in this law and have them open to that kind of whim. 
And I think we ought to be very careful about that.
  I would urge Members to vote against this legislation. It fails on 
the protections for children and it fails on the funding, and this will 
be our last chance to try and get and redeem the promise that every 
Member of this Congress has made to local school districts that we 
would provide the funding. We said we would provide the funding in No 
Child Left Behind. We are $5 billion behind on that one, and we are a 
$1.2 billion behind on this one this year. That is $7 billion that we 
are down at a time when the States are struggling, and at a time when 
it is becoming more and more expensive to educate these children. We 
ought not do that. We ought to have an amendment here on full funding 
and we ought to make it mandatory, and we ought to protect the rights 
of these children.
  This is a very, very important bill that we take up here today. I 
urge members to listen carefully to this debate.
  I first want to thank my colleagues on the Education Committee, 
Representative Castle, Representative Woolsey, and Chairman Boehner, 
for the time and effort they have put into this legislation. I 
appreciate the other side's willingness to discuss the issues in this 
bill, and to take the time in Committee over a 2-day mark-up to debate 
the 30-some amendments that members on both sides of the aisle offered. 
However, despite what I know were many good intentions on the other 
side of the aisle, this bill is fundamentally flawed.
  The Bill Does Harm: The bill we will consider today has many, many 
provisions that jeopardize the quality of education provided to 
children with disabilities and their civil and due process rights under 
current law.
  This Bill Falls Short In What It Does Not Do: Moreover, this bill 
breaks yet another promise to couple resources with reform. Despite

[[Page 9997]]

promises made last year by the Administration, and by the Republican 
leadership of this Congress, the bill before us today fails to ensure 
that additional resources will accompany these major changes to the 
law.
  Stakes Are High: The stakes in this reauthorization are very high. 
The reason we need a Federal law is that students with disabilities 
have special needs. They require extra attention and accommodations. 
And for a variety of reasons, without external pressure and assistance, 
many schools cannot or will not provide the services and accommodations 
necessary to ensure that every child has a free and appropriate public 
education.
  Before 1975, approximately 1 million children with disabilities were 
excluded from public education. Millions more were given an inferior 
education even though they attended school. There are many provisions 
in this bill that would turn back the clock on the progress we have 
made. But you don't have to take my word for it. I have received stacks 
of letters on this from parents, educators, and experts who have 
expressed grave concerns about this bill. Dozens of national 
organizations--including the National PTA, the Children's Defense Fund, 
the National Association of Education of Young Children, and almost 
every group that exists to advocate on behalf of students with specific 
disabilities--opposes this bill. And an ever growing list--at current 
count 14,000--of individuals has signed an on-line petition expressing 
their opposition.
  Many of the fights we will have today pit the interests of parents 
and students against those of school board members and administrators. 
What drives these fights primarily is the scarcity of resources. It is 
a problem we could easily solve. If we had the will.
  Almost every member of the House is on record in support of full 
funding either as cosponsor of a bill, as a ``yea'' vote on non-binding 
resolution, or as a speaker on special orders. And all of the other 
vehicles we have in this body for pretending we are doing something.
  But now the moment of truth has arrived. And suddenly the past 
supporters of full funding, under pressure from their leadership, are 
scrambling for cover. It would have taken only an additional $1.2 
billion in the appropriations bill just passed in February to put us on 
the road to full funding.
  The other side will tell you that we have done all that is possible. 
That there are no offsets to provide additional funding. With all due 
respect, those arguments do not stand up under scrutiny.
  What we are asking for to ensure that children with disabilities have 
the accommodations, the aides, the qualified teachers, the curriculum, 
and other things they need to receive a quality education is chump 
change compared to other legislation this House has passed within the 
last couple of years.
  No one asked for an offset when this Congress spent over a trillion 
dollars in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. No one asked for an 
offset when we provided $99 billion over 10 years to repeal the estate 
tax for the richest 2 percent of decedents. No one asked for an offset 
when we spent $87 billion over 10 years on the farm bill. No one asked 
for an offset when we spent $36 billion over 10 years on a pointless 
energy bill. But suddenly we cannot come up with a measly $1.2 billion. 
Shame on us. Shame on us.
  Diversion of Funds: To add insult to injury, H.R. 1350 contains many 
provisions that allow States and school districts to divert funds--all 
IDEA funds--away from direct services to students with disabilities 
during the regular school day. Here is a partial list:
  Fifteen percent of funds can be diverted to a new ``pre-referral'' 
program;
  Twenty percent of funds can be used to supplant local education 
funds; and
  An unlimited percentage of funds can be diverted to ``supplemental 
services'' required under the Title I program of Federal education law.
  These are all worthy purposes. But because we fail to provide the 
necessary funding, we are setting an even more intense competition for 
scarce resources. Resources that--given State and local budget crises 
and the prolonged economic downturn--are becoming scarcer and scarcer 
every day.
  H.R. 1350 authorizes a pilot project under which the Secretary of 
Education may grant waivers to up to 10 States under the auspices of 
``paperwork reduction.'' Under this authority, many bedrock 
requirements of IDEA could be waived, including:
  Individualized Education Programs--
  Documentation on ensuring access to general education curriculum;
  Documentation ensuring accommodations on State tests;
  Information on a child's academic achievement; and
  Information on transition plans for postsecondary education or 
employment.
  Procedural Safeguard Notices--Notices provided to parents to ensure 
they are aware of their rights.
  Prior Written Notices--Notices to parents on the services and 
placement their child will receive.
  Accountability and Public Reporting--State and local achievement and 
drop out data, disaggregation by race or LEP status, disproportionate 
representation of minorities in special education.
  This bill Weakens Due Process Protections for Parents in All 50 
States--even if children and their parents are lucky enough to live in 
one of the States that is not part of the waiver program, they cannot 
escape this bill's damage. The Republican bill would fundamentally 
undermine the due process rights of all parents:
  Parents would be barred from raising new issues at due process 
hearings--even if new evidence has surfaced;
  Hearing officers would be hamstrung to limit rulings to the denial of 
a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE);
  Schools would not be liable for procedural, due process, and other 
violations; and
  Schools would have little to fear in denying parents due process 
rights because parents would effectively have no recourse, no remedy.
  H.R. 1350 institutes a one-year statute of limitations on violations 
of IDEA. Virtually the only thing that would have a shorter statutory 
reach would be parking tickets and traffic violations.
  H.R. 1350 Caps Attorneys' Fees Reimbursement to parents, requiring 
Governors to set the rate of attorneys' fees reimbursement when a 
parent wins a due process hearing. This would allow caps on attorneys' 
fees but only for parents. School districts would still be free to hire 
and pay, at public expense, the salaries of lawyers who are on the 
opposite side of the legal battle from parents. This provision will 
effectively prevent low- and moderate-income parents from acquiring 
legal representation to protect the rights of their disabled children.
  H.R. 1350 would allow students to be expelled unilaterally and placed 
in an ``alternative setting'' for any violation of a school's ``code of 
conduct.'' This is the single most egregious provision in this bill. It 
will set back the disability rights movement 30 years.
  Under the guise of discipline, many children will confront the same 
obstacles they confronted before IDEA was passed--school districts that 
can say unilaterally: ``You are not welcome here. We do not want to 
educate you.''
  Under this provision, a student could be expelled for virtually 
anything: chewing gum, shouting out in class, carrying a plastic eating 
utensil with their lunch, inappropriate displays of public affection, 
being late for class, not completing homework.
  Moreover, placement in an alternative setting is unilateral. There is 
no ``manifestation determination'' that would mitigate the consequences 
for students whose violations are the result of their disability:
  A child with Tourrete's syndrome could be expelled for shouting out 
in class;
  A child with cerebral palsy could be expelled for inadvertently 
making contact with another student or teacher;
  A developmentally disabled child (low IQ) could be expelled for an 
``inappropriate public affection;''
  A child with Attention Deficit Disorder could be expelled for 
repeatedly being late for class or getting out of his or her seat.
  As I said in my opening, I think many of the provisions in this bill 
are well-intentioned. Some make sensible improvements in the law. But 
overall the bill is fundamentally flawed.
  I hope we are able to improve the bill here on the floor and in 
conference and look forward to working with my colleagues in that 
effort. I hope we can make these so that this law makes a positive 
change in lives of children with disabilities and their families. And 
so that it garners the strong bipartisan support and consensus it has 
long enjoyed.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my good friend from California 
(Mr. George Miller), one of the authors of the original underlying 
legislation, there is a point that is being missed here.
  In all, the conversation that we heard from my friend from California 
revolved around the current system and how the current system works and 
the changes to the current system. But there is one very large dynamic 
that is being changed, and it changed under No Child Left Behind when 
we require

[[Page 9998]]

school districts to disaggregate data and we require them to 
disaggregate the test data by subgroups including special education 
children. For a school to succeed under No Child Left Behind, all the 
sub-groups have to show improvement. And so school districts under No 
Child Left Behind are going to have to ensure that their special needs 
students are improving and showing progress.
  This is a dramatic change in terms of how we are going to deal with 
special ed students. And as a result, the changes that we are putting 
in the bill will allow school districts to have more flexibility to 
move this program to one that will bring results for our special ed 
students as opposed to being locked in the process.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  I just wanted to say that the committee has done a pretty good job on 
a very difficult issue. They are going to be up to 21 percent. The goal 
has been 40 percent for a long time. Let me just say that I have a 
personal interest in this issue. I did not have a few years ago but I 
do now. And I want to tell you that there are children being left 
behind and they are going to be left behind unless we get additional 
funds.
  I have talked to school boards and school teachers and others and the 
funds are not there to give these children the educational additional 
attention they need, particularly children who are autistic. And we 
have 1 out of every 200 children in America now that are autistic. And 
we need to get to that 40 percent level before 6 years; and I know the 
gentleman is doing his absolute best to get there, but that is not 
enough. We are not moving fast enough. We waste a ton of money around 
here, and these kids who are autistic and who are Down syndrome 
children are going to be burdens on society as they grow up if they do 
not get the attention they need right now.
  And it will cost 10, 20, 30 times more if we do not do it now by 
educating them and giving them a chance to be a productive member of 
society, than if we wait.
  So what I would like to do is say to my colleagues in this Congress, 
and I know we are all well-intentioned and we care about these kids, 
the problem is real. Children are being left behind, and it is going to 
come back to bite us in the fanny in the future if we do not do 
something about it right now.
  So I would like to say to my colleague who has worked very hard on 
this and his committee and the members of the Committee on 
Appropriations, let us get to the 40 percent level a lot quicker than 6 
years from now because these kids cannot wait.

                              {time}  1215

  We are going to bear the responsibility 10, 20, 30 years from now 
when they grow up and they cannot produce.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the subcommittee that has 
jurisdiction over the IDEA, I have been struck by how very emotional 
people are about this very issue. In fact, before me I have a stack of 
mail that came to the Committee on Education and the Workforce just 
over the last few days, and that mail is against passage of H.R. 1350.
  There are two things we can do in Congress to reduce the stress and 
the emotion that people feel about this issue. One is to fully fund it 
and make it mandatory; two is to make sure that children are treated 
fairly in the discipline process.
  If we fully fund the Federal share of our costs and if we make 
funding mandatory, we will fulfill the commitment to our schools for 
the special education programs that we have promised here in the 
Congress. Unfortunately, H.R. 1350 does not do that. Without mandatory 
full funding, the authorization levels in the bill are meaningless 
because they are subject to the many, many competitive requests 
included in all and every appropriations process.
  Amendments were offered during the committee, Mr. Chairman. 
Amendments were offered by the Democrats that would fully fund IDEA and 
make the funding mandatory. But those amendments were defeated on a 
partisan basis, and we do not have before us any amendment that would 
fully fund and allow for the debate here today to fully fund this issue 
of mandatory funding for IDEA.
  To me, a vote for H.R. 1350 is a vote against fully funding the 
issue, and I oppose it for that reason alone. But there is another good 
reason to oppose H.R. 1350. And talk about getting emotional, this is 
where parents and educators have a lot to say, and that is the 
discipline provisions in the bill.
  In the bill, a student with special needs can be removed from school 
for, and I quote, ``any violation of a school's student code of 
conduct.'' Now, that is different in every single school, and a child 
can be kept out of school for an indefinite length of time. So a 
student with Tourette's syndrome, for example, who may shout out in 
class, can be expelled. A student who does not understand the dress 
code and wears shorts when long pants are required, could be expelled. 
A student with limited muscular control could be expelled for lashing 
out or possibly pushing another student. There is no requirement in 
H.R. 1350 to determine if the child's violation is the result of his or 
her disability.
  This is going backwards. It is no way to reauthorize IDEA. Children, 
parents, and schools deserve an IDEA reauthorization where parents will 
not have to compete over education funds, where the goal will be to 
keep kids with special needs in school, where the legislation removes 
the emotion surrounding the issue, not increases it. Unfortunately, Mr. 
Chairman, H.R. 1350 is not that kind of reauthorization, and I will not 
be able to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), a friend and member of the 
committee as well as the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century 
Competitiveness.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1350, 
which will make dramatic improvements in the Nation's special education 
law. I would like to thank my good friend and chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle), chairman of the Subcommittee on Education 
Reform, for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor.
  Nearly 2 years ago, the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
began holding hearings in preparation for the reauthorization of the 
Individuals With Disabilities Act. During conversations with actual 
practitioners in the classroom, many who were from my own State of 
California, we have been told that the burdensome, unnecessary 
paperwork is driving away teachers from the classroom, which will hurt 
these children. Priority is placed on complying with complicated rules 
rather than delivering academic achievement. This must be changed, and 
H.R. 1350 starts the process by creating a 10-State pilot program to 
reduce the IEP paperwork burden on teachers in order to increase 
instructional time and resources.
  I also remain concerned that excessive and expensive litigation 
continues to be a large component of the special education system. It 
seems that all too often decisions that are reached are those that 
benefit the attorneys the most. Every single one of the school 
districts in my congressional district, from the suburban areas of 
Santa Clarita to the rural areas of Bishop, have told me the single 
most important thing that we can do is to reduce litigation and restore 
the trust between the parents and the school district.
  Though I do not think this goes far enough, the legislation does make 
significant improvements by encouraging the use of mediation as soon as 
possible, creating opportunities for voluntary binding arbitration, and 
allowing States to set limits on attorneys' fees. By passing IDEA, this 
Congress moves closer to following through on a commitment made over 27 
years ago to

[[Page 9999]]

families and their children with special needs.
  In closing, I want to say that I commend the members of the committee 
for their hard work; and I strongly urge my colleagues to support the 
underlying bill, which will increase accountability and reduce 
overidentification of nondisabled children.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a really important member of the committee.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise today in opposition to the bill before us today. 
H.R. 1350 does not ensure full funding of IDEA and, worse, jeopardizes 
the civil rights of children with disabilities.
  Reauthorization of IDEA has traditionally been a bipartisan effort. 
In Michigan, I was cosponsor of the Special Education Act, which was 
passed before this Congress addressed the education of children with 
special needs in the least restrictive environment. In my tenure here 
in Congress, I have always supported the reauthorization of IDEA, but I 
cannot support the bill before us today.
  First, this legislation does not provide any additional resources for 
IDEA. It does not get us any closer, Mr. Chairman, to fully funding 
IDEA, an effort that many Members have worked on for many, many years. 
Democratic members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
attempted to address this issue in committee. We offered several 
amendments that would provide mandatory spending for IDEA. 
Unfortunately, these amendments were defeated on party-line votes. 
These amendments represent the only way to ensure full funding for IDEA 
in this legislation.
  Second, the legislation jeopardizes the civil rights of children with 
disabilities. This bill would allow children with disabilities to be 
removed from their current educational placement for any violation of a 
code of student conduct. The bill also eliminates the current 
manifestation determination. Manifestation determinations ensure that 
children with disabilities are not unfairly punished for acts they 
cannot control. The discipline provisions in this legislation are 
simply unfair.
  Last, I would like to express my disappointment that this legislation 
does not continue funding for the freely associated states. These 
former U.S. territories have an extremely high percentage of children 
with disabilities due to U.S. military testing of weapons around the 
islands that make up these nations. I hope this issue can be further 
addressed in conference, Mr. Chairman.
  In closing, I urge Members to carefully consider the impact that this 
legislation will have on children with disabilities. The disabled 
children of our Nation are best served by defeating this legislation 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill before us today. H.R. 
1350 does not ensure full funding of IDEA and worse, jeopardizes the 
civil rights of children with disabilities.
  Reauthorization of IDEA has traditionally been a bipartisan effort.
  In Michigan I was cosponsor of the Special Education Act, which was 
passed before this Congress, addressed the education of children with 
special needs in the least restrictive environment. In my tenure here 
in Congress I have always supported the reauthorization of IDEA.
  But I cannot support the bill before us today.
  The last time we reauthorized IDEA in 1997, we worked tirelessly with 
our majority colleagues to improve this program for children with 
disabilities and the schools which serve them.
  Unfortunately, the pace at which this legislation has moved has left 
very little time for public input or bipartisan discussions.
  This bill has fundamental flaws.
  First, this legislation doesn't provide any additional resources for 
IDEA. It doesn't get us any closer to fully funding IDEA--an effort 
that many members have worked on for numerous years.
  Democratic members of the Education and the Workforce Committee 
attempted to address this issue in committee.
  We offered several amendments that would provide mandatory spending 
for IDEA. Unfortunately, these amendments were defeated on party-line 
votes.
  These amendments represent the only way to ensure full funding for 
IDEA in this legislation.
  Second, the legislation jeopardizes the civil rights of children with 
disabilities.
  This bill would allow children with disabilities to be removed from 
their current educational placement for any violation of a code of 
student conduct.
  The bill also eliminates the current manifestation determination. 
Manifestation determinations ensure that children with disabilities are 
not unfairly punished for acts they cannot control. The discipline 
provisions in this legislation are simply unfair.
  In addition, the bill places a strait jacket on parents of children 
with disabilities by instituting a 1-year statute of limitations.
  This restriction will prevent parents of disabled children from 
raising issues with the education of their children to those issues 
that are less than 1 year old. This unfairly constrains parents and 
their efforts to ensure their children receive an education.
  Lastly, I'd like to express my disappointment that this legislation 
does not continue funding for the freely associated States.
  These former U.S. territories have an extremely high percentage of 
children with disabilities due to U.S. military testing of weapons 
around the islands that make up these nations.
  I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that the freely 
associated States receive funding under this legislation and their 
negotiated compacts of free association.
  I hope this is an issue we can further address in conference.
  In closing, I urge Members to carefully consider the impact that this 
legislation will have on children with disabilities. The disabled 
children of our Nation are best served by defeating this legislation 
today.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Norwood), another member of our committee and a 
subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I particularly appreciate the time right now.
  We need to take just a minute and ask ourselves a question, and 
perhaps somebody can answer it. In 1975, IDEA was passed by a 
Democratic Congress and signed by a Republican President. From 1975 to 
1995 the Congress was controlled by the Democrats. Where were my 
Democratic colleagues' amendments then to fund IDEA? Why did they not 
fund it in the 20 years while they were in control? Why has it been 
only since Republicans have been in control of this House that we have 
increased funding for IDEA?
  There is a very good reason for that, my colleagues. If the Federal 
Government does not pay its share, it comes out of the school districts 
and that affects disabled children and nondisabled children.
  I wish to advise the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) 
that this bill protects the civil rights of 88 percent of our 
schoolchildren that are not in special education without reducing the 
civil rights of special education children. To say it otherwise is 
simply not the way it is done. It is not the truth.
  I want to also just briefly mention the cap on attorneys' fees. The 
money from the school districts that is used to train our children is 
going into the pockets of attorneys rather than going to train our 
children, whether they are in special ed or whether they are not. There 
is no question in my mind that we need to deal with that.
  Last, the discipline amendments in this bill. The discipline 
amendments in this bill are not unfair. What is unfair is how the bill 
was written in 1975. I strongly support this legislation. It does not 
go quite as far as I would like for it to go, but it greatly improves 
that bill that has been on the books for 25 years.
  I have been trying to improve this discipline provision almost for 5 
years. We have passed it in this House, I know, three different times. 
It has been taken out in the other body every time. I have done this 
because of my concern that the system we have today is a double-
standard system for the behavior in our schools, one for special needs 
students and another for nonspecial needs students. It is critical to 
the safety of the special ed student that we pass these disciplinary 
provisions.
  My colleagues know as well as I do that there are people, teachers, 
who

[[Page 10000]]

have been harmed because they could not remove a dangerous child from 
school. Now, all we are really doing is saying that rather than after 
10 days they can now have 55 days to discipline a special education 
student. They really do get a manifestation determination after 55 
days. They do get special education.
  The other very important part of this is that it says that State laws 
will prevail for students who bring weapons, drugs, or commit felonies 
in school. A special ed child who would bring a gun or a pair of 
scissors and kill one of my constituents does not make any difference 
to them whether the children in the classroom are in special ed or 
whether they are not. We cannot stand here and say that the 
disciplinary changes we are making in this bill are harmful to the 
students of America. It is very, very important for the students of 
America, the 12 percent that are special needs students and the 88 
percent that are not.
  I encourage my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), to 
vote for this bill. He is a good man. The gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller) is a good man. They do want full funding for IDEA. 
They did not do it when they were in charge; but they do want it, just 
like we want it. This is the right thing to do at this stage. I plead 
with my colleagues to pass this thing and let us move forward with 
protecting the children in the classroom.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), another important member of the committee.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1350 in its 
present form. As proposed, it is designed to dramatically undermine the 
ideals of IDEA, and doing so in the name of reauthorizing it.
  In response to the previous speaker's question about funding over a 
period of time, from 1980 to 1992, we had a Republican in the White 
House. So we had a division between the leadership in the White House 
and in Congress, and that may explain some reason why things were not 
funded. But this year we had a Republican majority in the House, one in 
the Senate, and in the White House. If they have the will, they 
certainly have the way to move forward for full funding.
  I am joined in my position of opposition to this bill in its present 
form by parents, educators, and advocates for the disability community, 
all making clear that this bill is not responsive to the needs of the 
true consumers of the law, and that is children.
  The majority is asserting something is better than nothing, and in 
this case I am afraid that is wrong. These counterproductive changes in 
the bill mean that the children would be better served by the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in its current form. The 
civil rights of these children and the due process rights of their 
parents are not being quality protected in the legislation. Foremost, 
as has been mentioned, this bill fails to fully fund that 40 percent of 
the average per-pupil expenditure that Members have been promising for 
30 years to fund in order to help our States and local governments as 
they try to educate children who, before 1975, and before the courts 
stepped in to make it, otherwise were ignored or mistreated.
  We cannot afford to rely on promises from the majority that some day 
we are going to fully fund it. We have to make it positive and firm 
right now. As our President rather inarticulately tried to say some 
time ago, Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, and I did it just 
like he did.
  The problem is that we cannot do that. We cannot just rely on their 
promises. Nobody can rely on that statement as inarticulately set 
forth. The fact of the matter is that their promises have fallen behind 
on the education bill; their promises have fallen behind on this bill; 
their promises have fallen behind on civil rights, due process rights 
and on funding. I ask Members to not support the bill.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Carter), a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his hard work on 
this bill and the committee for bringing this bill forward. I am 
encouraged that the improvements in this bill will help reduce 
litigation, restore trust and refocus the system on improving the 
education of children with disabilities.
  In 1997, Congress required the States to set up and maintain 
mediation systems that would allow school districts and parents to 
handle their disputes in less hostile fashion. The change significantly 
reduced the amount of litigation and helped restore trust between 
parents and school personnel. This bill builds upon the 1997 
improvements by requiring States to establish and maintain voluntary 
arbitration systems. Given the interest in resolving disputes through 
nonlitigation, it is expected this will reduce the litigation burden 
and restore the focus on educating children.
  Importantly, this system is voluntary, and voluntary means the 
parents can choose, the school can choose. If both parties do not 
choose voluntary arbitration, then the complaint goes through the 
regular due process system.
  This bill also clarifies that the parent is obligated to provide 
clear and specific notice to the LEA or SEA before a due process 
hearing can be held.
  This change is important to ensure that a school district has a clear 
understanding of what the problem is. Without this clear and specific 
notice, the school district cannot attempt to resolve the issue.
  The resolution session created by this bill allows parents and the 
school district officials to explore the problem and attempt to resolve 
the problem in a rapid time frame, so that the child can be better 
served. Instead of waiting to air concerns at the due process hearing, 
the parent and the school district will meet within 15 days of the 
filing of the complaint to see if they can resolve the problem. If they 
cannot, the parent can still go to a due process hearing. This does not 
delay the parent's right to a due process hearing in any way. The IDEA 
regulations require a due process hearing to commence within 45 days of 
a parent filing a complaint. The language in the bill does not modify 
or delay that timeline in any way. This resolution session gives 
parents and school districts a new opportunity to sit down and work out 
the issues and is a sensible change to ensure that everyone's efforts 
are focused on improving results for the child.
  The improvements included in H.R. 1350 should clear some of the legal 
landmines and allow for more productive, less hostile relations between 
parents and schools that refocuses on the Act's primary role of 
educating children with disabilities. IDEA currently has no statute of 
limitations and leaves school districts open to litigation for all of 
the 12 years a child is in school, whether or not the child has been 
identified as a child with a disability. School districts are often 
surprised by claims from parents involving issues that occurred in an 
elementary school program when the child may currently be a high school 
student.
  Such an unreasonably long threat of litigation hanging over a school 
district forces them to document every step they take with every child, 
even if the parent agrees with the action, because parents could later 
change their mind and sue. The fear of far-removed litigation raises 
the tension between the school and the parent. This improvement will 
align IDEA with other federal statutes that have explicit statutes of 
limitations (civil rights claims, federal tort claims, Social Security, 
ERISA) and allow for timely resolution of issues.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and these provisions 
as we continue to work to improve the education results for children 
with disabilities.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of children 
with disabilities and their families and in opposition to H.R. 1350. 
They say, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' The fundamentals of IDEA 
are widely appreciated by parents. In an e-mail I received, it says, 
``Do not dilute IDEA legislation in any way. Our family has personally 
benefited from almost every part of IDEA rights,'' says the father of 
an autistic son.
  We say, ``First, do no harm.'' Unfortunately, this legislation does 
do harm. It changes the features of the Individualized Education 
Program in a way

[[Page 10001]]

that hurts children and makes it easier to kick children with 
disabilities out of their classrooms, even when they are doing their 
best to comply and to do everything right, and it may be the result of 
their disability.
  Third, it diminishes the legal rights of parents to get the best 
education for children.
  Finally, this legislation still is dismally underfunded. If we want 
to do something good for IDEA, we should provide full funding and vote 
against H.R. 1350.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  I rise in strong support of this legislation. Sometimes when we hear 
debates, we do not get the full significance of what we are doing. We 
are dealing with a piece of legislation which the chairman and others 
on the Democrat side have worked very hard on to make educational 
opportunities better for children with disabilities in this country.
  We have been involved for 2 years doing this. We have had 7 hearings, 
we started a Web site, we had something like 3,000 suggestions on that 
Web site. We have had many discussions with many people in trying to 
work out a lot of differences, and there are a lot of problems in 
dealing with this issue.
  I have talked to many, many individual Members, but at the heart of 
it, this legislation is aimed at trying to help children with 
disabilities get a better education and help other children being 
educated in our schools. I thank the parents and children in Delaware, 
many of whom I have spent time with, and my judgment is this is good 
legislation, excellent legislation which is going to move us forward.
  For too many years children who had disabilities were denied access 
to education. In 1975 Congress, this House and the Senate, provided 
that educational opportunity. According to the Department of Education, 
about 6.6 million students currently participate in these programs 
across the Nation. Of those, almost 50 percent of the children with 
disabilities spend 80 percent or more of their day in a regular 
education classroom. Mr. Chairman, 30 years ago that would not have 
happened. Probably zero of those children would have spent time in a 
regular classroom. That is happening today. Each 5 years, we come along 
in Congress and try to improve that. There is room for improvement.
  These are children who are at the greatest risk of being left behind. 
We have to give children with disabilities access to an education that 
maximizes their unique abilities and provides them with tools for later 
successful, productive lives. We must work together to do this in every 
way we can. This bill aims to improve current law by focusing on 
improved education results, reducing the paperwork burden for special 
education teachers, and addressing the problem of overidentification of 
minority students as disabled.
  In addition, the bill seeks to reduce litigation and reform special 
education financing and funding. One of the great benefits of No Child 
Left Behind, H.R. 1, is that we have raised expectations and will hold 
school districts accountable for the annual progress of all of their 
students, including students with disabilities.
  Although we have made great progress in including students with 
disabilities in regular classrooms, we now must make equally great 
process in ensuring that they receive a quality education in a regular 
classroom. We need to align IDEA and No Child Left Behind.
  This bill will help reduce the paperwork burden so school districts 
are able to retain and recruit highly qualified special education 
teachers. The excessive amount of paperwork currently inherent in 
special education continues to overwhelm and burden teachers. We hear 
that from all of them, robbing them of time with their students. Based 
on that, we have tried to amend the individual education plan without 
reconvening the entire IEP team at all times. We also establish a rule 
of construction stating that nothing beyond what is explicitly included 
in the Act is required in a child's IEP, and requires the secretary to 
develop model forms for the IEP, something a lot of people asked for.
  Secondly, we permit the use of alternative means of meeting 
participation, such as teleconferencing and video-
conferencing.
  All of these measures will give teachers the ability to spend more 
time in classrooms. Furthermore, we are committed to implementing 
reforms that would reduce the number of students that are misidentified 
or overrepresented in special ed programs. Minorities are often 
significantly overrepresented in these programs. In fact, African 
Americans are nearly 3 times, more likely twice, to be labeled as 
mentally retarded and almost twice as likely to be labeled emotionally 
disturbed. Thousands of children are misidentified every year, while 
many are not identified early enough.
  We address these issues in this legislation. By providing these 
services to children at an earlier age, we can prevent people from 
being identified as having learning disabilities and help them in their 
education process. We also seek to reduce litigation, restore trust 
between parents and school districts, and many other steps have been 
taken in this legislation that we think are tremendously helpful in 
improving the opportunities for children with disabilities. I urge 
Members to support the legislation.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) who is also an important member of the committee.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 1350 in its present 
form. The Improving Results for Children With Disabilities Act is the 
bill that we are debating. It includes amendments that I offered in 
committee to improve our knowledge as to how well special education 
serves limited English-proficient children, and to support research on 
best practices for identifying, assessing and providing instructional 
and other services to these left children.
  H.R. 1350 also ensures that disabled children in migrant worker 
families are not placed at risk because their school records are not 
transferred to their next school. I believe that these additions to the 
bill will put us on the right path to improving services to migrant 
children and left children with disabilities.
  These improvements, however, do not compensate for the draconian 
discipline provisions that are in H.R. 1350. Under this bill, schools 
could suspend or expel a child with disabilities for any infraction of 
the school code of conduct without considering whether the behavior was 
the result of a disability. This manifestation determination has been 
one of the key protections for children with disabilities under the 
current law. Given the disproportionate suspension and expulsion rates 
for Hispanic and black youth in general, it is hard to imagine that 
H.R. 1350 will not push more of these young people out of school.
  Finally, the fast pace of this bill has shortchanged debate and full 
discussion on this and other important issues. I have heard from 
respected flagship university experts in my State in the field of 
special education research who are very concerned about transfer of 
special education research to the Institute for Education Sciences. We 
all recognize the value of education research is its direct link to 
practice. Moving special education research outside of the special ed 
program undermines that link. Because of the serious deficiencies in 
the bill, I oppose and ask my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1350.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Isakson), a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle) and his great work on this bill. I have heard from a lot of 
Members about their concerns about the alignment of No Child Left 
Behind in IDEA. If there is ever a child that should not be left 
behind, it is a child with disabilities.
  We are ensuring through this legislation and No Child Left Behind 
that goals are aligned, that we have meaningful goals and standards for 
children

[[Page 10002]]

with disabilities, and that we give them meaningful assessments to 
determine whether schools need improvement. And then if that 
determination is made, we provide additional funds through subgrants so 
local education agencies can fund professional and staff development 
for special education and regular teachers alike who teach our children 
with disabilities.
  If Members are for children with disabilities and the improvement of 
their education, if Members are for lifting their sights and raising 
standards, if Members are for funding professional and necessary staff 
development, Members should be for this bill, and I urge all Members to 
vote in favor of it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), 
the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey) for the spirited hearings and debate and 
discussions that we have had on this legislation.
  While it is not supportable to me, I do believe we made some 
progress, and I thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), 
chairman of the subcommittee for his sensitivity to an issue which I 
raised through proposed amendment and which we subsequently worked out 
for inclusion in the base bill.
  The issue related to the disproportionately high number of African 
American males being placed in special education. The new language 
states in the case of a determination of significant disproportionality 
with respect to the identification of children as children with 
disabilities or the placement in particular educational settings of 
such children in accordance with paragraph (1), the State or the 
secretary, as the case may be, shall provide for the review and, if 
appropriate, revision of the policies, procedures and practices used in 
such identification or placement to ensure that such policies, 
procedures and practices comply with the requirements of this Act, and 
shall require any local educational agency identified under paragraph 
(1) to reserve the maximum amount of funds under section 613(f) to 
provide comprehensive coordinated prereferral support services to serve 
children in the local educational agency, particularly children in 
those groups that were significantly overidentified under paragraph 
(1).
  Even though I am pleased with this section, the inability to provide 
full funding and some onerous discipline provisions makes this Act 
unacceptable to me. I urge a no vote.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Keller), a member of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the IDEA bill 
for two reasons. First, we have tripled the IDEA special education 
funding from $3 billion in over $10 billion since 1995, when 
Republicans took control of the House.

                              {time}  1245

  Second, this bill will help reduce the paperwork burden on teachers 
so that they are able to spend more time in the classroom with the 
students rather than wasting hours a day filling out forms and 
performing clerical duties.
  I recently spent time in the classroom with some of our special 
education teachers. While working as a special education teacher for a 
day in an elementary and a high school in Orlando, Florida, I learned 
firsthand that special education teachers spend approximately 2 hours a 
day completing government-required paperwork. I have tried to address 
this problem head on by drafting the paperwork reduction provisions in 
this IDEA bill. These paperwork reduction provisions incorporate the 
good ideas we received from parents; teachers; the Council for 
Exceptional Education, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization; 
and the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. For 
example, this IDEA legislation helps reduce the paperwork burden on 
teachers by requiring the Secretary to develop model forms for the IEP, 
by creating a pilot program for 10 States, and by allowing parents the 
flexibility to choose to develop the multiple-year IEP for their child 
to a maximum of 3 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this IDEA bill 
because it will improve the lives of disabled children in Orlando, 
Florida, and all across the country by making a historic increase in 
special education funding and by reducing the paperwork on teachers.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy 
in allowing me to speak on this bill.
  Twenty years ago, Congress made a law and a commitment. The law was 
to extend equal education opportunity for all children. The commitment 
was to provide 40 percent funding to meet this goal. We have no reason 
to put off fulfilling this commitment for yet another decade. Nearly 
every State is facing serious financial difficulty, few as serious as 
my State of Oregon. We need help as never before. Yet we are told full 
funding is not realistic at this point. Yet we have the President and 
leadership of his party proposing a half trillion dollars in additional 
tax cuts for those who need help the least. Whatever dubious economic 
benefits claimed are clearly minuscule compared with investing in our 
communities and meeting the commitments to our schools and our 
children.
  The authors of today's bill should be thanked for their commitment to 
move in the right direction and for some genuine improvements like 
dealing with some burdensome paperwork, which has been discussed here 
on the floor. But without providing full funding, the bill ought to be 
rejected until we do what we know is right and what is clearly within 
our power. I for one would be embarrassed to go home to a State that is 
stressed like many of my colleagues, giving cover for those who would 
avoid meeting this long-standing commitment for another decade. My 
community and my colleagues' deserve better. By all means, embrace the 
positive elements in this bill; but let us not pass it until we make 
sure we have fulfilled our commitment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), 
the chairman, for their efforts to improve the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act.
  As a new grandfather for the first time, as the husband of a very 
hard-working school teacher, and with 17 years' experience on the 
Education Committee in the South Carolina State senate, I know the most 
important aspect of improving education is ensuring each classroom has 
a teacher committed to the task of educating children. Special 
education also requires teachers with this dedication. Teachers who 
choose to work with children with disabilities are especially gifted 
and especially valued.
  The particular legislation we have before us today brings some very 
positive changes. First, the bill focuses on reducing unnecessary 
paperwork which is not educationally relevant to the teacher's 
interaction with the child. Second, to further reduce the paperwork 
burden, the bill requires GAO to review paperwork requirements and 
report to Congress on strategic proposals to reduce paperwork burdens 
on teachers. Third, we have shifted the goal of the State Improvement 
Grant to focus grants entirely on the activities to support the 
professional development of regular and special education teachers and 
administrators.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Burns), a member of the committee.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1350. This 
is an important bill that contains much-needed improvements that 
address the

[[Page 10003]]

needs of children with disabilities throughout this great Nation. I am 
especially grateful for the changes in this bill to help address the 
problem of misidentification of minority students as having a 
disability. I find it very troubling that we are continuing to identify 
three times as many African Americans as having mental retardation and 
twice as many African Americans as being emotionally disturbed. We must 
reduce these excessive figures.
  This bill makes great strides in this area. I would like to point out 
that the bill permits local educational agencies to use funds for 
prereferral services for children not yet identified as needing special 
services. I believe that this will have a significant impact on the 
current overidentification of students, especially minority students, 
having disabilities. Finally, I am pleased that the bill allows 
personnel preparation programs, research and technical assistance 
projects to address the issue of overidentification of minority 
students. We must and we will solve this problem. I urge my colleagues 
to support this bill.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time.
  I rise, first of all, to commend the gentleman from Delaware for the 
very hard work and the dedication he has for improving education for 
special needs children. I have some concerns about the bill, and I 
bring them up because I hope they will be addressed in conference. 
Number one, I read through the bill and spoke to staff. It does not 
seem to have any mechanism in there to inform parents of services that 
actually are available to them for their children. The second concern 
that I have is that a parent might choose a 3-year IEP because of a 
misunderstanding or being misinformed by the school district. We must 
ensure that parents are not intimidated by school districts into 
agreeing to a 3-year IEP when, indeed, there needs to be more follow-up 
for many students. And, third, we need to make sure that there are not 
any retaliation tactics that may occur at some school districts. 
Parents tell me that very often they fear retaliation. I would 
encourage the sponsor of the bill to make sure that these 
considerations are taken in when they do the conference.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, actually the key here is mandatory funding because no 
matter what we authorize on this committee, no matter what we vote for 
today on H.R. 1350, whether it is 18 percent of the 40 percent Federal 
commitment, whether it is 21 percent of the 40 percent commitment, or 
if it is 25 percent of the 40 percent Federal commitment, the funding 
has to be spent. We can authorize it, but the Committee on 
Appropriations spends it. Unless we tell the Committee on 
Appropriations through changing the rules of H.R. 1350 and IDEA, unless 
we tell them that it is mandatory that they spend what we authorize, it 
will not get spent; and it is going to be the year 2035 before we even 
come close to reaching 40 percent.
  Later on today the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and I have 
an amendment that will pass all new funding after the year 2003, pass 
any new funding that is appropriated directly to the school districts 
and to the schools. But if we do not get any new funding because indeed 
the appropriators do not choose to add funding, then we pass along 
nothing to school districts because 100 percent of nothing is still 
nothing.
  The Federal commitment to IDEA 30 years ago was 40 percent that 
Federal Government would match the mandate that the States educate all 
kids, which is absolutely the right thing to do, and provide them a 
free education and equally educate all children in the public school 
system. That was 40 years ago. We are at 18 percent of that 40 percent 
today, and we are never going to get there if we do not say that it is 
something that must be done. And in so doing, we will be making it 
possible for schools to count on the funding they need, we will be 
removing the emotion that parents pit themselves against each other 
because there is so little funding available for education in the first 
place, and we will make sure that special education funding does not 
come out of the funding necessary for other programs.
  We make promises. We do not fulfill them. Voting for H.R. 1350 would 
be another broken promise unless H.R. 1350 includes mandatory full 
funding over the next 6-year, 7-year period.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor).
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in support of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1350. Reauthorizing and 
improving the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is important 
to the future of many American children and their families. The special 
education community is now in a state of crisis--teachers are leaving, 
students are being over-identified, and litigation has taken the place 
of education. The true spirit of this legislation has been lost and 
because of this lost vision many children have been denied an 
appropriate education.
  I commend my colleagues on the Education Committee who, under the 
leadership of my colleague from Ohio, Chairman Boehner, reported a bill 
that brings back the spirit of the original legislation. This bill not 
only empowers local school districts, but more importantly it empowers 
parents with the freedom to choose what education plan best suits the 
needs of their child. Reducing bureaucratic red-tape, supporting 
teachers, and empowering parents are the keys to restoring faith in the 
special education community and the keys to providing those children 
with special needs a quality education. Mr. Chairman, I would urge all 
of my colleagues to support this legislation and insure that no child 
is ever left behind.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this 1\1/2\ minutes to address 
this issue of funding because I think there has been perhaps a 
misunderstanding here. Some of it, frankly, is a little bit political; 
but I think we need to sort of clear the air if we can.
  This bill, as we all know, I think, now at this point, was first 
passed in 1975. From 1975 until 1995, which was a time, frankly, that 
the Congress was controlled by the Democrats for the most part here, 
the funding for the Federal share of this never got above 7 percent. 
Starting in 1996 and thereafter up until now in the year 2003 and then 
2004, that funding as the percentage share of the Federal Government, 
even with the cost-of-living increases and everything else, has gone to 
18 percent. The funding in the budget bill for this next year, 2004, 
which is the yellow line on this chart, is actually at 21 percent, on 
our way to 40 percent. In this legislation is a guide path by 
authorization to take that funding to the full 40 percent in 7 years. 
Even under the mandatory funding bills that those advocates are talking 
about in terms of handling the funding would not get there for 6 years. 
It would take an additional $10.2 billion, and everybody realizes that 
that cannot be done.

                              {time}  1300

  This Congress has committed to it. This Republican Party under this 
President has absolutely committed to doing this, and is making 
extraordinary gains. In fact, that increase is 282.3 percent in that 
period of time, from 1996 to 2003. We wish our stocks had increased 
that much in value. The average yearly funding for IDEA between 1996 
and 2003 has grown at 18.6 percent per year. Those are astounding 
increases for any kind of Federal program, all of which usually 
increase, at best, at a rate of cost of living.
  So, the truth of the matter is, the bottom line is that we have met 
our responsibilities, and I would encourage everyone to support the 
legislation.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Boehner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Chairman Castle), and 
certainly my ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George

[[Page 10004]]

Miller), for what has gone into this legislation. We truly have worked 
hard to make this be something that we could all vote for, and I 
believe in your sincerity and I know you believe in our's and our 
passion on all of this.
  There are reasons why I will not be able to vote for this. Reason 
number one is the discipline provisions. This bill will allow students 
to be moved indefinitely to alternative placements for any violation of 
a school code of conduct, and we have gone over that. That could 
severely affect a disabled child.
  This bill has no guarantee of full funding. We can say we want full 
funding, but if we do not guarantee it, it probably is not going to 
happen. And, yes, we have done a much better job over the last few 
years. We have just gone through some really good prosperous years in 
this country. Now this country is in an economic downturn and the 
challenges for the same dollars are going to be much, much greater.
  This bill weakens due process protection for parents. It would bar 
parents from raising new issues at due process hearings, even if new 
evidence has surfaced since the hearing was scheduled.
  This bill has a pilot program for 10 State waivers. It permits the 
Secretary of Education to waive IDEA provisions to reduce paperwork. 
Criteria for the approach of these pilot programs are completely open-
ended and would be defined by the Secretary.
  Mr. Chairman, the other thing this bill does that will make it 
impossible for me to vote for it is it puts a cap on attorney fee 
reimbursements, which makes it even more difficult for low income 
parents to get their due process.
  Mr. Chairman, I am hoping Democrats and those on the Republican side 
who want full funding and want that funding to be mandatory, who want 
our children's discipline provisions not to go backwards, but to go 
forward, will vote against this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time,
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me again thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and all of the members on our committee who have 
played an important role in bringing this bill to us today.
  I also want to congratulate the members of our staff, including Sally 
Lovejoy, Krisann Pearce, David Cleary, Melanie Looney and Elisabeth 
Wheel; Sarah Rittling, a staff member of the gentleman from Delaware 
(Mr. Castle); and Jacqueline Norris, a staff member of the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Keller), for all of their hard work and dedication 
over the last year or so as we were bringing this bill together.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very difficult piece of legislation. It has 
been very difficult for Congress to deal with it ever since they first 
brought it up in 1975. But I think that Members on both sides of the 
aisle have worked closely together to craft a bill that will help 
special needs children all across our country.
  I think it is important to note that that is our goal here. It is to 
make sure that children with disabilities get the free and appropriate 
public education that they are entitled to in the least restrictive 
manner. We believe that the bill that we have before us today does, in 
fact, provide that, and does not weaken any safeguards for those 
children or their parents.
  Let us not forget the importance of the requirements under No Child 
Left Behind where school districts are going to have to focus in on 
results for these children. This is a huge shift in dynamics for how 
schools are going to have to deal with their IDEA children. As a 
result, being able to change the paperwork requirements, to ease those 
for classroom teachers, to make the process more simple for school 
districts and administrators to enact, will not diminish the services 
for these students, because these same schools are going to have to 
show results for these children.
  So this is a very big change, and I do believe it will lead to much 
better results for our special needs children.
  The last point I would make is this is a bipartisan bill. We will 
talk about more of it as we get into the amendments.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as a firm supporter 
of providing a free and quality education to students with and without 
disabilities, but also in opposition to H.R. 1350, the Reauthorization 
of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA).
  When IDEA was initially enacted into law, Congress determined that 
the cost of educating a student with a disability was, on average, 
twice the cost of educating a student without a disability. In the 
original legislation, the Federal Government required States to provide 
an education to students with disabilities, but also agreed to help 
states fund the ``extra cost'' of educating disabled children by 40 
percent of the total cost. It has been 28 years since the original 
implementation of IDEA, and Congress has yet to appropriate the full 40 
percent to states for their special education programs. For 28 years, 
State and local governments have struggled to fulfill their obligation 
to disabled students with less than half of the funding that is 
necessary for the task.
  This year, Congress again had the opportunity to fulfill the Federal 
Government's obligation. Members on both sides of the isle and 
education organizations representing not only administrators and 
teachers, but students and their parents have voiced their support of 
appropriating full funding. H.R. 1350 allocates the highest percentage 
ever to IDEA, yet the funding level is barely over half of that that is 
required, at 21 percent.
  Even at a time when full funding for IDEA is almost unanimously 
supported, and education is touted as a priority by almost every Member 
of Congress, H.R. 1350 does not come close to backing IDEA's 28 year 
old promise. It is clear that in order to ensure substantial funding to 
the nation's disabled children, funding for IDEA must become a 
mandatory program that requires the Federal Government to appropriate 
the full 40 percent every appropriations cycle. It is past time for us 
to fulfill our obligation to this Nation's disabled children. H.R. 1350 
does not appropriate full funding, and does not make full funding of 
IDEA mandatory, and so I feel it is my duty to oppose the bill.
  I also have serious concerns with the discipline provisions of this 
bill. Under the ``manifestation determination'' previously required in 
IDEA, when students with disabilities are disciplined the potential 
that their disability was a fundamental reason for the problem must be 
considered. H.R. 1350 would no longer require schools to determine 
whether a student's action was the result of the disability. Under the 
bill a child with cerebral palsy could be expelled for accidentally 
making contact with his teacher or a developmentally disabled child 
could be expelled for ``inappropriate public affection''. While the 
majority of schools and administrators would not expel a student for 
minor infractions, the original intent of IDEA was to protect students 
with disabilities. If every school was enthusiastic and dedicated to 
the education of disabled students there would have never been any need 
for IDEA in the first place.
  I understand the concerns voiced by national teachers and 
administrators regarding their need to have the authority to discipline 
students with and without disabilities. However, in order to protect 
the students from punishment for their disability, the law must include 
a requirement for the disability always to be taken into account before 
deciding on consequences. I have received many calls from parents in my 
district voicing anxiety over what will happen to their disabled 
children next time he or she makes a mistake related to their 
disability in school. I believe it is necessary to discipline disabled 
children, just as it is necessary to discipline children without 
disabilities, but we must ensure that the disabilities are always taken 
into account. H.R. 1350 would omit this requirement, and this was 
another reason that I cannot vote for the bill.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with deep 
concerns with H.R. 1350, the bill to reauthorize the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act.
  Prior to IDEA being passed in 1975, many children with disabilities 
did not receive access to education, and worse they were denied any 
educational services at all.
  As a result of court decisions and congressional action, schools were 
required to offer children with disabilities a free appropriate public 
education.
  Since then, Congress has acted to strengthen these laws time and time 
again regardless of whether it was a Republican-controlled or 
Democratic-controlled Congress.
  Today under H.R. 1350, we are taking a large step backward especially 
with regards to disciplining students.
  Current law allows a school to suspend or expel a student with 
disabilities if he or she

[[Page 10005]]

brings a weapon or drugs to school, or is found by a hearing officer to 
be likely to injure themselves or others. Education services must be 
provided for up to 45 days in an alternative setting.
  In addition, current law requires schools to determine if the problem 
which caused the student to be suspended or expelled was due to his or 
her disability. This bill removes these important safety provisions 
completely.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1350 allows students of all disabilities to be 
removed from classrooms for any behavior for an indefinite period of 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am the first person to say we need to protect our 
children from violence in the classroom. Therefore if a student with 
attention deficit disorder hits another student, the student with 
attention deficit disorder can be expelled indefinitely.
  As a nurse, I can tell you that attention deficit disorder is widely 
misunderstood by teachers and principals throughout the country. 
However, it is recognized by Congress as disability under the law we 
are amending today and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  Mr. Chairman, this provision in H.R. 1350 alone cuts out the very 
heart of IDEA. IDEA was created to prevent this type of discrimination 
against disabled students. If a student's health problem is the reason 
for causing trouble in the classroom, the health problem must be taken 
into account before the child is expelled indefinitely. We should be 
strengthening the current law instead of weakening it. It's just common 
sense.
  As a student with disabilities, a nurse, a mother, and a Member of 
Congress, I am hopeful that we protect all children.
  With that, I urge all my colleagues to vote against this bill that 
takes the heart out of IDEA.
  We should be doing more not less for our students.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 
ADA, and the Individuals with Disabilities Action IDEA, are two primary 
and most important laws that protect the rights of a special segment of 
our population--individuals with disabilities. Today, we debate the 
passage of H.R. 1350, a bill to reauthorize IDEA, which was created to 
ensure that all children with disabilities are afforded a free and 
appropriate public education within the least restrictive environment, 
and that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such 
children are protected. H.R. 1350, undermines the original intent of 
the law and essentially guts the protections it was intended to 
provide.
  I support, 100 percent improving the quality of education for 
children with disabilities, but despite the statements of its 
proponents, this bill would not achieve this goal.
  The base bill undermines civil rights provisions, something that 
seems under attack on many fronts by this administration, and as in the 
Leave No Child Behind Act, fails to fully fund it. This reauthorization 
would make IDEA nothing more than an empty promise.
  I am also very much opposed to the DeMint voucher proposal. Is this 
yet another opportunity for the Republicans to force one of their 
favorite programs upon the unsuspecting public. It has been said that 
the amendment that Representative DeMint is scheduled to offer is not a 
voucher, since it allows vouchers without requiring them. That is a 
distinction without a difference. A voucher is a voucher is a voucher.
  On behalf of approximately 1617 students with disabilities in my 
district, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and all the major organizations 
representing children with disabilities, I urge my colleagues to 
resolve the issues raised by voting for the Democratic amendments and 
to oppose final passage of the bill if these issues have not been 
successfully addressed.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, the Individuals With Disabilities 
Education Act, IDEA, is the Nation's main statute ensuring children 
with disabilities receive the special education they need for success. 
Today, Congress had the opportunity to make a difference in the lives 
of millions of children with the reauthorization of IDEA. However, H.R. 
1350 squanders this opportunity and that is why I urge all of my 
colleagues to vote against this legislation.
  Congress had the opportunity to support mandatory full funding for 
the IDEA. Two amendments that would have made IDEA a mandatory program 
and would have guaranteed that the Federal Government contribute 40 
percent of the cost as promised in the original 1975 law were not 
allowed to be offered.
  Congress authorized the Federal Government to pay up to 40 percent of 
each State's excess cost of educating children with disabilities. As we 
have learned with the No Child Left Behind Act, promises to fund 
education through authorizations are often not kept. It is time we 
renew our commitment to all of our Nation's children and pay our share 
of the cost of IDEA.
  States across the Nation are dealing with an economic crisis, facing 
large State budget deficits and making deep cuts to services. IDEA's 
unfunded mandate is $10 billion--this is money our States and school 
districts could be spending to alleviate State budget crises, reduce 
class sizes, build and modernize schools and further technology 
advances in education. This is an unfortunate trade off that our States 
should not have to make.
  Fully funding IDEA is not just about special education. It is about 
keeping the promise of funding the mandate the Federal Government has 
put on the States and relieving the school funding crisis that States 
across the Nation are facing.
  Congress needs to focus on real increases in IDEA funding and on 
aiding our States and local communities in times of tight budgets. 
Congress must follow through on the promise made to our special needs 
students years ago.
  H.R. 1350 in its current form does not fulfill that promise. Please 
oppose H.R. 1350.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1350. As a 
father of three, I know the importance of educating our children. There 
should be no greater priority then providing our children with the 
educational tools needed to succeed in life.
  H.R. 1350 fulfills our commit to the youth of this Nation, by 
providing special education children with the mechanisms and funding 
needed for success.
  Mr. Chairman, since the Republicans have controlled Congress we have 
increased IDEA part B funding by $6.5 billion or 282 percent. All the 
while, the political rhetoric continues to fly in the face of these 
facts.
  However, this is still not enough. Since 1975, when IDEA was 
originally established, Congress committed to provide Federal funding 
at 40 percent. Since 1975, IDEA funding levels have not even come close 
to reaching the 40 percent level.
  H.R. 1350 sets up a bold plan, by setting a clear 7-year path to 
reach the 40 percent goal to make the full funding of IDEA a reality. I 
strongly support this effort, and this is one of the reasons I will be 
voting in favor of this bill. Still, many on the other side of the 
aisle will confuse the issue, by asserting that this needs to be done 
by making IDEA a new Federal entitlement program.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a misguided attempt. Making the program a 
mandatory Federal entitlement will only make it nearly impossible to 
make much needed reforms in IDEA for the future.
  Making IDEA a new Federal entitlement spending program will cause an 
explosion of new paperwork and bureaucracy in special education at the 
very time teachers and parents are seeking a simpler process to ensure 
children with disabilities receive the education they deserve.
  In addition, this could even prevent IDEA from receiving substantial 
funding increases in the upcoming years.
  Finally, mandatory spending through a Federal entitlement will remove 
the accountability and oversight mechanisms that Congress provides 
through the annual discretionary appropriations process.
  Instead, we need to continue our commitment to increasing the IDEA 
budget as well as the overall education budget to ensure real academic 
improvements results for children with disabilities and their peers.
  Mr. Chairman, education is a top priority for this Republican-
controlled House and Senate and this bill is a shining example of this 
continuing commitment to our children's education.
  In spite of the continuing challenges of war and economic recovery--
the Republican administration and Congress remain dedicated to funding 
our priorities. For this reason, I am proud to support the full funding 
of IDEA and H.R. 1350.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak about this bill to 
reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
  As the only former State schools chief serving in Congress, I know 
firsthand the tremendous challenges facing our schools, teachers, 
parents and students when it comes to educating disabled children. 
Congress has an obligation to provide a fair share of funding for 
special education, and although this bill makes some progress toward 
that important goal, it unfortunately falls short.
  Since 1975, the Federal Government has pledged to fund 40 percent of 
the costs of educating children with disabilities, but it has never 
made good on that promise. When I first arrived in this body, Congress 
was only funding its special education obligations at about 14 percent. 
This year that level will rise to

[[Page 10006]]

about 18 percent, and this legislation will provide for additional 
increases perhaps as high as 21 percent. But Mr. Chairman, that still 
is not good enough. Congress must live up to its commitments and fully 
fund IDEA.
  I also urge my colleagues to vote against the voucher amendments on 
this bill. Specifically, the DeMint amendment would siphon off precious 
public resources and funnel them to fund private schools. Vouchers are 
not good public policy. Taking taxpayer dollars to fund private school 
tuition is wrong. I urge my colleagues to vote against any and all 
voucher amendments.
  Vouchers are a bad idea because they drain needed public resources 
away from our public schools, where more than 90 percent of the 
children in this country are educated, in favor of private schools that 
have no accountability to the American taxpayers. Rather than siphoning 
funds from the public schools, we need to invest more in initiatives 
like school construction, teacher training, class size reduction, 
tutoring and in other proven methods to raise academic achievement.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me state that this bill is not all bad, 
and I am hopeful it can be improved in the upcoming conference with the 
Senate. If the conference can fix its shortcomings, I could support the 
final version of this legislation. But this House can do better than 
the bill before us now, and I will vote no today on H.R. 1350.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1350, the 
``Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act.''
  Once again, the Republican majority is failing to match their 
rhetoric with their actions. This time the victims are children with 
disabilities. This bill will not improve education for children with 
disabilities as its title claims. it fails to invest the funds 
necessary to make that improvement real and it contains damaging 
provisions that actually inhibit such improvements. These are steps 
backward, not improvements at all.
  The parents of children with disabilities are likely wondering why 
Congress is allowing this to happen? Well, its because the Republicans 
are refusing to honor the commitment Congress made almost 30 years ago 
to significantly invest in educating children with disabilities. Back 
then, the Federal Government promised to pay 40 percent of the national 
average per pupil for providing this education. Today, we only pay 
about 18 percent. Nothing in this bill improves on that. Talk about 
passing the buck to local schools. Its no wonder many school districts 
are cutting back on education for every child--not to mention their 
failing for children with disabilities.
  As if the under-funding weren't bad enough, this bill goes further. 
This bill ignores the fact that the learning process for any child can 
be very sensitive to changes in their home lives or their health 
conditions. This is more likely to be true for children with 
disabilities, many of whom confront very difficult physical and mental 
health conditions that create barriers to their successful learning. it 
is critical for schools to constantly monitor the situation of students 
with disabilities and ensure that their educational needs are addressed 
as quickly as possible. Instead of promoting this need, the bill 
eliminates the requirement that every school have short-term 
instructional objectives for each student. This greatly decreases the 
chance for students with disabilities to succeed because their 
individual educational needs may well go unaddressed for what could be 
years.
  In the biggest step backward, this bill provides schools with the 
right to unilaterally expel and child with a disability if they 
violate, even once, that school's code of conduct, regardless of the 
severity. Republicans eliminate the review process and the requirement 
for behavioral assessments and positive interventions in these 
discipline cases. Without these protections, there is no limit to the 
number of students with disabilities who can be kicked out of school 
with no questions asked. This provision is wrong and unfair and has no 
place in any legislation claiming to improve education for children 
with disabilities.
  It is long overdue for Congress to make good on our promise to give 
children with disabilities a better chance to succeed. It is in that 
spirit that I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the 
``Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act'' 
because it flatly fails that promise. I hope the Senate will fix many 
of the damaging provisions in this bill and pass an IDEA 
reauthorization bill that really does improve education and opportunity 
for children with disabilities. Then, maybe after a conference, we can 
vote on a bill that truly achieves the goal of its title.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise against this ill-conceived and ill-
advised piece of legislation. Yet again the Republicans say that 
education is their number one priority but every time they have a 
chance to demonstrate their commitment to education they slash the 
funding or eliminate the programs designed to educate our children.
  Since the enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act in 1975, we have failed to fully fund this worthy program. It has 
now been 28 years since we wrote children with disabilities a bad check 
and today its time to make good on that debt. The only way to ensure 
free appropriate public education is to fully fund special education. 
Let us not politicize this issue. We know that the program is working. 
Millions of children with special needs have benefitted greatly from 
IDEA. Let us not return to the dark ages where children with special 
needs were considered second class citizens. Our children deserve 
better.
  Not only do we negate to fully fund special education but we do away 
with our children's basic civil rights protections. By removing due 
process procedures in this Act, many children with special needs will 
be the target of discriminatory practices. This is troubling to me 
because even with the current safeguard, minorities are 
disproportionately suspended or expelled from school compared to their 
majority counterparts. Its seems that this legislation is geared 
towards educating just the privileged few.
  Again, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to rise on 
behalf of the 600,000 children with disabilities so that no child will 
be left behind.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the rule and against 
the bill. The legislation before the House today fails to live up to 
our promises to fully fund special education. It fails the parents of 
children with disabilities. Worst of all, it fails the kids who need 
our help the most.
  The Bush Administration and many in this Congress have said over and 
over that the education policies of this country should leave no child 
behind. If it becomes law, this bill would leave more than 600,000 
children with disabilities behind.
  For more than 28 years, Congress has pledged time and time again to 
provide full funding for special education in this country, but not 
once has Congress provided the promised 40 percent Federal cost share 
of the states' cost of educating children and disabilities. Currently, 
the Federal Government pays just 18 percent. To illustrate my point, 
this year my home state of Michigan, will receive $308 million in IDEA 
Part B grants. Michigan should receive almost $704 million, if this 
Congress would only meet its obligation to fully fund this program, as 
it has promised.
  IDEA is really the poster child for unfunded federal mandates. The 
fiscal crisis confronting the states makes it increasingly difficult 
for them to pick up the unfunded federal share. Proponents of this 
legislation will claim that this bill fully funds IDEA by 1010. This 
House can authorize higher spending limits for IDEA until it is blue in 
the face, but it doesn't mean anything to our nation's disabled school 
children unless we follow up and actually appropriate the money to meet 
these authorization levels. And that's where the problem has been.
  If the Majority is really serious about fully funding special 
education, as it claims, why not make the funding mandatory? It is 
ironic that at the same time the Majority is pushing to lock in a 
permanent $550 billion tax cut that chiefly benefits the very rich, it 
is unwilling to provide the same assurance of funding to disabled 
school kids. This speaks volumes about priorities around here.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the rule and opposing 
this bill. We can do much better.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 1350, the Improving 
Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act. I oppose this 
bill as a strong supporter of doing everything possible to advance the 
education of persons with disabilities. However, I believe this bill is 
yet another case of false advertising by supporters of centralized 
education, as it expands the federal education bureaucracy and thus 
strips control over education from local communities and the parents of 
disabled children. Parents and local communities know their children so 
much better than any federal bureaucrat, and they can do a better job 
of meeting a child's needs than we in Washington. There is no way that 
the unique needs of my grandchildren, and some young boy or girl in Los 
Angeles, CA or New York City can be educated by some sort of ``Cookie 
Cutter'' approach. In fact, the ``Cookie Cutter'' approach is 
especially inappropriate for special needs children.
  At a time when Congress should be returning power and funds to the 
states, IDEA increases Federal control over education. Under this bill, 
expenditures on IDEA will total over $100 billion by the year 2011. 
After 2011, congressional appropriators are free to spend as

[[Page 10007]]

much as they wish on this program. This flies in the face of many 
members' public commitment to place limits on the scope of the Federal 
bureaucracy.
  There are attempts in this bill to reduce the role of bureaucracy and 
paperwork, and some provisions will benefit children. In particular, I 
applaud the efforts of the drafters of those who drafted it to address 
the over-prescription of psychotropic drugs, such as Ritalin by 
ensuring that no child shall be placed on these drugs without parental 
consent.
  However, H.R. 1350 still imposes significant costs on state 
governments and localities. For example, this bill places new mandates 
on state and local schools to offer special services in areas with 
significant ``overidentification'' of disabled students. Mr. Chairman, 
the problem of overidentification is one created by the Federal 
mandates and federal spending of IDEA! So once again, Congress is using 
problems created by their prior mandates to justify imposing new 
mandates on the states!
  When I think of imposing new mandates on local schools, I think of a 
survey of teachers my office conducted last year. According to this 
survey, over 65 percent of teachers felt that the federal mandates are 
excessive. In fact, the area where most teachers indicated there is too 
much federal involvement is disabilities education.
  I would ask all my colleagues to consider whether we are truly aiding 
education by imposing new mandates, or just making it more difficult 
for hard-working, education professionals to properly educate our 
children?
  The major federal mandate in IDEA is that disabled children be 
educated in the least restrictive setting. In other words, this bill 
makes mainstreaming the federal policy. Many children may thrive in a 
mainstream classroom environment; however, I worry that some children 
may be mainstreamed solely because school officials believe federal law 
requires it, even though the mainstream environment is not the most 
appropriate for that child.
  On May 10, 1994, Dr. Mary Wagner testified before the Education 
Committee that disabled children who are not placed in mainstream 
classrooms graduate from high school at a much higher rate than 
disabled children who are mainstreamed. Dr. Wagner quite properly 
accused Congress of sacrificing children to ideology.
  H.R. 1350 also burdens parents by requiring them to go through a 
time-consuming process of bureaucracy and litigation to obtain a proper 
education for their child. I have been told that there are trial 
lawyers actively soliciting dissatisfied parents of special needs 
children as clients for lawsuits against local schools! Parents and 
school districts should not be wasting resources that could go to 
educating children enriching trial lawyers.
  Instead of placing more federal control on education, Congress should 
allow parents of disabled children the ability to obtain the type of 
education appropriate for that child's unique needs by passing my Help 
and Opportunities for Parents of Exceptional Children (HOPE for 
Children) Act of 2003, H.R. 1575. This bill allows parents of children 
with a learning disability a tax cut of up to $3,000 for educational 
expenses. Parents could use this credit to pay for special services for 
their child, or to pay tuition at private school or even to home school 
their child. By allowing parents of special needs children to control 
the education dollar, the HOPE for Children Act allows parents to 
control their child's education. Thus, this bill helps parents of 
special needs children provide their child an education tailored to the 
child's unique needs.
  The HOPE for Children Act allows parents of special needs children to 
provide those children with an education that matches their child's 
unique needs without having to beg permission of education bureaucrats 
or engage in lengthy and costly litigation.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop sacrificing children on the altar of 
ideology. Every child is unique and special. Given the colossal failure 
of Washington's existing interference, it is clear that all children 
will be better off when we get Washington out of their classroom and 
out of their parents' pocketbooks. I therefore urge my colleagues to 
cast a vote for constitutionally limited government and genuine 
compassion by opposing H.R. 1350 and supporting the HOPE for Children 
Act.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, none of the goals of IDEA can be achieved 
without full funding. Today, the majority is refusing even to allow 
amendments to improve the funding level in the bill.
  Congress authorized full funding of IDEA 28 years ago and still has 
failed to deliver. In 1975, Congress authorized funding to cover 40 
percent of the excess cost of educating a child with a disability.
  President Bush has requested $1 billion increases for IDEA in each of 
his last 2 budgets. But according to the U.S. Department of Education, 
providing $1 billion increases each year will never allow IDEA to reach 
full funding.
  When it comes to IDEA funding, Republicans are dwelling on the past, 
rather than focusing on the future. The majority consistently points to 
increases in IDEA funding in past years and this is true. However, this 
doesn't respond to the needs of school districts now. That is why we 
need to ensure full funding of IDEA over the next six years.
  During debate on the No Child Left Behind Act, the majority claimed 
we had to reform IDEA before providing full funding. The bill before us 
supplies the Majority's reforms, yet reneges on full funding. What is 
the excuse now? Since 1977, 22 separate bills and resolutions have 
passed in the House and Senate calling for fund funding of IDEA with 
support of a majority of Republicans. It is time for Congress to make 
good on this promise.
  In recent years, the Republican majority have said that there is not 
enough money to appropriate full funding, however they seem to be able 
to find enough money to give a large tax cut to those who don't need 
it.
  I offered an amendment in the Education and the Workforce Committee 
with Representative Andrews to remove the funding cap from the bill. I 
did so because today seven states stand to lose IDEA funding under this 
cap, and another seven may soon be affected. While the Chairman did 
agree to move the cap to 13.5 percent--and I thank him for working with 
us--I still believe that a cap is fundamentally unfair. Not just unfair 
to the 50 states but also to the American children.
  Even with this cap on funding, states and schools are still required 
to educate students that are identified as having special need even 
when the population exceeds the cap. So, why not allow the funding?
  While I recognize that the cap reflects an attempt to reduce 
inappropriate identification of students as disabled, I believe that a 
cap does not get at the problem. Simply setting a cap does not address 
the issue of how students are being identified.
  I believe that states and localities should be allowed to improve 
this inappropriate identification through professional development.
  I applaud the chairman for including increased funding for 
professional development and research funding to reduce inappropriate 
identification of children with disabilities, including 
disproportionate assignment of minority children. We should allow these 
funds to work.
  Let me point out a good point of today's bill. I am glad to see that 
section 674(c) recognizes the continued importance of funding an 
organization that ``provides free educational materials, including 
textbooks, in accessible media for visually impaired and print-disabled 
students in elementary, secondary, postsecondary, and graduate 
schools.'' As you may know, Mr. Speaker, Recording for the Blind & 
Dyslexic, located in New Jersey in my district, has received federal 
funding for nearly thirty years to produce, distribute and promote the 
use of accessible-format versions of printed textbooks free to 
students. During this time, they have helped hundreds of thousands of 
students who would have otherwise not had access to the textbooks they 
need to receive the kind of ``free and appropriate'' education that is 
outlined under IDEA. I commend RFB&D and want to bring to the attention 
of my colleagues in the Congress the oustanding work of this 
organization.
  I would to thank Chairman Boehner and Subcommittee Chairman Castle 
for maintaining this important program in the law. I would like to 
express my concern, however, that funding for this activity is no 
longer a requirement for the Secretary of Education, as is the case 
under current law. I believe this must be changed and this requirement 
should be restored, and I look forward to working with the Chairman and 
my colleagues to resolve this issue during conference with the Senate.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1350, which 
reforms and re-Authorizes the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act (IDEA), the Nation's primary special education law. This 
reauthorization of IDEA offers an opportunity to renew our commitment 
to students with special needs in Iowa and across the country.
  IDEA laws and funding decisions impact all students, regardless of 
whether they have special educational needs.
  I commend the Education Committee for authorizing in this bill 
special education funding increases for the next two years in line with 
the amounts provided in the fiscal year 2004 conference budget 
resolution. This includes a $2.2 billion increase in 2004, followed by 
another $2.5 billion increases on top of that for 2005.
  These funding increases would bring us more than halfway toward our 
ultimate goal of

[[Page 10008]]

funding 40 percent of the national average per pupil expenditure for 
each child served under IDEA. These funding levels will result in the 
Federal Government paying 21 percent of these costs in 2004 and 25 
percent the following year.
  Let's take a moment to acknowledge just how far we have come in 
funding special education in recent years. The increases in this bill 
build upon the dramatic rise in special education funding already 
provided by the Republican Congress.
  Since 1995, annual special education funding has risen from $2.3 
billion to $8.9 billion. We've gone from 7 percent Federal funding to 
17 percent.
  In the first few years of the previous administration, special 
education funding remained essentially flat, with no increase in the 
Federal share.
  I also want to point out that the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution 
includes mandatory funding to help address the national shortage of 
special education teachers by allowing Federal loan forgiveness of up 
to $17,500 for special education teachers who teach in disadvantaged 
school districts.
  Funding is only one piece of the puzzle in improving education. We 
must ensure that significant improvements are made to the system. 
Iowa's students deserve no less. I am pleased this bill includes 
critical reforms to enhance educational performance while reducing the 
bureaucratic red tape that teachers and school administrators in Iowa 
tell me can get in the way of what is most important: teaching.
  H.R. 1350 substantially reduces the paperwork requirement of annual 
individualized education plans (IEPS) by giving parents the option of 
choosing a three-year IEP, instead of having to craft a new one every 
year.
  The bill grants school districts greater flexibility to more 
accurately classify students to avoid wrongly identifying as disabled 
those who may have a less severe condition. This growing problem 
hinders the progress of affected students and indirectly impacts all 
students.
  There will be expanded choices for parents by allowing IDEA funds to 
be used in some cases to obtain supplemental education services, 
including services offered by private educational providers.
  The bill also increases the flexibility of local school districts in 
making decisions about discipline for individual special education 
students. This flexibility can enhance the educational environment for 
all students. This is a necessary step I have been advocating for some 
time.
  I support this bill and applaud the efforts of Mr. Boehner and Mr. 
Castle to improve the Nation's special education law at a time as we 
continue working to ensure that no child is left behind in America's 
classrooms.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, not since Congress first passed 
legislation to help children with disabilities to receive a free and 
appropriate public education has a bill done so much for disabled 
students, parents, and their teachers. That is why I am proud to 
support the Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities 
Act.
  One important aspect of this legislation is that it helps to reduce 
the over-identification and mis-identification of non-disabled 
students. For far too long, students that were not disabled were 
classified as being disabled--stigmatizing these children for the rest 
of their education even though they were fully capable students.
  H.R. 1350 encourages the use of early intervention strategies, which 
we all know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. By 
reducing the number of non-disabled students receiving services, 
students who truly need assistance will have more resources available 
to them.
  I would also like to point out that our litigious society has 
fostered an atmosphere of mistrust and apprehension between parents and 
teachers. H.R. 1350 gives parents and schools increased flexibility in 
resoling disputes. Through mediation and voluntary binding arbitration, 
the trust between parents and teachers can be restored.
  While I understand the fears and concerns of some regarding changes 
to IDEA, I believe that H.R. 1350 goes a long way towards increasing 
accountability and flexibility for both teachers and parents. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, over a quarter century ago, President Ford 
signed historic legislation seeking to ensure educational equity for 
children with disabilities and special needs. This legislation, now 
known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), was a 
major milestone in the quest to end the chronic exclusion of students 
with exceptional needs. It helped open the door to fairness and access 
for millions of such youngsters and paved the way to greater 
educational success for many students with disabilities.
  IDEA is both a grants statute and a civil rights statute. It mandates 
that all disabled students be provided a free appropriated public 
education in the least restrictive environment. Over six million 
children with disabilities are no longer limited by their families' 
ability to afford private education; they are no longer forced to 
attend costly state institutions, or worse, stay home and miss out 
entirely on the benefits of an education. IDEA ensures that children 
with disabilities may attend public school alongside their peers. There 
is no question about it: students, schools, communities are enriched 
when all children have a right to a free, appropriate public education.
  As a member of the Education and Workforce Committee since 1997, I 
have worked hard to improve the quality of education for our children. 
Consistently, I have called on the federal government to fully fund 
IDEA. In fact, during reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act I offered an amendment to fully fund IDEA. Unfortunately 
the House leadership prevented the amendment from being debated on the 
House floor.
  Again, during committee consideration of H.R. 1350, I supported an 
amendment for mandatory full funding offered by Representative Woolsey. 
I am disappointed by the Committee's failure to adopt this important 
amendment. This is not the time to withhold necessary funds from out 
states. In the end, it is all our students nationwide, with an without 
disabilities, who suffer from the lack of federal funds for special 
education.
  While I realize that H.R. 1350 is not a perfect bill, I feel that it 
resolves some significant issues that are problematic in Wisconsin, 
such as increasing instructional time with students through paperwork 
reduction, improving early intervention strategies, reducing 
overidentification and working to resolve conflicts between schools and 
parents early and with less litigation. I hope, that as we move forward 
we can continue to improve the bill and work with the Senate to produce 
the best bill possible.
  Specicially, I am pleased that H.R. 1350 includes several amendments 
I offered during committee that focus on professional development. 
Frequently, during my visits with special education personnel in 
Wisconsin I heard how difficult it is to access professional 
development, this being more pronounced in those rural school systems 
in my district. For example, in Wisconsin a special education teacher 
is required to obtain six credit hours of professional development 
training every five years.
  Thus, my amendment encourages the use and development of state-of-
the-art strategies to deliver professional development training for 
school personnel working with special education students through the 
use of technology, peer networks, and distance learning. The training 
will include special and regular education teachers, principals, 
superintendents, and other related services personnel.
  Furthermore, to better assist states in encouraging the development 
and use of distance learning and technology for special education 
personnel, it is critical to raise awareness of what is currently 
available in the area of distance learning for professional 
development. Therefore, I requested GAO to research the existing and 
developing distance learning and technology program offered to special 
education personnel. This knowledge will help better focus resources 
and time on developing programs where they are needed.
  I offered an additional professional development amendment that will 
include principals, superintendents, and administrators in the states 
personnel preparation programs. As district Special Education Directors 
leave, retire, or are cut due to budgetary shortfalls, principals, and 
superintendents are being tapped to fill this void. In the 423 school 
districts in Wisconsin, less than half, only 185 school districts 
presently have directors of special education. In the 238 districts 
without a director of special education, school principals and 
superintendents provide leadership of special education programs. Yet, 
few have had training needed to administer these complicated programs. 
This amendment will allow states to include administrators in special 
education professional development programs.
  Finally, H.R. 1350 includes a new provision that permits states to 
establish and implement cost- and risk-sharing funds, consortiums or 
cooperatives to assist students with severe disabilities. I offered my 
amendment, which was accepted, that would allow states to prioritize a 
certain percentage of funding for school districts to finance these 
programs. High-cost, low-incidence students have a significant impact 
on the budgets of the school districts, and this can be very pronounced 
in rural areas. I am pleased this amendment was accepted and know it 
will have a positive impact for Wisconsin.

[[Page 10009]]

  Mr. Chairman, our educators are doing everything they can to meet the 
needs of disabled students, despite the federal government's failure to 
fully-fund IDEA. Congress has gone less than half way in its promise to 
fund 40 percent of education costs for children with disabilities. 
Therefore, until it does, we have to provide whatever help we can and I 
feel that H.R. 1350 is a step forward in helping our local education 
communities reach the goal of providing the best possible education 
system for students with disabilities.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, it's with great disappointment that I rise 
today in opposition to H.R. 1350, the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act reauthorization.
  H.R. 1350 fails special ed kids for these reasons: It undermines 
their civil rights and their educational opportunity by removing 
parental involvement in actions relating to the identification, 
evaluation and education of their child.
  It limits the dialogue between school professionals and families. It 
institutes a one-year statute of limitations on parents to bring about 
any grievances with their child's education.
  It eliminates short term objectives for a student's Individualized 
Education Program and limits a teacher of special ed to participate in 
the process.
  It makes changes to disciplinary procedures which allow disabled 
children to be punished or removed for behavior due to their 
disability.
  And H.R. 1350 fails to fully fund IDEA. It calls for full funding 
over seven years, but there isn't any guarantee that these dollars will 
be there in seven years.
  Congress made a commitment in 1975 to our children and our school 
districts to fully fund special education at forty-percent. What an 
insult it is that twenty-eight years later, Congress is still funding 
less than half of this commitment. The budget passed by the House this 
year authorizes only $8.5 billion, far short of the $20.2 billion 
needed to fulfill our obligation.
  Today every state across the nation is struggling fiscally, the worst 
condition of states since the Great Depression and school funding is 
being slashed.
  It's critical that our nation's Governors unite with Congress now to 
uphold the special education commitment to school districts. I support 
the Woolsey-McKeon amendment which requires that any additional 
increases in IDEA federal funding be passed down directly to the local 
level.
  I regret that the House is missing a critical opportunity to invest 
in our children and our schools through IDEA reauthorization. The 
reality of this bill is that it's bad for our children and it will set 
back the progress we've made.
  Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of 
H.R. 1350 as I believe it will make many necessary reforms to better 
serve our Nation's special-needs students, but wish to makes my 
reservations known about funding levels for part B of the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act. It is well known that Congress 
committed to contribute up to 40 percent of the average per pupil 
expenditure of educating special needs children, and Congress' failure 
to achieve even half of that 40 percent promise is even more well 
known. In fact, in 28 years Congress has never contributed more than 
17.6 percent, leaving local school districts with too heavy a burden to 
provide for their special needs children. Thus, I am currently 
cosponsor to H.R. 1094, legislation that would authorize appropriations 
to achieve the full, 40 percent funding for part B of IDEA by 2008. I 
believe it is imperative that the Federal Government keep its promise 
to our Nation's special needs children.
  While I am pleased that funding for IDEA has steadily risen in the 
last several years, Congress is long overdue in providing its promise 
of 40 percent. That said, I support H.R. 1350, although I realize that 
its funding levels for part B of IDEA are lower than those that would 
be authorized if H.R. 1094 were signed into law. While I realize this 
discrepancy, I do believe that H.R. 1350 puts forth a good-faith effort 
to dramatically increase the Federal Government's expenditure for 
special needs children. H.R. 1350 will set in motion a plan to finally 
achieve the 40 percent funding, and thus makes a statement that 
Congress realizes its current funding shortfall of IDEA. I will 
continue to fight for full funding for part B of IDEA in the budget for 
FY2004 and beyond.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 1350

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Improving Education Results 
     for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003''.

                      TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 101. SECTIONS 601 THROUGH 603 OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH 
                   DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT.

       Sections 601 through 603 of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400-1402) are amended 
     to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS; FINDINGS; 
                   PURPOSES.

       ``(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     `Individuals with Disabilities Education Act'.
       ``(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
     Act is as follows:

                      ``Part A--General Provisions

``Sec. 601. Short title; table of contents; findings; purposes.
``Sec. 602. Definitions.
``Sec. 603. Office of Special Education Programs.
``Sec. 604. Abrogation of State sovereign immunity.
``Sec. 605. Acquisition of equipment; construction or alteration of 
              facilities.
``Sec. 606. Employment of individuals with disabilities.
``Sec. 607. Requirements for prescribing regulations.
``Sec. 608. State administration.

  ``Part B--Assistance for Education of All Children with Disabilities

``Sec. 611. Authorization; allotment; use of funds; authorization of 
              appropriations.
``Sec. 612. State eligibility.
``Sec. 613. Local educational agency eligibility.
``Sec. 614. Evaluations, eligibility determinations, individualized 
              education programs, and educational placements.
``Sec. 615. Procedural safeguards.
``Sec. 616. Monitoring, enforcement, withholding, and judicial review.
``Sec. 617. Administration.
``Sec. 618. Program information.
``Sec. 619. Preschool grants.

            ``Part C--Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities

``Sec. 631. Findings and policy.
``Sec. 632. Definitions.
``Sec. 633. General authority.
``Sec. 634. Eligibility.
``Sec. 635. Requirements for statewide system.
``Sec. 636. Individualized family service plan.
``Sec. 637. State application and assurances.
``Sec. 638. Uses of funds.
``Sec. 639. Procedural safeguards.
``Sec. 640. Payor of last resort.
``Sec. 641. State Interagency Coordinating Council.
``Sec. 642. Federal administration.
``Sec. 643. Allocation of funds.
``Sec. 644. Authorization of appropriations.

  ``Part D--National Activities To Improve Education of Children With 
                              Disabilities

``Sec. 651. Findings.


            ``SUBPART 1--STATE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

``Sec. 652. Purpose.
``Sec. 653. Eligibility and collaborative process.
``Sec. 654. Applications.
``Sec. 655. Use of funds.
``Sec. 656. State grant amounts.
``Sec. 657. Authorization of appropriations.


    ``SUBPART 2--SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH; TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE; 
    MODEL DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS; DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION; AND 
                     PERSONNEL PREPARATION PROGRAMS

``Sec. 661. Purpose.
``Sec. 662. Administrative provisions.
``Sec. 663. Research to improve results for children with disabilities.
``Sec. 664. Technical assistance, demonstration projects, dissemination 
              of information, and implementation of scientifically 
              based research.
``Sec. 665. Personnel preparation programs to improve services and 
              results for children with disabilities.
``Sec. 666. Studies and evaluations.
``Sec. 667. Authorization of appropriations. 


       ``SUBPART 3--SUPPORTS TO IMPROVE RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH 
                              DISABILITIES

``Sec. 671. Purposes.
``Sec. 672. Parent training and information centers.
``Sec. 673. Community parent resource centers.
``Sec. 674. Technical assistance for parent training and information 
              centers.
``Sec. 675. Technology development, demonstration, and utilization; and 
              media services.
       ``(c) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       ``(1) Disability is a natural part of the human experience 
     and in no way diminishes the right of individuals to 
     participate in or contribute to society. Improving 
     educational results for children with disabilities is an 
     essential element of our national policy of ensuring equality 
     of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and 
     economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities.

[[Page 10010]]

       ``(2) Before the date of the enactment of the Education for 
     All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Public Law 94-142), the 
     special educational needs of millions of children with 
     disabilities were not being fully met and there were many 
     children with disabilities participating in regular school 
     programs whose undiagnosed disabilities prevented them from 
     having a successful educational experience.
       ``(3) Since the enactment and implementation of the 
     Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, this Act 
     has been successful in ensuring children with disabilities 
     and the families of such children access to a free 
     appropriate public education and in improving educational 
     results for children with disabilities.
       ``(4) Over 25 years of research and experience has 
     demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities 
     can be made more effective by--
       ``(A) having high expectations for such children and 
     ensuring their access to the general education curriculum in 
     the regular classroom to the maximum extent possible in 
     order--
       ``(i) to meet developmental goals and, to the maximum 
     extent possible, the challenging expectations that have been 
     established for all children; and
       ``(ii) to be prepared to lead productive and independent 
     adult lives, to the maximum extent possible;
       ``(B) strengthening the role and responsibility of parents 
     and ensuring that families of such children have meaningful 
     opportunities to participate in the education of their 
     children at school and at home;
       ``(C) coordinating this Act with other local, State, and 
     Federal school improvement efforts, including efforts under 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, in order 
     to ensure that children with disabilities benefit from such 
     efforts and that special education can become a service for 
     such children rather than a place where they are sent;
       ``(D) supporting high-quality, intensive professional 
     development for personnel who work with children with 
     disabilities;
       ``(E) providing incentives for scientifically based reading 
     programs and prereferral intervention services to reduce the 
     need to label children as disabled in order to address their 
     learning needs;
       ``(F) focusing resources on teaching and learning while 
     reducing paperwork and requirements that do not assist in 
     improving educational results; and
       ``(G) supporting the development and use of technology, 
     including assistive technology devices and services, to 
     maximize accessibility for children with disabilities.
       ``(5) While States, local educational agencies, and 
     educational service agencies are primarily responsible for 
     providing an education for all children with disabilities, it 
     is in the national interest that the Federal Government has a 
     supporting role in assisting State and local efforts to 
     educate children with disabilities in order to improve 
     results for such children and to ensure equal protection of 
     the law.
       ``(6) A more equitable allocation of resources is essential 
     for the Federal Government to meet its responsibility to 
     provide an equal educational opportunity for all individuals.
       ``(7)(A) The Federal Government must respond to the growing 
     needs of an increasingly diverse society.
       ``(B) America's ethnic profile is rapidly changing. In the 
     year 2000, nearly one of every three persons in America was a 
     member of a minority group or was limited English proficient.
       ``(C) Minority children comprise an increasing percentage 
     of public school students.
       ``(D) With such changing demographics, recruitment efforts 
     for special education personnel should focus on increasing 
     the participation of minorities in the teaching profession in 
     order to provide appropriate role models with sufficient 
     knowledge to address the special education needs of these 
     students.
       ``(8)(A) The limited English proficient population is the 
     fastest growing in our Nation, and the growth is occurring in 
     many parts of our Nation.
       ``(B) Studies have documented apparent discrepancies in the 
     levels of referral and placement of limited English 
     proficient children in special education.
       ``(C) This poses a special challenge for special education 
     in the referral, assessment, and provision of services for 
     our Nation's students from non-English language backgrounds.
       ``(9)(A) Greater efforts are needed to prevent the 
     intensification of problems connected with mislabeling and 
     high dropout rates among minority children with disabilities.
       ``(B) More minority children continue to be served in 
     special education than would be expected from the percentage 
     of minority students in the general school population.
       ``(C) African American children are overidentified as 
     having mental retardation and emotional disturbance at rates 
     greater than their white counterparts.
       ``(D) In the 1998-99 school year, African American children 
     represented just 14.8 percent of the population aged 6 
     through 21, but comprised 20.2 percent of all children with 
     disabilities.
       ``(E) Studies have found that schools with predominantly 
     Caucasian students and teachers have placed 
     disproportionately high numbers of their minority students 
     into special education.
       ``(10)(A) As the number of minority students in special 
     education increases, the number of minority teachers and 
     related services personnel produced in colleges and 
     universities continues to decrease.
       ``(B) The opportunity for full participation by minority 
     individuals, organizations, and historically black colleges 
     and universities in awards for grants and contracts, boards 
     of organizations receiving assistance under this Act, peer 
     review panels, and training of professionals in the area of 
     special education is essential to obtain greater success in 
     the education of minority children with disabilities.
       ``(d) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are--
       ``(1)(A) to ensure that all children with disabilities have 
     available to them a free appropriate public education that 
     emphasizes special education and related services designed to 
     meet their unique needs and prepare them for further 
     education, employment, and independent living;
       ``(B) to ensure that the rights of children with 
     disabilities and parents of such children are protected; and
       ``(C) to assist States, localities, educational service 
     agencies, and Federal agencies to provide for the education 
     of all children with disabilities;
       ``(2) to assist States in the implementation of a 
     statewide, comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary, 
     interagency system of early intervention services for infants 
     and toddlers with disabilities and their families;
       ``(3) to ensure that educators and parents have the 
     necessary tools to improve educational results for children 
     with disabilities by supporting system improvement 
     activities; coordinated research and personnel preparation; 
     coordinated technical assistance, dissemination, and support; 
     and technology development and media services; and
       ``(4) to assess, and ensure the effectiveness of, efforts 
     to educate children with disabilities.

     ``SEC. 602. DEFINITIONS.

       ``Except as otherwise provided, as used in this Act:
       ``(1) Assistive technology device.--The term `assistive 
     technology device' means any item, piece of equipment, or 
     product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, 
     modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, 
     or improve functional capabilities of a child with a 
     disability.
       ``(2) Assistive technology service.--The term `assistive 
     technology service' means any service that directly assists a 
     child with a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use 
     of an assistive technology device. Such term includes--
       ``(A) the evaluation of the needs of such child, including 
     a functional evaluation of the child in the child's customary 
     environment;
       ``(B) purchasing, leasing, or otherwise providing for the 
     acquisition of assistive technology devices by such child;
       ``(C) selecting, designing, fitting, customizing, adapting, 
     applying, maintaining, repairing, or replacing of assistive 
     technology devices;
       ``(D) coordinating and using other therapies, 
     interventions, or services with assistive technology devices, 
     such as those associated with existing education and 
     rehabilitation plans and programs;
       ``(E) training or technical assistance for such child, or, 
     where appropriate, the family of such child; and
       ``(F) training or technical assistance for professionals 
     (including individuals providing education and rehabilitation 
     services), employers, or other individuals who provide 
     services to, employ, or are otherwise substantially involved 
     in the major life functions of such child.
       ``(3) Child with a disability.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `child with a disability' means 
     a child--
       ``(i) with mental retardation, hearing impairments 
     (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual 
     impairments (including blindness), serious emotional 
     disturbance (hereinafter referred to as `emotional 
     disturbance'), orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic 
     brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning 
     disabilities; and
       ``(ii) who, by reason thereof, needs special education and 
     related services.
       ``(B) Child aged 3 through 9.--The term `child with a 
     disability' for a child aged 3 through 9 or any subset of 
     that age range, including ages 3 through 5, may, at the 
     discretion of the State and the local educational agency, 
     include a child--
       ``(i) experiencing developmental delays, as defined by the 
     State and as measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments 
     and procedures, in one or more of the following areas: 
     physical development, cognitive development, communication 
     development, social or emotional development, or adaptive 
     development; and
       ``(ii) who, by reason thereof, needs special education and 
     related services.
       ``(4) Educational service agency.--The term `educational 
     service agency'--
       ``(A) means a regional public multiservice agency--
       ``(i) authorized by State law to develop, manage, and 
     provide services or programs to local educational agencies; 
     and
       ``(ii) recognized as an administrative agency for purposes 
     of the provision of special education and related services 
     provided within public elementary and secondary schools of 
     the State; and
       ``(B) includes any other public institution or agency 
     having administrative control and direction over a public 
     elementary or secondary school.
       ``(5) Elementary school.--The term `elementary school' 
     means a nonprofit institutional day or residential school 
     that provides elementary education, as determined under State 
     law.

[[Page 10011]]

       ``(6) Equipment.--The term `equipment' includes--
       ``(A) machinery, utilities, and built-in equipment and any 
     necessary enclosures or structures to house such machinery, 
     utilities, or equipment; and
       ``(B) all other items necessary for the functioning of a 
     particular facility as a facility for the provision of 
     educational services, including items such as instructional 
     equipment and necessary furniture; printed, published, and 
     audio-visual instructional materials; telecommunications, 
     sensory, and other technological aids and devices; and books, 
     periodicals, documents, and other related materials.
       ``(7) Excess costs.--The term `excess costs' means those 
     costs that are in excess of the average annual per-student 
     expenditure in a local educational agency during the 
     preceding school year for an elementary or secondary school 
     student, as may be appropriate, and which shall be computed 
     after deducting--
       ``(A) amounts received--
       ``(i) under part B of this title;
       ``(ii) under part A of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965; and
       ``(iii) under title III of that Act; and
       ``(B) any State or local funds expended for programs that 
     would qualify for assistance under any of the provisions of 
     law described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(8) Free appropriate public education.--The term `free 
     appropriate public education' means special education and 
     related services that--
       ``(A) have been provided at public expense, under public 
     supervision and direction, and without charge;
       ``(B) meet the standards of the State educational agency;
       ``(C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or 
     secondary school education in the State involved; and
       ``(D) are provided in conformity with the individualized 
     education program required under section 614(d).
       ``(9) Highly qualified.--The term `highly qualified' has 
     the same meaning as that term in section 9101 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       ``(10) Indian.--The term `Indian' means an individual who 
     is a member of an Indian tribe.
       ``(11) Indian tribe.--The term `Indian tribe' means any 
     Federal or State Indian tribe, band, rancheria, pueblo, 
     colony, or community, including any Alaska Native village or 
     regional village corporation (as defined in or established 
     under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act).
       ``(12) Individualized education program.--The term 
     `individualized education program' or `IEP' means a written 
     statement for each child with a disability that is developed, 
     reviewed, and revised in accordance with section 614(d).
       ``(13) Individualized family service plan.--The term 
     `individualized family service plan' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 636.
       ``(14) Infant or toddler with a disability.--The term 
     `infant or toddler with a disability' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 632.
       ``(15) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     `institution of higher education'--
       ``(A) has the meaning given that term in subsection (a) or 
     (b) of section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965; and
       ``(B) also includes any community college receiving funding 
     from the Secretary of the Interior under the Tribally 
     Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978.
       ``(16) Local educational agency.--
       ``(A) The term `local educational agency' means a public 
     board of education or other public authority legally 
     constituted within a State for either administrative control 
     or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public 
     elementary or secondary schools in a city, county, township, 
     school district, or other political subdivision of a State, 
     or for such combination of school districts or counties as 
     are recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its 
     public elementary or secondary schools.
       ``(B) The term includes--
       ``(i) an educational service agency, as defined in 
     paragraph (4); and
       ``(ii) any other public institution or agency having 
     administrative control and direction of a public elementary 
     or secondary school.
       ``(C) The term includes an elementary or secondary school 
     funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but only to the 
     extent that such inclusion makes the school eligible for 
     programs for which specific eligibility is not provided to 
     the school in another provision of law and the school does 
     not have a student population that is smaller than the 
     student population of the local educational agency receiving 
     assistance under this Act with the smallest student 
     population, except that the school shall not be subject to 
     the jurisdiction of any State educational agency other than 
     the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
       ``(17) Native language.--The term `native language', when 
     used with reference to an individual of limited English 
     proficiency, means the language normally used by the 
     individual, or, in the case of a child, the language normally 
     used by the parents of the child.
       ``(18) Nonprofit.--The term `nonprofit', as applied to a 
     school, agency, organization, or institution, means a school, 
     agency, organization, or institution owned and operated by 
     one or more nonprofit corporations or associations no part of 
     the net earnings of which inures, or may lawfully inure, to 
     the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.
       ``(19) Outlying area.--The term `outlying area' means the 
     United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
       ``(20) Parent.--The term `parent'--
       ``(A) includes a legal guardian; and
       ``(B) except as used in sections 615(b)(2) and 639(a)(5), 
     includes an individual assigned under either of those 
     sections to be a surrogate parent.
       ``(21) Parent organization.--The term `parent organization' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 672(g).
       ``(22) Parent training and information center.--The term 
     `parent training and information center' means a center 
     assisted under sections 672 and 673.
       ``(23) Related services.--The term `related services' means 
     transportation, and such developmental, corrective, and other 
     supportive services (including speech-language pathology and 
     audiology services, psychological services, physical and 
     occupational therapy, recreation, including therapeutic 
     recreation, social work services, counseling services, 
     including rehabilitation counseling, orientation and mobility 
     services, and medical services, except that such medical 
     services shall be for diagnostic and evaluation purposes 
     only) as may be required to assist a child with a disability 
     to benefit from special education, and includes the early 
     identification and assessment of disabling conditions in 
     children.
       ``(24) Secondary school.--The term `secondary school' means 
     a nonprofit institutional day or residential school that 
     provides secondary education, as determined under State law, 
     except that it does not include any education beyond grade 
     12.
       ``(25) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       ``(26) Special education.--The term `special education' 
     means specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents, 
     to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, 
     including--
       ``(A) instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, 
     in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings; and
       ``(B) instruction in physical education.
       ``(27) Specific learning disability.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `specific learning disability' 
     means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological 
     processes involved in understanding or in using language, 
     spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in 
     imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, 
     spell, or do mathematical calculations.
       ``(B) Disorders included.--Such term includes such 
     conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal 
     brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.
       ``(C) Disorders not included.--Such term does not include a 
     learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, 
     hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of 
     emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or 
     economic disadvantage.
       ``(28) State.--The term `State' means each of the 50 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, and each of the outlying areas.
       ``(29) State educational agency.--The term `State 
     educational agency' means the State board of education or 
     other agency or officer primarily responsible for the State 
     supervision of public elementary and secondary schools, or, 
     if there is no such officer or agency, an officer or agency 
     designated by the Governor or by State law.
       ``(30) Supplementary aids and services.--The term 
     `supplementary aids and services' means aids, services, and 
     other supports that are provided in regular education classes 
     or other education-related settings to enable children with 
     disabilities to be educated with nondisabled children to the 
     maximum extent appropriate in accordance with section 
     612(a)(5).
       ``(31) Transition services.--The term `transition services' 
     means a coordinated set of activities for a child with a 
     disability that--
       ``(A) is designed within a results-oriented process, that 
     is focused on improving the academic and developmental 
     achievement of the child with a disability to facilitate the 
     child's move from school to post-school activities, including 
     post-secondary education, vocational training, integrated 
     employment (including supported employment), continuing and 
     adult education, adult services, independent living, or 
     community participation;
       ``(B) is based upon the individual child's needs, taking 
     into account the child's skills, preferences, and interests; 
     and
       ``(C) includes instruction, related services, community 
     experiences, the development of employment and other post-
     school adult living objectives, and, when appropriate, 
     acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocational 
     evaluation.

     ``SEC. 603. OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There shall be, within the Office of 
     Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in the 
     Department of Education, an Office of Special Education 
     Programs, which shall be the principal agency in such 
     Department for administering and carrying out this Act and 
     other programs and activities concerning the education of 
     children with disabilities.
       ``(b) Director.--The Office established under subsection 
     (a) shall be headed by a Director who shall be selected by 
     the Secretary and shall report directly to the Assistant 
     Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
       ``(c) Voluntary and Uncompensated Services.--
     Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United States Code, 
     the Secretary is authorized to accept voluntary and 
     uncompensated services in furtherance of the purposes of this 
     Act.''.

[[Page 10012]]



     SEC. 102. SECTIONS 605 THROUGH 607 OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH 
                   DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT.

       Sections 605 through 607 of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1404-1406) are amended 
     to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 605. ACQUISITION OF EQUIPMENT; CONSTRUCTION OR 
                   ALTERATION OF FACILITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--If the Secretary determines that a 
     program authorized under this Act would be improved by 
     permitting program funds to be used to acquire appropriate 
     equipment, or to construct new facilities or alter existing 
     facilities, the Secretary is authorized to allow the use of 
     those funds for those purposes.
       ``(b) Compliance With Certain Regulations.--Any 
     construction of new facilities or alteration of existing 
     facilities under subsection (a) shall comply with the 
     requirements of--
       ``(1) appendix A of part 36 of title 28, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (commonly known as the `Americans with 
     Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and 
     Facilities'); or
       ``(2) appendix A of part 101-19.6 of title 41, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (commonly known as the `Uniform Federal 
     Accessibility Standards').

     ``SEC. 606. EMPLOYMENT OF INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES.

       ``The Secretary shall ensure that each recipient of 
     assistance under this Act makes positive efforts to employ 
     and advance in employment qualified individuals with 
     disabilities, particularly as teachers, related services 
     personnel, early intervention providers, and administrators, 
     in programs assisted under this Act.

     ``SEC. 607. REQUIREMENTS FOR PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may issue regulations 
     under this Act only to the extent that such regulations are 
     reasonably necessary to ensure that there is compliance with 
     the specific requirements of this Act.
       ``(b) Protections Provided to Children.--The Secretary may 
     not implement, or publish in final form, any regulation 
     prescribed pursuant to this Act that would--
       ``(1) violate or contradict any provision of this Act; and
       ``(2) procedurally or substantively lessen the protections 
     provided to children with disabilities under this Act, as 
     embodied in regulations in effect on July 20, 1983 
     (particularly as such protections relate to parental consent 
     to initial evaluation or initial placement in special 
     education, least restrictive environment, related services, 
     timelines, attendance of evaluation personnel at 
     individualized education program meetings, or qualifications 
     of personnel), except to the extent that such regulation 
     reflects the clear and unequivocal intent of the Congress in 
     legislation.
       ``(c) Public Comment Period.--The Secretary shall provide a 
     public comment period of at least 60 days on any regulation 
     proposed under part B or part C of this Act on which an 
     opportunity for public comment is otherwise required by law.
       ``(d) Policy Letters and Statements.--The Secretary may not 
     issue policy letters or other statements (including on issues 
     of national significance) that--
       ``(1) would violate or contradict any provision of this 
     Act; or
       ``(2) establish a rule that is required for compliance 
     with, and eligibility under, this Act without following the 
     requirements of section 553 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(e) Correspondence From Department of Education 
     Describing Interpretations of This Part.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, on a quarterly 
     basis, publish in the Federal Register, and widely 
     disseminate to interested entities through various additional 
     forms of communication, a list of correspondence from the 
     Department of Education received by individuals during the 
     previous quarter that describes the interpretations of the 
     Department of Education of this Act or the regulations 
     implemented pursuant to this Act.
       ``(2) Additional information.--For each item of 
     correspondence published in a list under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(A) identify the topic addressed by the correspondence 
     and shall include such other summary information as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate; and
       ``(B) ensure that all such correspondence is issued, where 
     applicable, in compliance with section 553 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       ``(f) Explanation and Assurances.--Any written response by 
     the Secretary under subsection (e) regarding a policy, 
     question, or interpretation under this Act shall include an 
     explanation in the written response that the response--
       ``(1) is issued, when required, in compliance with the 
     requirements of section 553 of title 5, United States Code; 
     and
       ``(2) is provided as informal guidance and represents only 
     the interpretation by the Department of Education of the 
     applicable statutory or regulatory requirements in the 
     context of the specific facts presented in the original 
     question.''.

     SEC. 103. SECTION 608 OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES 
                   EDUCATION ACT.

       Part A of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 608. STATE ADMINISTRATION.

       ``(a) Rulemaking.--Each State that receives funds under 
     this Act shall--
       ``(1) ensure that any State rules, regulations, and 
     policies relating to this Act conform to the purposes of this 
     Act; and
       ``(2) minimize the number of rules, regulations, and 
     policies to which the State's local educational agencies and 
     schools are subject to under this Act.
       ``(b) Support and Facilitation.--All State rules, 
     regulations, and policies relating to this Act shall support 
     and facilitate local educational agency and school-level 
     systemic reform designed to enable children with disabilities 
     to meet the challenging State student academic achievement 
     standards.''.

     SEC. 104. GAO REVIEW; REPORT.

       (a) Review.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a review 
     of all Federal requirements under the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act, and the requirements of a 
     reasonable sample of State and local educational agencies 
     relating to such Act, to determine which requirements result 
     in excessive paperwork completion burdens for teachers, 
     related services providers, and school administrators.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall prepare 
     and submit to Congress a report that contains the results of 
     the review under subsection (a).

     SEC. 105. GAO REVIEW OF CERTAIN STATE DEFINITIONS AND 
                   EVALUATION PROCESSES.

       (a) Review.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a review of--
       (1) variation among States in definitions, and evaluation 
     processes, relating to the provision of services under the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to children 
     having conditions described in section 602(a)(3) of such Act 
     using the terms ``emotional disturbance'', ``other health 
     impairments'', and ``specific learning disability''; and
       (2) the degree to which these definitions and evaluation 
     processes conform to scientific, peer-reviewed research.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall prepare 
     and submit to Congress a report that contains the results of 
     the review under subsection (a).

     SEC. 106. ADDITIONAL GAO STUDY AND REPORT.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study on existing or developing 
     professional development programs for special education 
     personnel delivered through the use of technology and 
     distance learning.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit a report containing the findings from the 
     study conducted under subsection (a) to the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
     of the Senate.

     SEC. 107. STUDY ON LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT STUDENTS.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study on how limited English 
     proficient students are being served under the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of the Improving Education Results for Children 
     With Disabilities Act of 2003, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall submit a report containing the findings 
     from the study conducted under subsection (a) to the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions of the Senate.

  TITLE II--ASSISTANCE FOR EDUCATION OF ALL CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

     SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION; ALLOTMENT; USE OF FUNDS; 
                   AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 611 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1411) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 611. AUTHORIZATION; ALLOTMENT; USE OF FUNDS; 
                   AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) Grants to States.--
       ``(1) Purpose of grants.--The Secretary shall make grants 
     to States and the outlying areas, and provide funds to the 
     Secretary of the Interior, to assist them to provide special 
     education and related services to children with disabilities 
     in accordance with this part.
       ``(2) Maximum amounts.--The maximum amount of the grant a 
     State may receive under this section for any fiscal year is--
       ``(A) the number of children with disabilities in the State 
     who are receiving special education and related services--
       ``(i) aged 3 through 5 if the State is eligible for a grant 
     under section 619; and
       ``(ii) aged 6 through 21; multiplied by
       ``(B) 40 percent of the average per-pupil expenditure in 
     public elementary and secondary schools in the United States.
       ``(3) Limitation.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B) of paragraph (2), the maximum amount of the grant a State 
     may receive under this section for a fiscal year may not be 
     based on the number of children ages 3 through 17, inclusive, 
     in excess of 13.5 percent of the number of all children in 
     that age range in the State.
       ``(b) Outlying Areas.--
       ``(1) Funds reserved.--From the amount appropriated for any 
     fiscal year under subsection (i), the Secretary shall reserve 
     not more than one percent, which shall be used to provide 
     assistance to the outlying areas in accordance with their 
     respective populations of individuals aged 3 through 21.
       ``(2) Special rule.--The provisions of Public Law 95-134, 
     permitting the consolidation of

[[Page 10013]]

     grants by the outlying areas, shall not apply to funds 
     provided to those areas under this section.
       ``(c) Secretary of the Interior.--From the amount 
     appropriated for any fiscal year under subsection (i), the 
     Secretary shall reserve 1.226 percent to provide assistance 
     to the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with 
     subsection (h).
       ``(d) Allocations to States.--
       ``(1) In general.--After reserving funds for payments to 
     the outlying areas and the Secretary of the Interior under 
     subsections (b) and (c), the Secretary shall allocate the 
     remaining amount among the States in accordance with this 
     subsection.
       ``(2) Special rule for use of fiscal year 1999 amount.--If 
     a State does not make a free appropriate public education 
     available to all children with disabilities aged 3 through 5 
     in the State in any fiscal year, the Secretary shall compute 
     the State's amount for fiscal year 1999, solely for the 
     purpose of calculating the State's allocation in the 
     subsequent year under paragraph (3) or (4), by subtracting 
     the amount allocated to the State for fiscal year 1999 on the 
     basis of those children.
       ``(3) Increase in funds.--If the amount available for 
     allocations to States under paragraph (1) is greater than the 
     amount allocated to the States under this paragraph for the 
     preceding fiscal year, those allocations shall be calculated 
     as follows:
       ``(A)(i) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the 
     Secretary shall allocate--
       ``(I) to each State the amount it received for fiscal year 
     1999;
       ``(II) 85 percent of any remaining funds to States on the 
     basis of their relative populations of children aged 3 
     through 21 who are of the same age as children with 
     disabilities for whom the State ensures the availability of a 
     free appropriate public education under this part; and
       ``(III) 15 percent of those remaining funds to States on 
     the basis of their relative populations of children described 
     in subclause (II) who are living in poverty.
       ``(ii) For the purpose of making grants under this 
     paragraph, the Secretary shall use the most recent population 
     data, including data on children living in poverty, that are 
     available and satisfactory to the Secretary.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), allocations under 
     this paragraph shall be subject to the following:
       ``(i) No State's allocation shall be less than its 
     allocation for the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(ii) No State's allocation shall be less than the 
     greatest of--

       ``(I) the sum of--

       ``(aa) the amount it received for fiscal year 1999; and
       ``(bb) one-third of one percent of the amount by which the 
     amount appropriated under subsection (i) exceeds the amount 
     appropriated under this section for fiscal year 1999;

       ``(II) the sum of--

       ``(aa) the amount it received for the preceding fiscal 
     year; and
       ``(bb) that amount multiplied by the percentage by which 
     the increase in the funds appropriated from the preceding 
     fiscal year exceeds 1.5 percent; or

       ``(III) the sum of--

       ``(aa) the amount it received for the preceding fiscal 
     year; and
       ``(bb) that amount multiplied by 90 percent of the 
     percentage increase in the amount appropriated from the 
     preceding fiscal year.
       ``(iii) Notwithstanding clause (ii), no State's allocation 
     under this paragraph shall exceed the sum of--

       ``(I) the amount it received for the preceding fiscal year; 
     and
       ``(II) that amount multiplied by the sum of 1.5 percent and 
     the percentage increase in the amount appropriated.

       ``(C) If the amount available for allocations under this 
     paragraph is insufficient to pay those allocations in full, 
     those allocations shall be ratably reduced, subject to 
     subparagraph (B)(i).
       ``(4) Decrease in funds.--If the amount available for 
     allocations to States under paragraph (1) is less than the 
     amount allocated to the States under this section for the 
     preceding fiscal year, those allocations shall be calculated 
     as follows:
       ``(A) If the amount available for allocations is greater 
     than the amount allocated to the States for fiscal year 1999, 
     each State shall be allocated the sum of--
       ``(i) the amount it received for fiscal year 1999; and
       ``(ii) an amount that bears the same relation to any 
     remaining funds as the increase the State received for the 
     preceding fiscal year over fiscal year 1999 bears to the 
     total of all such increases for all States.
       ``(B)(i) If the amount available for allocations is equal 
     to or less than the amount allocated to the States for fiscal 
     year 1999, each State shall be allocated the amount it 
     received for fiscal year 1999.
       ``(ii) If the amount available is insufficient to make the 
     allocations described in clause (i), those allocations shall 
     be ratably reduced.
       ``(e) State-Level Activities.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Each State may retain not more than the amount 
     described in subparagraph (B) for administration and other 
     State-level activities in accordance with paragraphs (2), 
     (3), and (4).
       ``(B) For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall determine 
     and report to the State educational agency an amount that is 
     25 percent of the amount the State received under this 
     section for fiscal year 1997, cumulatively adjusted by the 
     Secretary for each succeeding fiscal year by the lesser of--
       ``(i) the percentage increase, if any, from the preceding 
     fiscal year in the State's allocation under this section; or
       ``(ii) the rate of inflation, as measured by the percentage 
     increase, if any, from the preceding fiscal year in the 
     Consumer Price Index For All Urban Consumers, published by 
     the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.
       ``(C) A State may use funds it retains under subparagraph 
     (A) without regard to--
       ``(i) the prohibition on commingling of funds in section 
     612(a)(18)(B); and
       ``(ii) the prohibition on supplanting other funds in 
     section 612(a)(18)(C).
       ``(2) State administration.--
       ``(A) For the purpose of administering this part, including 
     section 619 (including the coordination of activities under 
     this part with, and providing technical assistance to, other 
     programs that provide services to children with 
     disabilities)--
       ``(i) each State may use not more than 20 percent of the 
     maximum amount it may retain under paragraph (1)(A) for any 
     fiscal year or $500,000 (adjusted by the cumulative rate of 
     inflation since fiscal year 1998, as measured by the 
     percentage increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index For 
     All Urban Consumers, published by the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics of the Department of Labor), whichever is greater; 
     and
       ``(ii) each outlying area may use up to 5 percent of the 
     amount it receives under this section for any fiscal year or 
     $35,000 (adjusted by the cumulative rate of inflation since 
     fiscal year 1998, as measured by the percentage increase, if 
     any, in the Consumer Price Index For All Urban Consumers, 
     published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department 
     of Labor), whichever is greater.
       ``(B) Funds described in subparagraph (A) may also be used 
     for the administration of part C of this Act, if the State 
     educational agency is the lead agency for the State under 
     that part.
       ``(3) High cost special education and related services.--
     Each State may use not more than 4 percent of the maximum 
     amount it may retain under paragraph (1)(A) for any fiscal 
     year to establish and implement cost or risk sharing funds, 
     consortia, or cooperatives to assist local educational 
     agencies in providing high cost special education and related 
     services.
       ``(4) Other state-level activities.--Each State shall use 
     any funds it retains under paragraph (1) and does not use 
     under paragraph (2) or (3) for any of the following:
       ``(A) Support and direct services, including technical 
     assistance and personnel development and training.
       ``(B) Administrative costs of monitoring and complaint 
     investigation.
       ``(C) To establish and implement the mediation and 
     voluntary binding arbitration processes required by sections 
     612(a)(17) and 615(e), including providing for the costs of 
     mediators, arbitrators, and support personnel.
       ``(D) To assist local educational agencies in meeting 
     personnel shortages.
       ``(E) Activities at the State and local levels to meet the 
     performance goals established by the State under section 
     612(a)(15) and to support implementation of the State plan 
     under subpart 1 of part D if the State receives funds under 
     that subpart.
       ``(F) To support paperwork reduction activities, including 
     expanding the appropriate use of technology in the IEP 
     process under this part.
       ``(G) To develop and maintain a comprehensive, coordinated, 
     prereferral educational support system for students in 
     kindergarten through grade 12 (with a particular emphasis on 
     students in kindergarten through grade 3) who are not 
     enrolled in special education but who need additional 
     academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general 
     education environment.
       ``(H) To support capacity building activities and improve 
     the delivery of services by local educational agencies to 
     improve results for children with disabilities.
       ``(I) For subgrants to local educational agencies for the 
     purposes described in paragraph (5)(A).
       ``(5)(A) Subgrants to local educational agencies for 
     accountability.--In any fiscal year in which the percentage 
     increase in the State's allocation under this section exceeds 
     the rate of inflation (as measured by the percentage 
     increase, if any, from the preceding fiscal year in the 
     Consumer Price Index For All Urban Consumers, published by 
     the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor), 
     each State shall reserve, from its allocation under this 
     section, the amount described in subparagraph (B) to make 
     subgrants to local educational agencies, unless that amount 
     is less than $100,000, to provide technical assistance and 
     direct services to local educational agencies identified as 
     being in need of improvement under section 1116 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 on the basis, 
     in whole or in part, of the assessment results of the 
     disaggregated subgroup of students with disabilities, 
     including providing professional development to special and 
     regular education teachers, based on scientifically based 
     research to improve educational instruction.
       ``(B) Maximum subgrant.--For each fiscal year, the amount 
     referred to in subparagraph (A) is--
       ``(i) the maximum amount the State was allowed to retain 
     under paragraph (1)(A) for the prior fiscal year, or for 
     fiscal year 1998, 25 percent of the State's allocation for 
     fiscal year 1997 under this section; multiplied by
       ``(ii) the difference between the percentage increase in 
     the State's allocation under this section and the rate of 
     inflation, as measured by

[[Page 10014]]

     the percentage increase, if any, from the preceding fiscal 
     year in the Consumer Price Index For All Urban Consumers, 
     published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department 
     of Labor.
       ``(6) Report on use of funds.--As part of the information 
     required to be submitted to the Secretary under section 612, 
     each State shall annually describe--
       ``(A) how amounts retained under paragraph (1) will be used 
     to meet the requirements of this part;
       ``(B) how those amounts will be allocated among the 
     activities described in this subsection to meet State 
     priorities based on input from local educational agencies; 
     and
       ``(C) the percentage of those amounts, if any, that will be 
     distributed to local educational agencies by formula.
       ``(f) Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies.--
       ``(1) Subgrants required.--Each State that receives a grant 
     under this section for any fiscal year shall distribute any 
     funds it does not retain under subsection (e) to local 
     educational agencies, including public charter schools that 
     operate as local educational agencies, in the State that have 
     established their eligibility under section 613, for use in 
     accordance with this part.
       ``(2) Procedure for allocations to local educational 
     agencies.--For each fiscal year for which funds are allocated 
     to States under subsection (e), each State shall allocate 
     funds under paragraph (1) as follows:
       ``(A) Base payments.--The State shall first award each 
     agency described in paragraph (1) the amount that agency 
     would have received under this section for fiscal year 1999, 
     if the State had distributed 75 percent of its grant for that 
     year under section 611(d), as then in effect.
       ``(B) Allocation of remaining funds.--After making 
     allocations under subparagraph (A), the State shall--
       ``(i) allocate 85 percent of any remaining funds to those 
     agencies on the basis of the relative numbers of children 
     enrolled in public and private elementary and secondary 
     schools within the agency's jurisdiction; and
       ``(ii) allocate 15 percent of those remaining funds to 
     those agencies in accordance with their relative numbers of 
     children living in poverty, as determined by the State 
     educational agency.
       ``(3) Reallocation of funds.--If a State educational agency 
     determines that a local educational agency is adequately 
     providing a free appropriate public education to all children 
     with disabilities residing in the area served by that agency 
     with State and local funds, the State educational agency may 
     reallocate any portion of the funds under this part that are 
     not needed by that local agency to provide a free appropriate 
     public education to other local educational agencies in the 
     State that are not adequately providing special education and 
     related services to all children with disabilities residing 
     in the areas they serve.
       ``(g) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section--
       ``(1) the term `average per-pupil expenditure in public 
     elementary and secondary schools in the United States' 
     means--
       ``(A) without regard to the source of funds--
       ``(i) the aggregate current expenditures, during the second 
     fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which the 
     determination is made (or, if satisfactory data for that year 
     are not available, during the most recent preceding fiscal 
     year for which satisfactory data are available) of all local 
     educational agencies in the 50 States and the District of 
     Columbia); plus
       ``(ii) any direct expenditures by the State for the 
     operation of those agencies; divided by
       ``(B) the aggregate number of children in average daily 
     attendance to whom those agencies provided free public 
     education during that preceding year; and
       ``(2) the term `State' means each of the 50 States, the 
     District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       ``(h) Use of Amounts by Secretary of the Interior.--
       ``(1) Provision of amounts for assistance.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary of Education shall provide 
     amounts to the Secretary of the Interior to meet the need for 
     assistance for the education of children with disabilities on 
     reservations aged 5 to 21, inclusive, enrolled in elementary 
     and secondary schools for Indian children operated or funded 
     by the Secretary of the Interior. The amount of such payment 
     for any fiscal year shall be equal to 80 percent of the 
     amount allotted under subsection (c) for that fiscal year. Of 
     the amount described in the preceding sentence--
       ``(i) 80 percent shall be allocated to such schools by July 
     1 of that fiscal year; and
       ``(ii) 20 percent shall be allocated to such schools by 
     September 30 of that fiscal year.
       ``(B) Calculation of number of children.--In the case of 
     Indian students aged 3 to 5, inclusive, who are enrolled in 
     programs affiliated with the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     (hereafter in this subsection referred to as `BIA') schools 
     and that are required by the States in which such schools are 
     located to attain or maintain State accreditation, and which 
     schools have such accreditation prior to the date of 
     enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     Amendments of 1991, the school shall be allowed to count 
     those children for the purpose of distribution of the funds 
     provided under this paragraph to the Secretary of the 
     Interior. The Secretary of the Interior shall be responsible 
     for meeting all of the requirements of this part for these 
     children, in accordance with paragraph (2).
       ``(C) Additional requirement.--With respect to all other 
     children aged 3 to 21, inclusive, on reservations, the State 
     educational agency shall be responsible for ensuring that all 
     of the requirements of this part are implemented.
       ``(2) Submission of information.--The Secretary of 
     Education may provide the Secretary of the Interior amounts 
     under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year only if the Secretary 
     of the Interior submits to the Secretary of Education 
     information that--
       ``(A) demonstrates that the Department of the Interior 
     meets the appropriate requirements, as determined by the 
     Secretary of Education, of sections 612 (including monitoring 
     and evaluation activities) and 613;
       ``(B) includes a description of how the Secretary of the 
     Interior will coordinate the provision of services under this 
     part with local educational agencies, tribes and tribal 
     organizations, and other private and Federal service 
     providers;
       ``(C) includes an assurance that there are public hearings, 
     adequate notice of such hearings, and an opportunity for 
     comment afforded to members of tribes, tribal governing 
     bodies, and affected local school boards before the adoption 
     of the policies, programs, and procedures described in 
     subparagraph (A);
       ``(D) includes an assurance that the Secretary of the 
     Interior will provide such information as the Secretary of 
     Education may require to comply with section 618;
       ``(E) includes an assurance that the Secretary of the 
     Interior and the Secretary of Health and Human Services have 
     entered into a memorandum of agreement, to be provided to the 
     Secretary of Education, for the coordination of services, 
     resources, and personnel between their respective Federal, 
     State, and local offices and with State and local educational 
     agencies and other entities to facilitate the provision of 
     services to Indian children with disabilities residing on or 
     near reservations (such agreement shall provide for the 
     apportionment of responsibilities and costs including, but 
     not limited to, child find, evaluation, diagnosis, 
     remediation or therapeutic measures, and (where appropriate) 
     equipment and medical or personal supplies as needed for a 
     child to remain in school or a program); and
       ``(F) includes an assurance that the Department of the 
     Interior will cooperate with the Department of Education in 
     its exercise of monitoring, enforcement, and oversight of 
     this application, and any agreements entered into between the 
     Secretary of the Interior and other entities under this part, 
     and will fulfill its duties under this part.

     Section 616(a) shall apply to the information described in 
     this paragraph.
       ``(3) Payments for education and services for indian 
     children with disabilities aged 3 through 5.--
       ``(A) In general.--With funds appropriated under subsection 
     (i), the Secretary of Education shall make payments to the 
     Secretary of the Interior to be distributed to tribes or 
     tribal organizations (as defined under section 4 of the 
     Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act) or 
     consortia of the above to provide for the coordination of 
     assistance for special education and related services for 
     children with disabilities aged 3 through 5 on reservations 
     served by elementary and secondary schools for Indian 
     children operated or funded by the Department of the 
     Interior. The amount of such payments under subparagraph (B) 
     for any fiscal year shall be equal to 20 percent of the 
     amount allotted under subsection (c).
       ``(B) Distribution of funds.--The Secretary of the Interior 
     shall distribute the total amount of the payment under 
     subparagraph (A) by allocating to each tribe or tribal 
     organization an amount based on the number of children with 
     disabilities ages 3 through 5 residing on reservations as 
     reported annually, divided by the total of those children 
     served by all tribes or tribal organizations.
       ``(C) Submission of information.--To receive a payment 
     under this paragraph, the tribe or tribal organization shall 
     submit such figures to the Secretary of the Interior as 
     required to determine the amounts to be allocated under 
     subparagraph (B). This information shall be compiled and 
     submitted to the Secretary of Education.
       ``(D) Use of funds.--The funds received by a tribe or 
     tribal organization shall be used to assist in child find, 
     screening, and other procedures for the early identification 
     of children aged 3 through 5, parent training, and the 
     provision of direct services. These activities may be carried 
     out directly or through contracts or cooperative agreements 
     with the BIA, local educational agencies, and other public or 
     private nonprofit organizations. The tribe or tribal 
     organization is encouraged to involve Indian parents in the 
     development and implementation of these activities. The above 
     entities shall, as appropriate, make referrals to local, 
     State, or Federal entities for the provision of services or 
     further diagnosis.
       ``(E) Annual report.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A), the tribe or tribal 
     organization shall provide to the Secretary of the Interior 
     an annual report of activities undertaken under this 
     paragraph, including the number of contracts and cooperative 
     agreements entered into, the number of children contacted and 
     receiving services for each year, and the estimated number of 
     children needing services during the year following the one 
     in which the report is made. The Secretary of the Interior 
     shall include a summary of this information on an annual 
     basis in the report to the

[[Page 10015]]

     Secretary of Education required under this subsection. The 
     Secretary of Education may require any additional information 
     from the Secretary of the Interior.
       ``(F) Prohibitions.--None of the funds allocated under this 
     paragraph may be used by the Secretary of the Interior for 
     administrative purposes, including child count and the 
     provision of technical assistance.
       ``(4) Plan for coordination of services.--The Secretary of 
     the Interior shall develop and implement a plan for the 
     coordination of services for all Indian children with 
     disabilities residing on reservations covered under this Act. 
     Such plan shall provide for the coordination of services 
     benefiting these children from whatever source, including 
     tribes, the Indian Health Service, other BIA divisions, and 
     other Federal agencies. In developing the plan, the Secretary 
     of the Interior shall consult with all interested and 
     involved parties. It shall be based on the needs of the 
     children and the system best suited for meeting those needs, 
     and may involve the establishment of cooperative agreements 
     between the BIA, other Federal agencies, and other entities. 
     The plan shall also be distributed upon request to States, 
     State and local educational agencies, and other agencies 
     providing services to infants, toddlers, and children with 
     disabilities, to tribes, and to other interested parties.
       ``(5) Establishment of advisory board.--To meet the 
     requirements of section 612(a)(22), the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall establish, under the BIA, an advisory board 
     composed of individuals involved in or concerned with the 
     education and provision of services to Indian infants, 
     toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities, including 
     Indians with disabilities, Indian parents or guardians of 
     such children, teachers, service providers, State and local 
     educational officials, representatives of tribes or tribal 
     organizations, representatives from State Interagency 
     Coordinating Councils under section 641 in States having 
     reservations, and other members representing the various 
     divisions and entities of the BIA. The chairperson shall be 
     selected by the Secretary of the Interior. The advisory board 
     shall--
       ``(A) assist in the coordination of services within the BIA 
     and with other local, State, and Federal agencies in the 
     provision of education for infants, toddlers, and children 
     with disabilities;
       ``(B) advise and assist the Secretary of the Interior in 
     the performance of the Secretary's responsibilities described 
     in this subsection;
       ``(C) develop and recommend policies concerning effective 
     inter- and intra-agency collaboration, including 
     modifications to regulations, and the elimination of barriers 
     to inter- and intra-agency programs and activities;
       ``(D) provide assistance and disseminate information on 
     best practices, effective program coordination strategies, 
     and recommendations for improved educational programming for 
     Indian infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities; and
       ``(E) provide assistance in the preparation of information 
     required under paragraph (2)(D).
       ``(6) Annual reports.--
       ``(A) In general.--The advisory board established under 
     paragraph (5) shall prepare and submit to the Secretary of 
     the Interior and to the Congress an annual report containing 
     a description of the activities of the advisory board for the 
     preceding year.
       ``(B) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     make available to the Secretary of Education the report 
     described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this part, other than section 619, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated--
       ``(1) $11,074,398,000 for fiscal year 2004;
       ``(2) $13,374,398,000 for fiscal year 2005;
       ``(3) $15,746,302,000 for fiscal year 2006;
       ``(4) $17,918,205,000 for fiscal year 2007;
       ``(5) $20,090,109,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       ``(6) $22,262,307,000 for fiscal year 2009;
       ``(7) $25,198,603,000 for fiscal year 2010; and
       ``(8) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2011 
     and each subsequent fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 202. STATE ELIGIBILITY.

       (a) In General.--(1) Section 612(a) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)) is amended in 
     the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``demonstrates 
     to the satisfaction of'' and inserting ``reasonably 
     demonstrates to''.
       (2) Paragraphs (1) through (11) of section 612(a) of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1412(a)(1)-(11)) are amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) Free appropriate public education.--
       ``(A) In general.--A free appropriate public education is 
     available to all children with disabilities residing in the 
     State between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive, including 
     children with disabilities who have been suspended or 
     expelled from school.
       ``(B) Limitation.--The obligation to make a free 
     appropriate public education available to all children with 
     disabilities does not apply with respect to children--
       ``(i) aged 3 through 5 and 18 through 21 in a State to the 
     extent that its application to those children would be 
     inconsistent with State law or practice, or the order of any 
     court, respecting the provision of public education to 
     children in those age ranges; and
       ``(ii) aged 18 through 21 to the extent that State law does 
     not require that special education and related services under 
     this part be provided to children with disabilities who, in 
     the educational placement prior to their incarceration in an 
     adult correctional facility--

       ``(I) were not actually identified as being a child with a 
     disability under section 602(3) of this Act; or
       ``(II) did not have an individualized education program 
     under this part.

       ``(2) Full educational opportunity goal.--The State has 
     established a goal of providing full educational opportunity 
     to all children with disabilities and a detailed timetable 
     for accomplishing that goal.
       ``(3) Child find.--
       ``(A) In general.--All children with disabilities residing 
     in the State, including children with disabilities attending 
     private schools, regardless of the severity of their 
     disabilities, and who are in need of special education and 
     related services, are identified, located, and evaluated and 
     a practical method is developed and implemented to determine 
     which children with disabilities are currently receiving 
     needed special education and related services.
       ``(B) Construction.--Nothing in this Act requires that 
     children be classified by their disability so long as each 
     child who has a disability listed in section 602 and who, by 
     reason of that disability, needs special education and 
     related services is regarded as a child with a disability 
     under this part.
       ``(4) Individualized education program.--An individualized 
     education program, or an individualized family service plan 
     that meets the requirements of section 636(d), is developed, 
     reviewed, and revised for each child with a disability in 
     accordance with section 614(d).
       ``(5) Least restrictive environment.--
       ``(A) In general.--To the maximum extent appropriate, 
     children with disabilities, including children in public or 
     private institutions or other care facilities, are educated 
     with children who are not disabled, and special classes, 
     separate schooling, or other removal of children with 
     disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs 
     only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child 
     is such that education in regular classes with the use of 
     supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved 
     satisfactorily.
       ``(B) Additional requirement.--
       ``(i) In general.--If the State uses a funding mechanism by 
     which the State distributes State funds on the basis of the 
     type of setting in which a child is served, the funding 
     mechanism does not result in placements that violate the 
     requirements of subparagraph (A).
       ``(ii) Assurance.--If the State does not have policies and 
     procedures to ensure compliance with clause (i), the State 
     shall provide the Secretary an assurance that it will revise 
     the funding mechanism as soon as feasible to ensure that such 
     mechanism does not result in such placements.
       ``(6) Procedural safeguards.--
       ``(A) In general.--Children with disabilities and their 
     parents are afforded the procedural safeguards required by 
     section 615.
       ``(B) Additional procedural safeguards.--Procedures to 
     ensure that testing and evaluation materials and procedures 
     utilized for the purposes of evaluation and placement of 
     children with disabilities for services under this Act will 
     be selected and administered so as not to be racially or 
     culturally discriminatory. Such materials or procedures shall 
     be provided and administered in the child's native language 
     or mode of communication, unless it clearly is not feasible 
     to do so, and no single procedure shall be the sole criterion 
     for determining an appropriate educational program for a 
     child.
       ``(7) Evaluation.--Children with disabilities are evaluated 
     in accordance with subsections (a) through (c) of section 
     614.
       ``(8) Confidentiality.--Agencies in the State comply with 
     section 617(d) (relating to the confidentiality of records 
     and information).
       ``(9) Transition from part c to preschool programs.--
     Children participating in early intervention programs 
     assisted under part C, and who will participate in preschool 
     programs assisted under this part, experience a smooth and 
     effective transition to those preschool programs in a manner 
     consistent with section 637(a)(8). By the third birthday of 
     such a child, an individualized education program or, if 
     consistent with section 636(d), an individualized family 
     service plan, has been developed and is being implemented for 
     the child. The local educational agency will participate in 
     transition planning conferences arranged by the designated 
     lead agency under section 637(a)(8).
       ``(10) Children in private schools.--
       ``(A) Children enrolled in private schools by their 
     parents.--
       ``(i) In general.--To the extent consistent with the number 
     and location of children with disabilities in the State who 
     are enrolled by their parents in private elementary and 
     secondary schools in the area served by such agency, 
     provision is made for the participation of those children in 
     the program assisted or carried out under this part by 
     providing for such children special education and related 
     services in accordance with the following requirements, 
     unless the Secretary has arranged for services to those 
     children under subsection (f):

       ``(I) Amounts to be expended for the provision of those 
     services (including direct services to parentally-placed 
     children) by a local educational agency shall be equal to a 
     proportionate amount of Federal funds made available under 
     this part.
       ``(II) In calculating the proportionate share of Federal 
     funds, the local educational agency, after timely and 
     meaningful consultation with representatives of children with 
     disabilities parentally-placed in private schools as 
     described in clause (iii), shall conduct a thorough and

[[Page 10016]]

     complete child-find process to determine the number of 
     parentally-placed children with disabilities attending 
     private schools located in the district.
       ``(III) Such services may be provided to children with 
     disabilities on the premises of private, including religious, 
     schools, to the extent consistent with law.
       ``(IV) State and local funds may supplement and in no case 
     shall supplant the proportionate amount of Federal funds 
     required to be expended under this paragraph.
       ``(V) Each local educational agency maintains in its 
     records and provides to the State educational agency the 
     number of children evaluated under this paragraph, the number 
     of children determined to be children with disabilities, and 
     the number of children served under this subsection.

       ``(ii) Child-find requirement.--

       ``(I) In general.--The requirements of paragraph (3) of 
     this subsection (relating to child find) shall apply with 
     respect to children with disabilities in the State who are 
     enrolled in private, including religious, elementary and 
     secondary schools.
       ``(II) Equitable participation.--The child-find process 
     must be designed to ensure the equitable participation of 
     parentally-placed private school children and an accurate 
     count of such children.
       ``(III) Activities.--In carrying out this clause, the local 
     educational agency, or where applicable, the State 
     educational agency, shall undertake activities similar to 
     those activities undertaken for its public school children.
       ``(IV) Cost.--The cost of carrying out this clause, 
     including individual evaluations, may not be considered in 
     determining whether a local education agency has met its 
     obligations under clause (i).
       ``(V) Completion period.--Such child-find process shall be 
     completed in a time period comparable to that for other 
     students attending public schools in the local educational 
     agency.

       ``(iii) Consultation.--To ensure timely and meaningful 
     consultation, a local educational agency, or where 
     appropriate, a state educational agency, shall consult with 
     representatives of children with disabilities parentally-
     placed in private schools during the design and development 
     of special education and related services for these children 
     including--

       ``(I) the child-find process and how parentally-placed 
     private school children suspected of having a disability can 
     participate equitably, including how parents, teachers, and 
     private school officials will be informed of the process;
       ``(II) the determination of the proportionate share of 
     Federal funds available to serve parentally-placed private 
     school children with disabilities under this paragraph, 
     including the determination of how those funds were 
     calculated;
       ``(III) the consultation process among the district, 
     private school officials, and parents of parentally-placed 
     private school children with disabilities including how such 
     process will operate throughout the school year to ensure 
     that parentally-placed children with disabilities identified 
     through the child find process can meaningfully participate 
     in special education and related services; and
       ``(IV) how, where, and by whom special education and 
     related services will be provided for parentally-placed 
     private school children, including a discussion of alternate 
     service delivery mechanisms, how such services will be 
     apportioned if funds are insufficient to serve all children, 
     and how and when these decisions will be made.

       ``(iv) Compliance.--

       ``(I) In general.--A private school official shall have the 
     right to complain to the State educational agency that the 
     local educational agency did not engage in consultation that 
     was meaningful and timely, or did not give due consideration 
     to the views of the private school official.
       ``(II) Procedure.--If the private school official wishes to 
     complain, the official shall provide the basis of the 
     noncompliance with this section by the local educational 
     agency to the State educational agency, and the local 
     educational agency shall forward the appropriate 
     documentation to the State educational agency. If the private 
     school official is dissatisfied with the decision of the 
     State educational agency, such official may complain to the 
     Secretary by providing the basis of the noncompliance with 
     this section by the local educational agency to the 
     Secretary, and the State educational agency shall forward the 
     appropriate documentation to the Secretary.

       ``(v) Provision of services.--

       ``(I) Directly or through contracts.--An agency may provide 
     special education and related services directly or through 
     contracts with public and private agencies, organizations, 
     and institutions.
       ``(II) Secular, neutral, nonideological.--Special education 
     and related services, including materials and equipment, 
     shall be secular, neutral, and nonideological.

       ``(vi) Public control of funds.--

       ``(I) In general.--The control of funds used to provide 
     special education and related services under this section, 
     and title to materials, equipment, and property purchased 
     with those funds, shall be in a public agency for the uses 
     and purposes provided in this Act, and a public agency shall 
     administer the funds and property.
       ``(II) Provision of services.--The provision of services 
     under this Act shall be provided--

       ``(aa) by employees of a public agency; or
       ``(bb) through contract by the public agency with an 
     individual, association, agency, organization, or other 
     entity.
       ``(B) Children placed in, or referred to, private schools 
     by public agencies.--
       ``(i) In general.--Children with disabilities in private 
     schools and facilities are provided special education and 
     related services, in accordance with an individualized 
     education program, at no cost to their parents, if such 
     children are placed in, or referred to, such schools or 
     facilities by the State or appropriate local educational 
     agency as the means of carrying out the requirements of this 
     part or any other applicable law requiring the provision of 
     special education and related services to all children with 
     disabilities within such State.
       ``(ii) Standards.--In all cases described in clause (i), 
     the State educational agency shall determine whether such 
     schools and facilities meet standards that apply to State and 
     local educational agencies and that children so served have 
     all the rights they would have if served by such agencies.
       ``(C) Payment for education of children enrolled in private 
     schools without consent of or referral by the public 
     agency.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (A), this part 
     does not require a local educational agency to pay for the 
     cost of education, including special education and related 
     services, of a child with a disability at a private school or 
     facility if that agency made a free appropriate public 
     education available to the child and the parents elected to 
     place the child in such private school or facility.
       ``(ii) Reimbursement for private school placement.--If the 
     parents of a child with a disability, who previously received 
     special education and related services under the authority of 
     a public agency, enroll the child in a private elementary or 
     secondary school without the consent of or referral by the 
     public agency, a court or a hearing officer may require the 
     agency to reimburse the parents for the cost of that 
     enrollment if the court or hearing officer finds that the 
     agency had not made a free appropriate public education 
     available to the child in a timely manner prior to that 
     enrollment.
       ``(iii) Limitation on reimbursement.--The cost of 
     reimbursement described in clause (ii) may be reduced or 
     denied--

       ``(I) if--

       ``(aa) at the most recent IEP meeting that the parents 
     attended prior to removal of the child from the public 
     school, the parents did not inform the IEP Team that they 
     were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to 
     provide a free appropriate public education to their child, 
     including stating their concerns and their intent to enroll 
     their child in a private school at public expense; or
       ``(bb) 10 business days (including any holidays that occur 
     on a business day) prior to the removal of the child from the 
     public school, the parents did not give written notice to the 
     public agency of the information described in division (aa);

       ``(II) if, prior to the parents' removal of the child from 
     the public school, the public agency informed the parents, 
     through the notice requirements described in section 
     615(b)(7), of its intent to evaluate the child (including a 
     statement of the purpose of the evaluation that was 
     appropriate and reasonable), but the parents did not make the 
     child available for such evaluation; or
       ``(III) upon a judicial finding of unreasonableness with 
     respect to actions taken by the parents.

       ``(iv) Exception.--Notwithstanding the notice requirement 
     in clause (iii)(I), the cost of reimbursement--

       ``(I) shall not be reduced or denied for failure to provide 
     such notice if--

       ``(aa) the school prevented the parent from providing such 
     notice;
       ``(bb) the parents had not received notice, pursuant to 
     section 615, of the notice requirement in clause (iii)(I); or
       ``(cc) compliance with clause (iii)(I) would likely result 
     in physical harm to the child; and

       ``(II) may, in the discretion of a court or a hearing 
     officer, not be reduced or denied for failure to provide such 
     notice if--

       ``(aa) the parent is illiterate or cannot write in English; 
     or
       ``(bb) compliance with clause (iii)(I) would likely result 
     in serious emotional harm to the child.
       ``(11) State educational agency responsible for general 
     supervision.--
       ``(A) In general.--The State educational agency is 
     responsible for ensuring that--
       ``(i) the requirements of this part are met; and
       ``(ii) all educational programs for children with 
     disabilities in the State, including all such programs 
     administered by any other State or local agency--

       ``(I) are under the general supervision of individuals in 
     the State who are responsible for educational programs for 
     children with disabilities; and
       ``(II) meet the educational standards of the State 
     educational agency.

       ``(B) Limitation.--Subparagraph (A) shall not limit the 
     responsibility of agencies in the State other than the State 
     educational agency to provide, or pay for some or all of the 
     costs of, a free appropriate public education for any child 
     with a disability in the State.
       ``(C) Exception.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B), the Governor (or another individual pursuant to State 
     law), consistent with State law, may assign to any public 
     agency in the State the responsibility of ensuring that the 
     requirements of this part are met with respect to children 
     with disabilities who are convicted as adults under State law 
     and incarcerated in adult prisons.''.

[[Page 10017]]

       (3) Paragraphs (13) through (22) of section 612(a) of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1412(a)(13)-(22)) are amended to read as follows:
       ``(13) Procedural requirements relating to local 
     educational agency eligibility.--The State educational agency 
     will not make a final determination that a local educational 
     agency is not eligible for assistance under this part without 
     first affording that agency reasonable notice and an 
     opportunity for a hearing.
       ``(14) Personnel standards.--
       ``(A) In general.--The State educational agency has 
     established and maintains standards to ensure that personnel 
     necessary to carry out this part are appropriately and 
     adequately prepared and trained.
       ``(B) Standards described.--Such standards shall--
       ``(i) ensure that special education teachers who teach in 
     core academic subjects are highly qualified in those 
     subjects;
       ``(ii) be consistent with any State-approved or State-
     recognized certification, licensing, registration, or other 
     comparable requirements that apply to the professional 
     discipline in which those personnel are providing special 
     education or related services in order to ensure that such 
     individuals are qualified to provide such services; and
       ``(iii) allow paraprofessionals and assistants who are 
     appropriately trained and supervised, in accordance with 
     State law, regulations, or written policy, in meeting the 
     requirements of this part to be used to assist in the 
     provision of special education and related services to 
     children with disabilities under this part.
       ``(C) Innovative strategies for professional development.--
     The State educational agency encourages the development and 
     use of research-based innovative strategies, such as 
     strategies using technology, peer networks, and distance 
     learning, to deliver intensive professional development 
     programs for special and regular education teachers, 
     administrators, principals, and related services personnel 
     that--
       ``(i) improve educational results for students with 
     disabilities; and
       ``(ii) are both cost-effective and easily accessible.
       ``(15) Performance goals and indicators.--The State--
       ``(A) has established goals for the performance of children 
     with disabilities in the State that--
       ``(i) promote the purposes of this Act, as stated in 
     section 601(d);
       ``(ii) are the same as the State's definition of adequate 
     yearly progress, including the State's objectives for 
     progress by children with disabilities, under section 
     1111(b)(2)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965;
       ``(iii) address dropout rates, as well as such other 
     factors as the State may determine; and
       ``(iv) are consistent, to the extent appropriate, with any 
     other goals and standards for children established by the 
     State;
       ``(B) has established performance indicators the State will 
     use to assess progress toward achieving those goals described 
     in subparagraph (A), including measurable annual objectives 
     for progress by children with disabilities under section 
     1111(b)(2)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965; and
       ``(C) will annually report to the Secretary and the public 
     on the progress of the State, and of children with 
     disabilities in the State, toward meeting the goals 
     established under subparagraph (A), which may include 
     elements of the reports required under section 1111(h) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       ``(16) Participation in assessments.--
       ``(A) In general.--(i) All children with disabilities are 
     included in all general State and district-wide assessment 
     programs, including assessments described under title I of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, with 
     appropriate accommodations, where necessary and as indicated 
     in their respective individualized education programs.
       ``(ii) The State (or, in the case of a district-wide 
     assessment, the local educational agency) has developed and 
     implemented guidelines for the provision of accommodations 
     described in clause (i).
       ``(iii) The State (or, in the case of a district-wide 
     assessment the local educational agency)--
       ``(I) has developed and implemented guidelines for the 
     participation of children with disabilities in alternate 
     assessments for those children who cannot participate in 
     regular assessments under clause (i); and
       ``(II) conducts those alternate assessments.
       ``(B) Reports.--The State educational agency (or, in the 
     case of a district-wide assessment, the local educational 
     agency) makes available to the public, and reports to the 
     public with the same frequency and in the same detail as it 
     reports on the assessment of nondisabled children, the 
     following:
       ``(i) The number of children with disabilities 
     participating in regular assessments, and the number of those 
     children who were provided accommodations in order to 
     participate in those assessments.
       ``(ii) The number of children with disabilities 
     participating in alternate assessments.
       ``(iii) The performance of children with disabilities on 
     regular assessments and on alternate assessments (if the 
     number of children with disabilities participating in those 
     assessments is sufficient to yield statistically reliable 
     information and reporting that information would not reveal 
     personally identifiable information about an individual 
     student), compared with the achievement of all children, 
     including children with disabilities, on those assessments.
       ``(17) Dispute resolution.--The State has in effect systems 
     of mediation and voluntary binding arbitration pursuant to 
     section 615(e).
       ``(18) Supplementation of state, local, and other federal 
     funds.--
       ``(A) Expenditures.--Funds paid to a State under this part 
     will be expended in accordance with all the provisions of 
     this part.
       ``(B) Prohibition against commingling.--Funds paid to a 
     State under this part will not be commingled with State 
     funds.
       ``(C) Prohibition against supplantation and conditions for 
     waiver by secretary.--Except as provided in section 613, 
     funds paid to a State under this part will be used to 
     supplement the level of Federal, State, and local funds 
     (including funds that are not under the direct control of 
     State or local educational agencies) expended for special 
     education and related services provided to children with 
     disabilities under this part and in no case to supplant such 
     Federal, State, and local funds, except that, where the State 
     provides clear and convincing evidence that all children with 
     disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public 
     education, the Secretary may waive, in whole or in part, the 
     requirements of this subparagraph if the Secretary concurs 
     with the evidence provided by the State.
       ``(19) Maintenance of state financial support.--
       ``(A) In general.--The State does not reduce the amount of 
     State financial support for special education and related 
     services for children with disabilities, or otherwise made 
     available because of the excess costs of educating those 
     children, below the amount of that support for the preceding 
     fiscal year.
       ``(B) Reduction of funds for failure to maintain support.--
     The Secretary shall reduce the allocation of funds under 
     section 611 for any fiscal year following the fiscal year in 
     which the State fails to comply with the requirement of 
     subparagraph (A) by the same amount by which the State fails 
     to meet the requirement.
       ``(C) Waivers for exceptional or uncontrollable 
     circumstances.--The Secretary may waive the requirement of 
     subparagraph (A) for a State, for one fiscal year at a time, 
     if the Secretary determines that--
       ``(i) granting a waiver would be equitable due to 
     exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances such as a natural 
     disaster or a precipitous and unforeseen decline in the 
     financial resources of the State; or
       ``(ii) the State meets the standard in paragraph (18)(C) of 
     this section for a waiver of the requirement to supplement, 
     and not to supplant, funds received under this part.
       ``(D) Subsequent years.--If, for any year, a State fails to 
     meet the requirement of subparagraph (A), including any year 
     for which the State is granted a waiver under subparagraph 
     (C), the financial support required of the State in future 
     years under subparagraph (A) shall be the amount that would 
     have been required in the absence of that failure and not the 
     reduced level of the State's support.
       ``(20) Public participation.--Prior to the adoption of any 
     policies and procedures needed to comply with this section 
     (including any amendments to such policies and procedures), 
     the State ensures that there are public hearings, adequate 
     notice of the hearings, and an opportunity for comment 
     available to the general public, including individuals with 
     disabilities and parents of children with disabilities.
       ``(21) State advisory panel.--
       ``(A) In general.--The State has established and maintains 
     an advisory panel for the purpose of providing policy 
     guidance with respect to special education and related 
     services for children with disabilities in the State.
       ``(B) Membership.--Such advisory panel shall consist of 
     members appointed by the Governor, or any other official 
     authorized under State law to make such appointments, that is 
     representative of the State population and that is composed 
     of individuals involved in, or concerned with, the education 
     of children with disabilities, including--
       ``(i) parents of children with disabilities (ages birth 
     through 26);
       ``(ii) individuals with disabilities;
       ``(iii) teachers;
       ``(iv) representatives of institutions of higher education 
     that prepare special education and related services 
     personnel;
       ``(v) State and local education officials;
       ``(vi) administrators of programs for children with 
     disabilities;
       ``(vii) representatives of other State agencies involved in 
     the financing or delivery of related services to children 
     with disabilities;
       ``(viii) representatives of private schools and public 
     charter schools;
       ``(ix) at least one representative of a vocational, 
     community, or business organization concerned with the 
     provision of transition services to children with 
     disabilities; and
       ``(x) representatives from the State juvenile and adult 
     corrections agencies.
       ``(C) Special rule.--A majority of the members of the panel 
     shall be individuals with disabilities or parents of children 
     with disabilities ages birth through 26.
       ``(D) Duties.--The advisory panel shall--
       ``(i) advise the State educational agency of unmet needs 
     within the State in the education of children with 
     disabilities;
       ``(ii) comment publicly on any rules or regulations 
     proposed by the State regarding the education of children 
     with disabilities;
       ``(iii) advise the State educational agency in developing 
     evaluations and reporting on data to the Secretary under 
     section 618;

[[Page 10018]]

       ``(iv) advise the State educational agency in developing 
     corrective action plans to address findings identified in 
     Federal monitoring reports under this part; and
       ``(v) advise the State educational agency in developing and 
     implementing policies relating to the coordination of 
     services for children with disabilities.
       ``(22) Suspension and expulsion rates.--
       ``(A) In general.--The State educational agency examines 
     data, including data disaggregated by race and ethnicity, to 
     determine if significant discrepancies are occurring in the 
     rate of long-term suspensions and expulsions of children with 
     disabilities--
       ``(i) among local educational agencies in the State; or
       ``(ii) compared to such rates for nondisabled children 
     within such agencies.
       ``(B) Review and revision of policies.--If such 
     discrepancies are occurring, the State educational agency 
     reviews and, if appropriate, revises (or requires the 
     affected State or local educational agency to revise) its 
     policies, procedures, and practices relating to the 
     development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive 
     behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural 
     safeguards, to ensure that such policies, procedures, and 
     practices comply with this Act.''.
       (4) Section 612(a) of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(13)-(22)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(23) Instructional materials.--
       ``(A) In general.--The State adopts the national 
     instructional materials accessibility standard for the 
     purposes of providing instructional materials to blind 
     persons or other persons with print disabilities in a timely 
     manner after the publication of the standard by the Secretary 
     in the Federal Register.
       ``(B) Purchase requirement.--Not later than 2 years after 
     the date of the enactment of the Improving Education Results 
     for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003, the State 
     educational agency, when purchasing instructional materials 
     for use in public elementary and secondary schools within the 
     State, requires the publisher of the instructional materials, 
     as a part of any purchase agreement that is made, renewed, or 
     revised, to prepare and supply electronic files containing 
     the contents of the instructional materials using the 
     national instructional materials accessibility standard.
       ``(C) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     `instructional materials' means printed textbooks and related 
     core materials that are written and published primarily for 
     use in elementary school and secondary school instruction and 
     are required by a State educational agency or local 
     educational agency for use by pupils in the classroom.
       ``(24) Overidentification and dispro-
     portionality.--The State has in effect, consistent with the 
     purposes of this Act and with section 618, policies and 
     procedures designed to prevent the overidentification or 
     disproportionate representation by race and ethnicity of 
     children as children with disabilities, including the 
     identification of children as children with disabilities in 
     accordance with a particular impairment described in section 
     602(3).
       ``(25) Prohibition on psychotropic medication.--The State 
     educational agency develops and implements policies and 
     procedures prohibiting school personnel from requiring a 
     child to obtain a prescription for substances covered by 
     section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     812(c)) as a condition of attending school or receiving 
     services.''.
       (b) State Educational Agency as Provider of Free 
     Appropriate Public Education or Direct Services.--Section 
     612(b) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1412(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) State Educational Agency as Provider of Free 
     Appropriate Public Education or Direct Services.--If the 
     State educational agency provides free appropriate public 
     education to children with disabilities, or provides direct 
     services to such children, such agency--
       ``(1) shall comply with any additional requirements of 
     section 613(a), as if such agency were a local educational 
     agency; and
       ``(2) may use amounts that are otherwise available to such 
     agency under this part to serve those children without regard 
     to section 613(a)(2)(A)(i) (relating to excess costs).''.
       (c) Exception for Prior State Plans.--Section 612(c) of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1412(c)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Exception for Prior State Plans.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a State has on file with the 
     Secretary policies and procedures that demonstrate that such 
     State meets any requirement of subsection (a), including any 
     policies and procedures filed under this part as in effect 
     before the effective date of the Improving Education Results 
     for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003, the Secretary 
     shall consider such State to have met such requirement for 
     purposes of receiving a grant under this part.
       ``(2) Modifications made by state.--Subject to paragraph 
     (3), an application submitted by a State in accordance with 
     this section shall remain in effect until the State submits 
     to the Secretary such modifications as the State deems 
     necessary. This section shall apply to a modification to an 
     application to the same extent and in the same manner as this 
     section applies to the original plan.
       ``(3) Modifications required by the secretary.--If, after 
     the effective date of the Improving Education Results for 
     Children With Disabilities Act of 2003, the provisions of 
     this Act are amended (or the regulations developed to carry 
     out this Act are amended), or there is a new interpretation 
     of this Act by a Federal court or a State's highest court, or 
     there is an official finding of noncompliance with Federal 
     law or regulations, the Secretary may require a State to 
     modify its application only to the extent necessary to ensure 
     the State's compliance with this part.''.
       (d) Approval by the Secretary.--Section 612(d) of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1412(d)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Approval by the Secretary.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the Secretary determines that a State 
     is eligible to receive a grant under this part, the Secretary 
     shall notify the State of that determination.
       ``(2) Notice and hearing.--The Secretary shall not make a 
     final determination that a State is not eligible to receive a 
     grant under this part until after providing the State--
       ``(A) with reasonable notice; and
       ``(B) with an opportunity for a hearing.''.
       (e) Assistance Under Other Federal Programs.--Section 
     612(e) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1412(e)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Assistance Under Other Federal Programs.--Nothing in 
     this title permits a State to reduce medical and other 
     assistance available, or to alter eligibility, under titles V 
     and XIX of the Social Security Act with respect to the 
     provision of a free appropriate public education for children 
     with disabilities in the State.''.

     SEC. 203. LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY ELIGIBILITY.

       Section 613 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1413) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 613. LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY ELIGIBILITY.

       ``(a) In General.--A local educational agency is eligible 
     for assistance under this part for a fiscal year if such 
     agency reasonably demonstrates to the State educational 
     agency that it meets each of the following conditions:
       ``(1) Consistency with state policies.--The local 
     educational agency, in providing for the education of 
     children with disabilities within its jurisdiction, has in 
     effect policies, procedures, and programs that are consistent 
     with the State policies and procedures established under 
     section 612.
       ``(2) Use of amounts.--
       ``(A) In general.--Amounts provided to the local 
     educational agency under this part shall be expended in 
     accordance with the applicable provisions of this part and--
       ``(i) shall be used only to pay the excess costs of 
     providing special education and related services to children 
     with disabilities;
       ``(ii) shall be used to supplement State, local, and other 
     Federal funds and not to supplant such funds; and
       ``(iii) shall not be used, except as provided in 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C), to reduce the level of 
     expenditures for the education of children with disabilities 
     made by the local educational agency from local funds below 
     the level of those expenditures for the preceding fiscal 
     year.
       ``(B) Exception.--Notwithstanding the restriction in 
     subparagraph (A)(iii), a local educational agency may reduce 
     the level of expenditures where such reduction is 
     attributable to--
       ``(i) the voluntary departure, by retirement or otherwise, 
     or departure for just cause, of special education personnel;
       ``(ii) a decrease in the enrollment of children with 
     disabilities;
       ``(iii) the termination of the obligation of the agency, 
     consistent with this part, to provide a program of special 
     education to a particular child with a disability that is an 
     exceptionally costly program, as determined by the State 
     educational agency, because the child--

       ``(I) has left the jurisdiction of the agency;
       ``(II) has reached the age at which the obligation of the 
     agency to provide a free appropriate public education to the 
     child has terminated; or
       ``(III) no longer needs such program of special education; 
     or

       ``(iv) the termination of costly expenditures for long-term 
     purchases, such as the acquisition of equipment or the 
     construction of school facilities.
       ``(C) Treatment of federal funds in certain fiscal years.--
       ``(i) Notwithstanding clauses (ii) and (iii) of 
     subparagraph (A), for any fiscal year for which amounts 
     appropriated to carry out section 611 exceeds $4,100,000,000, 
     a local educational agency may treat as local funds, for the 
     purpose of such clauses, up to 20 percent of the amount of 
     funds it receives under this part that exceeds the amount it 
     received under this part for the previous fiscal year.
       ``(ii) If a local educational agency chooses to use the 
     authority under clause (i), then the agency shall use those 
     local funds to provide additional funding for programs under 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 
     including, but not limited to, programs that address student 
     achievement, comprehensive school reform, literacy, teacher 
     quality and professional development, school safety, before- 
     and after-school learning opportunities.
       ``(iii) Notwithstanding clause (i), if a State educational 
     agency determines that a local educational agency is unable 
     to establish and maintain programs of free appropriate public 
     education that meet the requirements of subsection (a), the 
     State educational agency shall prohibit the local educational 
     agency from treating funds received under this part as local 
     funds

[[Page 10019]]

     under clause (i) for that fiscal year, but only if it is 
     authorized to do so by the State constitution or a State 
     statute.
       ``(D) Schoolwide programs under title i of the esea.--
     Notwithstanding subparagraph (A) or any other provision of 
     this part, a local educational agency may use funds received 
     under this part for any fiscal year to carry out a schoolwide 
     program under section 1114 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965, except that the amount so used in any 
     such program shall not exceed--
       ``(i) the number of children with disabilities 
     participating in the schoolwide program; multiplied by
       ``(ii)(I) the amount received by the local educational 
     agency under this part for that fiscal year; divided by
       ``(II) the number of children with disabilities in the 
     jurisdiction of that agency.
       ``(3) Personnel development.--The local educational agency 
     shall ensure that all personnel necessary to carry out this 
     part are appropriately and adequately prepared, consistent 
     with the requirements of section 612 of this Act and section 
     1119 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       ``(4) Permissive use of funds.--Notwithstanding paragraph 
     (2)(A) or section 612(a)(18)(B) (relating to commingled 
     funds), funds provided to the local educational agency under 
     this part may be used for the following activities:
       ``(A) Services and aids that also benefit nondisabled 
     children.--For the costs of special education and related 
     services and supplementary aids and services provided in a 
     regular class or other education-related setting to a child 
     with a disability in accordance with the individualized 
     education program of the child, even if one or more 
     nondisabled children benefit from such services.
       ``(B) Prereferral services.--To develop and implement a 
     system of comprehensive coordinated prereferral education 
     support services in accordance with subsection (f).
       ``(C) High cost education and related services.--To 
     establish and implement cost or risk sharing funds, 
     consortia, or cooperatives for the agency itself, or for 
     local educational agencies working in consortium of which the 
     local educational agency is a part, to pay for high cost 
     special education and related services.
       ``(D) Case management and administration.--To purchase 
     appropriate technology for record keeping, data collection, 
     and related case management activities of teachers and 
     related services personnel who are providing services 
     described in the individualized education program of children 
     with disabilities necessary to the implementation of those 
     case management activities.
       ``(E) Supplemental educational services for children with 
     disabilities in schools designated for improvement.--For the 
     reasonable additional expenses (as determined by the local 
     educational agency) of any necessary accommodations to allow 
     children with disabilities who are being educated in a school 
     identified for school improvement under section 1116(b) of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6316(b)) to be provided supplemental educational services 
     under section 1116(e) of such Act on an equitable basis.
       ``(5) Treatment of charter schools and their students.--In 
     carrying out this part with respect to charter schools that 
     are public schools of the local educational agency, the local 
     educational agency--
       ``(A) serves children with disabilities attending those 
     schools in the same manner as it serves children with 
     disabilities in its other schools, including providing 
     supplemental and related services on site at the charter 
     school when the local educational agency has a policy or 
     practice of providing those services on site to its other 
     schools; and
       ``(B) provides funds under this part to those schools on 
     the same basis as it provides those funds to its other public 
     schools (including, at the option of such agency, 
     proportional distribution based on relative enrollment of 
     children with disabilities at such charter schools), and at 
     the same time as such agency distributes other Federal funds 
     to those schools, consistent with the State's charter law.
       ``(6) Purchase of instructional materials.--Not later than 
     2 years after the date of the enactment of the Improving 
     Education Results for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003, 
     the local educational agency, when purchasing instructional 
     materials for use in public elementary and secondary schools 
     within the local educational agency, requires the publisher 
     of the instructional materials, as a part of any purchase 
     agreement that is made, renewed, or revised, to prepare and 
     supply electronic files containing the contents of the 
     instructional materials using the national instructional 
     materials accessibility standard described in section 
     612(a)(23).
       ``(7) Information for state educational agency.--The local 
     educational agency shall provide the State educational agency 
     with information necessary to enable the State educational 
     agency to carry out its duties under this part, including, 
     with respect to paragraphs (15) and (16) of section 612(a), 
     information relating to the performance of children with 
     disabilities participating in programs carried out under this 
     part.
       ``(8) Public information.--The local educational agency 
     shall make available to parents of children with disabilities 
     and to the general public all documents relating to the 
     eligibility of such agency under this part.
       ``(9) Records regarding migratory children with 
     disabilities.--The local educational agency shall cooperate 
     in the Secretary's efforts under section 1308 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6398) to ensure the linkage of records pertaining to 
     migratory children with a disability for the purpose of 
     electronically exchanging, among the States, health and 
     educational information regarding such children.
       ``(b) Exception for Prior Local Plans.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a local educational agency or State 
     agency has on file with the State educational agency policies 
     and procedures that demonstrate that such local educational 
     agency, or such State agency, as the case may be, meets any 
     requirement of subsection (a), including any policies and 
     procedures filed under this part as in effect before the 
     effective date of the Improving Education Results for 
     Children With Disabilities Act of 2003, the State educational 
     agency shall consider such local educational agency or State 
     agency, as the case may be, to have met such requirement for 
     purposes of receiving assistance under this part.
       ``(2) Modification made by local educational agency.--
     Subject to paragraph (3), an application submitted by a local 
     educational agency in accordance with this section shall 
     remain in effect until it submits to the State educational 
     agency such modifications as the local educational agency 
     deems necessary.
       ``(3) Modifications required by state educational agency.--
     If, after the date of the enactment of the Improving 
     Education Results for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003, 
     the provisions of this Act are amended (or the regulations 
     developed to carry out this Act are amended), or there is a 
     new interpretation of this Act by Federal or State courts, or 
     there is an official finding of noncompliance with Federal or 
     State law or regulations, the State educational agency may 
     require a local educational agency to modify its application 
     only to the extent necessary to ensure the local educational 
     agency's compliance with this part or State law.
       ``(c) Notification of Local Educational Agency or State 
     Agency in Case of Ineligibility.--If the State educational 
     agency determines that a local educational agency or State 
     agency is not eligible under this section, the State 
     educational agency shall notify the local educational agency 
     or State agency, as the case may be, of that determination 
     and shall provide such local educational agency or State 
     agency with reasonable notice and an opportunity for a 
     hearing.
       ``(d) Local Educational Agency Compliance.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the State educational agency, after 
     reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing, finds 
     that a local educational agency or State agency that has been 
     determined to be eligible under this section is failing to 
     comply with any requirement described in subsection (a), the 
     State educational agency shall reduce or shall not provide 
     any further payments to the local educational agency or State 
     agency until the State educational agency is satisfied that 
     the local educational agency or State agency, as the case may 
     be, is complying with that requirement.
       ``(2) Additional requirement.--Any State agency or local 
     educational agency in receipt of a notice described in 
     paragraph (1) shall, by means of public notice, take such 
     measures as may be necessary to bring the pendency of an 
     action pursuant to this subsection to the attention of the 
     public within the jurisdiction of such agency.
       ``(3) Consideration.--In carrying out its responsibilities 
     under paragraph (1), the State educational agency shall 
     consider any decision made in a hearing held under section 
     615 that is adverse to the local educational agency or State 
     agency involved in that decision.
       ``(e) Joint Establishment of Eligibility.--
       ``(1) Joint establishment.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State educational agency may require a 
     local educational agency to establish its eligibility jointly 
     with another local educational agency if the State 
     educational agency determines that the local educational 
     agency would be ineligible under this section because the 
     local educational agency would not be able to establish and 
     maintain programs of sufficient size and scope to effectively 
     meet the needs of children with disabilities.
       ``(B) Charter school exception.--A State educational agency 
     may not require a charter school that is a local educational 
     agency to jointly establish its eligibility under 
     subparagraph (A) unless it is explicitly permitted to do so 
     under the State's charter school statute.
       ``(2) Amount of payments.--If a State educational agency 
     requires the joint establishment of eligibility under 
     paragraph (1), the total amount of funds made available to 
     the affected local educational agencies shall be equal to the 
     sum of the payments that each such local educational agency 
     would have received under section 611(f) if such agencies 
     were eligible for such payments.
       ``(3) Requirements.--Local educational agencies that 
     establish joint eligibility under this subsection shall--
       ``(A) adopt policies and procedures that are consistent 
     with the State's policies and procedures under section 
     612(a); and
       ``(B) be jointly responsible for implementing programs that 
     receive assistance under this part.
       ``(4) Requirements for educational service agencies.--
       ``(A) In general.--If an educational service agency is 
     required by State law to carry out programs under this part, 
     the joint responsibilities

[[Page 10020]]

     given to local educational agencies under this subsection 
     shall--
       ``(i) not apply to the administration and disbursement of 
     any payments received by that educational service agency; and
       ``(ii) be carried out only by that educational service 
     agency.
       ``(B) Additional requirement.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this subsection, an educational service agency 
     shall provide for the education of children with disabilities 
     in the least restrictive environment, as required by section 
     612(a)(5).
       ``(f) Prereferral Services.--
       ``(1) In general.--A local educational agency may use not 
     more than 15 percent of the amount such agency receives under 
     this part for any fiscal year, in combination with other 
     amounts (which may include amounts other than education 
     funds), to develop and implement comprehensive coordinated 
     prereferral educational support services for students in 
     kindergarten through grade 12 (with a particular emphasis on 
     students in grades kindergarten through 3) who have not been 
     identified as needing special education or related services 
     but who need additional academic and behavioral support to 
     succeed in a general education environment.
       ``(2) Activities.--In implementing comprehensive 
     coordinated prereferral educational services under this 
     subsection, a local educational agency may carry out the 
     following activities:
       ``(A) Professional development (which may be provided by 
     entities other than local educational agencies) for teachers 
     to enable them to deliver scientifically based academic and 
     behavioral interventions, including scientifically based 
     literacy instruction.
       ``(B) Providing educational evaluations, services, and 
     supports, including scientifically based literacy instruction 
     and speech therapy.
       ``(C) Providing behavioral evaluations and services and 
     supports, including positive behavioral interventions and 
     supports.
       ``(3) Exclusion.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
     construed to either limit or create a right to a free 
     appropriate public education under this part.
       ``(4) Reporting.--Each local educational agency that 
     develops and maintains comprehensive coordinated prereferral 
     educational support services under this subsection shall 
     annually report to the State educational agency on--
       ``(A) the number of students served under this subsection; 
     and
       ``(B) the number of students served under this subsection 
     who subsequently receive special education and related 
     services under this Act during the preceding 2-year period.
       ``(5) Coordination with the elementary and secondary 
     education act of 1965.--
       ``(A) In general.--Comprehensive coordinated prereferral 
     educational support services provided under this subsection 
     may be aligned with activities funded by, and carried out 
     under, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 
     such as the Reading First program under subpart 1 of part B 
     of title I of such Act, the Early Reading First program under 
     subpart 2 of part B of title I of such Act, reading and math 
     supports under part A of title I of such Act, and behavior 
     intervention supports, that improve results for children with 
     disabilities.
       ``(B) Maintenance of effort.--Funds used under this section 
     shall be used to supplement, and not supplant, funds made 
     available under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965.
       ``(g) Direct Services by the State Educational Agency.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State educational agency shall use the 
     payments that would otherwise have been available to a local 
     educational agency or to a State agency to provide special 
     education and related services directly to children with 
     disabilities residing in the area served by that local 
     agency, or for whom that State agency is responsible, if the 
     State educational agency determines that the local education 
     agency or State agency, as the case may be--
       ``(A) has not provided the information needed to establish 
     the eligibility of such agency under this section;
       ``(B) is unable to establish and maintain programs of free 
     appropriate public education that meet the requirements of 
     subsection (a);
       ``(C) is unable or unwilling to be consolidated with one or 
     more local educational agencies in order to establish and 
     maintain such programs; or
       ``(D) has one or more children with disabilities who can 
     best be served by a regional or State program or service-
     delivery system designed to meet the needs of such children.
       ``(2) Manner and location of education and services.--The 
     State educational agency may provide special education and 
     related services under paragraph (1) in such manner and at 
     such locations (including regional or State centers) as the 
     State agency considers appropriate. Such education and 
     services shall be provided in accordance with this part.
       ``(h) State Agency Eligibility.--Any State agency that 
     desires to receive a subgrant for any fiscal year under 
     section 611(f) shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 
     State educational agency that--
       ``(1) all children with disabilities who are participating 
     in programs and projects funded under this part receive a 
     free appropriate public education, and that those children 
     and their parents are provided all the rights and procedural 
     safeguards described in this part; and
       ``(2) the agency meets such other conditions of this 
     section as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
       ``(i) Disciplinary Information.--The State may require that 
     a local educational agency include in the records of a child 
     with a disability a statement of any current or previous 
     disciplinary action that has been taken against the child and 
     transmit such statement to the same extent that such 
     disciplinary information is included in, and transmitted 
     with, the student records of nondisabled children. The 
     statement may include a description of any behavior engaged 
     in by the child that required disciplinary action, a 
     description of the disciplinary action taken, and any other 
     information that is relevant to the safety of the child and 
     other individuals involved with the child. If the State 
     adopts such a policy, and the child transfers from one school 
     to another, the transmission of any of the child's records 
     must include both the child's current individualized 
     education program and any such statement of current or 
     previous disciplinary action that has been taken against the 
     child.''.

     SEC. 204. EVALUATIONS, ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS, 
                   INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAMS, AND 
                   EDUCATIONAL PLACEMENTS.

       Section 614 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1414) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 614. EVALUATIONS, ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS, 
                   INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAMS, AND 
                   EDUCATIONAL PLACEMENTS.

       ``(a) Evaluations, Parental Consent, and Reevaluations.--
       ``(1) Initial evaluations.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State educational agency, other State 
     agency, or local educational agency shall conduct a full and 
     individual initial evaluation, in accordance with this 
     paragraph and subsection (b), before the initial provision of 
     special education and related services to a child with a 
     disability under this part.
       ``(B) Request for initial evaluation.--Consistent with 
     subparagraph (D), either a parent of a child, a State 
     educational agency, other State agency as appropriate, or 
     local educational agency may initiate a request for an 
     initial evaluation to determine if the child is a child with 
     a disability.
       ``(C) Procedures.--Such initial evaluation shall consist of 
     procedures--
       ``(i) to determine whether a child is a child with a 
     disability (as defined in section 602(3)); and
       ``(ii) to determine the educational needs of such child.
       ``(D) Parental consent.--
       ``(i) In general.--

       ``(I) Consent for initial evaluation.--The agency proposing 
     to conduct an initial evaluation to determine if the child 
     qualifies as a child with a disability as defined in section 
     602(3)(A) or 602(3)(B) shall obtain informed consent from the 
     parent of such child before conducting the evaluation. 
     Parental consent for evaluation shall not be construed as 
     consent for placement for receipt of special education and 
     related services.
       ``(II) Consent for services.--An agency that is responsible 
     for making a free appropriate public education available to a 
     child with a disability under this part shall seek to obtain 
     informed consent from the parent of such child before 
     providing special education and related services to the 
     child.

       ``(ii) Absence of consent.--

       ``(I) For initial evaluation.--If the parent of such child 
     does not provide consent for an initial evaluation under 
     clause (i)(I), or the parent fails to respond to a request to 
     provide the consent, the local educational agency may pursue 
     the initial evaluation of the child through the procedures 
     described in section 615, except to the extent inconsistent 
     with State law relating to such parental consent.
       ``(II) For services.--If the parent of such child does not 
     provide consent for services under clause (i)(II), or the 
     parent fails to respond to a request to provide the consent, 
     the local educational agency shall not provide special 
     education and related services to the child through the 
     procedures described in section 615.
       ``(III) Effect on agency obligations.--In any case for 
     which there is an absence of consent for an initial 
     evaluation under subclause (I), or for which there is an 
     absence of consent for services under subclause (II)--

       ``(aa) the local educational agency shall not be required 
     to convene an IEP meeting or develop an IEP under this 
     section for the child; and
       ``(bb) the local educational agency shall not be considered 
     to be in violation of any requirement under this part 
     (including the requirement to make available a free 
     appropriate public education to the child) with respect to 
     the lack of an initial evaluation of the child, an IEP 
     meeting with respect to the child, or the development of an 
     IEP under this section for the child.
       ``(E) Rule of construction.--The screening of a student by 
     a teacher or specialist to determine appropriate 
     instructional strategies for curriculum implementation shall 
     not be considered to be an evaluation for eligibility for 
     special education and related services.
       ``(2) Reevaluations.--
       ``(A) In general.--A local educational agency shall ensure 
     that a reevaluation of each child with a disability is 
     conducted in accordance with subsections (b) and (c)--
       ``(i) if the local educational agency determines that the 
     educational needs, including improved academic achievement, 
     of the child warrant a reevaluation; or
       ``(ii) if the child's parent or teacher requests a 
     reevaluation.

[[Page 10021]]

       ``(B) Limitation.--A reevaluation conducted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall occur--
       ``(i) no more than once a year, unless the parent and the 
     local educational agency agree otherwise; and
       ``(ii) at least once every three years, unless the parent 
     and the local educational agency agree that a reevaluation is 
     unnecessary.
       ``(b) Evaluation Procedures.--
       ``(1) Notice.--The local educational agency shall provide 
     notice to the parent of a child with a disability, in 
     accordance with subsections (b)(3), (b)(4), and (c) of 
     section 615, that describes any evaluation procedures such 
     agency proposes to conduct.
       ``(2) Conduct of evaluation.--In conducting the evaluation, 
     the local educational agency shall--
       ``(A) use multiple up-to-date measures and assessments to 
     gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic 
     information, including information provided by the parent, to 
     assist in determining--
       ``(i) whether the child is a child with a disability; and
       ``(ii) the content of the child's individualized education 
     program, including information related to enabling the child 
     to be involved in and progress in the general education 
     curriculum or, for preschool children, to participate in 
     appropriate activities;
       ``(B) not use any single measure or assessment as the sole 
     criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a 
     disability or determining an appropriate educational program 
     for the child; and
       ``(C) use technically sound instruments that may assess the 
     relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in 
     addition to physical or developmental factors.
       ``(3) Additional requirements.--Each local educational 
     agency shall ensure that--
       ``(A) assessments and other evaluation measures used to 
     assess a child under this section--
       ``(i) are selected and administered so as not to be 
     discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis;
       ``(ii) are provided and administered, to the extent 
     practicable, in the language and form most likely to yield 
     accurate academic and developmental data;
       ``(iii) are used for the purposes for which the assessments 
     or measures are valid and reliable;
       ``(iv) are administered by trained and knowledgeable 
     personnel; and
       ``(v) are administered in accordance with any instructions 
     provided by the producer of such tests;
       ``(B) the child is assessed in all areas of suspected 
     disability; and
       ``(C) assessment tools and strategies that provide relevant 
     information that directly assists persons in determining the 
     educational needs of the child are provided.
       ``(4) Determination of eligibility and educational need.--
     Upon completion of the administration of assessments and 
     other evaluation measures--
       ``(A) the determination of whether the child is a child 
     with a disability as defined in section 602(3) and the 
     educational needs of the child shall be made by a team of 
     qualified professionals and the parent of the child in 
     accordance with paragraph (5); and
       ``(B) a copy of the evaluation report and the documentation 
     of determination of eligibility will be given to the parent.
       ``(5) Special rule for eligibility determination.--In 
     making a determination of eligibility under paragraph (4)(A), 
     a child shall not be determined to be a child with a 
     disability if the determinant factor for such determination 
     is--
       ``(A) lack of scientifically based instruction practices 
     and programs that contain the essential components of reading 
     instruction (as that term is defined in section 1208(3) of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965);
       ``(B) lack of instruction in math; or
       ``(C) limited English proficiency.
       ``(6) Specific learning disabilities.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 607 of this Act, 
     when determining whether a child has a specific learning 
     disability as defined under this Act, the local educational 
     agency shall not be required to take into consideration 
     whether the child has a severe discrepancy between 
     achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, 
     listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading 
     skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or 
     mathematical reasoning.
       ``(B) Additional authority.--In determining whether a child 
     has a specific learning disability, a local educational 
     agency may use a process which determines if a child responds 
     to scientific, research-based intervention.
       ``(c) Additional Requirements For Evaluation and 
     Reevaluations.--
       ``(1) Review of existing evaluation data.--As part of an 
     initial evaluation (if appropriate) and as part of any 
     reevaluation under this section, the IEP Team described in 
     subsection (d)(1)(B) and other qualified professionals, as 
     appropriate, shall--
       ``(A) review existing evaluation data on the child, 
     including evaluations and information provided by the parents 
     of the child, current classroom-based local or State 
     assessments, and classroom-based observations, and teacher 
     and related services providers observations; and
       ``(B) on the basis of that review, and input from the 
     child's parents, identify what additional data, if any, are 
     needed to determine--
       ``(i) whether the child is a child with a disability as 
     defined in section 602(3), and the educational needs of the 
     child, or, in case of a reevaluation of a child, whether the 
     child continues to have such a disability and such 
     educational needs;
       ``(ii) the present levels of academic achievement and 
     related developmental needs of the child;
       ``(iii) whether the child needs special education and 
     related services, or in the case of a reevaluation of a 
     child, whether the child continues to need special education 
     and related services; and
       ``(iv) whether any additions or modifications to the 
     special education and related services are needed to enable 
     the child to meet the measurable annual goals set out in the 
     individualized education program of the child and to 
     participate, as appropriate, in the general education 
     curriculum.
       ``(2) Source of data.--The local educational agency shall 
     administer such assessments and other evaluation measures as 
     may be needed to produce the data identified by the IEP Team 
     under paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(3) Parental consent.--Each local educational agency 
     shall obtain informed parental consent, in accordance with 
     subsection (a)(1)(D), prior to conducting any reevaluation of 
     a child with a disability, except that such informed parental 
     consent need not be obtained if the local educational agency 
     can demonstrate that it had taken reasonable measures to 
     obtain such consent and the child's parent has failed to 
     respond.
       ``(4) Requirements if additional data are not needed.--If 
     the IEP Team and other qualified professionals, as 
     appropriate, determine that no additional data are needed to 
     determine whether the child continues to be a child with a 
     disability and to determine the child's educational needs, 
     the local educational agency--
       ``(A) shall notify the child's parents of--
       ``(i) that determination and the reasons for it; and
       ``(ii) the right of such parents to request an assessment 
     to determine whether the child continues to be a child with a 
     disability and to determine the child's educational needs; 
     and
       ``(B) shall not be required to conduct such an assessment 
     unless requested to by the child's parents.
       ``(5) Evaluations before change in eligibility.--A local 
     educational agency shall evaluate a child with a disability 
     in accordance with this section prior to graduation, and 
     before determining that the child is no longer a child with a 
     disability, only in instances where the IEP Team is not in 
     agreement regarding the change in eligibility.
       ``(d) Individualized Education Programs.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--As used in this title:
       ``(A) Individualized education program.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `individualized education 
     program' or `IEP' means a written statement for each child 
     with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised in 
     accordance with this section and that includes--

       ``(I) a statement of the child's present levels of academic 
     achievement, including--

       ``(aa) how the child's disability affects the child's 
     involvement and progress in the general education curriculum;
       ``(bb) for preschool children, as appropriate, how the 
     disability affects the child's participation in appropriate 
     activities; and
       ``(cc) until the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year, a 
     description of benchmarks or short-term objectives, except in 
     the case of children with disabilities who take alternate 
     assessments aligned to alternate achievement standards, a 
     description of benchmarks or short-term objectives shall 
     continue to be included;

       ``(II) a statement of measurable annual goals designed to--

       ``(aa) meet the child's needs that result from the child's 
     disability to enable the child to be involved in and make 
     progress in the general education curriculum; and
       ``(bb) meet the child's other educational needs that result 
     from the child's disability;

       ``(III) a statement of the special education and related 
     services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer-
     reviewed research to the extent practicable, to be provided 
     to the child, or on behalf of the child, and a statement of 
     the program modifications or supports for school personnel 
     that will be provided for the child--

       ``(aa) to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual 
     goals;
       ``(bb) to be involved in and make progress in the general 
     education curriculum in accordance with subclause (I) and to 
     participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic 
     activities; and
       ``(cc) to be educated and participate with other children 
     with disabilities and nondisabled children in the activities 
     described in this paragraph;

       ``(IV) an explanation of the extent, if any, to which the 
     child will not participate with nondisabled children in the 
     regular class and in the activities described in subclause 
     (III)(cc);
       ``(V)(aa) a statement of any individual appropriate 
     accommodations in the administration of State or districtwide 
     assessments of student achievement that are necessary to 
     measure the academic achievement of the child consistent with 
     section 612(a)(16)(A)(ii); and
       ``(bb) if the IEP Team determines that the child will not 
     participate in a particular State or districtwide assessment 
     of student achievement (or part of such an assessment), a 
     statement of--

       ``(AA) why that assessment is not appropriate for the 
     child; and
       ``(BB) how the child will be assessed consistent with 
     612(a)(16)(A);

[[Page 10022]]

       ``(VI) the projected date for the beginning of the services 
     and modifications described in subclause (III), and the 
     anticipated frequency, location, and duration of those 
     services and modifications;
       ``(VII)(aa) beginning at age 14, and updated annually, a 
     statement of the transition service needs of the child under 
     the applicable components of the child's IEP that focuses on 
     the child's courses of study (such as participation in 
     advanced-placement courses or a vocational education 
     program);
       ``(bb) beginning at age 16 (or younger, if determined 
     appropriate by the IEP Team), a statement of needed 
     transition services for the child, including, when 
     appropriate, a statement of the interagency responsibilities 
     or any needed linkages; and

       ``(cc) beginning at least 1 year before the child reaches 
     the age of majority under State law, a statement that the 
     child has been informed of his or her rights under this 
     title, if any, that will transfer to the child on reaching 
     the age of majority under section 615(l); and
       ``(VIII) a statement of--

       ``(aa) how the child's progress toward the annual goals 
     described in subclause (II) will be measured; and
       ``(bb) how the child's parents will be regularly informed 
     (by such means as periodic report cards), at least as often 
     as parents are informed of their nondisabled children's 
     progress, of the sufficiency of their child's progress toward 
     the annual goals described in subclause (II).
       ``(ii) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subparagraph 
     shall be construed to require--

       ``(I) that additional information be included in a child's 
     IEP beyond what is required in this subsection; and
       ``(II) the IEP Team to include information under one 
     component of a child's IEP that is already contained under 
     another component of such IEP.

       ``(B) Individualized education program team.--The term 
     `individualized education program team' or `IEP Team' means a 
     group of individuals composed of--
       ``(i) the parents of a child with a disability;
       ``(ii) a regular education teacher of such child, but such 
     teacher shall not be required to attend a meeting or part of 
     a meeting of the IEP Team involving issues not related to the 
     child's participation in the regular education environment, 
     nor shall multiple regular education teachers, if the child 
     has more than one regular education teacher, be required to 
     attend a meeting, or part of a meeting, of the IEP team;
       ``(iii) at least 1 special education teacher, or where 
     appropriate, at least 1 special education provider of such 
     child;
       ``(iv) a representative of the local educational agency 
     who--

       ``(I) is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision 
     of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs 
     of children with disabilities;
       ``(II) is knowledgeable about the general education 
     curriculum; and
       ``(III) is knowledgeable about the availability of 
     resources of the local educational agency;

       ``(v) an individual who can interpret the instructional 
     implications of evaluation results, who may be a member of 
     the team described in clauses (ii) through (vi);
       ``(vi) at the discretion of the parent or the agency, other 
     individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding 
     the child, including related services personnel as 
     appropriate; and
       ``(vii) whenever appropriate, the child with a disability.
       ``(2) Requirement that program be in effect.--
       ``(A) In general.--At the beginning of each school year, 
     each local educational agency, State educational agency, or 
     other State agency, as the case may be, shall have in effect, 
     for each child with a disability in its jurisdiction, an 
     individualized education program, as defined in paragraph 
     (1)(A).
       ``(B) Program for child aged 3 through 5.--In the case of a 
     child with a disability aged 3 through 5 (or, at the 
     discretion of the State educational agency, a 2 year-old 
     child with a disability who will turn age 3 during the school 
     year), the IEP Team shall consider the individualized family 
     service plan that contains the material described in section 
     636, and that is developed in accordance with this section, 
     and the individualized family service plan may serve as the 
     IEP of the child if using that plan as the IEP is--
       ``(i) consistent with State policy; and
       ``(ii) agreed to by the agency and the child's parents.
       ``(3) Development of iep.--
       ``(A) In general.--In developing each child's IEP, the IEP 
     Team, subject to subparagraph (C), shall consider--
       ``(i) the results of the initial evaluation or most recent 
     evaluation of the child;
       ``(ii) the academic and developmental needs of the child;
       ``(iii) the strengths of the child; and
       ``(iv) the concerns of the parents for enhancing the 
     education of their child.
       ``(B) Consideration of special factors.--The IEP Team 
     shall--
       ``(i) in the case of a child whose behavior impedes his or 
     her learning or that of others, consider the use of positive 
     behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, 
     to address that behavior;
       ``(ii) in the case of a child with limited English 
     proficiency, consider the language needs of the child as such 
     needs relate to the child's IEP;
       ``(iii) in the case of a child who is blind or visually 
     impaired, provide for instruction in Braille and the use of 
     Braille unless the IEP Team determines, after an evaluation 
     of the child's reading and writing skills, needs, and 
     appropriate reading and writing media (including an 
     evaluation of the child's future needs for instruction in 
     Braille or the use of Braille), that instruction in Braille 
     or the use of Braille is not appropriate for the child;
       ``(iv) consider the communication needs of the child, and 
     in the case of a child who is deaf or hard of hearing, 
     consider the child's language and communication needs, 
     opportunities for direct communications with peers and 
     professional personnel in the child's language and 
     communication mode, academic level, and full range of needs, 
     including opportunities for direct instruction in the child's 
     language and communication mode; and
       ``(v) consider whether the child needs assistive technology 
     devices and services.
       ``(C) Requirement with respect to regular education 
     teacher.--The regular education teacher of the child, if a 
     member of the IEP Team pursuant to paragraph (1)(B)(ii), 
     shall, to the extent appropriate, participate in the 
     development of the IEP of the child, including the 
     determination of appropriate positive behavioral 
     interventions and supports, and other strategies and the 
     determination of supplementary aids and services, program 
     modifications, and support for school personnel consistent 
     with paragraph (1)(A)(i)(III).
       ``(D) IEP team attendance.--The parent of a child with a 
     disability and the local educational agency may jointly 
     excuse any member of the IEP Team from attending all or part 
     of an IEP meeting if they agree that the member's attendance 
     is not necessary. The IEP Team shall obtain the member's 
     input prior to an IEP meeting from which the member is 
     excused.
       ``(E) Agreement on meeting.--In making changes to a child's 
     IEP after the annual IEP meeting, the parent of a child with 
     a disability and the local educational agency may agree not 
     to reconvene the IEP team and instead develop a written 
     document to amend or modify the child's current IEP.
       ``(F) Consolidation of iep team meetings.--To the extent 
     possible, the local educational agency shall encourage the 
     consolidation of IEP Team meetings for a child.
       ``(G) Amendments.--Changes to the IEP may be made either by 
     the entire IEP Team or, as provided in subparagraph (E), by 
     amending the IEP rather than by redrafting the entire IEP.
       ``(4) Review and revision of iep.--
       ``(A) In general.--The local educational agency shall 
     ensure that, subject to subparagraph (B), the IEP Team--
       ``(i) reviews the child's IEP periodically, but not less 
     than annually, to determine whether the annual goals for the 
     child are being achieved; and
       ``(ii) revises the IEP as appropriate to address--

       ``(I) any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals 
     and in the general education curriculum, where appropriate;
       ``(II) the results of any reevaluation conducted under this 
     section;
       ``(III) information about the child provided to, or by, the 
     parents, as described in subsection (c)(1)(B);
       ``(IV) the child's anticipated needs; or
       ``(V) other matters.

       ``(B) Requirement with respect to regular education 
     teacher.--The regular education teacher of the child, if a 
     member of the IEP Team, shall, consistent with this section, 
     participate in the review and revision of the IEP of the 
     child.
       ``(5) Multi-year iep.--
       ``(A) Development.--The local educational agency may offer 
     to the parent of a child with a disability the option of 
     developing a comprehensive multi-year IEP, not to exceed 3 
     years, that is designed to cover the natural transition 
     points for the child. With the consent of the parent, the IEP 
     Team shall develop an IEP, as described in paragraphs (1) and 
     (3), that is designed to serve the child for the appropriate 
     multi-year period, which includes a statement of--
       ``(i) measurable goals pursuant to paragraph (1)(A)(i)(II), 
     coinciding with natural transition points for the child, that 
     will enable the child to be involved in and make progress in 
     the general education curriculum and that will meet the 
     child's other needs that result from the child's disability; 
     and
       ``(ii) measurable annual goals for determining progress 
     toward meeting the goals described in clause (i).
       ``(B) Review and revision of multi-year iep.--
       ``(i) Requirement.--The IEP Team shall conduct a review 
     under paragraph (4) of the child's multi-year IEP at each of 
     the child's natural transition points.
       ``(ii) Streamlined annual review process.--In years other 
     than a child's natural transition points, the local 
     educational agency shall ensure that the IEP Team--

       ``(I) provides an annual review of the child's IEP to 
     determine the child's current levels of progress and 
     determine whether the annual goals for the child are being 
     achieved; and
       ``(II) amends the IEP, as appropriate, to enable the child 
     to continue to meet the measurable goals set out in the IEP.

       ``(iii) Comprehensive review process.--If the IEP Team 
     determines, on the basis of the review under clause (i), that 
     the child is not making sufficient progress toward the goals 
     described in subparagraph (A), the local educational agency 
     shall ensure that the IEP Team

[[Page 10023]]

     reviews the IEP under paragraph (4), within 30 calendar days.
       ``(iv) Parental preference.--At the request of the parent, 
     the IEP Team shall conduct a review under paragraph (4) of 
     the child's multi-year IEP rather than a streamlined annual 
     review under clause (ii).
       ``(C) Definition.--As used in this paragraph, the term 
     `natural transition points' means those periods that are 
     close in time to the transition of a child with a disability 
     from preschool to elementary grades, from elementary grades 
     to middle or junior high school grades, from middle or junior 
     high school grades to high school grades, and from high 
     school grades to post-secondary activities, but in no case 
     longer than 3 years.
       ``(6) Failure to meet transition objectives.--If a 
     participating agency, other than the local educational 
     agency, fails to provide the transition services described in 
     the IEP in accordance with paragraph (1)(A)(i)(VII), the 
     local educational agency shall reconvene the IEP Team to 
     identify alternative strategies to meet the transition 
     objectives for the child set out in that program.
       ``(7) Children with disabilities in adult prisons.--
       ``(A) In general.--The following requirements do not apply 
     to children with disabilities who are convicted as adults 
     under State law and incarcerated in adult prisons:
       ``(i) The requirements contained in section 612(a)(16) and 
     paragraph (1)(A)(i)(V) of this subsection (relating to 
     participation of children with disabilities in general 
     assessments).
       ``(ii) The requirements of items (aa) and (bb) of paragraph 
     (1)(A)(i)(VII) of this subsection (relating to transition 
     planning and transition services), do not apply with respect 
     to such children whose eligibility under this part will end, 
     because of their age, before they will be released from 
     prison.
       ``(B) Additional requirement.--If a child with a disability 
     is convicted as an adult under State law and incarcerated in 
     an adult prison, the child's IEP Team may modify the child's 
     IEP or placement notwithstanding the requirements of sections 
     612(a)(5)(A) and 614(d)(1)(A) if the State has demonstrated a 
     bona fide security or compelling penological interest that 
     cannot otherwise be accommodated.
       ``(e) Educational Placements.--Each local educational 
     agency or State educational agency shall ensure that the 
     parents of each child with a disability are members of any 
     group that makes decisions on the educational placement of 
     their child.
       ``(f) Alternative Means of Meeting Participation.--When 
     conducting IEP team meetings and placement meetings pursuant 
     to this section and 615, the parent of a child with a 
     disability and a local educational agency may agree to use 
     alternative means of meeting participation, such as video 
     conferences and conference calls.''.

     SEC. 205. PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS.

       (a) Establishment of Procedures.--Section 615(a) of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1415(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Establishment of Procedures.--Any State educational 
     agency, State agency, or local educational agency that 
     receives assistance under this part shall establish and 
     maintain procedures in accordance with this section to ensure 
     that children with disabilities and their parents are 
     guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the 
     provision of free appropriate public education by such 
     agencies.''.
       (b) Types of Procedures.--Section 615(b) of the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1415(b)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Types of Procedures.--The procedures required by this 
     section shall include--
       ``(1) an opportunity for the parents of a child with a 
     disability to examine all records relating to such child and 
     to participate in meetings with respect to the 
     identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the 
     child, and the provision of a free appropriate public 
     education to such child, and to obtain as appropriate an 
     independent educational evaluation of the child;
       ``(2) procedures to protect the rights of the child 
     whenever the parents of the child are not known, the agency 
     cannot, after reasonable efforts, locate the parents, or the 
     child is a ward of the State, including the assignment of an 
     individual (who shall not be an employee of the State 
     educational agency, the local educational agency, or any 
     other agency that is involved in the education or care of the 
     child) to act as a surrogate for the parents;
       ``(3) written prior notice to the parents of the child 
     whenever such agency--
       ``(A) proposes to initiate or change; or
       ``(B) refuses to initiate or change;
     the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of 
     the child, in accordance with subsection (c), or the 
     provision of a free appropriate public education to the 
     child;
       ``(4) procedures designed to ensure that the notice 
     required by paragraph (3) is in the native language of the 
     parents, unless it clearly is not feasible to do so;
       ``(5) an opportunity for mediation and voluntary binding 
     arbitration, in accordance with subsection (e);
       ``(6) an opportunity to present complaints--
       ``(A) with respect to any matter relating to the 
     identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the 
     child, or the provision of a free appropriate public 
     education to such child; and
       ``(B) which set forth a violation that occurred not more 
     than one year before the complaint is filed;
       ``(7)(A) procedures that require the parent of a child with 
     a disability, or the attorney representing the child, to 
     provide notice (which shall remain confidential)--
       ``(i) to the local educational agency or State educational 
     agency (if the State educational agency is the direct 
     provider of services pursuant to section 613(g)), in the 
     complaint filed under paragraph (6); and
       ``(ii) that shall include--
       ``(I) the name of the child, the address of the residence 
     of the child (or, in the case of a homeless child or youth 
     (within the meaning of section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento 
     Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2)), available 
     contact information for the child), and the name of the 
     school the child is attending;
       ``(II) a description of the specific issues regarding the 
     nature of the problem of the child relating to such proposed 
     initiation or change, including facts relating to such 
     problem; and
       ``(III) a proposed resolution of the problem to the extent 
     known and available to the parents at the time;
       ``(B) a requirement that a parent of a child with a 
     disability may not have a due process hearing until the 
     parent, or the attorney representing the child, files a 
     notice that meets the requirements of this paragraph; and
       ``(8) procedures that require the State educational agency 
     to develop a model form to assist parents in filing a 
     complaint in accordance with paragraph (7).''.
       (c) Content of Prior Written Notice.--Section 615(c) of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1415(c)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Content of Prior Written Notice.--The notice required 
     by subsection (b)(3) shall include--
       ``(1) a description of the action proposed or refused by 
     the agency;
       ``(2) an explanation of why the agency proposes or refuses 
     to take the action and a description of each evaluation 
     procedure, test, record, or report the agency used as a basis 
     for the proposed or refused action;
       ``(3) a statement that the parents of a child with a 
     disability have protection under the procedural safeguards of 
     this part and, if this notice is not an initial referral for 
     evaluation, the means by which a copy of a description of the 
     procedural safeguards can be obtained; and
       ``(4) sources for parents to contact to obtain assistance 
     in understanding the provisions of this part.''.
       (d) Procedural Safeguards Notice.--Section 615(d) of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1415(d)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Procedural Safeguards Notice.--
       ``(1) In general.--A copy of the procedural safeguards 
     available to the parents of a child with a disability shall 
     be given to the parents, at a minimum--
       ``(A) upon initial referral or parental request for 
     evaluation;
       ``(B) annually, at the beginning of the school year; and
       ``(C) upon written request by a parent.
       ``(2) Contents.--The procedural safeguards notice shall 
     include a description of the procedural safeguards, written 
     in the native language of the parents, unless it clearly is 
     not feasible to do so, and written in an easily 
     understandable manner, available under this section and under 
     regulations promulgated by the Secretary relating to--
       ``(A) independent educational evaluation;
       ``(B) prior written notice;
       ``(C) parental consent;
       ``(D) access to educational records;
       ``(E) opportunity to present complaints;
       ``(F) the child's placement during pendency of due process 
     proceedings;
       ``(G) procedures for students who are subject to placement 
     in an interim alternative educational setting;
       ``(H) requirements for unilateral placement by parents of 
     children in private schools at public expense;
       ``(I) mediation, early dispute resolution, and voluntary 
     binding arbitration;
       ``(J) due process hearings, including requirements for 
     disclosure of evaluation results and recommendations;
       ``(K) civil actions; and
       ``(L) attorneys' fees.''.
       (e) Mediation and Voluntary Binding Arbitration.--Section 
     615(e) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1415(e)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Mediation and Voluntary Binding Arbitration.--
       ``(1) Mediation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any State educational agency or local 
     educational agency that receives assistance under this part 
     shall ensure that procedures are established and implemented 
     to allow parties to disputes involving any matter, including 
     matters arising prior to the filing of a complaint pursuant 
     to subsection (b)(6), to resolve such disputes through a 
     mediation process.
       ``(B) Requirements.--Such procedures shall meet the 
     following requirements:
       ``(i) The procedures shall ensure that the mediation 
     process--

       ``(I) is voluntary on the part of the parties;
       ``(II) is not used to deny or delay a parent's right to a 
     due process hearing under subsection (f), or to deny any 
     other rights afforded under this part; and
       ``(III) is conducted by a qualified and impartial mediator 
     who is trained in effective mediation techniques.

[[Page 10024]]

       ``(ii) A local educational agency or a State agency may 
     establish procedures to offer to parents who choose not to 
     use the mediation process, an opportunity to meet, at a time 
     and location convenient to the parents, with a disinterested 
     party who is under contract with--

       ``(I) a parent training and information center in the State 
     established under section 672; or
       ``(II) an appropriate alternative dispute resolution 
     entity;

     to encourage the use, and explain the benefits, of the 
     mediation process to the parents.
       ``(iii) The State shall maintain a list of individuals who 
     are qualified mediators and knowledgeable in laws and 
     regulations relating to the provision of special education 
     and related services.
       ``(iv) The State shall bear the cost of the mediation 
     process, including the costs of meetings described in clause 
     (ii).
       ``(v) Each session in the mediation process shall be 
     scheduled in a timely manner and shall be held in a location 
     that is convenient to the parties to the dispute.
       ``(vi) An agreement reached by the parties to the dispute 
     in the mediation process shall be set forth in a written 
     mediation agreement.
       ``(vii) Discussions that occur during the mediation process 
     shall be confidential and may not be used as evidence in any 
     subsequent due process hearings or civil proceedings and the 
     parties to the mediation process may be required to sign a 
     confidentiality pledge prior to the commencement of such 
     process.
       ``(2) Voluntary binding arbitration.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State educational agency that receives 
     assistance under this part shall ensure that procedures are 
     established and implemented to allow parties to disputes 
     involving any matter described in subsection (b)(6) to 
     resolve such disputes through voluntary binding arbitration, 
     which shall be available when a hearing is requested under 
     subsection (f) or (j).
       ``(B) Requirements.--Such procedures shall meet the 
     following requirements:
       ``(i) The procedures shall ensure that the voluntary 
     binding arbitration process--

       ``(I) is voluntarily and knowingly agreed to in writing by 
     the parties; and
       ``(II) is conducted by a qualified and impartial 
     arbitrator.

       ``(ii) A local educational agency or a State agency shall 
     ensure that parents who choose to use voluntary binding 
     arbitration understand that the process is in lieu of a due 
     process hearing under subsection (f) or (j) and that the 
     decision made by the arbitrator is final, unless there is 
     fraud by a party or the arbitrator or misconduct on the part 
     of the arbitrator.
       ``(iii) The parties shall jointly agree to use an 
     arbitrator from a list that the State shall maintain of 
     individuals who are qualified arbitrators and knowledgeable 
     in laws and regulations relating to the provision of special 
     education and related services.
       ``(iv) The arbitration shall be conducted according to 
     State law on arbitration or, if there is no such applicable 
     State law, in a manner consistent with the Revised Uniform 
     Arbitration Act.
       ``(v) The voluntary binding arbitration shall be scheduled 
     in a timely manner and shall be held in a location that is 
     convenient to the parties to the dispute.''.
       (f) Impartial Due Process Hearing.--Section 615(f) of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1415(f)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Impartial Due Process Hearing.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Access to hearing.--Whenever a complaint has been 
     received under subsection (b)(6) or (j) of this section, the 
     parents or the local educational agency involved in such 
     complaint shall have an opportunity for an impartial due 
     process hearing, which shall be conducted by the State 
     educational agency.
       ``(B) Resolution session.--
       ``(i) In general.--Prior to the opportunity for an 
     impartial due process hearing under subparagraph (A), the 
     local educational agency shall convene a meeting with the 
     parents--

       ``(I) within 15 days of receiving notice of the parents' 
     complaint; and
       ``(II) where the parents of the child discuss their 
     complaint, and the specific issues that form the basis of the 
     complaint, and the local educational agency is provided the 
     opportunity to resolve the complaint;

     unless the parents and the local educational agency agree in 
     writing to waive such meeting.
       ``(ii) Due process hearing.--If the local educational 
     agency has not resolved the complaint to the satisfaction of 
     the parents within 30 days of the receipt of the complaint, 
     the due process hearing shall occur in accordance with 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(iii) Definition of meeting.--A meeting conducted 
     pursuant to clause (i) shall not be considered--

       ``(I) a meeting convened as a result of an administrative 
     hearing or judicial action; or
       ``(II) an administrative hearing or judicial action for 
     purposes of subsection (h)(3).

       ``(2) Disclosure of evaluations and recommendations.--
       ``(A) In general.--At least 5 business days prior to a 
     hearing conducted pursuant to paragraph (1), each party shall 
     disclose to all other parties all evaluations completed by 
     that date and recommendations based on the offering party's 
     evaluations that the party intends to use at the hearing.
       ``(B) Failure to disclose.--A hearing officer may bar any 
     party that fails to comply with subparagraph (A) from 
     introducing the relevant evaluation or recommendation at the 
     hearing without the consent of the other party.
       ``(3) Limitation on hearing.--
       ``(A) Hearing officer.--A hearing conducted pursuant to 
     paragraph (1)(A) may not be conducted by--
       ``(i) an employee of the State educational agency or the 
     local educational agency involved in the education or care of 
     the child; or
       ``(ii) any person having a personal or professional 
     interest that would conflict with his or her objectivity in 
     the hearing.
       ``(B) Subject matter of hearing.--The parents of the child 
     shall not be allowed to raise issues at the due process 
     hearing that were not raised in the complaint or discussed 
     during the meeting conducted pursuant to subparagraph (1)(B), 
     unless the local educational agency agrees otherwise.
       ``(C) Decision of hearing officer.--A decision made by a 
     hearing officer must be based on a determination of whether 
     or not the child received a free appropriate public 
     education.''.
       (g) Appeal.--Section 615 of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1415) is amended by 
     striking subsection (g).
       (h) Safeguards.--Section 615 of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1415) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (g); and
       (2) by amending subsection (g) (as redesignated) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(g) Safeguards.--Any party to a hearing conducted 
     pursuant to subsection (f) or (j) shall be accorded--
       ``(1) the right to be represented by counsel and by non-
     attorney advocates and to be accompanied and advised by 
     individuals with special knowledge or training with respect 
     to the problems of children with disabilities;
       ``(2) the right to present evidence and confront, cross-
     examine, and compel the attendance of witnesses;
       ``(3) the right to a written, or, at the option of the 
     parents, electronic verbatim record of such hearing; and
       ``(4) the right to written, or, at the option of the 
     parents, electronic findings of fact and decisions (which 
     findings and decisions shall be made available to the public 
     consistent with the requirements of section 617(d)) (relating 
     to the confidentiality of data, information, and records).''.
       (i) Administrative Procedures.--Section 615 of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1415) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (h); and
       (2) in subsection (h) (as redesignated)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``In general.--'' and all that follows 
     through ``A decision made in a hearing'' and inserting ``In 
     general.--A decision made in a hearing'';
       (ii) by striking ``(k)'' and inserting ``(j)'';
       (iii) by striking ``subsection (g) and''; and
       (iv) by striking subparagraph (B);
       (B) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``subsection (f) or 
     (k) who does not have the right to an appeal under subsection 
     (g)'' and inserting ``subsection (f) or (j)''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3), by amending subparagraph (C) to read 
     as follows:
       ``(C) Determination of amount of attorneys' fees.--
       ``(i) In general.--Fees awarded under this paragraph shall 
     be based on rates determined by the Governor of the State (or 
     other appropriate State official) in which the action or 
     proceeding arose for the kind and quality of services 
     furnished. No bonus or multiplier may be used in calculating 
     the fees awarded under this subsection.
       ``(ii) Notice.--The Governor of the State (or other 
     appropriate State official) shall make available to the 
     public on an annual basis the rates described in clause 
     (i).''.
       (j) Maintenance of Current Educational Placement.--Section 
     615 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1415) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (i); and
       (2) by amending subsection (i) (as redesignated) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(i) Maintenance of Current Educational Placement.--Except 
     as provided in subsection (j)(4), during the pendency of any 
     proceedings conducted pursuant to this section, unless the 
     State or local educational agency and the parents otherwise 
     agree, the child shall remain in the then-current educational 
     placement of such child, or, if applying for initial 
     admission to a public school, shall, with the consent of the 
     parents, be placed in the public school program until all 
     such proceedings have been completed.''.
       (k) Placement in Alternative Educational Setting.--Section 
     615 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 
     U.S.C. 1415) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (k) as subsection (j); and
       (2) by amending subsection (j) (as redesignated) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(j) Placement in Alternative Educational Setting.--
       ``(1) Authority of school personnel.--
       ``(A) In general.--School personnel under this section may 
     order a change in the placement of a child with a disability 
     who violates a code of student conduct policy to an 
     appropriate interim alternative educational setting, another 
     setting, or suspension, for not more than 10 school days (to 
     the extent such alternatives would be applied to children 
     without disabilities).

[[Page 10025]]

       ``(B) Additional authority.--Subject to subparagraph (C), 
     and notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, school 
     personnel under this section may order a change in the 
     placement of a child with a disability who violates a code of 
     student conduct policy to an appropriate interim alternative 
     educational setting selected so as to enable the child to 
     continue to participate in the general education curriculum, 
     although in another setting, and to progress toward meeting 
     the goals set out in the child's IEP, for not more than 45 
     school days (to the extent such alternative and such duration 
     would be applied to children without disabilities, and which 
     may include consideration of unique circumstances on a case-
     by-case basis), except that the change in placement may last 
     beyond 45 school days if required by State law or regulation 
     for the violation in question, to ensure the safety and 
     appropriate educational atmosphere in the schools under the 
     jurisdiction of the local educational agency.
       ``(C) Services.--A child with a disability who is removed 
     from the child's current placement under subparagraph (B) 
     shall--
       ``(i) continue to receive educational services selected so 
     as to enable the child to continue to participate in the 
     general education curriculum, although in another setting, 
     and to progress toward meeting the goals set out in the 
     child's IEP; and
       ``(ii) continue to receive behavioral intervention services 
     designed to address the behavior violation so that it does 
     not recur.
       ``(2) Determination of setting.--The alternative 
     educational setting described in paragraph (1)(B) shall be 
     determined by the IEP Team.
       ``(3) Parent appeal.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the parent of a child with a 
     disability disagrees with any decision regarding placement or 
     punishment under this section, the parent may request a 
     hearing.
       ``(B) Authority of hearing officer.--If a parent of a child 
     with a disability disagrees with a decision regarding 
     placement of the child or punishment of the child under this 
     section, including duration of the punishment, the hearing 
     officer may determine whether the decision regarding such 
     action was appropriate.
       ``(4) Placement during appeals.--When a parent requests a 
     hearing regarding a disciplinary action described in 
     paragraph (1)(B) to challenge the interim alternative 
     educational setting or the violation of the code of student 
     conduct policy, the child shall remain in the interim 
     alternative educational setting pending the decision of the 
     hearing officer or until the expiration of the time period 
     provided for in paragraph (1)(B), whichever occurs first, 
     unless the parent and the State or local educational agency 
     agree otherwise.
       ``(5) Protections for children not yet eligible for special 
     education and related services.--
       ``(A) In general.--A child who has not been determined to 
     be eligible for special education and related services under 
     this part and who has engaged in behavior that violates a 
     code of student conduct policy, may assert any of the 
     protections provided for in this part if the local 
     educational agency had knowledge (as determined in accordance 
     with this paragraph) that the child was a child with a 
     disability before the behavior that precipitated the 
     disciplinary action occurred.
       ``(B) Basis of knowledge.--A local educational agency shall 
     be deemed to have knowledge that a child is a child with a 
     disability if, before the behavior that precipitated the 
     disciplinary action occurred--
       ``(i) the parent of the child has expressed concern in 
     writing (unless the parent is illiterate or has a disability 
     that prevents compliance with the requirements contained in 
     this clause) to personnel of the appropriate educational 
     agency that the child is in need of special education and 
     related services;
       ``(ii) the parent of the child has requested an evaluation 
     of the child pursuant to section 614; or
       ``(iii) the teacher of the child, or other personnel of the 
     local educational agency, has expressed concern in writing 
     about the behavior or performance of the child to the 
     director of special education of such agency or to other 
     personnel of the agency.
       ``(C) Conditions that apply if no basis of knowledge.--
       ``(i) In general.--If a local educational agency does not 
     have knowledge that a child is a child with a disability (in 
     accordance with subparagraph (B)) prior to taking 
     disciplinary measures against the child, the child may be 
     subjected to disciplinary measures applied to children 
     without disabilities who engaged in comparable behaviors 
     consistent with clause (ii).
       ``(ii) Limitations.--If a request is made for an evaluation 
     of a child during the time period in which the child is 
     subjected to disciplinary measures under paragraph (1) or 
     (2), the evaluation shall be conducted in an expedited 
     manner. If the child is determined to be a child with a 
     disability, taking into consideration information from the 
     evaluation conducted by the agency and information provided 
     by the parents, the agency shall provide special education 
     and related services in accordance with this part, except 
     that, pending the results of the evaluation, the child shall 
     remain in the educational placement determined by school 
     authorities.
       ``(6) Referral to and action by law enforcement and 
     judicial authorities.--
       ``(A) In general.--Nothing in this part shall be construed 
     to prohibit an agency from reporting a crime committed by a 
     child with a disability to appropriate authorities or to 
     prevent State law enforcement and judicial authorities from 
     exercising their responsibilities with regard to the 
     application of Federal and State law to crimes committed by a 
     child with a disability.
       ``(B) Transmission of records.--An agency reporting a crime 
     committed by a child with a disability shall ensure that 
     copies of the special education and disciplinary records of 
     the child are transmitted for consideration by the 
     appropriate authorities to whom it reports the crime.''.
       (l) Rule of Construction.--Section 615 of the Individuals 
     with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1415) is amended 
     by redesignating subsection (l) as subsection (k).
       (m) Transfer of Parental Rights at Age of Majority.--
     Section 615 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1415) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (m) as subsection (l); and
       (2) by amending subsection (l) (as redesignated) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(l) Transfer of Parental Rights at Age of Majority.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State that receives amounts from a 
     grant under this part may provide that, when a child with a 
     disability reaches the age of majority under State law 
     (except for a child with a disability who has been determined 
     to be incompetent under State law)--
       ``(A) the public agency shall provide any notice required 
     by this section to both the individual and the parents;
       ``(B) all other rights accorded to parents under this part 
     transfer to the child;
       ``(C) the agency shall notify the individual and the 
     parents of the transfer of rights; and
       ``(D) all rights accorded to parents under this part 
     transfer to children who are incarcerated in an adult or 
     juvenile Federal, State, or local correctional institution.
       ``(2) Special rule.--If, under State law, a child with a 
     disability who has reached the age of majority under State 
     law, who has not been determined to be incompetent, but who 
     is determined not to have the ability to provide informed 
     consent with respect to the educational program of the child, 
     the State shall establish procedures for appointing the 
     parent of the child, or if the parent is not available, 
     another appropriate individual, to represent the educational 
     interests of the child throughout the period of eligibility 
     of the child under this part.''.

     SEC. 206. MONITORING, ENFORCEMENT, WITHHOLDING, AND JUDICIAL 
                   REVIEW.

       Section 616 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1416) is amended--
       (1) by amending the heading to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 616. MONITORING, ENFORCEMENT, WITHHOLDING, AND 
                   JUDICIAL REVIEW.'';

       (2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (c) as 
     subsections (e) through (g), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting before subsection (e) (as redesignated) 
     the following:
       ``(a) Federal Monitoring.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall monitor 
     implementation of this Act.
       ``(2) Focused monitoring.--The primary focus of Federal 
     monitoring activities shall be to improve educational results 
     for all children with disabilities, while ensuring compliance 
     with program requirements, with a particular emphasis on 
     those requirements that are most closely related to improving 
     educational results for children with disabilities.
       ``(b) Indicators.--
       ``(1) Required indicators.--The Secretary shall examine 
     relevant information and data related to States' progress on 
     improving educational results for children with disabilities 
     by reviewing--
       ``(A) achievement results of children with disabilities on 
     State or district assessments, including children with 
     disabilities taking State or district assessments with 
     appropriate accommodations;
       ``(B) achievement results of children with disabilities on 
     State or district alternate assessments;
       ``(C) graduation rates of children with disabilities and 
     graduation rates of children with disabilities as compared to 
     graduation rates of nondisabled children; and
       ``(D) dropout rates for children with disabilities and 
     dropout rates of children with disabilities as compared to 
     dropout rates of nondisabled children.
       ``(2) Permissive indicators.--The Secretary also may 
     establish other priorities for review of relevant information 
     and data, including data provided by States under section 
     618, and also including the following:
       ``(A) Priorities for this part.--The Secretary may give 
     priority to monitoring on the following areas under this 
     part:
       ``(i) Provision of educational services in the least 
     restrictive environment, including--

       ``(I) education of children with disabilities with 
     nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate;
       ``(II) provision of appropriate special education and 
     related services;
       ``(III) access to the general curriculum with appropriate 
     accommodations;
       ``(IV) provision of appropriate services to students whose 
     behavior impedes learning; and
       ``(V) participation and performance of children with 
     disabilities on State and local assessments, including 
     alternate assessments.

       ``(ii) Secondary transition, including the extent to which 
     youth exiting special education are prepared for post-
     secondary education, employment, and adult life, and are 
     participants

[[Page 10026]]

     in appropriate transition planning while in school.
       ``(iii) State exercise of general supervisory authority, 
     including effective monitoring and use of complaint 
     resolution, mediation, and voluntary binding arbitration.
       ``(B) Priorities for part c.--The Secretary may give 
     priority to monitoring on the following areas under part C:
       ``(i) Child find and public awareness to support the 
     identification, evaluation and assessment of all eligible 
     infants and toddlers, including the provision of culturally 
     relevant materials to inform and promote referral.
       ``(ii) Provision of early intervention services in natural 
     environments, evaluation and assessment to identify child 
     needs and family needs related to enhancing the development 
     of the child, and provision of appropriate early intervention 
     services in natural environments to meet the needs of 
     individual children.
       ``(iii) Effective early childhood transition to services 
     under this part.
       ``(iv) State exercise of general supervisory authority, 
     including--

       ``(I) effective monitoring and use of other mechanisms such 
     as complaint resolution;
       ``(II) implementation of mediation and voluntary binding 
     arbitration; and
       ``(III) coordination of parent and child protections.

       ``(3) Data collection and analysis.--The Secretary shall 
     review the data collection and analysis capacity of States to 
     ensure that data and information is collected, analyzed, and 
     accurately reported to the Secretary. The Secretary may 
     provide technical assistance to improve the capacity of 
     States to meet data requirements.
       ``(c) Additional Priorities.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may develop additional 
     priorities for monitoring the effective implementation of 
     this Act.
       ``(2) Public comment.--The Secretary shall provide a public 
     comment period of at least 30 days on any additional priority 
     proposed under this part or part C.
       ``(3) Date of enforcement.--The Secretary may not begin to 
     enforce a new priority until one year from the date of 
     publication of the priority in the Federal Register as a 
     final rule.
       ``(d) Compliance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall review State data to 
     determine whether the State is in compliance with the 
     provisions of this Act.
       ``(2) Lack of progress.--If after examining data, as 
     provided in section (b) or (c), the Secretary determines that 
     a State is not making satisfactory progress in improving 
     educational results for children with disabilities, the 
     Secretary shall take one or more of the following actions:
       ``(A) Advise the State of available sources of technical 
     assistance that may help the State address the lack of 
     progress, which may include assistance from the Office of 
     Special Education Programs, other offices of the Department 
     of Education, other Federal agencies, technical assistance 
     providers approved by the Secretary, and other federally 
     funded nonprofit agencies. Such technical assistance may 
     include--
       ``(i) the provision of advice by experts to address the 
     areas of noncompliance, including explicit plans for ensuring 
     compliance within a specified period of time;
       ``(ii) assistance in identifying and implementing 
     professional development, instructional strategies, and 
     methods of instruction that are based on scientifically based 
     research;
       ``(iii) designating and using distinguished 
     superintendents, principals, special education 
     administrators, regular education teachers, and special 
     education teachers to provide advice, technical assistance, 
     and support; and
       ``(iv) devising additional approaches to providing 
     technical assistance, such as collaborating with institutions 
     of higher education, educational service agencies, national 
     centers of technical assistance supported under part D, and 
     private providers of scientifically based technical 
     assistance.
       ``(B) Direct the use of State level funds for technical 
     assistance on the area or areas of unsatisfactory 
     performance.
       ``(C) Each year withhold at least 20 but no more than 50 
     percent of the State's funds under section 611(e), after 
     providing the State the opportunity to show cause why the 
     withholding should not occur, until the Secretary determines 
     that sufficient progress has been made in improving 
     educational results for children with disabilities.
       ``(3) Substantial non-compliance.--
       ``(A) Initial determination.--When the Secretary determines 
     that a State is not in substantial compliance with any 
     provision of this part, the Secretary shall take one or more 
     of the following actions:
       ``(i) Request that the State prepare a corrective action 
     plan or improvement plan if the Secretary determines that the 
     State should be able to correct the problem within one year.
       ``(ii) Identify the State as a high-risk grantee and impose 
     special conditions on the State's grant.
       ``(iii) Require the State to enter into a compliance 
     agreement under section 457 of the General Education 
     Provisions Act, if the Secretary has reason to believe that 
     the State cannot correct the problem within one year.
       ``(iv) Recovery of funds under section 452 of the General 
     Education Provisions Act.
       ``(v)(I) Withholding of payments under subsection (e).
       ``(II) Pending the outcome of any hearing to withhold 
     payments under subsection (e), the Secretary may suspend 
     payments to a recipient, suspend the authority of the 
     recipient to obligate Federal funds, or both, after such 
     recipient has been given reasonable notice and an opportunity 
     to show cause why future payments or authority to obligate 
     Federal funds should not be suspended.
       ``(B) Continued non-compliance.--
       ``(i) Secretarial action.--If the Secretary has imposed 
     special conditions on a grant under subparagraph (A)(ii) for 
     substantially the same compliance problems for three 
     consecutive years, and at the end of the third year the State 
     has not demonstrated that the violation has been corrected to 
     the satisfaction of the Secretary, the Secretary shall take 
     such additional enforcement actions as the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate from among those actions 
     specified in clauses (iii) through (v) of subparagraph (A).
       ``(ii) Report to Congress.--The Secretary shall report to 
     Congress within 30 days of taking enforcement action pursuant 
     to this paragraph on the specific action taken and the 
     reasons why enforcement action was taken.''.

     SEC. 207. ADMINISTRATION.

       Section 617 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1417) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 617. ADMINISTRATION.

       ``(a) Responsibilities of Secretary.--In carrying out this 
     part, the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) cooperate with, and (directly or by grant or 
     contract) furnish technical assistance necessary to, the 
     State in matters relating to--
       ``(A) the education of children with disabilities; and
       ``(B) carrying out this part; and
       ``(2) provide short-term training programs and institutes.
       ``(b) Prohibition Against Federal Mandates, Direction, or 
     Control.--Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize 
     an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, 
     direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or 
     school's specific instructional content, curriculum, or 
     program of instruction.
       ``(c) Confidentiality.--The Secretary shall take 
     appropriate action, in accordance with section 444 of the 
     General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g), to ensure 
     the protection of the confidentiality of any personally 
     identifiable data, information, and records collected or 
     maintained by the Secretary and by State and local 
     educational agencies pursuant to this part.
       ``(d) Personnel.--The Secretary is authorized to hire 
     qualified personnel necessary to carry out the Secretary's 
     duties under subsection (a) and under sections 618 and 661 
     without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States 
     Code, relating to appointments in the competitive service and 
     without regard to chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 
     of such title relating to classification and general schedule 
     pay rates, except that no more than twenty such personnel 
     shall be employed at any time.
       ``(e) Pilot Program.--The Secretary is authorized to grant 
     waivers of paperwork requirements under this part for a 
     period of time not to exceed 4 years with respect to not more 
     than 10 States based on proposals submitted by States for 
     addressing reduction of paperwork and non-instructional time 
     spent fulfilling statutory and regulatory requirements.
       ``(f) Report.--The Secretary shall include in the annual 
     report to Congress under section 426 of the Department of 
     Education Organization Act information related to the 
     effectiveness of waivers granted under subsection (e)--
       ``(1) in reducing the paperwork burden on teachers, 
     administrators, and related services providers and non-
     instructional time spent by teachers in complying with this 
     part, including any specific recommendations for broader 
     implementation; and
       ``(2) in enhancing longer-term educational planning, 
     improving positive outcomes for children with disabilities, 
     promoting collaboration between IEP Team members, and 
     ensuring satisfaction of family members, including any 
     specific recommendations for broader implementation.
       ``(g) Model Forms.--Not later than the date on which the 
     Secretary publishes final regulations to implement this part 
     (as amended by the Improving Education Results for Children 
     With Disabilities Act of 2003), the Secretary shall publish 
     and disseminate widely to States, local educational agencies, 
     and parent training and information centers--
       ``(1) a model individualized education program form;
       ``(2) a model form for the procedural safeguards notice 
     described in section 615(d); and
       ``(3) a model form for the prior written notice described 
     in section 615(b)(3);

     that would be consistent with the requirements of this part 
     and be deemed to be sufficient to meet such requirements.''.

     SEC. 208. PROGRAM INFORMATION.

       Section 618 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1418) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 618. PROGRAM INFORMATION.

       ``(a) In General.--Each State and local educational agency 
     that receives assistance under this part, and the Secretary 
     of the Interior, shall provide data each year to the 
     Secretary--
       ``(1)(A) on--
       ``(i) the number and percentage of children with 
     disabilities, by race, ethnicity, and disability category, 
     who are receiving a free appropriate public education;
       ``(ii) the number and percentage of children with 
     disabilities, by race and ethnicity, who are receiving early 
     intervention services;

[[Page 10027]]

       ``(iii) the number and percentage of children with 
     disabilities, by race, ethnicity, and disability category, 
     who are participating in regular education;
       ``(iv) the number and percentage of children with 
     disabilities, by race, ethnicity, and disability category, 
     who are in separate classes, separate schools or facilities, 
     or public or private residential facilities;
       ``(v) the number and percentage of children with 
     disabilities, by race and ethnicity, and disability category 
     who begin secondary school and graduate with a regular high 
     school diploma, through the age of 21;
       ``(vi) the number and percentage of children with 
     disabilities, by race, ethnicity, and disability category, 
     who, for each year of age from age 14 to 21, stopped 
     receiving special education and related services because of 
     program completion or other reasons and the reasons why those 
     children stopped receiving special education and related 
     services;
       ``(vii) the number and percentage of children with 
     disabilities, by race and ethnicity, who, from birth through 
     age 2, stopped receiving early intervention services because 
     of program completion or for other reasons;
       ``(viii)(I) the number and percentage of children with 
     disabilities, by race, ethnicity, and disability category, 
     who under subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 615(j)(1), are 
     removed to an interim alternative educational setting;
       ``(II) the acts or items precipitating those removals;
       ``(III) the number of children with disabilities, by race, 
     ethnicity, and disability category, who are subject to long-
     term suspensions or expulsions; and
       ``(IV) the incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary 
     actions, by race and ethnicity, including suspension and 
     expulsions;
       ``(ix) the number of complaints resolved through voluntary 
     binding arbitration; and
       ``(x) the number of mediations held and the number of 
     settlement agreements reached through mediation;
       ``(B) on the number and percentage of infants and toddlers, 
     by race and ethnicity, who are at risk of having substantial 
     developmental delays (as defined in section 632), and who are 
     receiving early intervention services under part C; and
       ``(C) on the number of children served with funds under 
     section 613(f); and
       ``(2) on any other information that may be required by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(b) Sampling.--The Secretary may permit States and the 
     Secretary of the Interior to obtain the data described in 
     subsection (a) through sampling.
       ``(c) Disproportionality.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State that receives assistance 
     under this part, and the Secretary of the Interior, shall 
     provide for the collection and examination of data to 
     determine if significant disproportionality based on race and 
     ethnicity is occurring in the State and the local educational 
     agencies of the State with respect to--
       ``(A) the identification of children as children with 
     disabilities, including the identification of children as 
     children with disabilities in accordance with a particular 
     impairment described in section 602(3);
       ``(B) the placement in particular educational settings of 
     such children; and
       ``(C) the incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary 
     actions, including suspensions and expulsions.
       ``(2) Review and revision of policies, practices, and 
     procedures.--In the case of a determination of significant 
     disproportionality with respect to the identification of 
     children as children with disabilities, or the placement in 
     particular educational settings of such children, in 
     accordance with paragraph (1), the State or the Secretary of 
     the Interior, as the case may be--
       ``(A) shall provide for the review and, if appropriate, 
     revision of the policies, procedures, and practices used in 
     such identification or placement to ensure that such 
     policies, procedures, and practices comply with the 
     requirements of this Act;
       ``(B) shall require any local educational agency identified 
     under paragraph (1) to reserve the maximum amount of funds 
     under section 613(f) to provide comprehensive coordinated 
     prereferral support services to serve children in the local 
     educational agency, particularly children in those groups 
     that were significantly overidentified under paragraph (1); 
     and
       ``(C) shall require the local educational agency to 
     publicly report on the revision of policies, practices, and 
     procedures described under subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 209. PRESCHOOL GRANTS.

       Section 619 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 1419) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 619. PRESCHOOL GRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide grants under 
     this section to assist States to provide special education 
     and related services, in accordance with this part--
       ``(1) to children with disabilities aged 3 through 5, 
     inclusive; and
       ``(2) at the State's discretion, to 2-year-old children 
     with disabilities who will turn 3 during the school year.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--A State shall be eligible for a grant 
     under this section if such State--
       ``(1) is eligible under section 612 to receive a grant 
     under this part; and
       ``(2) makes a free appropriate public education available 
     to all children with disabilities, aged 3 through 5, residing 
     in the State.
       ``(c) Allocations to States.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall allocate funds among 
     the States in accordance with paragraph (2) or (3), as 
     appropriate.
       ``(2) Increase in funds.--If the amount available for 
     allocations to States under paragraph (1) is equal to or 
     greater than the amount allocated to the States under this 
     section for the preceding fiscal year, those allocations 
     shall be calculated as follows:
       ``(A)(i) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(I) allocate to each State the amount it received for 
     fiscal year 1997;
       ``(II) allocate 85 percent of any remaining funds to States 
     on the basis of their relative populations of children aged 3 
     through 5; and
       ``(III) allocate 15 percent of those remaining funds to 
     States on the basis of their relative populations of all 
     children aged 3 through 5 who are living in poverty.
       ``(ii) For the purpose of making grants under this 
     paragraph, the Secretary shall use the most recent population 
     data, including data on children living in poverty, that are 
     available and satisfactory to the Secretary.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), allocations under 
     this paragraph shall be subject to the following:
       ``(i) No State's allocation shall be less than its 
     allocation for the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(ii) No State's allocation shall be less than the 
     greatest of--

       ``(I) the sum of--

       ``(aa) the amount it received for fiscal year 1997; and
       ``(bb) one third of one percent of the amount by which the 
     amount appropriated under subsection (j) exceeds the amount 
     appropriated under this section for fiscal year 1997;

       ``(II) the sum of--

       ``(aa) the amount it received for the preceding fiscal 
     year; and
       ``(bb) that amount multiplied by the percentage by which 
     the increase in the funds appropriated from the preceding 
     fiscal year exceeds 1.5 percent; or

       ``(III) the sum of--

       ``(aa) the amount it received for the preceding fiscal 
     year; and
       ``(bb) that amount multiplied by 90 percent of the 
     percentage increase in the amount appropriated from the 
     preceding fiscal year.
       ``(iii) Notwithstanding clause (ii), no State's allocation 
     under this paragraph shall exceed the sum of--

       ``(I) the amount it received for the preceding fiscal year; 
     and
       ``(II) that amount multiplied by the sum of 1.5 percent and 
     the percentage increase in the amount appropriated.

       ``(C) If the amount available for allocations under this 
     paragraph is insufficient to pay those allocations in full, 
     those allocations shall be ratably reduced, subject to 
     subparagraph (B)(i).
       ``(3) Decrease in funds.--If the amount available for 
     allocations to States under paragraph (1) is less than the 
     amount allocated to the States under this section for the 
     preceding fiscal year, those allocations shall be calculated 
     as follows:
       ``(A) If the amount available for allocations is greater 
     than the amount allocated to the States for fiscal year 1997, 
     each State shall be allocated the sum of--
       ``(i) the amount it received for fiscal year 1997; and
       ``(ii) an amount that bears the same relation to any 
     remaining funds as the increase the State received for the 
     preceding fiscal year over fiscal year 1997 bears to the 
     total of all such increases for all States.
       ``(B) If the amount available for allocations is equal to 
     or less than the amount allocated to the States for fiscal 
     year 1997, each State shall be allocated the amount it 
     received for that year, ratably reduced, if necessary.
       ``(d) Reservation for State Activities.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State may retain not more than the 
     amount described in paragraph (2) for administration and 
     other State-level activities in accordance with subsections 
     (e) and (f).
       ``(2) Amount described.--For each fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall determine and report to the State educational 
     agency an amount that is 25 percent of the amount the State 
     received under this section for fiscal year 1997, 
     cumulatively adjusted by the Secretary for each succeeding 
     fiscal year by the lesser of--
       ``(A) the percentage increase, if any, from the preceding 
     fiscal year in the State's allocation under this section; or
       ``(B) the percentage increase, if any, from the preceding 
     fiscal year in the Consumer Price Index For All Urban 
     Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the 
     Department of Labor.
       ``(e) State Administration.--
       ``(1) In general.--For the purpose of administering this 
     section (including the coordination of activities under this 
     part with, and providing technical assistance to, other 
     programs that provide services to children with disabilities) 
     a State may use not more than 20 percent of the maximum 
     amount it may retain under subsection (d) for any fiscal 
     year.
       ``(2) Administration of part c.--Funds described in 
     paragraph (1) may also be used for the administration of part 
     C of this Act, if the State educational agency is the lead 
     agency for the State under that part.
       ``(f) Other State-Level Activities.--Each State shall use 
     any funds it retains under subsection (d) and does not use 
     for administration under subsection (e)--

[[Page 10028]]

       ``(1) for support services (including establishing and 
     implementing the mediation and voluntary binding arbitration 
     process required by section 615(e)), which may benefit 
     children with disabilities younger than 3 or older than 5 as 
     long as those services also benefit children with 
     disabilities aged 3 through 5;
       ``(2) for direct services for children eligible for 
     services under this section;
       ``(3) for activities at the State and local levels to meet 
     the performance goals established by the State under section 
     612(a)(16) and to support implementation of the State plan 
     under subpart 1 of part D if the State receives funds under 
     that subpart; or
       ``(4) to supplement other funds used to develop and 
     implement a Statewide coordinated services system designed to 
     improve results for children and families, including children 
     with disabilities and their families, but not to exceed one 
     percent of the amount received by the State under this 
     section for a fiscal year.
       ``(g) Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies.--
       ``(1) Subgrants required.--Each State that receives a grant 
     under this section for any fiscal year shall distribute all 
     of the grant funds that it does not reserve under subsection 
     (d) to local educational agencies in the State that have 
     established their eligibility under section 613, as follows:
       ``(A) Base payments.--The State shall first award each 
     agency described in paragraph (1) the amount that agency 
     would have received under this section for fiscal year 1997 
     if the State had distributed 75 percent of its grant for that 
     year under section 619(c)(3), as then in effect.
       ``(B) Allocation of remaining funds.--After making 
     allocations under subparagraph (A), the State shall--
       ``(i) allocate 85 percent of any remaining funds to those 
     agencies on the basis of the relative numbers of children 
     enrolled in public and private elementary and secondary 
     schools within the agency's jurisdiction; and
       ``(ii) allocate 15 percent of those remaining funds to 
     those agencies in accordance with their relative numbers of 
     children living in poverty, as determined by the State 
     educational agency.
       ``(2) Reallocation of funds.--If a State educational agency 
     determines that a local educational agency is adequately 
     providing a free appropriate public education to all children 
     with disabilities aged 3 through 5 residing in the area 
     served by that agency with State and local funds, the State 
     educational agency may reallocate any portion of the funds 
     under this section that are not needed by that local agency 
     to provide a free appropriate public education to other local 
     educational agencies in the State that are not adequately 
     providing special education and related services to all 
     children with disabilities aged 3 through 5 residing in the 
     areas they serve.
       ``(h) Part C Inapplicable.--Part C of this Act does not 
     apply to any child with a disability receiving a free 
     appropriate public education, in accordance with this part, 
     with funds received under this section.
       ``(i) Definition.--For the purpose of this section, the 
     term `State' means each of the 50 States, the District of 
     Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       ``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary $500,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2004 and such sums as may be necessary for each subsequent 
     fiscal year.''.

           TITLE III--INFANTS AND TODDLERS WITH DISABILITIES

     SEC. 301. SECTIONS 631 THROUGH 638 OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH 
                   DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT.

       Sections 631 through 638 of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1431-1438) are amended 
     to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 631. FINDINGS AND POLICY.

       ``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that there is an urgent 
     and substantial need--
       ``(1) to enhance the development of infants and toddlers 
     with disabilities and to minimize their potential for 
     developmental delay;
       ``(2) to reduce the educational costs to our society, 
     including our Nation's schools, by minimizing the need for 
     special education and related services after infants and 
     toddlers with disabilities reach school age;
       ``(3) to minimize the likelihood of institutionalization of 
     individuals with disabilities and maximize the potential for 
     their independently living in society;
       ``(4) to enhance the capacity of families to meet the 
     special needs of their infants and toddlers with 
     disabilities; and
       ``(5) to enhance the capacity of State and local agencies 
     and service providers to identify, evaluate, and meet the 
     needs of historically underrepresented populations, 
     particularly minority, low-income, inner-city, and rural 
     populations.
       ``(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States to 
     provide financial assistance to States--
       ``(1) to develop and implement a statewide, comprehensive, 
     coordinated, multidisciplinary, interagency system that 
     provides early intervention services for infants and toddlers 
     with disabilities and their families;
       ``(2) to facilitate the coordination of payment for early 
     intervention services from Federal, State, local, and private 
     sources (including public and private insurance coverage);
       ``(3) to enhance their capacity to provide quality early 
     intervention services and expand and improve existing early 
     intervention services being provided to infants and toddlers 
     with disabilities and their families; and
       ``(4) to encourage States to expand opportunities for 
     children under 3 years of age who would be at risk of having 
     substantial developmental delay if they did not receive early 
     intervention services.

     ``SEC. 632. DEFINITIONS.

       ``As used in this part:
       ``(1) At-risk infant or toddler.--The term `at-risk infant 
     or toddler' means an individual under 3 years of age who 
     would be at risk of experiencing a substantial developmental 
     delay if early intervention services were not provided to the 
     individual.
       ``(2) Council.--The term `council' means a State 
     interagency coordinating council established under section 
     641.
       ``(3) Developmental delay.--The term `developmental delay', 
     when used with respect to an individual residing in a State, 
     has the meaning given such term by the State under section 
     635(a)(1).
       ``(4) Early intervention services.--The term `early 
     intervention services' means developmental services that--
       ``(A) are provided under public supervision;
       ``(B) are provided at no cost except where Federal or State 
     law provides for a system of payments by families, including 
     a schedule of sliding fees;
       ``(C) are designed to address family-identified priorities 
     and concerns that are determined by individualized family 
     service plan team to relate to enhancing the child's 
     development in any one or more of the following areas--
       ``(i) physical development;
       ``(ii) cognitive development;
       ``(iii) communication development;
       ``(iv) social or emotional development; or
       ``(v) adaptive development;
       ``(D) meet the standards of the State in which they are 
     provided, including the requirements of this part;
       ``(E) include--
       ``(i) family training, family therapy, counseling, and home 
     visits;
       ``(ii) special instruction;
       ``(iii) speech-language pathology and audiology services;
       ``(iv) occupational therapy;
       ``(v) physical therapy;
       ``(vi) psychological services;
       ``(vii) service coordination services;
       ``(viii) medical services only for diagnostic or evaluation 
     purposes;
       ``(ix) early identification, screening, and assessment 
     services;
       ``(x) health services necessary to enable the infant or 
     toddler to benefit from the other early intervention 
     services;
       ``(xi) social work services;
       ``(xii) vision services;
       ``(xiii) assistive technology devices and assistive 
     technology services; and
       ``(xiv) transportation and related costs that are necessary 
     to enable an infant or toddler and the infant's or toddler's 
     family to receive another service described in this 
     paragraph;
       ``(F) are provided by qualified personnel, including--
       ``(i) special educators;
       ``(ii) speech-language pathologists and audiologists;
       ``(iii) occupational therapists;
       ``(iv) physical therapists;
       ``(v) psychologists;
       ``(vi) social workers;
       ``(vii) nurses;
       ``(viii) registered dietitians;
       ``(ix) family therapists;
       ``(x) vision specialists, including ophthalmologists and 
     optometrists;
       ``(xi) orientation and mobility specialists; and
       ``(xii) pediatricians and other physicians;
       ``(G) to the maximum extent appropriate, are provided in 
     natural environments, including the home, and community 
     settings in which children without disabilities participate; 
     and
       ``(H) are provided in conformity with an individualized 
     family service plan adopted in accordance with section 636.
       ``(5) Infant or toddler with a disability.--The term 
     `infant or toddler with a disability'--
       ``(A) means an individual under 3 years of age who needs 
     early intervention services because the individual--
       ``(i) is experiencing developmental delays, as measured by 
     appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures in one or 
     more of the areas of cognitive development, physical 
     development, communication development, social or emotional 
     development, and adaptive development; or
       ``(ii) has a diagnosed physical or mental condition which 
     has a high probability of resulting in developmental delay;
       ``(B) may also include, at a State's discretion, at-risk 
     infants and toddlers; and
       ``(C) may also include, at a State's discretion, a child 
     aged 3 through 5, who previously received services under this 
     part and who is eligible for services under section 619, if--
       ``(i) services provided to this age group under this part 
     include an educational component that promotes school 
     readiness and incorporates scientifically based pre-literacy, 
     language, and numeracy skills; and
       ``(ii) parents are provided a written notification of their 
     rights and responsibilities in determining whether their 
     child will continue to receive services under this part or 
     participate in preschool programs assisted under section 619.

[[Page 10029]]



     ``SEC. 633. GENERAL AUTHORITY.

       ``The Secretary shall, in accordance with this part, make 
     grants to States (from their allotments under section 643) to 
     assist each State to maintain and implement a statewide, 
     comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary, interagency 
     system to provide early intervention services for infants and 
     toddlers with disabilities and their families.

     ``SEC. 634. ELIGIBILITY.

       ``In order to be eligible for a grant under section 633, a 
     State shall provide assurances to the Secretary that the 
     State--
       ``(1) has adopted a policy that appropriate early 
     intervention services are available to all infants and 
     toddlers with disabilities in the State and their families, 
     including Indian infants and toddlers with disabilities and 
     their families residing on a reservation geographically 
     located in the State; and
       ``(2) has in effect a statewide system that meets the 
     requirements of section 635.

     ``SEC. 635. REQUIREMENTS FOR STATEWIDE SYSTEM.

       ``(a) In General.--A statewide system described in section 
     633 shall include, at a minimum, the following components:
       ``(1) A definition of the term `developmental delay' that 
     will be used by the State in carrying out programs under this 
     part.
       ``(2) A State policy that is in effect and that ensures 
     that appropriate early intervention services based on 
     scientifically based research are available to all infants 
     and toddlers with disabilities and their families, including 
     Indian infants and toddlers and their families residing on a 
     reservation geographically located in the State.
       ``(3) A timely, comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation 
     of the functioning of each infant or toddler with a 
     disability in the State, and a family-directed identification 
     of the needs of each family of such an infant or toddler, to 
     appropriately assist in the development of the infant or 
     toddler.
       ``(4) For each infant or toddler with a disability in the 
     State, an individualized family service plan in accordance 
     with section 636, including service coordination services in 
     accordance with such service plan.
       ``(5) A comprehensive child find system, consistent with 
     part B, including a system for making referrals to service 
     providers that includes timelines and provides for 
     participation by primary referral sources.
       ``(6) A public awareness program focusing on early 
     identification of infants and toddlers with disabilities, 
     including the preparation and dissemination by the lead 
     agency designated or established under paragraph (10) to all 
     primary referral sources, especially hospitals and 
     physicians, of information to be given to parents, especially 
     to inform parents with premature infants, or infants with 
     other physical risk factors associated with learning or 
     developmental complications, on the availability of early 
     intervention services under this part and of services under 
     section 619 of this Act, and procedures for assisting such 
     sources in disseminating such information to parents of 
     infants and toddlers.
       ``(7) A central directory that includes information on 
     early intervention services, resources, and experts available 
     in the State and research and demonstration projects being 
     conducted in the State.
       ``(8) A comprehensive system of personnel development, 
     including the training of paraprofessionals and the training 
     of primary referral sources respecting the basic components 
     of early intervention services available in the State that--
       ``(A) shall include--
       ``(i) implementing innovative strategies and activities for 
     the recruitment and retention of early education service 
     providers;
       ``(ii) promoting the preparation of early intervention 
     providers who are fully and appropriately qualified to 
     provide early intervention services under this part; and
       ``(iii) training personnel to coordinate transition 
     services for infants and toddlers served under this part from 
     a program providing early intervention services under this 
     part and under part B (other than section 619), to a 
     preschool program receiving funds under section 619, or 
     another appropriate program; and
       ``(B) may include--
       ``(i) training personnel to work in rural and inner-city 
     areas; and
       ``(ii) training personnel in the emotional and social 
     development of young children.
       ``(9) Subject to subsection (b), policies and procedures 
     relating to the establishment and maintenance of standards to 
     ensure that personnel necessary to carry out this part are 
     appropriately and adequately prepared and trained, including 
     the establishment and maintenance of standards that are 
     consistent with any State-approved or recognized 
     certification, licensing, registration, or other comparable 
     requirements that apply to the area in which such personnel 
     are providing early intervention services.
       ``(10) A single line of responsibility in a lead agency 
     designated or established by the Governor for carrying out--
       ``(A) the general administration and supervision of 
     programs and activities receiving assistance under section 
     633, and the monitoring of programs and activities used by 
     the State to carry out this part, whether or not such 
     programs or activities are receiving assistance made 
     available under section 633, to ensure that the State 
     complies with this part;
       ``(B) the identification and coordination of all available 
     resources within the State from Federal, State, local, and 
     private sources;
       ``(C) the assignment of financial responsibility in 
     accordance with section 637(a)(2) to the appropriate 
     agencies;
       ``(D) the development of procedures to ensure that services 
     are provided to infants and toddlers with disabilities and 
     their families under this part in a timely manner pending the 
     resolution of any disputes among public agencies or service 
     providers;
       ``(E) the resolution of intra- and interagency disputes; 
     and
       ``(F) the entry into formal interagency agreements that 
     define the financial responsibility of each agency for paying 
     for early intervention services (consistent with State law) 
     and procedures for resolving disputes and that include all 
     additional components necessary to ensure meaningful 
     cooperation and coordination.
       ``(11) A policy pertaining to the contracting or making of 
     other arrangements with service providers to provide early 
     intervention services in the State, consistent with the 
     provisions of this part, including the contents of the 
     application used and the conditions of the contract or other 
     arrangements.
       ``(12) A procedure for securing timely reimbursements of 
     funds used under this part in accordance with section 640(a).
       ``(13) Procedural safeguards with respect to programs under 
     this part, as required by section 639.
       ``(14) A system for compiling data requested by the 
     Secretary under section 618 that relates to this part.
       ``(15) A State interagency coordinating council that meets 
     the requirements of section 641.
       ``(16) Policies and procedures to ensure that, consistent 
     with section 636(d)(5)--
       ``(A) to the maximum extent appropriate, early intervention 
     services are provided in natural environments; and
       ``(B) the provision of early intervention services for any 
     infant or toddler occurs in a setting other than a natural 
     environment only when early intervention cannot be achieved 
     satisfactorily for the infant or toddler in a natural 
     environment.
       ``(b) Policy.--In implementing subsection (a)(9), a State 
     may adopt a policy that includes making ongoing good-faith 
     efforts to recruit and hire appropriately and adequately 
     trained personnel to provide early intervention services to 
     infants and toddlers with disabilities, including, in a 
     geographic area of the State where there is a shortage of 
     such personnel, the most qualified individuals available who 
     are making satisfactory progress toward completing applicable 
     course work necessary to meet the standards described in 
     subsection (a)(9), consistent with State law within 3 years.
       ``(c) Treatment of Children Aged 3 through 5.--
       ``(1) In general.--If a State includes children described 
     in section 632(5)(C) in the system described in section 633, 
     the State shall be considered to have fulfilled any 
     obligation under part B with respect to the provision of a 
     free appropriate public education to those children during 
     the period in which they are receiving services under this 
     part.
       ``(2) Construction.--Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be 
     construed to alter or diminish the rights and protections 
     afforded under this part to children described in such 
     paragraph.

     ``SEC. 636. INDIVIDUALIZED FAMILY SERVICE PLAN.

       ``(a) Assessment and Program Development.--A statewide 
     system described in section 633 shall provide, at a minimum, 
     for each infant or toddler with a disability, and the 
     infant's or toddler's family, to receive--
       ``(1) a multidisciplinary assessment of the unique 
     strengths and needs of the infant or toddler and the 
     identification of services appropriate to meet such needs;
       ``(2) a family-directed assessment of the resources, 
     priorities, and concerns of the family and the identification 
     of the supports and services necessary to enhance the 
     family's capacity to meet the developmental needs of the 
     infant or toddler; and
       ``(3) a written individualized family service plan 
     developed by a multidisciplinary team, including the parents, 
     as required by subsection (e), including a description of the 
     appropriate transition services for the child's entrance in 
     school.
       ``(b) Periodic Review.--The individualized family service 
     plan shall be evaluated once a year and the family shall be 
     provided a review of the plan at 6-month intervals (or more 
     often where appropriate based on infant or toddler and family 
     needs).
       ``(c) Promptness After Assessment.--The individualized 
     family service plan shall be developed within a reasonable 
     time after the assessment required by subsection (a)(1) is 
     completed. With the parents' consent, early intervention 
     services may commence prior to the completion of the 
     assessment.
       ``(d) Content of Plan.--The individualized family service 
     plan shall be in writing and contain--
       ``(1) a statement of the infant's or toddler's present 
     levels of physical development, cognitive development, 
     communication development, social or emotional development, 
     and adaptive development, based on objective criteria;
       ``(2) a statement of the family's resources, priorities, 
     and concerns relating to enhancing the development of the 
     family's infant or toddler with a disability;
       ``(3) a statement of the major goals expected to be 
     achieved for the infant or toddler and the family, including 
     pre-literacy and language skills, as developmentally 
     appropriate for the child, and the criteria, procedures, and 
     timelines

[[Page 10030]]

     used to determine the degree to which progress toward 
     achieving the goals is being made and whether modifications 
     or revisions of the goals or services are necessary;
       ``(4) a statement of specific early intervention services 
     based on peer-reviewed research, to the extent practicable, 
     necessary to meet the unique needs of the infant or toddler 
     and the family, including the frequency, intensity, and 
     method of delivering services;
       ``(5) a statement of the natural environments in which 
     early intervention services will appropriately be provided, 
     including a justification of the extent, if any, to which the 
     services will not be provided in a natural environment;
       ``(6) the projected dates for initiation of services and 
     the anticipated length, duration, and frequency of the 
     services;
       ``(7) the identification of the service coordinator from 
     the profession most immediately relevant to the infant's or 
     toddler's or family's needs (or who is otherwise qualified to 
     carry out all applicable responsibilities under this part) 
     who will be responsible for the implementation of the plan 
     and coordination with other agencies and persons, including 
     transition services; and
       ``(8) the steps to be taken to support the transition of 
     the toddler with a disability to preschool or other 
     appropriate services.
       ``(e) Parental Consent.--The contents of the individualized 
     family service plan shall be fully explained to the parents 
     and informed written consent from the parents shall be 
     obtained prior to the provision of early intervention 
     services described in such plan. If the parents do not 
     provide consent with respect to a particular early 
     intervention service, then only the early intervention 
     services to which consent is obtained shall be provided.

     ``SEC. 637. STATE APPLICATION AND ASSURANCES.

       ``(a) Application.--A State desiring to receive a grant 
     under section 633 shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary 
     may reasonably require. The application shall contain--
       ``(1) a designation of the lead agency in the State that 
     will be responsible for the administration of funds provided 
     under section 633;
       ``(2) a designation of an individual or entity responsible 
     for assigning financial responsibility among appropriate 
     agencies;
       ``(3) information demonstrating eligibility of the State 
     under section 634, including a description of services to be 
     provided to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their 
     families through the system;
       ``(4) if the State provides services to at-risk infants and 
     toddlers through the statewide system, a description of such 
     services;
       ``(5) a description of the State policies and procedures 
     requiring the referral of a child under the age 3 who is 
     involved in a substantiated case of child abuse or neglect 
     consistent with section 635(a)(5) or who is born and 
     identified with fetal alcohol effects, fetal alcohol 
     syndrome, neonatal intoxication, or neonatal physical or 
     neurological harm resulting from prenatal drug exposure;
       ``(6) a description of the uses for which funds will be 
     expended in accordance with this part;
       ``(7) a description of the procedure used to ensure that 
     resources are made available under this part for all 
     geographic areas within the State;
       ``(8) a description of State policies and procedures that 
     ensure that, prior to the adoption by the State of any other 
     policy or procedure necessary to meet the requirements of 
     this part, there are public hearings, adequate notice of the 
     hearings, and an opportunity for comment available to the 
     general public, including individuals with disabilities and 
     parents of infants and toddlers with disabilities;
       ``(9) a description of the policies and procedures to be 
     used--
       ``(A) to ensure a smooth transition for toddlers receiving 
     early intervention services under this part to preschool or 
     other appropriate services, including a description of how--
       ``(i) the families of such toddlers will be included in the 
     transition plans required by subparagraph (C); and
       ``(ii) the lead agency designated or established under 
     section 635(a)(10) will--

       ``(I) notify the local educational agency for the area in 
     which such a child resides that the child will shortly reach 
     the age of eligibility for preschool services under part B, 
     as determined in accordance with State law;
       ``(II) in the case of a child who may be eligible for such 
     preschool services, with the approval of the family of the 
     child, convene a conference among the lead agency, the 
     family, and the local educational agency at least 90 days 
     (and at the discretion of all such parties, up to 6 months) 
     before the child is eligible for the preschool services, to 
     discuss any such services that the child may receive; and
       ``(III) in the case of a child who may not be eligible for 
     such preschool services, with the approval of the family, 
     make reasonable efforts to convene a conference among the 
     lead agency, the family, and providers of other appropriate 
     services for children who are not eligible for preschool 
     services under part B, to discuss the appropriate services 
     that the child may receive;

       ``(B) to review the child's program options for the period 
     from the child's third birthday through the remainder of the 
     school year; and
       ``(C) to establish a transition plan;
       ``(10) a description of State efforts to promote 
     collaboration between Early Head Start programs, child care, 
     and services under part C of this Act; and
       ``(11) such other information and assurances as the 
     Secretary may reasonably require.
       ``(b) Assurances.--The application described in subsection 
     (a)--
       ``(1) shall provide satisfactory assurance that Federal 
     funds made available under section 643 to the State will be 
     expended in accordance with this part;
       ``(2) shall contain an assurance that the State will comply 
     with the requirements of section 640;
       ``(3) shall provide satisfactory assurance that the control 
     of funds provided under section 643, and title to property 
     derived from those funds, will be in a public agency for the 
     uses and purposes provided in this part and that a public 
     agency will administer such funds and property;
       ``(4) shall provide for--
       ``(A) making such reports in such form and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may require to carry out the 
     Secretary's functions under this part; and
       ``(B) keeping such records and affording such access to 
     them as the Secretary may find necessary to ensure the 
     correctness and verification of those reports and proper 
     disbursement of Federal funds under this part;
       ``(5) provide satisfactory assurance that Federal funds 
     made available under section 643 to the State--
       ``(A) will not be commingled with State funds; and
       ``(B) will be used so as to supplement the level of State 
     and local funds expended for infants and toddlers with 
     disabilities and their families and in no case to supplant 
     those State and local funds;
       ``(6) shall provide satisfactory assurance that such fiscal 
     control and fund accounting procedures will be adopted as may 
     be necessary to ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting 
     for, Federal funds paid under section 643 to the State;
       ``(7) shall provide satisfactory assurance that policies 
     and procedures have been adopted to ensure meaningful 
     involvement of underserved groups, including minority, low-
     income, and rural families, in the planning and 
     implementation of all the requirements of this part; and
       ``(8) shall contain such other information and assurances 
     as the Secretary may reasonably require by regulation.
       ``(c) Standard for Disapproval of Application.--The 
     Secretary may not disapprove such an application unless the 
     Secretary determines, after notice and opportunity for a 
     hearing, that the application fails to comply with the 
     requirements of this section.
       ``(d) Subsequent State Application.--If a State has on file 
     with the Secretary a policy, procedure, or assurance that 
     demonstrates that the State meets a requirement of this 
     section, including any policy or procedure filed under this 
     part (as in effect before the date of the enactment of the 
     Improving Education Results for Children With Disabilities 
     Act of 2003), the Secretary shall consider the State to have 
     met the requirement for purposes of receiving a grant under 
     this part.
       ``(e) Modification of Application.--An application 
     submitted by a State in accordance with this section shall 
     remain in effect until the State submits to the Secretary 
     such modifications as the State determines necessary. This 
     section shall apply to a modification of an application to 
     the same extent and in the same manner as this section 
     applies to the original application.
       ``(f) Modifications Required by the Secretary.--The 
     Secretary may require a State to modify its application under 
     this section, but only to the extent necessary to ensure the 
     State's compliance with this part, if--
       ``(1) an amendment is made to this Act, or a Federal 
     regulation issued under this Act;
       ``(2) a new interpretation of this Act is made by a Federal 
     court or the State's highest court; or
       ``(3) an official finding of noncompliance with Federal law 
     or regulations is made with respect to the State.

     ``SEC. 638. USES OF FUNDS.

       ``In addition to using funds provided under section 633 to 
     maintain and implement the statewide system required by such 
     section, a State may use such funds--
       ``(1) for direct early intervention services for infants 
     and toddlers with disabilities, and their families, under 
     this part that are not otherwise funded through other public 
     or private sources;
       ``(2) to expand and improve on services for infants and 
     toddlers and their families under this part that are 
     otherwise available;
       ``(3) to provide a free appropriate public education, in 
     accordance with part B, to children with disabilities from 
     their third birthday to the beginning of the following school 
     year; and
       ``(4) in any State that does not provide services for at-
     risk infants and toddlers under section 637(a)(4), to 
     strengthen the statewide system by initiating, expanding, or 
     improving collaborative efforts related to at-risk infants 
     and toddlers, including establishing linkages with 
     appropriate public or private community-based organizations, 
     services, and personnel for the purposes of--
       ``(A) identifying and evaluating at-risk infants and 
     toddlers;
       ``(B) making referrals of the infants and toddlers 
     identified and evaluated under subparagraph (A); and
       ``(C) conducting periodic followup on each such referral to 
     determine if the status of the infant or toddler involved has 
     changed with respect to the eligibility of the infant or 
     toddler for services under this part.''.

[[Page 10031]]



     SEC. 302. SECTIONS 641 THROUGH 645 OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH 
                   DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT.

       Sections 641 through 645 of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1441-1445) are amended 
     to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 641. STATE INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COUNCIL.

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State that desires to receive 
     financial assistance under this part shall establish a State 
     interagency coordinating council.
       ``(2) Appointment.--The council shall be appointed by the 
     Governor. In making appointments to the council, the Governor 
     shall ensure that the membership of the council reasonably 
     represents the population of the State.
       ``(3) Chairperson.--The Governor shall designate a member 
     of the council to serve as the chairperson of the council, or 
     shall require the council to so designate such a member. Any 
     member of the council who is a representative of the lead 
     agency designated under section 635(a)(10) may not serve as 
     the chairperson of the council.
       ``(b) Composition.--
       ``(1) In general.--The council shall be composed as 
     follows:
       ``(A) Parents.--At least 20 percent of the members shall be 
     parents of infants or toddlers with disabilities or children 
     with disabilities aged 12 or younger, with knowledge of, or 
     experience with, programs for infants and toddlers with 
     disabilities. At least one such member shall be a parent of 
     an infant or toddler with a disability or a child with a 
     disability aged 6 or younger.
       ``(B) Service providers.--At least 20 percent of the 
     members shall be public or private providers of early 
     intervention services.
       ``(C) State legislature.--At least one member shall be from 
     the State legislature.
       ``(D) Personnel preparation.--At least one member shall be 
     involved in personnel preparation.
       ``(E) Agency for early intervention services.--At least one 
     member shall be from each of the State agencies involved in 
     the provision of, or payment for, early intervention services 
     to infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families 
     and shall have sufficient authority to engage in policy 
     planning and implementation on behalf of such agencies.
       ``(F) Agency for preschool services.--At least one member 
     shall be from the State educational agency responsible for 
     preschool services to children with disabilities and shall 
     have sufficient authority to engage in policy planning and 
     implementation on behalf of such agency.
       ``(G) Agency for health insurance.--At least one member 
     shall be from the agency responsible for the State governance 
     of health insurance.
       ``(H) Head start agency.--At least one representative from 
     a Head Start agency or program in the State.
       ``(I) Child care agency.--At least one representative from 
     a State agency responsible for child care.
       ``(J) Mental health agency.--At least one representative 
     from the State agency responsible for children's mental 
     health.
       ``(K) Child welfare agency.--At least one representative 
     from the State agency responsible for child protective 
     services.
       ``(L) Office of the coordinator for the education of 
     homeless children and youth.--At least one representative 
     designated by the Office of the Coordinator.
       ``(2) Other members.--The council may include other members 
     selected by the Governor, including a representative from the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs, or where there is no BIA-operated 
     or BIA-funded school, from the Indian Health Service or the 
     tribe or tribal council.
       ``(c) Meetings.--The council shall meet at least quarterly 
     and in such places as it deems necessary. The meetings shall 
     be publicly announced, and, to the extent appropriate, open 
     and accessible to the general public.
       ``(d) Management Authority.--Subject to the approval of the 
     Governor, the council may prepare and approve a budget using 
     funds under this part to conduct hearings and forums, to 
     reimburse members of the council for reasonable and necessary 
     expenses for attending council meetings and performing 
     council duties (including child care for parent 
     representatives), to pay compensation to a member of the 
     council if the member is not employed or must forfeit wages 
     from other employment when performing official council 
     business, to hire staff, and to obtain the services of such 
     professional, technical, and clerical personnel as may be 
     necessary to carry out its functions under this part.
       ``(e) Functions of Council.--
       ``(1) Duties.--The council shall--
       ``(A) advise and assist the lead agency designated or 
     established under section 635(a)(10) in the performance of 
     the responsibilities set forth in such section, particularly 
     the identification of the sources of fiscal and other support 
     for services for early intervention programs, assignment of 
     financial responsibility to the appropriate agency, and the 
     promotion of the interagency agreements;
       ``(B) advise and assist the lead agency in the preparation 
     of applications and amendments thereto;
       ``(C) advise and assist the State educational agency 
     regarding the transition of toddlers with disabilities to 
     preschool and other appropriate services; and
       ``(D) prepare and submit an annual report to the Governor 
     and to the Secretary on the status of early intervention 
     programs for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their 
     families operated within the State.
       ``(2) Authorized activity.--The council may advise and 
     assist the lead agency and the State educational agency 
     regarding the provision of appropriate services for children 
     from birth through age 5. The council may advise appropriate 
     agencies in the State with respect to the integration of 
     services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and at-
     risk infants and toddlers and their families, regardless of 
     whether at-risk infants and toddlers are eligible for early 
     intervention services in the State.
       ``(f) Conflict of Interest.--No member of the council shall 
     cast a vote on any matter that would provide direct financial 
     benefit to that member or otherwise give the appearance of a 
     conflict of interest under State law.

     ``SEC. 642. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION.

       ``Sections 616, 617, and 618 shall, to the extent not 
     inconsistent with this part, apply to the program authorized 
     by this part, except that--
       ``(1) any reference in such sections to a State educational 
     agency shall be considered to be a reference to a State's 
     lead agency established or designated under section 
     635(a)(10);
       ``(2) any reference in such sections to a local educational 
     agency, educational service agency, or a State agency shall 
     be considered to be a reference to an early intervention 
     service provider under this part; and
       ``(3) any reference to the education of children with 
     disabilities or the education of all children with 
     disabilities shall be considered to be a reference to the 
     provision of appropriate early intervention services to 
     infants and toddlers with disabilities.

     ``SEC. 643. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) Reservation of Funds for Outlying Areas.--
       ``(1) In general.--From the sums appropriated to carry out 
     this part for any fiscal year, the Secretary may reserve up 
     to one percent for payments to Guam, American Samoa, the 
     Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands in accordance with their respective needs.
       ``(2) Consolidation of funds.--The provisions of Public Law 
     95-134, permitting the consolidation of grants to the 
     outlying areas, shall not apply to funds those areas receive 
     under this part.
       ``(b) Payments to Indians.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall, subject to this 
     subsection, make payments to the Secretary of the Interior to 
     be distributed to tribes, tribal organizations (as defined 
     under section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act), or consortia of the above entities 
     for the coordination of assistance in the provision of early 
     intervention services by the States to infants and toddlers 
     with disabilities and their families on reservations served 
     by elementary and secondary schools for Indian children 
     operated or funded by the Department of the Interior. The 
     amount of such payment for any fiscal year shall be 1.25 
     percent of the aggregate of the amount available to all 
     States under this part for such fiscal year.
       ``(2) Allocation.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary of 
     the Interior shall distribute the entire payment received 
     under paragraph (1) by providing to each tribe, tribal 
     organization, or consortium an amount based on the number of 
     infants and toddlers residing on the reservation, as 
     determined annually, divided by the total number of such 
     children served by all tribes, tribal organizations, or 
     consortia.
       ``(3) Information.--To receive a payment under this 
     subsection, the tribe, tribal organization, or consortium 
     shall submit such information to the Secretary of the 
     Interior as is needed to determine the amounts to be 
     distributed under paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Use of funds.--The funds received by a tribe, tribal 
     organization, or consortium shall be used to assist States in 
     child find, screening, and other procedures for the early 
     identification of Indian children under 3 years of age and 
     for parent training. Such funds may also be used to provide 
     early intervention services in accordance with this part. 
     Such activities may be carried out directly or through 
     contracts or cooperative agreements with the BIA, local 
     educational agencies, and other public or private nonprofit 
     organizations. The tribe, tribal organization, or consortium 
     is encouraged to involve Indian parents in the development 
     and implementation of these activities. The above entities 
     shall, as appropriate, make referrals to local, State, or 
     Federal entities for the provision of services or further 
     diagnosis.
       ``(5) Reports.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     paragraph (2), a tribe, tribal organization, or consortium 
     shall make an annual report to the Secretary of the Interior 
     of activities undertaken under this subsection, including the 
     number of contracts and cooperative agreements entered into, 
     the number of children contacted and receiving services for 
     each year, and the estimated number of children needing 
     services during the year following the year in which the 
     report is made. The Secretary of the Interior shall include a 
     summary of this information on an annual basis to the 
     Secretary of Education along with such other information as 
     required under section 611(h)(3)(E). The Secretary of 
     Education may require any additional information from the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       ``(6) Prohibited uses of funds.--None of the funds under 
     this subsection may be used by the Secretary of the Interior 
     for administrative purposes, including child count, and the 
     provision of technical assistance.
       ``(c) State Allotments.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and 
     (3) from the funds remaining for

[[Page 10032]]

     each fiscal year after the reservation and payments under 
     subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary shall first allot to 
     each State an amount that bears the same ratio to the amount 
     of such remainder as the number of infants and toddlers in 
     the State bears to the number of infants and toddlers in all 
     States.
       ``(2) Minimum allotments.--Except as provided in paragraph 
     (3) no State shall receive an amount under this section for 
     any fiscal year that is less than the greater of--
       ``(A) one-half of one percent of the remaining amount 
     described in paragraph (1); or
       ``(B) $500,000.
       ``(3) Ratable reduction.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the sums made available under this 
     part for any fiscal year are insufficient to pay the full 
     amounts that all States are eligible to receive under this 
     subsection for such year, the Secretary shall ratably reduce 
     the allotments to such States for such year.
       ``(B) Additional funds.--If additional funds become 
     available for making payments under this subsection for a 
     fiscal year, allotments that were reduced under subparagraph 
     (A) shall be increased on the same basis they were reduced.
       ``(4) Definitions.--For the purpose of this subsection--
       ``(A) the terms `infants' and `toddlers' mean children 
     under 3 years of age; and
       ``(B) the term `State' means each of the 50 States, the 
     District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       ``(d) Reallotment of Funds.--If a State elects not to 
     receive its allotment under subsection (c), the Secretary 
     shall reallot, among the remaining States, amounts from such 
     State in accordance with such subsection.

     ``SEC. 644. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``For the purpose of carrying out this part, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated $447,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2004 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal 
     years 2005 through 2009.''.

  TITLE IV--NATIONAL ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH 
                              DISABILITIES

     SEC. 401. NATIONAL ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE EDUCATION OF 
                   CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES.

       Part D of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:

  ``PART D--NATIONAL ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH 
                              DISABILITIES

     ``SEC. 651. FINDINGS.

       ``The Congress finds the following:
       ``(1) The Federal Government has an ongoing obligation to 
     support activities that contribute to positive results for 
     children with disabilities, enabling them to lead productive 
     and independent adult lives.
       ``(2) Systemic change benefiting all students, including 
     children with disabilities, requires the involvement of 
     States, local educational agencies, parents, individuals with 
     disabilities and their families, teachers and other service 
     providers, and other interested individuals and 
     organizations, to develop and implement comprehensive 
     strategies that improve educational results for children with 
     disabilities.
       ``(3) State educational agencies, in partnership with local 
     educational agencies, parents of children with disabilities, 
     and other individuals and organizations, are in the best 
     position to improve education for children with disabilities 
     and to address their special needs.
       ``(4) An effective educational system serving students with 
     disabilities should--
       ``(A) maintain high academic standards and clear 
     achievement goals for children, consistent with the standards 
     and expectations for all students in the educational system, 
     and provide for appropriate and effective strategies and 
     methods to ensure that all children with disabilities have 
     the opportunity to achieve those standards and goals;
       ``(B) clearly define, in objective, measurable terms, the 
     school and post-school results that children with 
     disabilities are expected to achieve; and
       ``(C) promote transition services, as described in section 
     602(31), and coordinate State and local education, social, 
     health, mental health, and other services, to address the 
     full range of student needs, particularly the needs of 
     children with disabilities who need significant levels of 
     support to participate and learn in school and the community.
       ``(5) The availability of an adequate number of qualified 
     personnel is critical in order to serve effectively children 
     with disabilities, fill leadership positions in 
     administrative and direct-service capacities, provide teacher 
     training, and conduct high-quality research to improve 
     special education.
       ``(6) High-quality, comprehensive professional development 
     programs are essential to ensure that the persons responsible 
     for the education or transition of children with disabilities 
     possess the skills and knowledge necessary to address the 
     educational and related needs of those children.
       ``(7) Models of professional development should be 
     scientifically based and reflect successful practices, 
     including strategies for recruiting, preparing, and retaining 
     personnel.
       ``(8) Continued support is essential for the development 
     and maintenance of a coordinated and high-quality program of 
     research to inform successful teaching practices and model 
     curricula for educating children with disabilities.
       ``(9) A comprehensive research agenda should be established 
     and pursued to promote the highest quality and rigor in 
     research on special education and related services, and to 
     address the full range of issues facing children with 
     disabilities, parents of children with disabilities, school 
     personnel, and others.
       ``(10) Technical assistance, support, and dissemination 
     activities are necessary to ensure that parts B and C are 
     fully implemented and achieve quality early intervention, 
     educational, and transitional results for children with 
     disabilities and their families.
       ``(11) Parents, teachers, administrators, and related 
     services personnel need technical assistance and information 
     in a timely, coordinated, and accessible manner in order to 
     improve early intervention, educational, and transitional 
     services and results at the State and local levels for 
     children with disabilities and their families.
       ``(12) Parent training and information activities assist 
     parents of a child with a disability in dealing with the 
     multiple pressures of parenting such a child and are of 
     particular importance in--
       ``(A) creating and preserving constructive relationships 
     between parents of children with disabilities and schools by 
     facilitating open communication between such parents and 
     schools, encouraging dispute resolution at the earliest point 
     in time possible, and discouraging the escalation of an 
     adversarial process between such parents and schools;
       ``(B) ensuring the involvement of such parents in planning 
     and decision-making with respect to early intervention, 
     educational, and transitional services;
       ``(C) achieving high-quality early intervention, 
     educational, and transitional results for children with 
     disabilities;
       ``(D) providing such parents information on their rights, 
     protections, and responsibilities under this Act to ensure 
     improved early intervention, educational, and transitional 
     results for children with disabilities;
       ``(E) assisting such parents in the development of skills 
     to participate effectively in the education and development 
     of their children and in the transitions described in section 
     602(31);
       ``(F) supporting the roles of such parents as participants 
     within partnerships seeking to improve early intervention, 
     educational, and transitional services and results for 
     children with disabilities and their families; and
       ``(G) supporting those parents who may have limited access 
     to services and supports due to economic, cultural, or 
     linguistic barriers.
       ``(13) Support is needed to improve technological resources 
     and integrate technology into the lives of children with 
     disabilities, parents of children with disabilities, school 
     personnel, and others through curricula, services, and 
     assistive technologies.

           ``Subpart 1--State Professional Development Grants

     ``SEC. 652. PURPOSE.

       ``The purpose of this subpart is to assist State 
     educational agencies in reforming and improving their systems 
     for professional development in early intervention, 
     educational, and related and transition services in order to 
     improve results for children with disabilities.

     ``SEC. 653. ELIGIBILITY AND COLLABORATIVE PROCESS.

       ``(a) Eligible Applicants.--A State educational agency may 
     apply for a grant under this subpart for a period of not less 
     than 1 year and not more than 5 years.
       ``(b) Partners.--
       ``(1) Required partners.--In order to be considered for a 
     grant under this subpart, a State educational agency shall 
     enter into a partnership agreement with local educational 
     agencies, at least one institution of higher education in the 
     State, and other State agencies involved in, or concerned 
     with, the education of children with disabilities.
       ``(2) Optional partners.--In addition, a State educational 
     agency may enter into a partnership agreement with any of the 
     following:
       ``(A) The Governor.
       ``(B) Parents of children with disabilities ages birth 
     through 26.
       ``(C) Parents of nondisabled children ages birth through 
     26.
       ``(D) Individuals with disabilities.
       ``(E) Organizations representing individuals with 
     disabilities and their parents, such as parent training and 
     information centers.
       ``(F) Community-based and other nonprofit organizations 
     involved in the education and employment of individuals with 
     disabilities.
       ``(G) The lead State agency for part C.
       ``(H) General and special education teachers, related 
     services personnel, and early intervention personnel.
       ``(I) The State advisory panel established under part C.
       ``(J) The State interagency coordinating council 
     established under part C.
       ``(K) Institutions of higher education within the State.
       ``(L) Individuals knowledgeable about vocational education.
       ``(M) The State agency for higher education.
       ``(N) The State vocational rehabilitation agency.
       ``(O) Public agencies with jurisdiction in the areas of 
     health, mental health, social services, and juvenile justice.
       ``(P) Other providers of professional development that work 
     with students with disabilities.
       ``(Q) Other individuals.

     ``SEC. 654. APPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--

[[Page 10033]]

       ``(1) Submission.--A State educational agency that desires 
     to receive a grant under this subpart shall submit to the 
     Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and 
     including such information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(2) State plan.--The application shall include a plan 
     that addresses the State and local needs for the professional 
     development of administrators, principals, teachers, related 
     services personnel, and individuals who provide direct 
     supplementary aids and services to children with 
     disabilities, and that--
       ``(A) is integrated, to the maximum extent possible, with 
     State plans under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965, as appropriate; and
       ``(B) is designed to enable the State to meet the 
     requirements of section 612(a)(15) of this Act.
       ``(b) Elements of State Plan.--Each State plan shall--
       ``(1) describe a partnership agreement that--
       ``(A) specifies--
       ``(i) the nature and extent of the partnership among the 
     State educational agency, local educational agencies, and 
     other State agencies involved in, or concerned with, the 
     education of children with disabilities, and the respective 
     roles of each member of the partnership; and
       ``(ii) how such agencies will work in partnership with 
     other persons and organizations involved in, and concerned 
     with, the education of children with disabilities, including 
     the respective roles of each of these persons and 
     organizations; and
       ``(B) is in effect for the period of the grant;
       ``(2) describe how grant funds, including part B funds 
     retained for use at the State level under sections 611(e) and 
     619(d), and other Federal funds will be used to support 
     activities conducted under this subpart;
       ``(3) describe the strategies the State will use to 
     implement the plan to improve results for children with 
     disabilities, including--
       ``(A) how the State will align its professional development 
     plan with the plans submitted by the State under sections 
     1111 and 2112 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965;
       ``(B) how the State will provide technical assistance to 
     local educational agencies and schools to improve the quality 
     of professional development available to meet the needs of 
     personnel that serve children with disabilities; and
       ``(C) how the State will assess, on a regular basis, the 
     extent to which the strategies implemented under this subpart 
     have been effective in meeting the achievement goals and 
     indicators in section 612(a)(16);
       ``(4) describe, as appropriate, how the strategies 
     described in paragraph (3) will be coordinated with public 
     and private sector resources; and
       ``(5) include an assurance that the State will use funds 
     received under this subpart to carry out each of the 
     activities specified in the plan.
       ``(c) Competitive Awards.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make grants under 
     this subpart on a competitive basis.
       ``(2) Priority.--The Secretary may give priority to 
     applications on the basis of need.
       ``(d) Peer Review.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall evaluate 
     applications under this subpart using a panel of experts who 
     are qualified by virtue of their training, expertise, or 
     experience.
       ``(2) Composition of panel.--A majority of a panel 
     described in paragraph (1) shall be composed of individuals 
     who are not employees of the Federal Government.
       ``(3) Payment of fees and expenses of certain members.--The 
     Secretary may use available funds appropriated to carry out 
     this subpart to pay the expenses and fees of panel members 
     who are not employees of the Federal Government.
       ``(e) Reporting Procedures.--Each State educational agency 
     that receives a grant under this subpart shall submit annual 
     performance reports to the Secretary. The reports shall--
       ``(1) describe the progress of the State in implementing 
     its plan;
       ``(2) analyze the effectiveness of the State's activities 
     under this subpart and of the State's strategies for meeting 
     its goals under section 612(a)(16); and
       ``(3) identify any changes in such strategies needed to 
     improve its performance.

     ``SEC. 655. USE OF FUNDS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Activities.--A State educational agency that receives 
     a grant under this subpart shall use the grant funds, subject 
     to subsection (b), for the following:
       ``(A) Professional development.--
       ``(i) Carrying out programs that support the professional 
     development of early intervention personnel, related services 
     personnel, and both special education and regular education 
     teachers of children with disabilities, such as programs 
     that--

       ``(I) provide teacher mentoring, team teaching, reduced 
     class schedules, and intensive professional development;
       ``(II) use standards or assessments for guiding beginning 
     teachers that are consistent with challenging State student 
     academic achievement standards and with the definition of 
     professional development in section 9101 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965;
       ``(III) promote collaborative and consultive models of 
     providing special education ad related services; and
       ``(IV) increase understanding as to the most appropriate 
     placements and services for all students to reduce 
     significant racial and ethnic disproportionality in 
     eligibility, placement, and disciplinary actions.

       ``(ii) Encouraging and supporting the training of special 
     education and regular education teachers and administrators 
     to effectively integrate technology into curricula and 
     instruction, including training to improve the ability to 
     collect, manage, and analyze data to improve teaching, 
     decisionmaking, school improvement efforts, and 
     accountability.
       ``(iii) Providing professional development activities that 
     improve the knowledge of special education and regular 
     education teachers concerning--

       ``(I) the academic and developmental needs of students with 
     disabilities; and

       ``(II) effective instructional strategies, methods, and 
     skills, use of challenging State academic content standards 
     and student academic achievement standards, and use of State 
     assessments, to improve teaching practices and student 
     academic achievement.

       ``(iv) Providing professional development activities that--

       ``(I) improve the knowledge of special education and 
     regular education teachers and principals and, in appropriate 
     cases, related services personnel and paraprofessionals, 
     concerning effective instructional practices;
       ``(II) provide training in how to teach and address the 
     needs of students with different learning styles;
       ``(III) involve collaborative groups of teachers and 
     administrators;
       ``(IV) provide training in methods of--

       ``(aa) positive behavior interventions and supports to 
     improve student behavior in the classroom;
       ``(bb) scientifically based reading instruction, including 
     early literacy instruction; and
       ``(cc) early and appropriate interventions to identify and 
     help students with disabilities;

       ``(V) provide training to enable special education and 
     regular education teachers, related services personnel, and 
     principals to involve parents in their child's education, 
     especially parents of low-income and limited English 
     proficient children with disabilities; or
       ``(VI) train administrators and other relevant school 
     personnel in conducting facilitated individualized education 
     program meetings.

       ``(v) Developing and implementing initiatives to promote 
     retention of highly qualified special education teachers, 
     including programs that provide--

       ``(I) teacher mentoring from exemplary special education 
     teachers, principals, or superintendents;
       ``(II) induction and support for special education teachers 
     during their first 3 years of employment as teachers; or
       ``(III) incentives, including financial incentives, to 
     retain special education teachers who have a record of 
     success in helping students with disabilities improve their 
     academic achievement.

       ``(vi) Carrying out programs and activities that are 
     designed to improve the quality of the teacher force that 
     serves children with disabilities, such as--

       ``(I) innovative professional development programs (which 
     may be provided through partnerships including institutions 
     of higher education), including programs that train teachers 
     and principals to integrate technology into curricula and 
     instruction to improve teaching, learning, and technology 
     literacy, are consistent with the requirements of section 
     9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 
     and are coordinated with activities carried out under this 
     part; and
       ``(II) development and use of proven, cost-effective 
     strategies for the implementation of professional development 
     activities, such as through the use of technology and 
     distance learning.

       ``(B) State activities.--
       ``(i) Reforming special education and regular education 
     teacher certification (including recertification) or 
     licensing requirements to ensure that--

       ``(I) special education and regular education teachers have 
     the training and information necessary, including an 
     understanding of the latest scientifically valid education 
     research and its applicability, to address the wide variety 
     of needs of children with disabilities across disability 
     categories;
       ``(II) special education and regular education teachers 
     have the necessary subject matter knowledge and teaching 
     skills in the academic subjects that the teachers teach;
       ``(III) special education and regular education teacher 
     certification (including recertification) or licensing 
     requirements are aligned with challenging State academic 
     content standards; and
       ``(IV) special education and regular education teachers 
     have the subject matter knowledge and teaching skills, 
     including technology literacy, necessary to help students 
     meet challenging State student academic achievement 
     standards.

       ``(ii) Carrying out programs that establish, expand, or 
     improve alternative routes for State certification of special 
     education teachers for individuals who demonstrate the 
     potential to become highly effective special education 
     teachers, such as individuals with a baccalaureate or 
     master's degree (including mid-career professionals from 
     other occupations), paraprofessionals, former military 
     personnel, and recent college or university graduates with 
     records of academic distinction.
       ``(iii) Carrying out teacher advancement initiatives for 
     special education teachers that promote professional growth 
     and emphasize multiple career paths (such as paths to 
     becoming a

[[Page 10034]]

     career teacher, mentor teacher, or exemplary teacher) and pay 
     differentiation.
       ``(iv) Developing and implementing mechanisms to assist 
     local educational agencies and schools in effectively 
     recruiting and retaining highly qualified special education 
     teachers.
       ``(v) Reforming tenure systems, implementing teacher 
     testing for subject matter knowledge, and implementing 
     teacher testing for State certification or licensing, 
     consistent with title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
       ``(vi) Developing and implementing mechanisms to assist 
     schools in effectively recruiting and retaining highly 
     qualified special education teachers.
       ``(vii) Funding projects to promote reciprocity of teacher 
     certification or licensing between or among States for 
     special education teachers, except that no reciprocity 
     agreement developed under this clause or developed using 
     funds provided under this subpart may lead to the weakening 
     of any State teaching certification or licensing requirement.
       ``(viii) Developing or assisting local educational agencies 
     to serve children with disabilities through the development 
     and use of proven, innovative strategies to deliver intensive 
     professional development programs that are both cost-
     effective and easily accessible, such as strategies that 
     involve delivery through the use of technology, peer 
     networks, and distance learning.
       ``(ix) Developing, or assisting local educational agencies 
     in developing, merit-based performance systems, and 
     strategies that provide differential and bonus pay for 
     special education teachers.
       ``(x) Supporting activities that ensure that teachers are 
     able to use challenging State academic content standards and 
     student academic achievement standards, and State 
     assessments, to improve instructional practices and improve 
     the academic achievement of children with disabilities.
       ``(xi) Coordinating with, and expanding, centers 
     established under section 2113(c)(18) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 to benefit special education 
     teachers.
       ``(2) Contracts and subgrants.--Each such State educational 
     agency--
       ``(A) shall, consistent with its partnership agreement 
     under section 654(b)(1), award contracts or subgrants to 
     local educational agencies, institutions of higher education, 
     and parent training and information centers, as appropriate, 
     to carry out its State plan under this subpart; and
       ``(B) may award contracts and subgrants to other public and 
     private entities, including the lead agency under part C, to 
     carry out such plan.
       ``(b) Use of Funds for Professional Development.--A State 
     educational agency that receives a grant under this subpart 
     shall use--
       ``(1) not less than 90 percent of the funds it receives 
     under the grant for any fiscal year for activities under 
     subsection (a)(1)(A); and
       ``(2) not more than 10 percent of the funds it receives 
     under the grant for any fiscal year for activities under 
     subsection (a)(1)(B).
       ``(c) Grants to Outlying Areas.--Public Law 95-134, 
     permitting the consolidation of grants to the outlying areas, 
     shall not apply to funds received under this subpart.

     ``SEC. 656. STATE GRANT AMOUNTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make a grant to each 
     State educational agency whose application the Secretary has 
     selected for funding under this subpart in an amount for each 
     fiscal year that is--
       ``(1) not less than $500,000, nor more than $2,000,000, in 
     the case of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and
       ``(2) not less than $80,000, in the case of an outlying 
     area.
       ``(b) Factors.--The Secretary shall set the amount of each 
     grant under subsection (a) after considering--
       ``(1) the amount of funds available for making the grants;
       ``(2) the relative population of the State or outlying 
     area; and
       ``(3) the types of activities proposed by the State or 
     outlying area, including--
       ``(A) the alignment of proposed activities with paragraphs 
     (14) and (15) of section 612(a);
       ``(B) the alignment of proposed activities with the plans 
     submitted under sections 1111 and 2112 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965; and
       ``(C) the use, as appropriate, of scientifically based 
     research.

     ``SEC. 657. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     subpart $44,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may 
     be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009.

``Subpart 2--Scientifically Based Research; Technical Assistance; Model 
  Demonstration Projects; Dissemination of Information; and Personnel 
                          Preparation Programs

     ``SEC. 661. PURPOSE.

       ``The purpose of this subpart is to provide Federal funding 
     for scientifically based research, technical assistance, 
     model demonstration projects, information dissemination, and 
     personnel preparation programs to improve early intervention, 
     educational, and transitional results for children with 
     disabilities.

     ``SEC. 662. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       ``(a) Comprehensive Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall develop and 
     implement a comprehensive plan for activities carried out 
     under this subpart (other than section 663) in order to 
     enhance the provision of educational, related, transitional, 
     and early intervention services to children with disabilities 
     under parts B and C. The plan shall include mechanisms to 
     address educational, related services, transitional, and 
     early intervention needs identified by State educational 
     agencies in applications submitted under subpart 1.
       ``(2) Public comment.--The Secretary shall provide a public 
     comment period of at least 30 days on the plan.
       ``(3) Distribution of funds.--In implementing the plan, the 
     Secretary shall, to the extent appropriate, ensure that funds 
     are awarded to recipients under this subpart to carry out 
     activities that benefit, directly or indirectly, children 
     with disabilities of all ages.
       ``(4) Reports to congress.--The Secretary shall annually 
     report to the Congress on the Secretary's activities under 
     this subsection, including an initial report not later than 
     the date that is 12 months after the date of the enactment of 
     Improving Education Results for Children With Disabilities 
     Act of 2003.
       ``(b) Eligible Applicants.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subpart, the following entities are eligible to apply for a 
     grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under this subpart:
       ``(A) A State educational agency.
       ``(B) A local educational agency.
       ``(C) A public charter school that is a local educational 
     agency under State law.
       ``(D) An institution of higher education.
       ``(E) Any other public agency.
       ``(F) A private nonprofit organization.
       ``(G) An outlying area.
       ``(H) An Indian tribe or a tribal organization (as defined 
     under section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b)).
       ``(I) A for-profit organization if the Secretary finds it 
     appropriate given the specific purpose of the competition.
       ``(2) Special rule.--The Secretary may limit the entities 
     eligible for an award of a grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement to one or more categories of eligible entities 
     described in paragraph (1).
       ``(c) Special Populations.--
       ``(1) Application requirement.--In making an award of a 
     grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under this subpart, 
     the Secretary shall, as appropriate, require an applicant to 
     demonstrate how the applicant will address the needs of 
     children with disabilities from minority backgrounds.
       ``(2) Required outreach and technical assistance.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall reserve at least two percent of the total 
     amount of funds appropriated to carry out this subpart for 
     either or both of the following activities:
       ``(A) Providing outreach and technical assistance to 
     historically black colleges and universities, and to 
     institutions of higher education with minority enrollments of 
     at least 25 percent, to promote the participation of such 
     colleges, universities, and institutions in activities under 
     this subpart.
       ``(B) Enabling historically black colleges and 
     universities, and the institutions described in subparagraph 
     (A), to assist other colleges, universities, institutions, 
     and agencies in improving educational and transitional 
     results for children with disabilities, if such grant 
     applicants meet the criteria established by the Secretary 
     under this subpart.
       ``(d) Priorities.--The Secretary, in making an award of a 
     grant, contract, or cooperative agreement under this subpart, 
     may, without regard to the rulemaking procedures under 
     section 553 of title 5, United States Code, limit 
     competitions to, or otherwise give priority to--
       ``(1) projects that address one or more--
       ``(A) age ranges;
       ``(B) disabilities;
       ``(C) school grades;
       ``(D) types of educational placements or early intervention 
     environments;
       ``(E) types of services;
       ``(F) content areas, such as reading; or
       ``(G) effective strategies for helping children with 
     disabilities learn appropriate behavior in the school and 
     other community-based educational settings;
       ``(2) projects that address the needs of children based on 
     the severity or incidence of their disability;
       ``(3) projects that address the needs of--
       ``(A) low-achieving students;
       ``(B) underserved populations;
       ``(C) children from low-income families;
       ``(D) children with limited English proficiency;
       ``(E) unserved and underserved areas;
       ``(F) rural or urban areas;
       ``(G) children whose behavior interferes with their 
     learning and socialization;
       ``(H) children with intractable reading difficulties; and
       ``(I) children in public charter schools;
       ``(4) projects to reduce inappropriate identification of 
     children as children with disabilities, particularly among 
     minority children; and
       ``(5) any activity that is expressly authorized in this 
     subpart or subpart 3.
       ``(e) Applicant and Recipient Responsibilities.--
       ``(1) Development and assessment of projects.--The 
     Secretary shall require that an applicant for, and a 
     recipient of, a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement for 
     a project under this subpart--
       ``(A) involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of 
     individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in 
     planning, implementing, and evaluating the project; and

[[Page 10035]]

       ``(B) where appropriate, determine whether the project has 
     any potential for replication and adoption by other entities.
       ``(2) Additional responsibilities.--The Secretary may 
     require a recipient of a grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement for a project under this subpart--
       ``(A) to share in the cost of the project;
       ``(B) to prepare the research and evaluation findings and 
     products from the project in formats that are useful for 
     specific audiences, including parents, administrators, 
     teachers, early intervention personnel, related services 
     personnel, and individuals with disabilities;
       ``(C) to disseminate such findings and products; and
       ``(D) to collaborate with other such recipients in carrying 
     out subparagraphs (B) and (C).
       ``(f) Application Management.--
       ``(1) Standing panel.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish and use a 
     standing panel of experts who are qualified, by virtue of 
     their training, expertise, or experience, to evaluate 
     applications under this subpart (other than section 663) 
     that, individually, request more than $75,000 per year in 
     Federal financial assistance.
       ``(B) Membership.--The standing panel shall include, at a 
     minimum--
       ``(i) individuals who are representatives of institutions 
     of higher education that plan, develop, and carry out high-
     quality programs of personnel preparation;
       ``(ii) individuals who design and carry out scientifically-
     based research targeted to the improvement of special 
     education programs and services;
       ``(iii) individuals who have recognized experience and 
     knowledge necessary to integrate and apply scientifically-
     based research findings to improve educational and 
     transitional results for children with disabilities;
       ``(iv) individuals who administer programs at the State or 
     local level in which children with disabilities participate;
       ``(v) individuals who prepare parents of children with 
     disabilities to participate in making decisions about the 
     education of their children;
       ``(vi) individuals who establish policies that affect the 
     delivery of services to children with disabilities;
       ``(vii) individuals who are parents of children with 
     disabilities ages birth through 26 who are benefiting, or 
     have benefited, from coordinated research, personnel 
     preparation, and technical assistance; and
       ``(viii) individuals with disabilities.
       ``(C) Term.--No individual shall serve on the standing 
     panel for more than 3 consecutive years.
       ``(2) Peer-review panels for particular competitions.--
       ``(A) Composition.--The Secretary shall ensure that each 
     subpanel selected from the standing panel that reviews 
     applications under this subpart (other than section 663) 
     includes--
       ``(i) individuals with knowledge and expertise on the 
     issues addressed by the activities authorized by the subpart; 
     and
       ``(ii) to the extent practicable, parents of children with 
     disabilities ages birth through 26, individuals with 
     disabilities, and persons from diverse backgrounds.
       ``(B) Federal employment limitation.--A majority of the 
     individuals on each subpanel that reviews an application 
     under this subpart (other than section 663) shall be 
     individuals who are not employees of the Federal Government.
       ``(3) Use of discretionary funds for administrative 
     purposes.--
       ``(A) Expenses and fees of non-federal panel members.--The 
     Secretary may use funds available under this subpart to pay 
     the expenses and fees of the panel members who are not 
     officers or employees of the Federal Government.
       ``(B) Administrative support.--The Secretary may use not 
     more than 1 percent of the funds appropriated to carry out 
     this subpart to pay non-Federal entities for administrative 
     support related to management of applications submitted under 
     this subpart.
       ``(g) Program Evaluation.--The Secretary may use funds 
     appropriated to carry out this subpart to evaluate activities 
     carried out under the subpart.
       ``(h) Minimum Funding Required.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     shall ensure that, for each fiscal year, at least the 
     following amounts are provided under this subpart to address 
     the following needs:
       ``(A) $12,832,000 to address the educational, related 
     services, transitional, and early intervention needs of 
     children with deaf-blindness.
       ``(B) $4,000,000 to address the postsecondary, vocational, 
     technical, continuing, and adult education needs of 
     individuals with deafness.
       ``(C) $4,000,000 to address the educational, related 
     services, and transitional needs of children with an 
     emotional disturbance and those who are at risk of developing 
     an emotional disturbance.
       ``(2) Ratable reduction.--If the total amount appropriated 
     to carry out this subpart for any fiscal year is less than 
     $130,000,000, the amounts listed in paragraph (1) shall be 
     ratably reduced.
       ``(i) Eligibility for Financial Assistance.--Effective for 
     fiscal years for which the Secretary may make grants under 
     section 619(b), no State or local educational agency or 
     educational service agency or other public institution or 
     agency may receive a grant under this subpart which relates 
     exclusively to programs, projects, and activities pertaining 
     to children aged 3 through 5, inclusive, unless the State is 
     eligible to receive a grant under section 619(b).

     ``SEC. 663. RESEARCH TO IMPROVE RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH 
                   DISABILITIES.

       ``(a) National Center for Special Education Research.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--
       ``(A) In general.--There is established, in the Institute 
     of Education Sciences established under section 111 of the 
     Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-279; 
     116 Stat. 1944) (hereinafter in this section referred to as 
     `the Institute'), the National Center for Special Education 
     Research.
       ``(B) Commissioner.--The National Center for Special 
     Education Research shall be headed by a Commissioner for 
     Special Education Research (hereinafter in this section 
     referred to as `the Commissioner'). The Commissioner shall be 
     appointed by the Director of the Institute (hereinafter in 
     this section referred to as `the Director') in accordance 
     with section 117 of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 
     2002. The Commissioner shall have substantial knowledge of 
     the Center's activities, including a high level of expertise 
     in the fields of research and research management.
       ``(2) Applicability of education science reform act of 
     2002.--Parts A and E of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 
     2002, as well as the standards for peer review of 
     applications and for the conduct and evaluation of research 
     under sections 133(a) and 134 of such Act, shall apply to the 
     Secretary, the Director, and the Commissioner in carrying out 
     this section.
       ``(b) Competitive Grants.--The Director shall make 
     competitive grants to, or enter into contracts or cooperative 
     agreements with, eligible entities to expand the fundamental 
     knowledge and understanding of the education of infants, 
     toddlers, and children with disabilities in order to improve 
     educational results for such individuals, in accordance with 
     the priorities determined under this section.
       ``(c) Authorized Activities.--Activities that may be 
     carried out under this section include research activities--
       ``(1) to improve services provided under this Act in order 
     to improve academic achievement for children with 
     disabilities;
       ``(2) to investigate scientifically based educational 
     practices that support learning and improve academic 
     achievement and progress for all students with disabilities;
       ``(3) to examine the special needs of preschool-aged 
     children and infants and toddlers with disabilities, 
     including factors that may result in developmental delays;
       ``(4) to investigate scientifically based related services 
     and interventions that promote participation and progress in 
     the general education curriculum;
       ``(5) to improve the alignment, compatibility, and 
     development of valid and reliable assessment methods for 
     assessing adequate yearly progress, as described under 
     section 1111(b)(2)(B) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(B));
       ``(6) to improve the alignment, compatibility, and 
     development of valid and reliable alternate assessment 
     methods for assessing adequate yearly progress, as described 
     under such section 1111(b)(2)(B);
       ``(7) to examine State content standards and alternate 
     assessments for students with a significant cognitive 
     impairment in terms of academic achievement, individualized 
     instructional need, appropriate educational settings, and 
     improved post-school results;
       ``(8) to examine the educational and developmental needs of 
     children with high-incidence and low-incidence disabilities;
       ``(9) to examine the extent to which overidentification and 
     underidentification of children with disabilities occurs, and 
     the causes thereof;
       ``(10) to improve reading and literacy skills for children 
     with disabilities;
       ``(11) to examine and improve secondary and postsecondary 
     education and transitional needs of children with 
     disabilities;
       ``(12) to examine methods of early intervention for 
     children with disabilities who need significant levels of 
     support;
       ``(13) to examine universal design concepts in the 
     development of assessments, curricula, and instructional 
     methods as a method to improve educational results for 
     children with disabilities;
       ``(14) to improve the professional preparation for 
     personnel who provide educational and related services to 
     children with disabilities, including children with low-
     incidence disabilities, to increase academic achievement of 
     children with disabilities;
       ``(15) to examine the excess costs of educating a child 
     with a disability and expenses associated with high-cost 
     special education and related services; and
       ``(16) to examine the special needs of limited English 
     proficient children with disabilities.
       ``(d) Plan.--The National Center for Special Education 
     Research shall propose to the Director a research plan, with 
     the advice of the Assistant Secretary for Special Education 
     and Rehabilitative Services, that--
       ``(1) is consistent with the priorities and mission of the 
     Institute of Educational Sciences and the mission of the 
     Special Education Research Center and includes the activities 
     described in paragraph (3);
       ``(2) shall be carried out pursuant to subsection (c) and, 
     as appropriate, be updated and modified; and
       ``(3) carries out specific, long-term research activities 
     that are consistent with the priorities and mission of the 
     Institute of Educational Sciences, and are approved by the 
     Director.
       ``(e) Implementation.--The National Center for Special 
     Education Research shall implement the plan proposed under 
     subsection (d) to carry out scientifically valid research 
     that--

[[Page 10036]]

       ``(1) is consistent with the purposes of this Act;
       ``(2) reflects an appropriate balance across all age ranges 
     of children with disabilities;
       ``(3) provides for research that is objective and that uses 
     measurable indicators to assess its progress and results;
       ``(4) includes both basic research and applied research, 
     which shall include research conducted through field-
     initiated studies and which may include ongoing research 
     initiatives;
       ``(5) ensures that the research conducted under this 
     section is relevant to special education practice and policy;
       ``(6) synthesize and disseminate, through the National 
     Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance as 
     well as activities authorized under this part, the findings 
     and results of education research conducted or supported by 
     the National Center for Special Education Research; and
       ``(7) assist the Director in the preparation of a biennial 
     report, as a described in section 119 of the Education 
     Sciences Reform Act of 2003.
       ``(f) Applications.--An eligible entity that wishes to 
     receive a grant, or enter into a contract or cooperative 
     agreement, under this section shall submit an application to 
     the Commissioner at such time, in such manner, and containing 
     such information as the Commissioner may reasonably require.

     ``SEC. 664. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS, 
                   DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION, AND 
                   IMPLEMENTATION OF SCIENTIFICALLY BASED 
                   RESEARCH.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall make competitive 
     grants to, or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements 
     with, eligible entities including regional resource centers 
     and clearinghouses to provide technical assistance, support 
     model demonstration projects, disseminate useful information, 
     and implement activities that are supported by scientifically 
     based research.
       ``(b) Required Activities.--Funds received under this 
     section shall be used to support activities to improve 
     services provided under this Act, including the practices of 
     professionals and others involved in providing such services 
     to children with disabilities, that promote academic 
     achievement and improve results for children with 
     disabilities through--
       ``(1) implementing effective strategies for addressing 
     inappropriate behavior of students with disabilities in 
     schools, including strategies to prevent children with 
     emotional and behavioral problems from developing emotional 
     disturbances that require the provision of special education 
     and related services;
       ``(2) improving the alignment, compatibility, and 
     development of valid and reliable assessments and alternate 
     assessments for assessing adequate yearly progress, as 
     described under section 1111(b)(2)(B) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965;
       ``(3) providing training for both regular education 
     teachers and special education teachers to address the needs 
     of students with different learning styles;
       ``(4) identifying innovative, effective, and efficient 
     curricula designs, instructional approaches, and strategies, 
     and identifying positive academic and social learning 
     opportunities, that--
       ``(A) provide effective transitions between educational 
     settings or from school to post school settings; and
       ``(B) improve educational and transitional results at all 
     levels of the educational system in which the activities are 
     carried out and, in particular, that improve the progress of 
     children with disabilities, as measured by assessments within 
     the general education curriculum involved; and
       ``(5) demonstrating and applying scientifically based 
     findings to facilitate systemic changes, related to the 
     provision of services to children with disabilities, in 
     policy, procedure, practice, and the training and use of 
     personnel.
       ``(c) Authorized Activities.--Activities that may be 
     carried out under this section include activities to improve 
     services provided under this Act, including the practices of 
     professionals and others involved in providing such services 
     to children with disabilities, that promote academic 
     achievement and improve results for children with 
     disabilities through--
       ``(1) applying and testing research findings in typical 
     service settings to determine the usefulness, effectiveness, 
     and general applicability of such research findings in such 
     areas as improving instructional methods, curricula, and 
     tools, such as textbooks and media;
       ``(2) supporting and promoting the coordination of early 
     intervention and educational services for children with 
     disabilities with services provided by health, 
     rehabilitation, and social service agencies;
       ``(3) promoting improved alignment and compatibility of 
     general and special education reforms concerned with 
     curricular and instructional reform, and evaluation of such 
     reforms;
       ``(4) enabling professionals, parents of children with 
     disabilities, and other persons to learn about, and 
     implement, the findings of scientifically based research, and 
     successful practices developed in model demonstration 
     projects, relating to the provision of services to children 
     with disabilities;
       ``(5) conducting outreach, and disseminating information, 
     relating to successful approaches to overcoming systemic 
     barriers to the effective and efficient delivery of early 
     intervention, educational, and transitional services to 
     personnel who provide services to children with disabilities;
       ``(6) assisting States and local educational agencies with 
     the process of planning systemic changes that will promote 
     improved early intervention, educational, and transitional 
     results for children with disabilities;
       ``(7) promoting change through a multistate or regional 
     framework that benefits States, local educational agencies, 
     and other participants in partnerships that are in the 
     process of achieving systemic-change outcomes;
       ``(8) focusing on the needs and issues that are specific to 
     a population of children with disabilities, such as the 
     provision of single-State and multi-State technical 
     assistance and in-service training--
       ``(A) to schools and agencies serving deaf-blind children 
     and their families;
       ``(B) to programs and agencies serving other groups of 
     children with low-incidence disabilities and their families;
       ``(C) addressing the postsecondary education needs of 
     individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing; and
       ``(D) to schools and personnel providing special education 
     and related services for children with autism spectrum 
     disorders;
       ``(9) demonstrating models of personnel preparation to 
     ensure appropriate placements and services for all students 
     and reduce disproportionality in eligibility, placement, and 
     disciplinary actions for minority and limited English 
     proficient children; and
       ``(10) disseminating information on how to reduce racial 
     and ethnic disproportionalities identified under section 618.
       ``(d) Balance Among Activities and Age Ranges.--In carrying 
     out this section, the Secretary shall ensure that there is an 
     appropriate balance across all age ranges of children with 
     disabilities.
       ``(e) Linking States to Information Sources.--In carrying 
     out this section, the Secretary shall support projects that 
     link States to technical assistance resources, including 
     special education and general education resources, and shall 
     make research and related products available through 
     libraries, electronic networks, parent training projects, and 
     other information sources, including through the activities 
     of the National Center for Evaluation and Regional Assistance 
     established under the Education Sciences Reform Act.
       ``(f) Applications.--
       ``(1) In general.--An eligible entity that wishes to 
     receive a grant, or enter into a contract or cooperative 
     agreement, under this section shall submit an application to 
     the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing 
     such information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(2) Standards.--To the maximum extent feasible, each 
     applicant shall demonstrate that the project described in its 
     application is supported by scientifically valid research 
     that has been carried out in accordance with the standards 
     for the conduct and evaluation of all relevant research and 
     development established by the National Center for Education 
     Research.
       ``(3) Priority.--As appropriate, the Secretary shall give 
     priority to applications that propose to serve teachers and 
     school personnel directly in the school environment.

     ``SEC. 665. PERSONNEL PREPARATION PROGRAMS TO IMPROVE 
                   SERVICES AND RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH 
                   DISABILITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall, on a competitive 
     basis, make grants to, or enter into contracts or cooperative 
     agreements with, eligible entities--
       ``(1) to help address State-identified needs for qualified 
     personnel in special education, related services, early 
     intervention, and regular education, to work with children 
     with disabilities;
       ``(2) to ensure that those personnel have the necessary 
     skills and knowledge, derived from practices that have been 
     determined, through scientifically valid research, to be 
     successful in serving those children;
       ``(3) to encourage increased focus on academics and core 
     content areas in special education personnel preparation 
     programs;
       ``(4) to ensure that regular education teachers have the 
     necessary skills and knowledge to provide instruction to 
     students with disabilities in the regular education 
     classroom;
       ``(5) to provide high-quality professional development for 
     principals, superintendents, and other administrators, 
     including training in--
       ``(A) instructional leadership;
       ``(B) behavioral supports in the school and classroom;
       ``(C) paperwork reduction;
       ``(D) promoting improved collaboration between special 
     education and general education teachers;
       ``(E) assessment and accountability;
       ``(F) ensuring effective learning environments; and
       ``(G) fostering positive relationships with parents; and
       ``(6) to ensure that all special education teachers 
     teaching in core academic subjects are highly qualified.
       ``(b) Personnel Preparation; Authorized Activities.--
       ``(1) In general.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall support activities, including activities for 
     high-incidence and low-incidence disabilities, consistent 
     with the objectives described in subsection (a).
       ``(2) Authorized activities.--Activities that may be 
     carried out under this subsection include the following:
       ``(A) Promoting activities undertaken by institutions of 
     higher education, local educational agencies, and other local 
     entities--
       ``(i) to improve and reform their existing programs, and to 
     support effective existing programs, to prepare teachers and 
     related services personnel--

[[Page 10037]]

       ``(I) to meet the diverse needs of children with 
     disabilities for early intervention, educational, and 
     transitional services; and
       ``(II) to work collaboratively in regular classroom 
     settings; and

       ``(ii) to incorporate best practices and scientifically 
     based research about preparing personnel--

       ``(I) so they will have the knowledge and skills to improve 
     educational results for children with disabilities; and
       ``(II) so they can implement effective teaching strategies 
     and interventions to ensure appropriate identification, and 
     to prevent the misidentification or overidentification, of 
     children as having a disability, especially minority and 
     limited English proficient children.

       ``(B) Developing, evaluating, and disseminating innovative 
     models for the recruitment, induction, retention, and 
     assessment of highly qualified teachers to reduce shortages 
     in personnel.
       ``(C) Developing and improving programs for 
     paraprofessionals to assist in the provision of special 
     education, related services, and early intervention services, 
     including interdisciplinary training to enable them to 
     improve early intervention, educational, and transitional 
     results for children with disabilities.
       ``(D) Demonstrating models for the preparation of, and 
     interdisciplinary training of, early intervention, special 
     education, and general education personnel, to enable the 
     personnel to acquire the collaboration skills necessary to 
     work within teams to improve results for children with 
     disabilities, particularly within the general education 
     curriculum.
       ``(E) Promoting the transferability, across State and local 
     jurisdictions, of licensure and certification of teachers and 
     administrators working with such children.
       ``(F) Developing and disseminating models that prepare 
     teachers with strategies, including behavioral interventions, 
     for addressing the conduct of children with disabilities that 
     impedes their learning and that of others in the classroom.
       ``(G) Developing and improving programs to enhance the 
     ability of general education teachers, principals, school 
     administrators, and school board members to improve results 
     for children with disabilities.
       ``(H) Supporting institutions of higher education with 
     minority enrollments of at least 25 percent for the purpose 
     of preparing personnel to work with children with 
     disabilities.
       ``(I) Developing and improving programs to train special 
     education teachers with an expertise in autism spectrum 
     disorders.
       ``(c) Low-Incidence Disabilities; Authorized Activities.--
       ``(1) In general.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall support activities, consistent with the 
     objectives described in subsection (a), that benefit children 
     with low-incidence disabilities.
       ``(2) Authorized activities.--Activities that may be 
     carried out under this subsection include activities such as 
     the following:
       ``(A) Preparing persons who--
       ``(i) have prior training in educational and other related 
     service fields; and
       ``(ii) are studying to obtain degrees, certificates, or 
     licensure that will enable them to assist children with low-
     incidence disabilities to achieve the objectives set out in 
     their individualized education programs described in section 
     614(d), or to assist infants and toddlers with low incidence 
     disabilities to achieve the outcomes described in their 
     individualized family service plans described in section 636.
       ``(B) Providing personnel from various disciplines with 
     interdisciplinary training that will contribute to 
     improvement in early intervention, educational, and 
     transitional results for children with low-incidence 
     disabilities.
       ``(C) Preparing personnel in the innovative uses and 
     application of technology to enhance learning by children 
     with low-incidence disabilities through early intervention, 
     educational, and transitional services.
       ``(D) Preparing personnel who provide services to visually 
     impaired or blind children to teach and use Braille in the 
     provision of services to such children.
       ``(E) Preparing personnel who provide services to deaf and 
     hard-of-hearing children by providing direct language and 
     communication access to the general education curriculum 
     through spoken or signed languages, or other modes of 
     communication.
       ``(F) Preparing personnel to be qualified educational 
     interpreters, to assist children with low-incidence 
     disabilities, particularly deaf and hard-of-hearing children 
     in school and school-related activities and deaf and hard-of-
     hearing infants and toddlers and preschool children in early 
     intervention and preschool programs.
       ``(3) Definition.--As used in this section, the term `low-
     incidence disability' means--
       ``(A) a visual or hearing impairment, or simultaneous 
     visual and hearing impairments;
       ``(B) a significant cognitive impairment; or
       ``(C) any impairment for which a small number of personnel 
     with highly specialized skills and knowledge are needed in 
     order for children with that impairment to receive early 
     intervention services or a free appropriate public education.
       ``(4) Selection of recipients.--In selecting recipients 
     under this subsection, the Secretary may give preference to 
     applications that propose to prepare personnel in more than 
     one low-incidence disability, such as deafness and blindness.
       ``(5) Preparation in use of braille.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure that all recipients of assistance under this 
     subsection who will use that assistance to prepare personnel 
     to provide services to visually impaired or blind children 
     that can appropriately be provided in Braille will prepare 
     those individuals to provide those services in Braille.
       ``(d) Leadership Preparation; Authorized Activities.--
       ``(1) In general.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall support leadership preparation activities 
     that are consistent with the objectives described in 
     subsection (a).
       ``(2) Authorized activities.--Activities that may be 
     carried out under this subsection include activities such as 
     the following:
       ``(A) Preparing personnel at the graduate, doctoral, and 
     postdoctoral levels of training to administer, enhance, or 
     provide services to improve results for children with 
     disabilities.
       ``(B) Providing interdisciplinary training for various 
     types of leadership personnel, including teacher preparation 
     faculty, related services faculty, administrators, 
     researchers, supervisors, principals, and other persons whose 
     work affects early intervention, educational, and 
     transitional services for children with disabilities.
       ``(e) Applications.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any eligible entity that wishes to 
     receive a grant, or enter into a contract or cooperative 
     agreement, under this section shall submit an application to 
     the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing 
     such information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(2) Identified state needs.--
       ``(A) Requirement to address identified needs.--Any 
     application under subsection (b), (c), or (d) shall include 
     information demonstrating to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary that the activities described in the application 
     will address needs identified by the State or States the 
     applicant proposes to serve.
       ``(B) Cooperation with state educational agencies.--Any 
     applicant that is not a local educational agency or a State 
     educational agency shall include information demonstrating to 
     the satisfaction of the Secretary that the applicant and one 
     or more State educational agencies or local educational 
     agencies will cooperate in carrying out and monitoring the 
     project.
       ``(3) Acceptance by states of personnel preparation 
     requirements.--The Secretary may require applicants to 
     provide assurances from one or more States that such States--
       ``(A) intend to accept successful completion of the 
     proposed personnel preparation program as meeting State 
     personnel standards or other requirements in State law or 
     regulation for serving children with disabilities or serving 
     infants and toddlers with disabilities; and
       ``(B) need personnel in the area or areas in which the 
     applicant proposes to provide preparation, as identified in 
     the States' comprehensive systems of personnel development 
     under parts B and C.
       ``(f) Selection of Recipients.--
       ``(1) Impact of project.--In selecting recipients under 
     this section, the Secretary shall consider the impact of the 
     project proposed in the application in meeting the need for 
     personnel identified by the States.
       ``(2) Requirement on applicants to meet state and 
     professional standards.--The Secretary shall make grants 
     under this section only to eligible applicants that meet 
     State and professionally recognized standards for the 
     preparation of special education and related services 
     personnel, if the purpose of the project is to assist 
     personnel in obtaining degrees.
       ``(3) Preferences.--In selecting recipients under this 
     section, the Secretary may--
       ``(A) give preference to institutions of higher education 
     that are educating regular education personnel to meet the 
     needs of children with disabilities in integrated settings 
     and educating special education personnel to work in 
     collaboration with regular educators in integrated settings; 
     and
       ``(B) give preference to institutions of higher education 
     that are successfully recruiting and preparing individuals 
     with disabilities and individuals from groups that are 
     underrepresented in the profession for which they are 
     preparing individuals.
       ``(g) Service Obligation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each application for funds under 
     subsections (b) and (c) shall include an assurance that the 
     applicant will ensure that individuals who receive a 
     scholarship under the proposed project will subsequently 
     provide special education and related services to children 
     with disabilities for a period of 2 years for every year for 
     which assistance was received or repay all or part of the 
     cost of that assistance, in accordance with regulations 
     issued by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Leadership preparation.--Each application for funds 
     under subsection (d) shall include an assurance that the 
     applicant will ensure that individuals who receive a 
     scholarship under the proposed project will subsequently 
     perform work related to their preparation for a period of 2 
     years for every year for which assistance was received or 
     repay all or part of such costs, in accordance with 
     regulations issued by the Secretary.
       ``(h) Scholarships.--The Secretary may include funds for 
     scholarships, with necessary stipends and allowances, in 
     awards under subsections (b), (c), and (d).

     ``SEC. 666. STUDIES AND EVALUATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Progress assessment.--The Secretary shall, in 
     accordance with the priorities determined under this section 
     and in section 663, directly or through competitive grants, 
     contracts, or cooperative agreements, assess the progress in 
     the implementation of this Act, including the effectiveness 
     of State and local efforts to provide--

[[Page 10038]]

       ``(A) a free appropriate public education to children with 
     disabilities; and
       ``(B) early intervention services to infants and toddlers 
     with disabilities and infants and toddlers who would be at 
     risk of having substantial developmental delays if early 
     intervention services were not provided to them.
       ``(2) Delegation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary shall designate the Director of the 
     Institute for Education Sciences to carry out this section.
       ``(3) Authorized activities.--In carrying out this 
     subsection, the Secretary may support objective studies, 
     evaluations, and assessments, including studies that--
       ``(A) analyze issues identified in the research agenda in 
     section 663(d);
       ``(B) meet the standards in section 663(c); and
       ``(C) undertake one or more of the following:
       ``(i) An analysis of the measurable impact, outcomes, and 
     results achieved by State educational agencies and local 
     educational agencies through their activities to reform 
     policies, procedures, and practices designed to improve 
     educational and transitional services and results for 
     children with disabilities.
       ``(ii) An analysis of State and local needs for 
     professional development, parent training, and other 
     appropriate activities that can reduce the need for 
     disciplinary actions involving children with disabilities.
       ``(iii) An assessment of educational and transitional 
     services and results for children with disabilities from 
     minority backgrounds, including--

       ``(I) data on--

       ``(aa) the number of minority children who are referred for 
     special education evaluation;
       ``(bb) the number of minority children who are receiving 
     special education and related services and their educational 
     or other service placement;
       ``(cc) the number of minority children who graduated from 
     secondary programs with a regular diploma in the standard 
     number of years; and
       ``(dd) the number of minority children who drop out of the 
     educational system without a regular diploma; and

       ``(II) the performance of children with disabilities from 
     minority backgrounds on State assessments and other 
     performance indicators established for all students.

       ``(iv) A measurement of educational and transitional 
     services and results of children with disabilities served 
     under this Act, including longitudinal studies that--

       ``(I) examine educational and transitional services and 
     results for children with disabilities who are 3 through 17 
     years of age and are receiving special education and related 
     services under this Act, using a national, representative 
     sample of distinct age cohorts and disability categories; and
       ``(II) examine educational results, transition services, 
     postsecondary placement, and employment status of individuals 
     with disabilities, 18 through 21 years of age, who are 
     receiving or have received special education and related 
     services under this Act.

       ``(v) An identification and report on the placement of 
     children with disabilities by disability category.
       ``(b) National Assessment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall carry out a national 
     assessment of activities carried out with Federal funds under 
     this Act in order--
       ``(A) to determine the effectiveness of this Act in 
     achieving its purposes;
       ``(B) to provide timely information to the President, the 
     Congress, the States, local educational agencies, and the 
     public on how to implement the Act more effectively; and
       ``(C) to provide the President and the Congress with 
     information that will be useful in developing legislation to 
     achieve the purposes of this Act more effectively.
       ``(2) Public comment.--
       ``(A) Plan.--Not later than 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Improving Education Results for Children 
     With Disabilities Act of 2003, the Secretary shall publish in 
     the Federal Register for public comment a comprehensive plan 
     for developing and conducting the national assessment.
       ``(B) Comment period.--The Secretary shall provide a public 
     comment period of at least 30 days on such plan.
       ``(3) Scope of assessment.--The national assessment shall 
     assess the--
       ``(A) implementation of programs assisted under this Act 
     and the impact of such programs on addressing the 
     developmental needs of, and improving the academic 
     achievement of, children with disabilities to enable them to 
     reach challenging developmental goals and challenging State 
     academic content standards based on State academic 
     assessments;
       ``(B) types of programs and services that have demonstrated 
     the greatest likelihood of helping students reach the 
     challenging State academic content standards and 
     developmental goals;
       ``(C) implementation of the professional development 
     activities assisted under this Act and the impact on 
     instruction, student academic achievement, and teacher 
     qualifications to enhance the ability of special education 
     teachers and regular education teachers to improve results 
     for children with disabilities; and
       ``(D) effectiveness of schools, local educational agencies, 
     States, other recipients of assistance under this Act, and 
     the Secretary in achieving the purposes of this Act by--
       ``(i) improving the academic achievement of children with 
     disabilities and their performance on regular statewide 
     assessments as compared to nondisabled children, and the 
     performance of children with disabilities on alternate 
     assessments;
       ``(ii) improving the participation of children with 
     disabilities in the general education curriculum;
       ``(iii) improving the transitions of children with 
     disabilities at natural transition points;
       ``(iv) placing and serving children with disabilities, 
     including minority children, in the least restrictive 
     environment appropriate;
       ``(v) preventing children with disabilities, especially 
     children with emotional disturbances and specific learning 
     disabilities, from dropping out of school;
       ``(vi) addressing the reading and literacy needs of 
     children with disabilities;
       ``(vii) reducing the overidentification of children, 
     especially minority and limited English proficient children, 
     as having a disability;
       ``(viii) improving the participation of parents of children 
     with disabilities in the education of their children; and
       ``(ix) resolving disagreements between education personnel 
     and parents through alternate dispute resolution activities 
     including mediation and voluntary binding arbitration.
       ``(4) Interim and final reports.--The Secretary shall 
     submit to the President and the Congress--
       ``(A) an interim report that summarizes the preliminary 
     findings of the assessment not later than 30 months after the 
     date of the enactment of the Improving Education Results for 
     Children With Disabilities Act of 2003; and
       ``(B) a final report of the findings of the assessment not 
     later than 5 years after the date of the enactment of such 
     Act.
       ``(c) Annual Report.--The Secretary shall provide an annual 
     report to the Congress that--
       ``(1) summarizes the research conducted under section 663;
       ``(2) analyzes and summarizes the data reported by the 
     States and the Secretary of the Interior under section 618;
       ``(3) summarizes the studies and evaluations conducted 
     under this section and the timeline for their completion;
       ``(4) describes the extent and progress of the national 
     assessment; and
       ``(5) describes the findings and determinations resulting 
     from reviews of State implementation of this Act.

     ``SEC. 667. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     sections 663, 664, and 666 $171,861,000 for fiscal year 2004 
     and such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal 
     years 2005 through 2009. There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out section 665 $90,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2004 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 
     fiscal years 2005 through 2009.

``Subpart 3--Supports To Improve Results for Children With Disabilities

     ``SEC. 671. PURPOSES.

       ``The purposes of this subpart are to ensure that--
       ``(1) children with disabilities and their parents receive 
     training and information on their rights, responsibilities, 
     and protections under this Act, in order to develop the 
     skills necessary to cooperatively and effectively participate 
     in planning and decisionmaking relating to early 
     intervention, educational, and transitional services;
       ``(2) parents, teachers, administrators, early intervention 
     personnel, related services personnel, and transition 
     personnel receive coordinated and accessible technical 
     assistance and information to assist them in improving early 
     intervention, educational, and transitional services and 
     results for children with disabilities and their families; 
     and
       ``(3) appropriate technology and media are researched, 
     developed, and demonstrated, to improve and implement early 
     intervention, educational, and transitional services and 
     results for children with disabilities and their families.

     ``SEC. 672. PARENT TRAINING AND INFORMATION CENTERS.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary may make grants 
     to, and enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with, 
     parent organizations to support parent training and 
     information centers to carry out activities under this 
     section.
       ``(b) Required Activities.--Each parent and community 
     training and information center that receives assistance 
     under this section shall--
       ``(1) provide training and information that meets the needs 
     of parents of children with disabilities living in the area 
     served by the center, including underserved parents and 
     parents of children who may be inappropriately identified, to 
     enable children with disabilities--
       ``(A) to meet developmental and challenging academic 
     achievement goals that have been established for all 
     children; and
       ``(B) to be prepared to lead productive independent adult 
     lives to the maximum extent possible;
       ``(2) ensure that the training and information provided 
     meets the needs of low-income parents and parents of children 
     with limited English proficiency;
       ``(3) serve the parents of infants, toddlers, and children 
     with the full range of disabilities;
       ``(4) assist parents--
       ``(A) to better understand the nature of their children's 
     disabilities and their educational, developmental, and 
     transitional needs;
       ``(B) to communicate effectively and work collaboratively 
     with personnel responsible for providing special education, 
     early intervention, transition services, and related 
     services;
       ``(C) to participate in decisionmaking processes and the 
     development of individualized

[[Page 10039]]

     education programs under part B and individualized family 
     service plans under part C;
       ``(D) to obtain appropriate information about the range, 
     type and quality of options, programs, services, and 
     resources available to assist children with disabilities and 
     their families in school and at home;
       ``(E) to understand the provisions of this Act for the 
     education of, and the provision of early intervention 
     services to, children with disabilities; and
       ``(F) to participate in activities at the school level 
     which benefit their children;
       ``(5) assist parents in resolving disputes in the most 
     expeditious way possible, including encouraging the use, and 
     explaining the benefits, of alternative methods of dispute 
     resolution, such as the use of individualized education 
     program facilitators and mediation and voluntary binding 
     arbitration processes described in section 615(e);
       ``(6) assist parents to understand the availability of, and 
     how to effectively use, procedural safeguards under this Act;
       ``(7) network with appropriate clearinghouses, including 
     organizations conducting national dissemination activities 
     under subpart 2 and the Institute of Educational Sciences, 
     and with other national, State, and local organizations and 
     agencies, such as protection and advocacy agencies, that 
     serve parents and families of children with the full range of 
     disabilities; and
       ``(8) annually report to the Secretary on--
       ``(A) the number and demographics of parents to whom it 
     provided information and training in the most recently 
     concluded fiscal year; and
       ``(B) the effectiveness of strategies used to reach and 
     serve parents, including underserved parents of children with 
     disabilities.
       ``(c) Optional Activities.--A parent training and community 
     and information center that receives assistance under this 
     section may--
       ``(1) provide information to teachers and other 
     professionals to assist them in improving results for 
     children with disabilities; and
       ``(2) assist students with disabilities to understand their 
     rights and responsibilities under section 615(l) on reaching 
     the age of majority.
       ``(d) Application Requirements.--Each application for 
     assistance under this section shall identify with specificity 
     the special efforts that the applicant will undertake--
       ``(1) to ensure that the needs for training and information 
     of underserved parents of children with disabilities in the 
     area to be served are effectively met; and
       ``(2) to work with community-based organizations, including 
     those that work with low-income parents and parents of 
     children with limited English proficiency.
       ``(e) Distribution of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make at least 1 
     award to a parent organization in each State, unless the 
     Secretary does not receive an application from such an 
     organization in each State of sufficient quality to warrant 
     approval.
       ``(2) Selection requirement.--The Secretary shall select 
     among applications submitted by parent organizations in a 
     State in a manner that ensures the most effective assistance 
     to parents, including parents in urban and rural areas, in 
     the State.
       ``(f) Quarterly Review.--
       ``(1) Requirements.--
       ``(A) Meetings.--The board of directors or special 
     governing committee of each organization that receives an 
     award under this section shall meet at least once in each 
     calendar quarter to review the activities for which the award 
     was made.
       ``(B) Advising board.--Each special governing committee 
     shall directly advise the organization's governing board of 
     its views and recommendations.
       ``(2) Continuation award.--When an organization requests a 
     continuation award under this section, the board of directors 
     or special governing committee shall submit to the Secretary 
     a written review of the parent training and information 
     program conducted by the organization during the preceding 
     fiscal year.
       ``(g) Definition of Parent Organization.--As used in this 
     section, the term `parent organization' means a private 
     nonprofit organization (other than an institution of higher 
     education) that--
       ``(1) has a board of directors--
       ``(A) the majority of whom are parents of children with 
     disabilities ages birth through 26;
       ``(B) that includes--
       ``(i) individuals working in the fields of special 
     education, related services, and early intervention; and
       ``(ii) individuals with disabilities; and
       ``(C) the parent and professional members of which are 
     broadly representative of the population to be served, 
     including low-income and limited English proficient parents 
     of children with disabilities; or
       ``(2) has--
       ``(A) a membership that represents the interests of 
     individuals with disabilities and has established a special 
     governing committee that meets the requirements of paragraph 
     (1); and
       ``(B) a memorandum of understanding between the special 
     governing committee and the board of directors of the 
     organization that clearly outlines the relationship between 
     the board and the committee and the decisionmaking 
     responsibilities and authority of each.

     ``SEC. 673. COMMUNITY PARENT RESOURCE CENTERS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to, and 
     enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with, local 
     parent organizations to support parent training and 
     information centers that will help ensure that underserved 
     parents of children with disabilities, including low-income 
     parents, parents of children with limited English 
     proficiency, and parents with disabilities, have the training 
     and information they need to enable them to participate 
     effectively in helping their children with disabilities--
       ``(1) to meet developmental goals and, to the maximum 
     extent possible, those challenging standards that have been 
     established for all children; and
       ``(2) to be prepared to lead productive independent adult 
     lives, to the maximum extent possible.
       ``(b) Required Activities.--Each parent training and 
     information center assisted under this section shall--
       ``(1) provide training and information that meets the 
     training and information needs of parents of children with 
     disabilities proposed to be served by the grant, contract, or 
     cooperative agreement;
       ``(2) carry out the activities required of parent training 
     and information centers under paragraphs (2) through (7) of 
     section 672(b);
       ``(3) establish cooperative partnerships with the parent 
     training and information centers funded under section 672; 
     and
       ``(4) be designed to meet the specific needs of families 
     who experience significant isolation from available sources 
     of information and support.
       ``(c) Definition.--As used is this section, the term `local 
     parent organization' means a parent organization, as defined 
     in section 672(g), that either--
       ``(1) has a board of directors the majority of whom are 
     from the community to be served; or
       ``(2) has--
       ``(A) as a part of its mission, serving the interests of 
     individuals with disabilities from such community; and
       ``(B) a special governing committee to administer the 
     grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, a majority of the 
     members of which are individuals from such community.

     ``SEC. 674. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR PARENT TRAINING AND 
                   INFORMATION CENTERS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may, directly or through 
     awards to eligible entities (as defined in section 662(b)), 
     provide technical assistance for developing, assisting, and 
     coordinating parent training and information programs carried 
     out by parent training and information centers receiving 
     assistance under sections 672 and 673.
       ``(b) Authorized Activities.--The Secretary may provide 
     technical assistance to a parent training and information 
     center under this section in areas such as--
       ``(1) effective coordination of parent training efforts;
       ``(2) dissemination of scientifically based research and 
     information;
       ``(3) promotion of the use of technology, including 
     assistive technology devices and assistive technology 
     services;
       ``(4) reaching underserved populations, including parents 
     of low-income and limited English proficient children with 
     disabilities;
       ``(5) including children with disabilities in general 
     education programs;
       ``(6) facilitation of transitions from--
       ``(A) early intervention services to preschool;
       ``(B) preschool to elementary school;
       ``(C) elementary school to secondary school; and
       ``(D) secondary school to postsecondary environments; and
       ``(7) promotion of alternative methods of dispute 
     resolution, including mediation and voluntary binding 
     arbitration.

     ``SEC. 675. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND 
                   UTILIZATION; AND MEDIA SERVICES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall competitively make 
     grants to, and enter into contracts and cooperative 
     agreements with, eligible entities (as defined in section 
     662(b)) to support activities described in subsections (b) 
     and (c).
       ``(b) Technology Development, Demonstration, and 
     Utilization.--
       ``(1) In general.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Secretary shall support activities to promote the 
     development, demonstration, and utilization of technology.
       ``(2) Authorized activities.--The following activities may 
     be carried out under this subsection:
       ``(A) Conducting research on, and promoting the 
     demonstration and use of--
       ``(i) innovative and emerging technologies for children 
     with disabilities; and
       ``(ii) improved transfer of technology from research and 
     development to practice.
       ``(B) Supporting research, development, and dissemination 
     of technology with universal-design features, so that the 
     technology is accessible to individuals with disabilities 
     without further modification or adaptation.
       ``(C) Demonstrating the use of systems to provide parents 
     and teachers with information and training concerning early 
     diagnosis of, intervention for, and effective teaching 
     strategies for, young children with reading disabilities.
       ``(D) Supporting the implementation of research programs.
       ``(E) Communicating information on available technology and 
     the uses of such technology to assist children with 
     disabilities.
       ``(c) Educational Media Services; Optional Activities.--In 
     carrying out this section, the Secretary may support--
       ``(1) educational media activities that are designed to be 
     of educational value in the classroom setting to children 
     with disabilities;

[[Page 10040]]

       ``(2) providing video description, open captioning, or 
     closed captioning of television programs, videos, or other 
     materials with an education-based content for use in the 
     classroom setting when such services are not provided by the 
     producer or distributor of such information, including 
     programs and materials associated with new and emerging 
     technologies such as CDs, DVDs, video streaming, and other 
     forms of multimedia;
       ``(3) distributing materials described in paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) through such mechanisms as a loan service; and
       ``(4) providing free educational materials, including 
     textbooks, in accessible media for visually impaired and 
     print-disabled students in elementary, secondary, 
     postsecondary, and graduate schools.
       ``(d) Applications.--Any eligible entity (as defined in 
     section 662(b)) that wishes to receive a grant, or enter into 
     a contract or cooperative agreement, under this section shall 
     submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such 
     manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     require. For purposes of subsection (c)(4), such entity 
     shall--
       ``(1) be a national, nonprofit entity with a track record 
     of meeting the needs of students with print disabilities 
     through services described in paragraph (4);
       ``(2) have the capacity to produce, maintain, and 
     distribute in a timely fashion, up-to-date textbooks in 
     digital audio formats to qualified students; and
       ``(3) have a demonstrated ability to significantly leverage 
     Federal funds through other public and private contributions, 
     as well as through the expansive use of volunteers.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 674 
     $32,710,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009. 
     There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out sections 
     672 and 673 $26,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as 
     may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 
     2009.''.

     SEC. 402. CONTINUATION OF FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY PARENT AND 
                   RESOURCE CENTERS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     of Education is authorized to use amounts made available for 
     a fiscal year to carry out subpart 3 of part D of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (as added by 
     section 401) to continue to provide funding under grants made 
     to, or contracts or cooperative agreements entered into with, 
     local parent organizations under section 683 of such Act (as 
     such section was in effect on October 1, 2002).

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order 
except those printed in House Report 108-79. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 108-79.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Castle

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer Amendment No. 
1.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Castle:
       Strike sections 104 through 107 of the bill and insert the 
     following (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 104. GAO REPORTS.

       (a) Paperwork Study.--
       (1) Review.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a review 
     of all Federal requirements under the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act, and the requirements of a 
     reasonable sample of State and local educational agencies 
     relating to such Act, to determine which requirements result 
     in excessive paperwork completion burdens for teachers, 
     related services providers, and school administrators.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall prepare 
     and submit to the appropriate congressional committees a 
     report that contains the results of the review under 
     paragraph (1).
       (b) Disability Definitions.--
       (1) Review.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a review of--
       (A) variation among States in definitions, and evaluation 
     processes, relating to the provision of services under the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to children 
     having conditions described in section 602(a)(3) of such Act 
     using the terms ``emotional disturbance'', ``other health 
     impairments'', and ``specific learning disability''; and
       (B) the degree to which these definitions and evaluation 
     processes conform to scientific, peer-reviewed research.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall prepare 
     and submit to the appropriate congressional committees a 
     report that contains the results of the review under 
     paragraph (1).
       (c) Distance Learning Professional Development Programs.--
       (1) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study 
     on existing or developing professional development programs 
     for special education personnel delivered through the use of 
     technology and distance learning.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a 
     report containing the findings from the study conducted under 
     paragraph (1) to the appropriate congressional committees.
       (d) Limited English Proficient Children With 
     Disabilities.--
       (1) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study 
     on how limited English proficient students are being served 
     under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of the Improving Education Results for Children 
     With Disabilities Act of 2003, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall submit a report containing the findings 
     from the study conducted under paragraph (1) to the 
     appropriate congressional committees.
       (e) Definition.--In this section, the term ``appropriate 
     congressional committees'' means the Committee on Education 
     and the Workforce of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the 
     Senate.
       In section 611(a)(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (as amended by section 201 of the bill), strike 
     ``subparagraphs (A) and (B) of''.
       In section 611(e)(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (as amended by section 201 of the bill), strike 
     ``4 percent'' and insert ``40 percent''.
       In section 611(i)(2) of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (as amended by section 201 of the bill), strike 
     ``$13,374,398,000'' and insert ``$13,574,398,000''.
       In section 614(a)(1)(D)(i)(I) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (as amended by section 204 of the 
     bill), strike ``602(3)(A) or 602(3)(B)'' and insert 
     ``602(3)''.
       In section 614(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (as amended by section 204 of the 
     bill), strike ``, to the extent practicable,''.
       In section 614(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (as amended by section 204 of the 
     bill), add at the end before the semicolon the following: ``, 
     unless it is clearly not feasible to do so''.
       Strike subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 615(f)(3) of 
     the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (as amended 
     by section 205(f) of the bill), and insert the following:
       ``(B) Subject matter of hearing.--No party shall be allowed 
     to raise issues at the due process hearing that were not 
     raised in the complaint, discussed during the meeting 
     conducted pursuant to paragraph (1)(B), or properly disclosed 
     pursuant to paragraph (2), unless both parties agree 
     otherwise.''.
       In section 617(b) of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (as amended by section 207 of the bill), after 
     ``content,'' insert ``academic achievement standards and 
     assessments,''.
       In section 665(c)(2) of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (as amended by section 401 of the bill), insert 
     the following:
       ``(G) Preparing personnel who provide services to children 
     with low-incidence disabilities with limited English 
     proficiency.
       In section 665(d)(2)(B) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (as amended by section 401 of the 
     bill), add at the end before the semicolon the following: ``, 
     including children with disabilities with limited English 
     proficiency''.
       In the matter preceding subclause (I) of section 
     666(a)(3)(C)(iii) of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act, strike ``backgrounds, including'' and insert 
     ``backgrounds or are limited English proficient, including''.
       In items (aa) through (dd) of section 666(a)(3)(C)(iii)(I) 
     of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, strike 
     ``of minority'' each place it appears and insert ``of such''.
       In section 666(a)(3)(C)(iii)(II) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act, strike ``children with 
     disabilities from minority backgrounds'' and insert ``such 
     children with disabilities''.
       In section 675(c)(2) of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act, strike ``videos, or other materials with an 
     education based content for use in the classroom setting'' 
     and insert ``videos or other materials that would be 
     appropriate for use in the classroom setting, or news (until 
     the end of fiscal year 2006),''.
       Strike section 402 of the bill (and conform the table of 
     contents accordingly).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), the vice chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Education Reform.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, as I have traveled my district, I hear a 
lot

[[Page 10041]]

of concerns from teachers, administrators and parents, and the most 
common concerns that I have heard reflect on excessive paperwork and 
litigation.
  This bill obviously addresses those. We attempt to streamline the 
administrative process. It provides for less legislation through 
arbitration.
  The second major issue we have talked about a great deal here today 
is funding. I am convinced that the chairman of the committee, the 
subcommittee chairman and others, are fully committed to full funding 
of 40 percent within the next 7 years. The track record pretty much 
backs this up. In the last 8 years, we have seen a 300 percent increase 
in funding for IDEA. So we are very convinced that this full funding 
will occur.
  The third issue I would like to address is over identification. We 
find that some schools have 40 to 50 percent of their student body 
identified as learning disabled, and, generally speaking, this is 
simply due to reading difficulties. So if we have adequate Head Start 
and early learning programs, we can eliminate this process.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the bill. It is a good bill, and I 
appreciate the chairman's offering it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we worked with the majority on this amendment. We do 
not oppose it, and would hope that it could be passed right now.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, first I appreciate the bipartisan support for the 
amendment. Secondly, I think it would be worth taking this 2 minutes to 
try to read what is actually in this amendment so we will know what we 
are voting for.
  It is a technical amendment, it clarifies and consolidates a series 
of GAO reports that were added during the consideration of the bill by 
the Committee on Education and Workforce.
  It redefines the percentage of funds that the State can reserve out 
of its State level activities for programs designed to serve children 
with disabilities with high cost, special education-related services 
needs to reflect the common understanding.
  It updates authorization levels that were modified by the fiscal year 
2004 budget resolution. This level reflects the increased funding in 
the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution included for IDEA Part B State 
Grants.
  It clarifies that evaluations are provided to children in the 
language and form designed to obtain useful information and includes 
longstanding terminology used throughout the implementing regulations 
and elsewhere in the Act.
  It modifies language in the section prohibiting the Federal control 
of curriculum to ensure that this exact language is included in the No 
Child Left Behind Act. This is an important change, by the way, that 
ensures consistent language addressing local control over the 
curriculum.
  It revises language in the Part D programs to ensure that the needs 
of limited English-proficient children with disabilities are met 
through the training of school personnel and effective data collection.
  It modifies the section regarding support for captioning programs to 
enable news programs to be captioned until 2006, which is when Federal 
Communications Commission requirements require all news programs to be 
captioned.
  These amendments, Mr. Chairman, continue our well-balanced approach 
toward improving IDEA. As with the remainder of the bill, these 
improvements will result in improved services for students and improved 
achievement for students.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the text any California amendment, 
but opposing the bill.
  I guess some people are wondering why I have concern about this 
legislation. Having my first two terms in Congress on the Committee on 
Education and Workforce, but also for many years as a State legislator 
in the State Senate in Texas on the Education Committee, it has been 
frustrating, both in Congress and as a legislator dealing with IDEA and 
the special-ed programs.
  For more than a quarter of a century, the Individuals With 
Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, has helped countless disabled youth 
to complete their education and become contributing members of our 
society. I see it every day when I go home every weekend.
  Although this program has succeeded in its efforts to ensure that all 
American children receive a free and appropriate public education, this 
Congress, and I am not talking about the majority Republican, I am 
talking about my first term when we were in the majority, although IDEA 
was not up for reauthorization, we failed to fully fund IDEA. This is 
my sixth term, and for five of those terms, as Democrats, we have not 
been in the majority, so somewhere along the way you are going to have 
to quit pointing back a decade ago and saying ``it is your all's 
fault.''
  I am sure that almost every Member of Congress, at one point or 
another, expressed their support for full funding of IDEA. But when it 
comes down to putting our money where our mouths are, we once again 
come up short.
  I know the frustration, because we see it in our schools, we see it 
on our State level, we see it with our parents, instead of requiring 
Congress to live up to the promise and fully fund the 40 percent of 
IDEA costs that we agreed to do originally, this legislation continues 
to leave the funding subject to the appropriations process.
  Children with disabilities have a hard enough time making it in this 
world. We should not make them compete against all the other very 
worthwhile projects that we have. We should live up to the promise and 
provide mandatory funding for IDEA.
  We also should not make it harder for students to receive their 
education by the provisions in this bill on discipline. I do not want 
somebody bringing guns or knives or scissors to school to hurt someone, 
but I also know we should not let minor infractions cause a student to 
be removed from an educational setting that works for them.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the bill and support for the 
amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a member of the committee.

                              {time}  1315

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of both this amendment and the 
underlying bill.
  We all agree that we need to fully fund IDEA. This legislation will 
get us there sooner than ever before. We will be at 21 percent, over 
half of our promise, by 2004. We will reach full funding in 7 years.
  But this bill contains more than financial matters. It makes it 
easier for parents and schools to meet to discuss the needs of a 
student. It frees teachers and administrators from a mountain of 
required paperwork that takes time away from their students.
  Some parents have expressed concern over the 3-year Individualized 
Education Plan, or IEP. They are afraid that it may undermine their 
children's rights. I want to reassure them that this is simply an 
option. The parents must agree to a 3-year plan. Just like under 
current law, they can request a new IEP at any time.
  Every single one of the due process rights parents have is continued 
under H.R. 1350. This bill will make special education work for all 
students.

[[Page 10042]]


  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), a member of the committee.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey), my friend and the ranking member of the subcommittee, for 
yielding me this time and also for the work that she has put in with 
this important legislation. It has been invaluable. I also want to 
commend the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), my good friend, the 
chairman of the subcommittee, with the way he has conducted the process 
leading up to today's legislation, the outreach he has provided across 
the aisle and throughout the Nation looking for input on what I think 
is the most important piece of education legislation that we will be 
dealing with in this session of Congress. I do support the technical 
amendment before us right now.
  This, Mr. Chairman, is an important piece of education legislation. 
It is about allowing children with special needs in our country to have 
access to quality education that the rest of our children now have. I 
think there was room for improvement on a variety of provisions. I 
think in a lot of respects this bill moves in the right direction to 
improving it: streamlining the IEP process, trying to reduce the 
paperwork burden, trying to increase some flexibility with regard to 
the disciplinary issues at the local level, and emphasizing the 
importance of professional development.
  I especially appreciate the acceptance of a few amendments that I 
offered in committee during markup, one that does emphasize 
professional development and distance learning opportunities for our 
teachers and administrators, and one that calls for a GAO study that 
would encompass the entire country to determine what online materials 
are currently available for our teachers and administrators so that 
they can upgrade their skills.
  But I especially appreciate a new provision that was accepted in 
committee that I offered that permits States to establish and implement 
costs and risk-sharing funds, consortiums and cooperatives to assist 
students with severe disabilities. This is an area that is the fastest-
growing area of education funding at the local level. Children who 
normally would not have survived to school age are surviving today 
because of the miracle of the advancement of medical research and 
technologies. But they are also bringing with them some exceptionally 
high costs that school districts have borne.
  The amendment I put forward allows school districts to address these 
high-risk and exceptionally expensive students.
  We do have to work much harder in this Congress, this year and the 
years ahead, to try to achieve the full funding which virtually every 
Member of this body is on record of supporting. I appreciate the fact 
that the majority party has a 7-year trend line to get to full funding 
on that. I am a little bit skeptical in regards to the institutional 
willingness and the willingness of the administration to make sure we 
achieve full funding. This is the granddaddy of unfunded mandates that 
our local school districts have been wrestling with since the creation 
of this bill back in the 1970s. We must do a better job so that we can 
stop pitting student against student in the classroom and end this 
controversy where it is merely a matter of political and institutional 
will to do what I think we all recognize must be done, and that is make 
sure the resources follow the rhetoric after today's debate. I am 
confident, in working again with the chairman of the subcommittee and 
others who are like-minded on this issue, that we are going to focus 
very closely in regard to the appropriation process and hold people to 
their word. Because if No Child Left Behind is any indication, I am 
skeptical that we are going to get there.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  We have no further speakers, and I think we have 1 minute. I will 
just close by encouraging all of us to support the technical amendment. 
I do not think there is any disagreement about that, so we can go on to 
the other amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 108-79.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Vitter

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Vitter:
       In section 104 of the bill--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following 
     new sentence: ``As part of such review, the Comptroller 
     General shall include recommendations to reduce or eliminate 
     the excessive paperwork burdens described in the preceding 
     sentence.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), after ``Act,'' insert ``and once 
     every 2 years thereafter,''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I bring before the House an important amendment with regard to a 
central problem in IDEA and that is the excessive burden of excessive 
paperwork. I think there is great clarity and great consensus on this 
point that in the present system there is just too much paperwork 
required which drains resources and takes up the time of teachers who 
could otherwise be with students who need their help.
  National surveys show that teachers of special needs students spend 
between a quarter and a third of each work week on regulatory 
compliance rather than education. That is ridiculous. Parents, 
overwhelmed by the system's complexity, often turn to IDEA lawyers for 
advice. That has become the norm rather than the exception. That is 
ridiculous. Teachers of special needs students always cite excessive 
paperwork and too many meetings as leading reasons for their decision 
to cease teaching special needs students, thus exacerbating a serious 
existing shortage of personnel. In fact, the National Association of 
Elementary School Principals supports dramatic paperwork reduction, 
saying that the proposals ``eliminate the dual-discipline system, 
streamline the due process system, and encourage professional 
development for principals.''
  In light of this background, my amendment is very straightforward. It 
does two things. Number one, in part A of the GAO review section, it 
mandates that the review will include recommendations to reduce or 
eliminate the excessive paperwork burdens. Number two, in part B of 
that GAO report section, it requires that a GAO report be submitted 2 
years after the date of enactment and resubmitted every 2 years. The 
benefit of this is very clear. We want a regular way to track progress 
and to demand progress on reducing this excessive paperwork burden.
  So in those two simple, but important, ways, this amendment 
emphasizes the need to reform, streamline, and update the forms and 
requirements mandated on both teachers and parents.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the committee for all of its hard 
work in bringing forward a very positive bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in 
opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Kind) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
only to say that we have no objection to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this

[[Page 10043]]

time. I also want to thank him for his amendment.
  I do not want to prolong this debate, because I am in agreement with 
the other two speakers. But I think it is important to understand the 
impact of paperwork and the meetings and the whole process of dealing 
with IDEA. There is not a person in this Chamber who does not wish to 
help children with disabilities to be educated. But part of the problem 
is that a lot of the teachers drop out of the system, a lot of them 
just cannot face all of the bureaucracy that goes along with it. I 
believe that the Vitter amendment moves strongly in the direction of 
making sure that we are providing oversight to that and doing that 
through a GAO report.
  I might also, from a personal point of view, just say that I believe 
it is one of the reasons that I am happy that we do go through this 
reauthorization process every 5 or 6 years, which is necessary under 
the discretionary form of spending which we have. I think it is very, 
very important that we, as Members of Congress, do keep an eye on this. 
So I do support the amendment, and I encourage all of my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote; and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 108-79.


        amendment no. 3 offered by mr. bradley of new hampshire

  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I 
offer amendment No. 3.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire:
       In section 611(e)(2)(A)(i) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (as proposed to be amended by 
     section 201 of the bill)--
       (1) strike ``$500,000'' and insert ``$750,000''; and
       (2) strike the parenthetical provision.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the gentleman from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  There are two ways that States are able to administer IDEA 
requirements. One way is for States to have $500,000 of administrative 
funds as part of the grant that are capped, but with an inflation 
adjustment; or, alternatively, States are able to use up to 20 percent 
of that grant for administration purposes. However, small States such 
as mine, New Hampshire, generally do not qualify for this provision to 
be able to use the 20 percent figure because it is less than the 
$500,000.
  This $500,000 cap, which was authorized as part of the 
reauthorization law in 1997, therefore places large administrative 
burdens on small States such as New Hampshire as the accountability 
standards of not only the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 
but also the No Child Left Behind law have increased. This increases 
costs to small States, federally mandated costs on States such as mine.
  Some of the issues that are involved are greater accountability 
requirements, improving academic performance, expanded data collection, 
as well as fiscal accounting requirements.
  What my amendment does is lift the cap from $500,000 to $750,000. 
Amendment No. 3 does not increase costs to the Federal Government, as 
there is nothing that mandates the expenditure of these funds. Rather, 
it allows States to spend up to this new cap, as needed, in order to 
comply with the accountability provisions of this law and the No Child 
Left Behind law as it affects special education.
  So for that reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say that we do not, on this side of the aisle, oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BRADLEY of New Hampshire. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by gentleman 
from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in House Report 108-79.


                 amendment no. 4 offered by ms. woolsey

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment 
No. 4.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentlewoman from California the designee of the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis)?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. For the time being, yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. Woolsey:
       In section 602(8)(C) of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (as proposed to be amended by section 101 of 
     the bill), add at the end before the semicolon the following: 
     ``that is reasonably calculated to provide educational 
     benefit to enable the child with a disability to access the 
     general curriculum''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey), as the designee of the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis), and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Amendment No. 4 would change the definition of a free appropriate 
public education, the language changed in the Supreme Court decision 
known as Rowley, which states that the goal of a child with 
disabilities is the same as all other children, to have educational and 
related services necessary for that child to access the general 
curriculum.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1330

  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
  Mr. CASTLE. Although I do not oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I 
ask to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle) is recognized for the time in opposition.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had discussions on this, and it is our judgment 
that this is an amendment we should support. This clarifies what 
services are required to be provided by school districts. It specifies 
that the educational program and services provided under it must be 
reasonably calculated to provide an educational benefit that enables a 
child with a disability to access the general curriculum.
  Children with disabilities should be provided instruction and 
services at public expense that meet the State's educational standards 
for the appropriate grade level that are reasonably calculated to 
enable the child to make progress in the general education curriculum 
and advance from grade to grade. That is what both No Child Left Behind 
and IDEA are really all about.
  School districts have to provide the necessary services, but the act 
does not

[[Page 10044]]

and should not require school districts to provide all services simply 
because a service exists that might have some benefit.
  Essentially, this has been a matter of litigation, and it has been a 
matter of some interest. Our judgment is that the amendment encompasses 
improvements to IDEA. For that reason, I would encourage support for 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  For the purposes of legislative history, the intent of this amendment 
is to codify the interpretation of FAPE contained in the Supreme Court 
decision Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School 
District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, today Ms. Woolsey, as my 
designee, offered a very simple amendment to H.R. 1350, the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act. It does not change the law or the 
educational or related services that have long been provided in this 
act to each child with a disability--a free appropriate public 
education.
  The language is simply designed to assure that when parents and 
teachers sit down at the table to craft an educational program 
appropriate for an individual child with a disability, everyone is on 
the same page about the goal.
  The 18 words added to the definition are taken directly from an 
existing Supreme Court decision, Rowley, which provided controlling 
language on this issue. However, since most of us do not spend our time 
reading Supreme Court opinions, this places the language into the 
definition within the law, where it will be easily found. They are 
words that all of us can understand.
  I want to share them with you. The phrase now reads that a ``free 
appropriate public education means special education and related 
services that'' are: Free--provided at public expense, under public 
supervision and without charge; meet the standards of the State 
education agency; and include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or 
secondary school education in the State involved. This amendment adds 
to that sentence the definition ``reasonably calculated to provide 
educational benefit to enable the child with a disability to access the 
general curriculum.''
  Educators of special-needs children who requested placement of these 
words in the law believe it will help them work with parents as part of 
the child's Individual Education Program teams to be able to test their 
proposals against a clear standard. It gives parents a tool to assure 
that school districts are not dumbing down the goals of education for 
their children as happened too often in the past. It enables all 
parties to look at the promise and make sure the child''s needs are 
served.
  In response to questions from some Members, I would point out that 
this does not in any way change the results of that individual program 
as to whether the child is mainstreamed or not--only that the goal of 
the child's education is to access the curriculum content offered to 
all students.
  During the long period of time during which the Education Committee 
members have been struggling with making this reauthorization of IDEA a 
better bill, there have been some key themes. Funding is, of course, 
one, including helping local school districts recover costs for non-
educational expenses. Some of these issues need continued work as this 
bill moves ultimately to conference.
  However, another theme has been reducing conflict which leads to 
expensive litigation over choosing the program that will best help the 
special needs student. I believe that this simple placement of existing 
language into the context of the definition will help achieve this goal 
of reducing conflict in providing an appropriate education to each 
child.
  I urge your support of this amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed 
in House Report 108-79.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. DeMint

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 5.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. DeMint:
       In section 612(a)(10)(A) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act, as proposed to be amended by the 
     bill, add at the end the following:
       ``(vii) Parent option program.--If a State has established 
     a program described in section 664(c)(11) (whether statewide 
     or in limited areas of the State) that allows a parent of a 
     child with a disability to use public funds to pay some or 
     all of the costs of attendance at a public or private 
     school--

       ``(I) funds allocated to the State under section 611 may be 
     used to supplement those public funds, if the Federal funds 
     are distributed to parents who make a genuine independent 
     choice as to the appropriate school for their child;
       ``(II) the authorization of a parent to exercise this 
     option fulfills the State's obligation under paragraph (1) 
     with respect to the child during the period in which the 
     child is enrolled in the selected school; and
       ``(III) a private school accepting those funds shall be 
     deemed, for both the programs and services delivered to the 
     child, to be providing a free appropriate public education 
     and to be in compliance with section 504 of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794).

       In section 664(c)(9) of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act, as proposed to be inserted by the bill, strike 
     ``and'' at the end;
       In section 664(c)(10) of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act, as proposed to be inserted by the bill, strike 
     the period at the end and insert ``; and''.
       In section 664(c) of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act, as proposed to be inserted by the bill, add at 
     the end the following:
       ``(11) supporting the post-award planning and design, and 
     the initial implementation (which may include costs for 
     informing the community, acquiring necessary equipment and 
     supplies, and other initial operational costs), during a 
     period of not more than 3 years, of State programs that allow 
     the parent of a child with a disability to make a genuine 
     independent choice of the appropriate public or private 
     school for their child, if the program--
       ``(A) requires that the child--
       ``(i) have been determined to be a child with a disability 
     in accordance with section 614;
       ``(ii) have spent the prior school year in attendance at a 
     public elementary or secondary school unless the child was 
     served under section 619 or part C during such year; and
       ``(iii) have in effect an individualized education program 
     (as defined in section 614(d)(1)(A));
       ``(B) permits the parent to receive from the eligible 
     entity funds to be used to pay some or all of the costs of 
     attendance at the selected school (which may include tuition, 
     fees, and transportation costs);
       ``(C) prohibits the selected school from discriminating 
     against eligible students on the basis of race, color, or 
     national origin; and
       ``(D) requires the selected school to be academically 
     accountable to the parent for meeting the educational needs 
     of the student.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask for Members' consideration of my 
amendment to promote specialized education and to empower parents with 
children who have special needs.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and 
my colleagues on the Committee on Education and the Workforce for their 
hard work and determination in bringing this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I have concerns with special education today. Instead 
of meeting the needs of the children who are truly disabled, special 
education is becoming a label for every child that learns differently 
or has not been taught basic skills. Nearly one in eight of U.S. 
schoolchildren is currently considered disabled. As a result, education 
for truly disabled children is becoming less and less special.
  My amendment permits States and encourages States to develop new, 
innovative systems that promote customization of special education. 
Giving States the flexibility to develop new and innovative approaches 
to serving the needs of disabled children will help those children 
receive the customized and truly special education that they deserve.
  Children with special needs deserve education services that are 
customized to their unique needs. This legislation will ultimately 
provide parents with more resources and opportunities for their 
children with disabilities. I am confident my colleagues will support

[[Page 10045]]

giving States the option to develop creative solutions to educating 
special needs children.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek to control time in opposition?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the DeMint 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is 
recognized for the time in opposition.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. Federal funds should 
not be used for private school vouchers for any children, but it is 
particularly dangerous to do this for children with disabilities.
  Vouchers undermine the very foundation of IDEA. IDEA guarantees 
children with disabilities a free and appropriate public education and 
provides important safeguards to the child and the parents to ensure 
that education is received.
  When a special education child takes a voucher to a private school, 
all guarantees of rights under IDEA are lost. The McKay voucher program 
in Florida, which allows children with disabilities to use vouchers to 
go to private schools, is a perfect example of the pitfalls of an IDEA 
voucher program.
  In the Florida special education voucher program, there are no State 
reviews of the education and services being provided, and there are no 
civil rights protections if the parents are not happy with the 
education and services their child is receiving.
  Under the Florida IDEA voucher program, private schools can and do 
charge parents additional tuition and fees above the voucher, making it 
difficult or impossible for low-income parents to benefit from a 
voucher program.
  Contrary to what people claim, vouchers do not increase parents' 
choice. Private schools can and do discriminate for a variety of 
reasons. They can refuse to take a student for any reason, including 
the student's disability. So when it comes to vouchers, it is not the 
parents who have the choice; it is the private school. Whatever choices 
a private school makes, it does not have to let parents or the public 
know why.
  Vouchers give private schools public taxpayer dollars, but the 
private schools are not held to any of the same standards of 
accountability that public schools are held to. Public schools must 
hold open meetings and make their test scores, dropout rates, and other 
basic information public. Private schools are subject to no public 
oversight.
  Accountability to the child, to the parents, and to the public is the 
touchstone of IDEA, and also, supposedly, No Child Left Behind. We must 
not allow vouchers to jeopardize that accountability. I urge my 
colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from South Carolina, for offering this amendment and congratulate him 
on his effort in promoting new and innovative ways to deal with 
children with special needs.
  These children require the utmost in flexibility in their education; 
and the amendment before us encourages innovative options and provides 
States with much-needed flexibility.
  The amendment would accomplish three goals. First, it encourages 
States to establish innovative solutions by providing seed money to 
develop new programs. Second, it answers the call of parents of 
children with disabilities to ensure that educational opportunities are 
not withheld and that States may choose to implement as much or as 
little flexibility as the State deems appropriate. Third, it allows 
States to use Federal dollars in flexible programs already utilizing 
State resources to provide services for children with special needs.
  The amendment does not, as has been claimed by some critics, provide 
vouchers. It simply affords States the flexibility they are seeking to 
provide individualized options for students with disabilities.
  This amendment is not a mandate in any way, shape, or form; but it 
makes new options available for States who choose, these are only for 
States who choose, to want to look at new options and new technology 
and more flexibility in terms of meeting the needs of special needs 
children, of all of their children in their State.
  Each participating State must determine which approach and what type 
of program will best serve the children with disabilities in their 
State, including options such as public schools, charter schools, or 
private schools, whatever is in the best interests of the child. So 
children with disabilities today deserve every effort that can be made 
to provide them with a high-quality education, and their options and 
the options of the States should not be limited.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Yesterday, it 
was choice. Today, it is options. Tomorrow, there is no telling what we 
will call it. But by whatever name we may call it, however we may cloak 
it, this is about vouchers.
  I believe, Mr. Chairman, in innovations, but not innovations that 
supplant the due process clause of the United States Constitution. That 
is exactly what this amendment will accomplish.
  Let us take, for instance, just the issue of choice, if I might use 
that term today. I know that the proponents of this amendment talk all 
the time about providing choice for parents and teachers. This 
amendment provides little choice for parents and students, but provides 
the ultimate choice to schools and administrators.
  It allows these schools to cream, if I might use that term, off all 
of those children that may be a little bit disabled; but those children 
whose parents would like to have them participate who may be a little 
more disabled than the schools would like to tolerate, this amendment 
will allow those children to be rejected, and take away any choice or 
any option from those children to participate.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is in the best interests of 
public education and choice for parents that we reject this amendment.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson).
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, it may have been about choice the other day, it may 
have been about options the other day; it is about children today. No 
lesser authority than the United States Supreme Court has authorized 
the portability of Federal funds for students with special education 
needs.
  There is not a Member of this body that does not represent a State 
that does not have students whose tuition to private schools is paid in 
full under their eligibility because of IDEA and because the State 
determines that it cannot meet the needs of those children.
  This is not about mandating choice to a parent. This is about giving 
the option of portability to a public school system that determines 
that might be necessary in a special ed case; for example, a student 
with severe hearing disability who goes on to an audio trainer in a 
rural system who might be able to serve a semester or a year in another 
institution to learn how to use that audio trainer; or a cerebral palsy 
student profoundly disabled and handicapped who, through assistive 
technology, may have the ability to learn how to function in the public 
school classroom.
  Should we say no if a State makes that determination, and a parent

[[Page 10046]]

chooses, to send most of the money which is theirs, the State's, to 
follow that student? I think not.
  I understand the legitimate debate, and I understand the 
smokescreens; but I married a special education teacher. I worked all 
my life with handicapped children. I am not for blind programs that 
seem to fix things that do not; but I am 100 percent for the 
flexibility to address the uniquely specified needs, sometimes only 
temporarily, on behalf of a child who deserves the opportunity to enjoy 
the richness of life that every one of us without those disabilities 
enjoys right now in this House.
  It is an effort to make a start. It is not a mandate; it is 
permissive. It is about children and their parents and a better life 
for both of them.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis), a member of the Committee.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to address for a 
moment the issue of accountability within the special education system.
  I know when I was a board member in San Diego, I would hear 
repeatedly about how difficult it was in many cases to keep up without 
accountability. Yet we know that it is important.
  I am pleased that during our discussion on this bill, that we talked 
about the need to reduce the paperwork and to find ways that we would 
be accountable, and yet we would make it reasonable and easier for our 
schools to respond and to address the needs of our children. I commend 
the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for that work 
within the committee.
  But please, we need to be careful that we not give up accountability 
when we suggest that any school would be able to deal with those 
issues. The people who work with special education in our communities 
and in our public school systems, they have been doing this for a long 
time.

                              {time}  1345

  They understand the importance of it and they make sure that it works 
for our children. I cannot imagine what it would be like to throw that 
open to a tuition system or a voucher system that really had little 
understanding of that.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time and congratulate the chairman of the committee for bringing this 
piece of legislation forward.
  I think the amendment that is being proposed by my colleague is 
important. It is an important amendment to the underlying legislation. 
We have made significant progress in the IDEA legislation, and this 
amendment would take it one step further. Currently, educational choice 
does exist under IDEA; but too often educational choice exists only for 
those parents who are wealthy enough to litigate to get their child 
placed somewhere else. With the important changes in this bill to 
reduce costly and needless litigation, we must restore to parents 
opportunities to ensure that their child receives the best education 
possible.
  This amendment is very straightforward. It does not require anything. 
What it says is it will allow the State to use research and innovation 
dollars to research and develop new education systems for IDEA children 
that promote customization.
  The intent here is very simple. Let us make sure we get the right 
program, the right resources, and the right skills necessary and match 
them with the child and allow the State the opportunity to experiment 
and innovate to move this process forward. This is a very, very good 
amendment. I hope that we have the opportunity to put this in place and 
let the States move forward and help all of our children.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very bad idea. This law was built 
up about guaranteeing to these children and to their families that they 
would have certain rights that would provide them an access to a free 
and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. And 
over the years we have built up a system of accountability to make sure 
that that education was, in fact, provided to these children.
  Now we come along with this voucher amendment where immediately upon 
the exchange of money from the school district to the private school, 
or from the parent to the private school, those rights are eviscerated. 
Because this bill deems upon acceptance of the voucher that these 
children are getting a free and appropriate education. We do not know 
whether they will or not. If the children decide they are not and they 
come back to the public school system, does the school system get to 
bring some of the money back? Is the money stuck over there? Does the 
school system now have to pony up additional money to educate that 
child? I think the answer is yes, they do because they have an 
obligation.
  The fact of the matter is these schools, they do not have to accept 
the child if the disability is too expensive. They do not have to 
accept the child. They get to pick and choose among the children. The 
public schools have to take the children as they come to give them a 
free and appropriate education. These schools do not have to be 
certified. They do not have to be qualified. They do not have to be 
State licensed.
  What happens to the money? You just get to take this money, the 
taxpayers' money and not have these accountabilities. I can understand 
the desire; and, in fact, the law provides for parents who think their 
children can get a better education at a private school with special 
skills or special talents or a record of handling these children in the 
appropriate way. They can petition to go to these schools.
  In 1997, we had so many people leaving the system that we said you 
cannot do that because you are sticking the school district for so much 
money. And there was no process, there was no determination whether or 
not this was a suitable placement. Now you can just opt out. If the 
parent is lucky and if the child is lucky and it works, fine. If it 
does not, the school district is out the money, the child is out the 
education, and we are back in the stew.
  This is just an unacceptable amendment. Nobody is required to make 
adequate yearly progress with these children under Leave No Child 
Behind. There is no accountability under that. There is for the school. 
There is no accountability in this legislation. There is no 
accountability under, in many instances, State law. So I do not 
understand. The President, the Congress decided that we are going to 
build a system of accountability, and now, still, simply, you can opt 
out of that.
  If students need supplemental services, your legislation provides for 
supplemental services without limit to provide for that child that is 
hearing impaired, that is sight impaired, where they can get additional 
services. I assume that is the purpose of the supplemental services. 
But this voucher goes far beyond that.
  This voucher simply gives some level of scholarship to the parents to 
take. But that does not mean the parents will get into that school. 
They may settle for a school that does not quite provide those 
services. It turns out that does not work, and they are back in the 
public school system. Meanwhile, the public school system trying to 
hold on to a critical mass of people skilled to deal with the education 
of children with disabilities, finds out that the cost per service per 
child goes up.
  Again, as we have seen in the McKay program, about 25 percent of 
these people go out into those things. They get their scholarships. 
They go to schools, and they are coming back. We do not know quite why 
yet they are coming back; but obviously as they come back to the public 
school system, they are more expensive than when they left.

[[Page 10047]]

  There ought to be some screen to know that this, in fact, is going to 
enhance the children's education. We understand and deal with, all the 
time, parents who want another location for the child. That is not this 
system. This is just a wide open voucher system without any 
accountability. It ought to be rejected by the House.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on the opposition side. The 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) has 2\1/
2\ minutes.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Florida set an example for the rest of the Nation by creating a 
program giving parents of children with disabilities the choice they 
deserve. The John McKay Scholarship Program was put in place to 
increase parental choice by allowing the parents of children with 
disabilities who had been attending a public school that was not 
addressing their needs to decide where their child would excel the 
most, be it private or parochial. Currently in Florida, those 
scholarships are funded by the State.
  In passing this amendment we would be able to reach more of the 
374,000 students in Florida alone who are eligible for these 
scholarships. Today, over 9,000 students utilize these scholarships to 
receive the education they would otherwise not be afforded. Fifty 
percent of those students qualify for free and reduced lunch, a higher 
percentage of low-income students than in the general education 
population in Florida. Thanks to these scholarships, we are helping low 
income students receive services they deserve.
  This amendment will allow States to participate if they wish, a 
chance to benefit from the program like the McKay Scholarship Program; 
a program, by the way, which has an 89 percent reenrollment rate by 
those parents who are satisfied with the choice that the McKay 
scholarship affords them.
  Mr. Speaker, Florida has received very positive feedback from these 
parents and from the educational system, and the McKay scholarship 
continues to grow. Let us not turn our backs on these children who 
deserve these educational services and let us continue to help them 
achieve their goals.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concerns of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, but unfortunately they have apparently read the 
propaganda from the Teachers' Union rather than reading the legislation 
itself.
  This legislation does not establish a voucher program. It establishes 
no program at all. It simply encourages the States to innovate in a way 
that will empower parents with more voluntary choices so that they can 
meet the needs of their kids. It allows States to expand the rights of 
parents with more choices, to expand the accountability by giving 
parents more voluntary options.
  Mr. Chairman, this vote today is a vote to empower parents and to do 
what IDEA is supposed to do, and that is to provide personalized, 
customized services for children with special needs.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the DeMint and 
Musgrave amendments. These are thinly veiled efforts to privatize 
special education in our public schools by means of vouchers.
  Not only would vouchers divert much-needed funds from our public 
schools, but children with disabilities who attend private schools with 
these vouchers will be enrolled selectively and that is discriminatory.
  The DeMint and Musgrave voucher amendments drain resources for 
special education costs. Under these amendments, federal funding for 
special education services for all disabled children would instead be 
siphoned off to pay for private school tuition. These amendments would 
take away Federal dollars from public schools, and place additional 
burdens on schools and communities to serve more children with less 
funds.
  These voucher amendments would allow discrimination by private 
schools and fail to provide real parental choice. Worried mothers of 
disabled children from across the country have called my office 
concerned that this bill and these amendments will make it harder for 
them to educate their very dear and special children. These children 
ought not to be ignored because of their special needs. How can we 
justify to a mother of one of these beautiful children that their kid 
is not deserving of an adequate education?
  No child with a disability would be entitled to go to a private 
school of their choice under the DeMint or Musgrave amendments. These 
voucher amendments give veto power to private schools. The schools 
choose which students they will accept, not the parents.
  Children with multiple disabilities and those that require high cost 
services would likely be excluded from the program. Further, the DeMint 
voucher program will not pay the entire cost of tuition at a private 
school, meaning that some families could not afford for their disabled 
child to go to private school.
  For these reasons and the fundamental unfairness of these amendments, 
I urge my colleagues to oppose these amendments that deprive our 
Nation's disabled from the education they deserve.
  Mr. DeMint. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed 
in House report 108-79.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mrs. Musgrave:
       In section 612(a)(10)(A) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act, as proposed to be amended by the 
     bill--
       (1) redesignate clause (vi) as clause (vii); and
       (2) insert after clause (v) the following:
       ``(vi) Local educational agency option.--A local 
     educational agency may elect to fulfill its obligations under 
     this subparagraph to children with disabilities enrolled by 
     their parents in private elementary and secondary schools in 
     the area served by the agency by offering certificates to all 
     such parents for necessary special education and related 
     services, if--

       ``(I) the certificates offered with respect to each child 
     have an annual aggregate value that is equal to the lesser 
     of--

       ``(aa) the per-pupil amount derived by dividing the 
     proportionate share of Federal funds calculated under clause 
     (i)(I) by the number of parentally-placed children with 
     disabilities determined under clause (i)(II); and
       ``(bb) the actual cost of the necessary special education 
     and related services for such child; and

       ``(II) the certificates may only be redeemed by the parents 
     at eligible special education and related services providers, 
     as determined by the local educational agency, that--

       ``(aa) provide information to the parents and such agency 
     regarding the progress of the child as a result of the 
     receipt of such services in a format and, to the extent 
     practicable, a language that the parents can understand;
       ``(bb) meet all applicable Federal, State, and local 
     health, safety, and civil rights laws;
       ``(cc) demonstrate that the provider has been lawfully 
     operating as a business for not less than 1 year; and
       ``(dd) provide assurances to such agency that the provider 
     is financially sound, is not in bankruptcy proceedings, and 
     is not the subject of an investigation or legal judgment 
     involving waste, fraud, or abuse on the part of the provider, 
     or any employee of the provider, with respect to funds under 
     the provider's control.

     Clause (v)(II) shall not apply special education and related 
     services furnished pursuant to such certificates. At the 
     discretion of the local educational agency, and to the extent 
     consistent with State law, State and local funds may be used 
     to add to the value of such certificates.


[[Page 10048]]


  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I am offering today is all about 
local control. It is all about meeting the needs of a group of children 
that is in private schools, special ed students that are there; and 
each one of us would certainly agree that we need to meet the needs of 
these students. Quite frankly, they are not being met today. Although 
these children generate funds and are in the count that the public 
school uses, the Federal dollars flow to the public school, and then 
these dollars very often do not reach the child in regard to purchasing 
the special services that they need.
  This amendment would rectify that by giving the local school 
districts an option of issuing a certificate to the parents of these 
special ed students on an average amount of $1,400 so that the parents 
could purchase the services that these children need.
  This makes great sense since we want to educate all children well. 
The children in public school have due process right with their 
parents.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Musgrave 
amendment and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. Vouchers undermine 
the very foundation of IDEA. IDEA guarantees children with disabilities 
a free and appropriate public education and provides important 
safeguards to the child and the parents to ensure that education is 
actually received.
  When a special education child takes a voucher to a private school, 
all guarantees and rights under IDEA are lost. The McKay Voucher 
Program in Florida, which allows children with disabilities to use 
vouchers to go to private schools, is a perfect example of the pitfalls 
of an IDEA voucher program gone wrong.
  In the Florida special education voucher program, there are no State 
reviews of the education and services being provided, and there are no 
civil rights protections if parents are not happy with the education 
and services their children or their child is receiving. Under the 
Florida IDEA voucher program, private schools can and do charge parents 
additional tuition and fees above the voucher making it difficult and 
usually impossible for low income parents to benefit from vouchers.
  Contrary to what some people claim, vouchers do not increase parents' 
choice. Private schools can and do discriminate for a variety of 
reasons. They can refuse to take a student for any reason including the 
student's disability. So when it comes to vouchers, it is not the 
parents who have the choice. It is the private school.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Franks).
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  Mr. Chairman, it has been said that the States are the laboratories 
of the Nation. In Arizona at this time, when the special needs child 
comes into the public system, oftentimes the public system recognizes 
that they are not fully capable of meeting that special need at that 
time and they provide a certificate for that child to go to a private 
school or a private institution to meet that child's needs.
  All the Musgrave amendment really does is to allow this same option, 
and I emphasize the word ``option,'' to be given to public schools in 
the context of the IDEA legislation. This is not a Federal mandate. 
This is not what people call vouchers. This is simply an option for the 
local schools to do this. And in those cases where they do, it gives 
those parents the opportunity to direct the resources on behalf of 
their child.
  Mr. Chairman, no one knows and loves these children more than these 
parents. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for offering such a 
noble amendment.

                              {time}  1400

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) has 3 
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) 
has 3 minutes remaining.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), a member of the committee.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to this 
amendment. Currently, IDEA guarantees every child with a disability a 
free and an appropriate public education. Diverting public funds to 
private and parochial schools through vouchers really undermines the 
public school system, and it undermines that guarantee that we have 
made to every youngster in this country. Vouchers would subsidize the 
enrollment of children in private schools that are not accountable nor 
subject to Federal civil rights laws.
  Our Republican colleagues have pushed for accountability in education 
through the Leave No Child Behind Act; yet if this amendment passes, 
private schools would not be held to the same standards as public 
schools. We all know that. Public schools accept all children; but 
private and religious schools can and often do discriminate by 
rejecting students due to academic standards, disabilities, behavior 
problems, religious affiliations, and other criteria.
  Public schools are simply that. They are public. Private and 
parochial are simply that. They are private and they are parochial. 
Under this amendment, private schools accepting voucher funds would not 
be required to recognize any of the parental rights contained within 
IDEA. It would be a step backwards.
  We need to move forward in this new millennium. This is directly 
opposite to what IDEA was created to do, giving parents a voice in 
their children's education. Voucher programs will not pay for the 
entire cost; and, therefore, it would simply subsidize those. I 
strongly urge rejection of this amendment.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman 
from Colorado, for yielding me this time.
  I think this is an excellent amendment. Under current law, school 
districts are required to identify all children who have disabilities 
in a district, including private school children. All children. School 
districts are also obligated to provide special education and related 
services to these private school children as a group in an amount equal 
to the proportionate amount of Federal funds generated by these 
children to the district under IDEA.
  Now, what does this mean? It means the school district receives a 
certain amount of dollars to provide services to these children. Under 
current law, however, no parentally placed private school child is 
entitled to individual services, even though the school district 
receives this money. The only requirement in the law is that the 
school's disabled population as a group must be helped.
  In practicality, what this means is that many of the students who 
have been placed in a private or parochial school do not get the direct 
services specific to their needs; and when those services are 
available, they are often offered at times and at places that are 
inconvenient to the child's parents.
  I support the Federal investment in meeting the education needs of 
all of our Nation's children with disabilities. Support this amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

[[Page 10049]]

  The arguments here are very similar to the previous amendment. One, 
it is a very bad idea in terms of policy and accountability and 
responsibility to these children, but it is also a bit of a hoax.
  The idea that the parent can take the Federal share of the money, 
which the gentlewoman says is $1,400, maybe as high as $1,800, and go 
out and buy the same education they are going to get in the public 
school system for their children on the school-year basis, well, where 
does the rest of the money come from? At least if this bill had some 
intellectual integrity, it would say take all the money the school 
district is going to spend, take the $6,000 on a national average, give 
that to the parent and let them try to find this education.
  Obviously, if the parent cannot come up with the additional money, 
they cannot provide for an education. Or if the child is severely 
disabled, this will not begin to cover those services. Remember, most 
of the people who go out to get these services end up suing the school 
district for those services and the school pays the whole amount. They 
pay $15,000, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, or $50,000 because of the kind 
of intense services that these children need in order to qualify to get 
a free and appropriate education.
  That is not what this amendment is about. This is just a shuck and a 
jive, that somehow you can go out and get these first-class services 
for a severely disabled child for $1,400. Again, the bill allows for, 
and I think it makes sense on one level, supplemental services. If 
$1,400 will buy the kind of services for a child that is moderately 
disabled or has a reading problem or something, and is labeled as 
disabled, fine, give them the supplemental services. But the notion 
someone can go out and buy an education for $1,400 is a hoax on the 
parents.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the few times I have ever 
been accused of shucking and jiving. It is not usually what I do for a 
living.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has actually made a 
couple of points that reinforce the point of this amendment. It is 
absolutely true that school districts have come to us repeatedly and 
said we do not have enough money to meet the IDEA standards to do the 
individual development plans and to meet the needs of our special needs 
students. It is the biggest complaint coming out of every school 
district in the country.
  If the schools actually are paying $6,000 to $7,000 a student, which 
sometimes, quite frankly, I think is not an accurate claim, then they 
should be the first ones lining up behind an amendment that says for 
$1,400 we are going to take $6,000 to $7,000 pressure off your school 
system. The opposition of those who say that they are against this 
because there is not enough money, the parent can choose to go to the 
school. If they cannot get the plan, then they do not get the money.
  There are groups in this country, in private schools, who are 
willing, through churches and others, to put up money to try to address 
these types of needs. We as a Federal Government are prohibiting them 
from addressing it and prohibiting those parents from getting the 
opportunity to meet those needs.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The time of the opposition has 
expired, and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) is 
recognized.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Currently, 7 percent of all students enrolled in Catholic schools are 
identified as disabled. Less than 1 percent of them get services. They 
generate $10 million in revenue for the schools in IDEA. The schools 
actually get about $78,000 out of that $10 million generated.
  So when we talk about equity issues and we come to this floor to talk 
about the needs of all children, please consider the fact that these 
are children also. They happen to be in a different setting. They 
happen to be in a school that is not a government school. But that 
should not determine whether or not they are served.
  We have time and time again stood on this floor arguing about whether 
or not we are really talking about children in these bills that we pass 
for education or whether or not we are just simply trying to support a 
particular system, a particular way of educating children. Should our 
concern not simply be about the children? We hear that word bandied 
about, so often used to describe our motives here, but when it is a 
child other than the one the government runs, we say they do not 
deserve it.
  This is a great amendment. I hope we support it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time having expired, the question is on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado 
(Mrs. Musgrave) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in House 
Report 108-79.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Shadegg

  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment 
No. 7.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Shadegg:
       In section 204 of the bill, strike ``Section 614'' and 
     insert ``(a) In General.--Section 614''.
       In section 204 of the bill, add at the end the following:
       (b) Findings; Sense of Congress.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (A) Certain of the categories of disability that allow 
     students to qualify for benefits under the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act have not been scientifically 
     established and, as a result, some children who do not have 
     actual learning disabilities are classified as having 
     disabilities under that Act.
       (B) Nearly one in eight students is now labeled as 
     disabled.
       (C) Over one-half of those students are classified as 
     having learning and behavioral challenges.
       (D) Current definitions of disabilities in the Code of 
     Federal Regulations, particularly the definition of 
     ``emotional disturbance'', are vague and ambiguous.
       (E) The absence of reliable methods for distinguishing 
     children with a special learning disability from children who 
     have lower than expected achievement leads to over-
     identification and misidentification of non-disabled students 
     as students with disabilities.
       (F) The lack of consistently applied diagnostic criteria 
     for specific learning disabilities makes it possible to 
     diagnose almost any low or underachieving child as a student 
     with a disability.
       (G) The President's Commission on Excellence in Special 
     Education (PCESE) found in its July 1, 2002, report, ``A New 
     Era: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and their 
     Families'', that many of the current methods of identifying 
     children with disabilities lack validity and, as a result, 
     thousands of children are misidentified every year, while 
     many others are not identified early enough or at all.
       (H) The President's Commission also found that emotional 
     and behavioral difficulties could be prevented through 
     classroom-based approaches involving positive discipline and 
     classroom management.
       (I) According to testimony from a March 13, 2003, hearing 
     before the Subcommittee on Education Reform of the Committee 
     on Education and the Workforce of the House of 
     Representatives, students are frequently referred to special 
     education because they are not succeeding in the general 
     education setting, and not because they are actually 
     disabled.
       (J) Students with controllable behavioral problems are 
     often classified as having learning disabilities and 
     therefore are not held responsible for their own behavior.
       (K) According to testimony by Secretary of Education Rod 
     Paige on October 4, 2001, before the Committee on Education 
     and the Workforce of the House of Representatives, our 
     educational system fails to teach many children fundamental 
     skills like reading, then inappropriately identifies some of 
     them as having disabilities, thus harming the educational 
     future of those children who are misidentified and reducing 
     the resources available to serve children with disabilities.

[[Page 10050]]

       (2) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (A) students who have not been diagnosed by a physician or 
     other person certified by a State health board as having a 
     disability (as defined under the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act) should not be classified as 
     children with disabilities for purposes of receiving services 
     under that Act; and
       (B) students with behavioral problems who have not been 
     diagnosed by a physician or other person certified by a State 
     health board as having a disability should be subject to the 
     regular school disciplinary code.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and a Member in opposition each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this sense of the Congress amendment is 
simple and straightforward. It is intended to direct IDEA funds to 
those kids most in need.
  We have a problem in this program at the present time of 
overidentifying. It has been discussed in the literature. It was 
discussed in the testimony before the committee. Quite frankly, all too 
often, sadly, some children are identified as being qualified for this 
program, and resources are devoted to them, when they are not, in fact, 
truly disabled.
  The purpose of this amendment is to express the sense of the Congress 
that these resources should go to the truly disabled kids. We do not 
amend the definition of disabled or mentally ill. We do not attack the 
definition. We accomplish that by simply saying that the determination 
of who qualifies to be in the program ought to be made by either a 
psychiatrist or a psychologist or someone licensed by a State medical 
board.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) on the attempts he is making in this amendment 
because I think it is critically important that we are working to 
define very carefully those who are going to do evaluations on 
children.
  However, what I would like to suggest is that we continue to work on 
this, perhaps that we move it to conference and try to refine some of 
the wording. Because I think some of the aspects that deal with 
physicians or trying to carefully define who may do these evaluations I 
believe we will get some more mileage on. It has been an important 
distinction over the years that I myself, as a psychologist, having 
done hundreds of these evaluations, have struggled with in trying to 
come up with the exact way to define special education and learning 
disabilities and the right tests. It is an issue that the Congress has 
been dealing with for many years as well and one that I think really 
requires our continued attention.
  So again I compliment the Members for working on this. I hope we can 
continue to work on this and try to refine some of these definitions so 
that we can get to this end perhaps by another means.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose 
this amendment, and let me just basically state the reason why.
  We have in this country right now 4,000 young people who kill 
themselves every year in suicides. It is the third leading cause of 
death in this age group. We need to consider that two-thirds of young 
people who suffer from mental illness never even get help. Why? Because 
there is a stigma. People do not believe that there is any truth to 
mental illness.
  While I am sure the gentleman who authored this amendment did not 
intend for the amendment to have this impact, what I worry about is 
that the impact of this amendment will be to further add to the stigma 
that exists towards people with mental illness by saying, basically all 
these kids really need is a good swift kick in the butt and they ought 
to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
  The fact of the matter is we know that there are some serious 
emotional disturbances that these young people are facing. To suggest 
that teachers right now in the classroom, administrators and principals 
do not already know which children need special ed and which children 
do not, I think is using the heavy hand of Congress to micromanage what 
school districts are trying to do to help these children.
  So I would just ask the Members of the House to take a good hard look 
at this amendment and to consider the ramifications of voting for this 
because I think there is an unintended effect of passing this amendment 
that will further stigmatize people with mental illness.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to simply comment there is no intent to change the definition of mental 
illness nor to stigmatize in any way.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for 
yielding me this time.
  As a Congress, we have a responsibility to not only fund special 
education but also to make sure the dollars spent on special education 
are targeted to the children who really need the extra assistance and 
learning. Each year, thousands of children are wrongly identified as 
needing special education while many others are not identified early 
enough or at all.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. Chairman, this misidentification reduces the resources available 
to serve children who are actually disabled. Furthermore, it gives some 
children with controllable but negative behavior the ability to 
misbehave without fear of punishing.
  H.R. 1350 takes important strides in addressing the problem of 
overidentification and the mislabeling of children with disabilities by 
way of prereferral services and early intervention strategies.
  It also takes important strides in reforming current discipline 
procedures to make our schools safer for all of our children and 
teachers.
  The Shadegg amendment supports the efforts of this legislation before 
us, and expresses a sense of Congress on reducing misidentification and 
ensuring that our schools are safe. I encourage Members to vote for 
this amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate 
myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Kennedy) because I think this amendment causes a great deal of trouble 
in terms of the questions of the stigma of people.
  I have talked to an awful lot of parents who have great qualms about 
whether their children should be identified in special education 
programs, whether to try to get the child into the program when they 
know the child needs help or not because they are concerned about what 
that means in the future. We have struggled with this in the committee 
and on both sides of the aisle, this question of underidentification, 
overidentification, and of the illnesses that we should be treating in 
this setting.
  I do not think that this language, and maybe it can be improved 
before the end of this process, but I do not think that this language 
is proper. It suggests that only a select number of people are fit to 
pass judgment on whether or not these children are eligible or not, and 
I think it does create a problem in terms of the question of mental 
disability and of special education. I hope that we would not agree to 
this amendment. I think it is very damaging on the front that we have 
tried to make some progress on with the public.

[[Page 10051]]


  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), we are not too far off on what we want 
to do here. Perhaps the gentleman does not like the language exactly 
like it is, but I am also absolutely certain the gentleman does not 
want children placed on the disability list when they should not be if 
it takes away from other children. I think the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Shadegg) is doing the right thing. I am sorry it is just a sense 
of Congress. It should be changed language in this legislation.
  The system is suffering. We are putting people in disability 
situations that are not, and that is harmful, I believe, to the system. 
There are those that are being wrongfully identified, and I do not know 
who should make that decision. A physician might be a good possibility. 
If others are, it might be a smart idea to make sure we are right about 
them and have people who are certified by the State health board.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, right now we have no child 
psychiatrists in this country because there is no reimbursement because 
we have a discriminatory health care system that does not acknowledge 
mental illness as a health matter at all. So how we expect a very, very 
limited number of people who are experts in this area to somehow begin 
to determine all of these caseloads, I think, is absolutely 
impractical, unless the gentleman would commit to me that he would work 
with us to get mental health parity passed so we can get more 
clinicians in the area of mental health.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me try to conclude this debate in the positive 
spirit in which it has gone forward. I would be happy to work with 
Members on the other side of the aisle. The gentleman from Rhode Island 
said there are no child psychologists in America. I believe that is a 
misstatement. There are many I know, and work with some in Arizona. I 
would yield to the gentleman to correct that statement.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Obviously the gentleman understood what 
I was saying. There are hardly any. Ask any of your friends, and they 
will say there is a fraction of a percent in this country.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand the 
point. There are many.
  But the point of the debate is that the goal of this sense of 
Congress amendment is, in fact, to direct the resources that we have 
for disabled children to those disabled children, and to make sure that 
we are putting into the program those kids, those young people, those 
children in our schools most in need. The reality is this is an 
incredibly important program that I take great pride that the 
Republican Congress has funded at an exceedingly higher level than it 
was in the past, but those resources need to go to the children most in 
need. I urge Members to support it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with 
the gentleman to see us be more constructive with our funds. We know 
there are a lot of ways to identify children that are going to have 
emotional disturbances and learning disabilities as a result early on 
before they get put into special education. This Congress and others 
ought to be focusing more on putting in intervention services for those 
children. That is where I think our attention should be, not 
unintentionally making mental illness a stigma.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in House 
Report 108-79.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       Strike subparagraph (A) of section 602(27) of the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (as proposed to 
     be amended by section 101 of the bill) and insert the 
     following:

       ``(A) In general.--The term `specific learning disability' 
     means a disorder due to a medically detectable and 
     diagnosable physiological condition relying on physical and 
     scientific evidence and not based on subjective criteria.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Much of the debate over this particular amendment, I think, we have 
actually heard over the previous amendment. It goes to the same issue, 
although this is not a sense of Congress, this is an amendment to the 
bill. It is designed specifically for the purpose of trying to identify 
those children who are truly in need of the services that we 
appropriate money for here, and distinguish them from those children 
who are not, but who are placed into these programs in ever-greater 
numbers, thereby diluting the pool of resources available to serve 
children who are truly in need.
  This is a problem which has been with us since the beginning of this 
program. It was hoped it would be addressed in the reauthorization. 
That did not happen. The reauthorization does, in fact, what the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) was asking for a minute ago, 
and that is emphasize early identification, and I am all for that. I do 
not believe that will change the problem.
  If children are being misidentified today, they will be misidentified 
earlier. That is the real problem, misidentification, not the time at 
which it happens. The problem is with it intrinsically.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
Tancredo amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment restricts local schools' methods of 
identifying students as having learning disabilities by redefining the 
language ``specific learning disability'' as a disorder ``due to a 
medically detectable and diagnosable physiological condition relying on 
physical and scientific evidence.''
  Learning disabilities are not simply a medical condition that can 
only be determined by a doctor. Current definition includes disorders 
with psychological processes which have severe impact on learning and 
behavior. The Tancredo amendment creates a new and very narrow medical 
condition definition that would actually keep children from getting the 
special education services that they need, and they need those services 
so they can learn and be successful in school.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to talk about a very important 
issue, and that is overidentification and misidentification of children 
with suspected learning behavioral disabilities. If schools misdiagnose 
a child, it not only affects their report card, but it affects their 
future. We need to make sure that the right children receive special 
education.

[[Page 10052]]

  The Tancredo-Graves amendment seeks to address this problem which is 
driving up the cost of IDEA and putting misdiagnosed kids into special 
needs programs. The majority of kids with disabilities are medically 
diagnosed and, therefore, receive special education services. Children 
with learning and behavioral disorders should be no different.
  The bottom line is if a child has a medical disability, whether it be 
physical, mental, learning or behavioral, it should be diagnosed and 
have a medical opinion from a medical professional in order to receive 
the same special education services as those children that are 
medically diagnosed.
  The Tancredo-Graves amendment would protect parents, and most 
importantly, it would protect children from being labeled with a 
disability that they may not have.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this committee has 
struggled long and hard over many years to try and reduce litigation in 
this legislation. I think we have a magnet here in terms of litigation. 
And I also think because the definition of ``medically detectable and 
diagnosable physiological condition,'' I am not quite sure how we are 
going to comply with that in the number of conditions that children 
have. The number of means by which we now diagnose children I am not 
sure fit within that definition. By the same token, I suggest that does 
not mean that they are not properly enrolled in these programs and do 
not have a disability that requires special attention in terms of their 
ability to get an education. I think this is a really bad amendment, 
and I would urge Members to oppose it.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, let me rise to support this amendment. 
This language really needs to go to conference. It needs to be in the 
bill. There are too many people placed in special education that should 
not be in special education, and that harms the system and it also 
harms those that should be in special education and the dollars that 
flow to them. All I am saying is let us put the right people in special 
ed, and those that should not be there not be there.
  This amendment was read earlier stating, ``The term `specific 
learning disability' means a disorder due to a medically detectable and 
diagnosable physiological condition relying on physical and scientific 
evidence,'' and then the reading stopped. The important part of this 
language is, and I continue, ``and not based on subjective criteria.'' 
I do not know that part was not read out, but that is the part that is 
so important because that is why so many people are in special 
education that should not be in special education. I urge Members to 
pass this and we will get into conference and talk further.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, the problem we have in 
this country right now is not that there are too many people who are 
overidentifying themselves as having mental illness; it is that it is 
too few people. And the notion that people are readily just going in 
there and saying, oh, my child is disabled or I have a mental illness, 
you have got to be kidding me. Two thirds of those who need the help 
are not getting it, and if my colleagues think that the people who 
really are going to be at the lower-end socioeconomic levels are going 
to be able to go to a doctor, pay for it to try to get identified so 
they can get this program, who do they think is going to get it under 
their bill? I will tell them who. People with health insurance and 
money. They are the only ones who are going to be able to afford to see 
a doc to get this designation. In addition to that, this mentally 
detectable and diagnosable, physiological condition, that has got 
stigma and stereotype written all over it. It is language that is 
basically for those who are concerned about this issue, code language 
for discrimination against people with mental illness; and that is a 
fact. And my colleagues can talk to anyone who leads any mental health 
organization in this country, NAMI, National Alliance for the Mentally 
Ill, any of those, and they will say this language here plays upon the 
age-old stereotype of people with mental illness. And I urge my 
colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I believe the Member is headed in an 
important direction in terms of identifying a better way of evaluating 
children. And speaking as the only Member of this Chamber who has done 
hundreds of these tests, I would like to say medical doctors for the 
most part do not have the training or the tools to do these 
evaluations. We need to pursue a clearer definition. I am absolutely in 
agreement on that, but I am not sure this is the correct way to do 
this. Even the best neurologists, M.D., can say if brain tissue is 
malformed or damaged; but they cannot say if the brain is functioning 
properly and therefore give some explanation or diagnosis of such 
concerns as Asperger's, autism, or dyslexia at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentlewoman from California 
has 1 minute. The gentleman from Colorado has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to repeat that this amendment creates a very narrow 
medical condition definition, and it would keep children from getting 
the special education services they need to learn and to be successful 
in school.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, once again I would just 
say, as my good friend has just said, the reason that doctors are not 
trained in identifying mental illness is that we still are living in a 
country where mental illness is not regarded as part of the body. In 
other words, brains are not considered an organ of the body currently 
in this country for purposes of insurance. So why should we be 
surprised when there are not any doctors out there who can have the 
training to do this? What the gentleman is doing is not helping us. It 
is hurting us. So I would just ask my colleagues once again please vote 
``no'' on the Tancredo amendment.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The dictionary definition of physiological psychology, a branch, by 
the way, of physiology, is that it is concerned with the relationship 
between the physical functioning of an organism and behavior. So I am 
quite sure that this definition will cover the kinds of folks, the 
kinds of problems that my colleague from the other side of the aisle 
has brought to our attention. It is certainly not my intention to 
discriminate against them. It is simply my intention to make sure that 
only the children who need help, be it physical or mental, get that 
help, and they are now being refused that help. We cannot get them into 
the program. We cannot give them the help they need because of the many 
kids who are there who should not be there. I sat through many 
processes that were designed. As a teacher, I sat through the process 
designed to determine which kids should go into special ed and which 
kids should not, and I will tell my colleagues everything in that 
process is designed to push the kid in. Everybody around that table is 
usually there to say yes, including the parent, who does want an 
excuse. More often than not, they do want an excuse for the problems 
they are having, and a lot of problems are behavioral. There are all 
kinds of kids in our classrooms today who are there in IDEA classrooms 
and handicapped education because their IQ does not fit their 
achievement level. But that is not necessarily a handicap and should 
not be a definition of a handicapping condition. We have title I for 
this kind of thing.

[[Page 10053]]

That is the problem, too many put there subjectively. It is not an 
attempt to discriminate between mental or physical handicap one iota. I 
assure my colleagues I have a personal concern about those issues. I 
assure them.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Tancredo) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed, in the following order: amendment No. 2 
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), amendment No. 5 
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint), amendment 
No. 6 offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), and 
amendment No. 8 offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Vitter

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 108-79 offered 
by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 413, 
noes 0, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 150]

                               AYES--413

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Becerra
     Cannon
     Combest
     Dooley (CA)
     Dreier
     Foley
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Honda
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kingston
     Lampson
     McCarthy (MO)
     Otter
     Owens
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Tiahrt
     Whitfield
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry) (during the vote). Members are 
advised there are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1457

  Mr. NADLER and Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 150, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 150, I was at the White 
House for a bill signing. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye.''
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 150, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 150, the 
Vitter amendment regarding the GAO study on IDEA paperwork, I was 
unavoidably detained in a business meeting.
  If I had been able to be present, I would have voted ``aye'' on 
rollcall No. 150.
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I missed the vote on the 
Vitter amendment to H.R. 1350, Improving Education Results for Children 
With Disabilities Act of 2003. Had I been present I would have voted 
for the amendment.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6, rule XVIII, the 
remainder of this series will be conducted as 5-minute votes.

[[Page 10054]]




                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. DeMint

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. DeMint) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 240, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 151]

                               AYES--182

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--240

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burr
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Becerra
     Combest
     Dreier
     Gephardt
     Honda
     Kingston
     McCarthy (MO)
     Owens
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry) (during the vote). Members are 
reminded there are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1507

  Mr. CULBERSON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SWEENEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 151, had 
I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 108-79 offered 
by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176, 
noes 247, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 152]

                               AYES--176

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kline
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Putnam

[[Page 10055]]


     Radanovich
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--247

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bass
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burr
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Becerra
     Combest
     Dreier
     Gephardt
     Honda
     Kingston
     McCarthy (MO)
     Owens
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Whitfield


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded 
there are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1514

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1515


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The pending business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 54, 
noes 367, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 153]

                                AYES--54

     Akin
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Brown (SC)
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Collins
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Deal (GA)
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Everett
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Graves
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hostettler
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jones (NC)
     King (IA)
     Linder
     Manzullo
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Pitts
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Shadegg
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Wamp
     Wicker

                               NOES--367

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin

[[Page 10056]]


     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Becerra
     Combest
     Dreier
     Gephardt
     Honda
     Kingston
     McCarthy (MO)
     Owens
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Weller
     Whitfield


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1523

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 9 printed in House Report 108-79.


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Kirk

  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 9.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Kirk:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO SAFE AND DRUG-FREE 
                   SCHOOLS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Providing children with disabilities with a safe, 
     productive, and drug-free learning environment is a laudable 
     goal for our Nation's schools.
       (2) Schools are a refuge for students, not a place where 
     drugs and violence are to be tolerated.
       (3) Every child with a disability in the Nation deserves 
     access to a quality education, including a safe and drug-free 
     learning environment.
       (4) Local educational agencies, school boards, schools, 
     teachers, administrators, and students all have a 
     responsibility to keep school facilities, including lockers, 
     drug-free.
       (5) Random searches of student lockers to seize any illegal 
     drugs or drug paraphernalia has been known to work as an 
     effective method to address the problem of such drugs and 
     paraphernalia. The time of day in which lockers are to be 
     searched should be left to the discretion of the local 
     educational agency.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that safe and drug-free schools are essential for the 
     learning and development of children with disabilities.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for 
their hard work and dedication to improving our Nation's special 
education system.
  I also want to thank Sage Lansing of my staff for her work on this 
issue.
  Mr. Chairman, this issue of our education system is very important. I 
had raised an issue of Impact Aid for our military men and women in a 
conflict that is just ending today, and I hope and pray that the 
committee takes up that issue at another time.
  But I am here to talk about protecting the most vulnerable students 
in our schools. My amendment before the House recognizes that special 
education students face various challenges throughout their school day, 
and not the least of which are the dangers posed by drugs on school 
property.
  My amendment recommends, but does not mandate, that random locker 
searches are an effective way of reducing the severity of the drug 
problem in a particular school. The decision to employ this technique 
is left to the discretion of each school administrator.
  Two high schools in my district, Libertyville High School and Vernon 
Hills High School, have conducted locker searches which have been 
hailed by parents, students, and staff as an effective and necessary 
method for indicating to students that the use of and sale of drugs on 
school property is not to be tolerated. These searches are a proactive 
technique that will hopefully discourage students from using or selling 
drugs in school.
  A U.S. Supreme Court case entitled New Jersey v. T.L.O. in 1985 set 
the precedent that school searches fall under the fourth amendment's 
reasonableness standard. The majority Court opinion said: ``Striking 
the balance between schoolchildren's legitimate expectations of privacy 
and a school's equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in 
which learning can take place requires some easing of the restrictions 
in which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject. Thus, 
school officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student 
who is their authority.''
  The goal of this amendment is not to infringe upon a student's right 
to privacy; rather, it is intended to protect the entire school 
community from the dangers and health problems associated with the use 
and sale of illegal drugs.
  I urge my colleagues to express their support for safe and drug-free 
schools by supporting the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for his 
amendment.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and 
Human Resources, few things are as important as trying to maintain 
order and safety in our schools.
  This is a particular opportunity to point out what has been a current 
interest and the personal interest of the director of SAMSA, Charles 
Curry, on looking at co-occurring disorders.
  Increasingly, we are seeing the narcotics traffickers, particularly 
in urban centers but also in schools and elsewhere, prey upon the most 
vulnerable population in this country: those people who have various 
disabilities. We are seeing in many of the public housing areas now, 
not only in the United States but around the world, the vulnerability 
of this population to marketing and aggressive sales.
  I think that the point that this amendment makes, that one of the 
things that keeps our schools safer for these vulnerable students is to 
make sure that the illegal narcotics stay out of the schools, is very 
important. We need to have this resolution passed.
  I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for calling 
attention to the specific problem of drugs in schools, but also to the 
co-occurring disorders that are such a challenge in our society.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham), the ace of the House.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I 
thank the gentleman for the caring amendment.
  Both my daughters have gone through public school, and most of the 
Members here have done the same thing. We know that a war on terrorism 
is a war on drugs, as well.
  If one is a mother with a child with special needs, or a child in a 
mainstream, drugs are a problem. A hearing-impaired child that sells 
cocaine in my opinion should be held accountable, because it has 
nothing to do with the actual disability.
  This bill goes beyond that. It protects our schools. It makes sure 
that our schools and our lockers are free not just from drugs but from 
weapons.

[[Page 10057]]



                              {time}  1530

  We have seen Columbine and we have seen other issues that have 
occurred and this helps solve that problem. We spoke yesterday in a 
bipartisan way about Peter Yarrow and ``Don't Laugh at Me.'' All of 
these issues are put in place to protect our students and our children, 
and I commend the gentleman.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 10 printed in House Report 108-79.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. McKeon

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. McKeon:
       In section 611(f) of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (as proposed to be amended by section 201 of 
     the bill), add at the end the following:
       ``(4) Special rule for increased funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the amount available for allocations 
     to States under subsection (d)(1) for a fiscal year is equal 
     to or greater than the amount allocated to States for fiscal 
     year 2003, then each State may retain not more than the 
     amount of funds it had reserved under subsection (e)(1)(B) 
     for fiscal year 2003.
       ``(B) Exception.--In any fiscal year in which the 
     percentage increase of the amount available for allocations 
     to States under subsection (d)(1) is equal to or greater than 
     the rate of inflation, each State may increase its allocation 
     under subsection (e)(1)(B) by the amount allowed under 
     subsection (e)(4)(B), for the sole purpose of making grants 
     under subsection (e)(4)(A).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 1350, the 
Improving Education for Children with Disabilities Act of 2003 which 
will make dramatic improvements to the Nation's special education law.
  The amendment that I, along with my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey) am offering would amend current law to require 
that any additional increases in Federal spending above fiscal year 
2003 levels be passed down directly to the local level.
  Over the past 2 years, the State of California has substituted 
additional Federal education money for State funds, in most cases to 
mask the budget deficit. In effect, the State has used Federal dollars 
as the soul source of increase in special education over the last 2 
years, allowing the State to spend the expected increase in Federal 
dollars to the State on other programs.
  In 2003, the State of California received an increase of $151.5 
million in Federal funding to go towards educating special needs kids, 
and in 2004, the State is slated to receive an increase of $82.8 
million. This level is likely to be significantly higher for my State 
if Congress provides the significant increases in special education 
funding called for in the budget resolution.
  Unfortunately, California school children have not seen the benefits 
of increase in the Federal Government. While this practice may not 
violate any law, I believe it violates the intent of our recent efforts 
to increase Federal education funding and is harmful to our Nation's 
school children.
  In a Contra Costa Times article that appeared in February 2002, Sandy 
Harrison, spokesman for the State finance department, said ``the 
governor substituted the new Federal funds for State funds because it 
was a tough budget year.''
  Even though the redirection of funds in California was only supposed 
to be for one year, the State has decided once again to use the Federal 
money to replace State funding for special education. Of additional 
concern is that this practice is no longer limited to only the State of 
California. The States of Kansas, Iowa and Oregon are contemplating 
similar efforts to retain Federal funding at the State level instead of 
sending it down to the local level where it can make the most 
difference.
  Over the last few months and even during consideration of the bill by 
the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, we tried many 
avenues to deal with this concern. Unfortunately, most were unworkable 
and would have been difficult to administer.
  The one alternative that is easy to administer and immediately solves 
the problem is to mandate that any additional Federal funding above 
fiscal year 2003 be distributed straight to the local education 
agencies.
  The McKeon/Woolsey amendment has the strong support of teachers and 
local school officials, those on the front lines in California who want 
to ensure that children with disabilities receive the quality education 
they deserve. For example, the L.A. County Office of Education which 
serves as the Nation's largest regional education agency, assisting 81 
school districts, serving 1.6 million students, responsible for serving 
10,000 children with physical and mental disabilities said that this 
amendment will help us meet our responsibility to provide the highest 
quality education to our children by ensuring that funding reaches the 
local level where it is most needed.
  They go on to say that the amendment enhances our Nation's investment 
in the future of our children and the attainment of our dreams and 
aspirations. By passing H.R. 1350, Congress moves closer to following 
through on a commitment made over 27 years ago to families and their 
children with special needs. If States are allowed to usurp Federal 
funds that are intended to supplement, not replace State funding, this 
commitment will never be realized.
  Special needs children in my State cannot afford to be stripped of 
this desperately needed funding. Therefore, I am offering this 
amendment so that the unprecedented level of funding offered by 
Congress is not diluted because of States unwillingness to make special 
education funding a priority.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment, but I do not oppose it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there is strong bipartisan support for the McKeon/
Woolsey amendment, amendment No. 10, because it guarantees that from 
now on, all increases in Federal IDEA funds go to local schools where 
they belong.
  My Republican colleague and I came together to offer this amendment 
because we want to make certain that State do not use Federal increases 
in IDEA funds to solve their State budget problems. We are aware of at 
least 4 States, including our own California, that may be considering 
using IDEA funding increases at the State level for other purposes.
  While we all here in this room are sympathetic to State budget 
problems, we agree that IDEA funding must not be used to solve those 
problems. The McKeon/Woolsey amendment ensures this will not happen by 
prohibiting States from keeping increases in IDEA funds for their own 
use.
  Whenever I talk to the educators in my local school districts, the 
first thing they bring up is IDEA, and the first thing they bring up 
about IDEA is funding. As we all know, the Federal government has a 
long way to go to fully fund the Federal share of IDEA. It is our local 
school districts who fulfill the responsibility of providing every 
child with a free and appropriate public education. And it is these 
school districts, not the States, who must benefit from federal IDEA 
funds.
  Local schools desperately need every penny of Federal IDEA funds, and 
the

[[Page 10058]]

McKeon/Woolsey amendment makes sure that they get them. I encourage my 
colleagues to vote aye on the McKeon/Woolsey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from San 
Diego, California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have spent 12 years in this body, 
both in the authorization and the Committee on Appropriations. My 
sister-in-law is in charge of all special education in San Diego city 
schools. She works for Alan Bersin. And what he has stated that he has 
got two basic problems. One is that it is improper to say that the 
governor is taking Federal education money and cutting IDEA. What he is 
doing is reducing the State funds for IDEA and the Federal funds are 
supposed to go above that to enhance the IDEA funding, and the governor 
is doing that to balance his budget. This amendment prevents that.
  There is much more that we could do in this body. I wish that we 
could reduce the maximum amount of paperwork. In California it is 
unbelievable. I wish we could cap lawyer fees, and put the money 
directly towards students. We cannot do all of those things. We do not 
have the votes on some of these issues. But this one is not only very 
thoughtful, and I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Woolsey) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), it is not 
only thoughtful, but it is needed to protect the funds that we have 
appropriated in a bipartisan way for IDEA.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 11 printed in House Report 108-79.


               Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Nethercutt

  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Nethercutt:
       In section 635(a)(16)(B) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (as proposed to be amended by 
     section 301 of the bill), add at the end before the period 
     the following: ``or in a setting that is most appropriate, as 
     determined by the parent and the individualized family 
     service plan team''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I propose today is intended to 
expand the service opportunities available to young children under IDEA 
in an appropriate facility or facilities in conjunction with a parent 
and the best recommendations of the individualized family service plan 
team. It is an expansion of services available to children, not a 
contraction under IDEA.
  The reason for this amendment is for the following purposes: In my 
district of Spokane, Washington, eastern Washington, the City of 
Spokane, we have a great facility called the Spokane Guild School. They 
have a dedicated board of trustees and dedicated volunteers and 
operational people from Dick Boyser to Rick Melanson and to Jim 
O'Connell to many, many others who have looked at the services that are 
provided by the Spokane Guild School and found them to be so superior 
to other environments that may be available to young children who are 
experiencing muscular conditions or neuromuscular conditions that need 
attention at an early intervention age.
  So what they have done over the years is determine that perhaps 
existing law would exclude them from providing services for these 
precious children because it is not necessarily in a natural 
environment. But my amendment intends to make sure that the definition 
of natural environment includes the kind of facilities like this, the 
Spokane Guild School and many others in our State of Washington, and 
perhaps around the country, so that the children are benefitted in 
conjunction with the requests and expectations of parents and the IFSP 
team. So this is not a threatening amendment. To the disability 
community it is an enhancement.
  About a year or so ago about the request or suggestion of Mr. 
Melanson and others, we put $500,000 in to make sure that the 
government of the United States understands the value of this kind of 
environment for children suffering these kinds of conditions that need 
desperate help at an early age. We were able to get that money in to do 
some studies, to make sure that the model that exists in the State of 
Washington through the Spokane Guild School may be replicated around 
the rest of the country because it is enhancing for students and little 
children, not diminishing.
  I have had Undersecretary Bob Pasternak from the Department of 
Education come to our district, and he did so willingly and with a 
critical eye, but also a welcoming expectation about the great services 
that are available even though they may not be precisely in a home 
environment. I will speak for him and say that we were delighted to 
have him come, and I believe he was delighted to be able to be there.
  In the visit that Undersecretary Pasternak made, he made an 
impression on us as a caring person in the bureaucracy of the 
Department of Education and in government, but also a person who wants 
to, in his best expectations, have children served properly who are 
subject to the IDEA.
  So we have a lot to offer in this environment. We have a State 
legislature in my State, the Senate passed legislation that said, 
Congress, please allow this expansion or interpretation of IDEA to 
cover a place like the Spokane Guild School. It passed the House by 96 
to nothing. It passed the Senate in our State 49 to nothing. So it is a 
bipartisan, comprehensive, high-expectation measure that helps 
children.

                              {time}  1545

  So I would just urge the chairman of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce and the minority Member, certainly the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) are all dedicated 
to the best interest of young children, and I would hope this amendment 
could be accepted. It is a good amendment. It is going to help children 
at the best level for the parents and for the children and the team 
that supports the child. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume to have a 
colloquy with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the gentleman for his amendment 
and for his support of young children and their families. I understand 
this amendment retains the integrity of the team process. We want to 
preserve the team approach and the philosophy that the decisions of the 
IFSP team are to be made in partnership with the family and the 
providers in determining together what is appropriate for the child.
  I also understand that this amendment is not meant to understate the 
importance of even the youngest children with disabilities being able 
to be with their peers in their neighborhoods, child care or Head 
Start, or in other settings that will give them both the special 
services they need but the opportunities to be part of their 
communities. Is this correct?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. The gentlewoman is correct. Her interpretation of my 
amendment is exactly correct, and it is appropriate for children and 
the team approach to making sure that services for children are 
properly provided.

[[Page 10059]]


  Ms. WOOLSEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Nethercutt) has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time 
to urge passage of this amendment.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me suggest to our Members that our 
friend from the State of Washington makes a valuable contribution to 
the bill, and I would urge the Members to support his amendment.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
chairman and thank the minority Members who support this amendment. It 
is good for children, it is good for IDEA, and is a proper expansion, 
or I should say interpretation of existing law.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 12 printed in House Report 108-79.


          Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mrs. Davis of California

  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on 
behalf of my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta 
Sanchez).
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mrs. Davis of California:
       In section 665(b)(2)(I) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (as proposed to be amended by 
     section 401 of the bill), add at the end before the period 
     the following: ``, including to train school safety personnel 
     and first responders who work at qualified educational 
     facilities''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Loretta Sanchez amendment would include language in 
the bill that would authorize the use of funds to develop and improve 
programs to train school safety personnel and first responders who work 
at educational facilities in the recognition of autism spectrum 
disorders.
  The goal of the amendment is to train school safety personnel and 
other first responders to respond appropriately to persons exhibiting 
behaviors and/or characteristics of developmental disabilities and/or 
mental illness. We are not asking for additional funds in this 
amendment, but rather to use those funds that have been designated for 
this particular purpose.
  Mr. Chairman, many years ago, back in the 1960s, I actually worked 
with autistic children and their families; and I worked with them in an 
institutionalized arena. I always marvel today that many of those 
children who I knew in these hospitals in California are now in our 
public school system. We have many children who years ago could not 
benefit from the many advantages of our public school system, but they 
are doing that today.
  From time to time, unfortunately, they may display behaviors that 
people do not understand very well. We have tremendous medicines today, 
but now and then children either do not get those medications or for 
one reason or another they are not being as effective as they could be. 
What we need to be certain of is that people who are in the community 
can observe these children, can respond to them effectively, can work 
with bystanders as well who may in fact be troubled by their behaviors.
  It is very important that if we have this funding mechanism 
available, that we utilize it to the best benefit of our children. I am 
very pleased that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) 
has brought this amendment forward. I think it will be of immeasurable 
benefit. We need to be certain that the kind of aggressive or self-
injurious behavior that sometimes is present in these children is dealt 
with appropriately.
  Let us pass this amendment, understand its implications and its 
benefits, and be certain that children who suffer from autism, and 
there are many of them today in our country, autism affects nearly 1.5 
million people, that these children have people who understand their 
behaviors, can respond to them, can help them and can help those around 
them in the school system, associates, friends, neighbors, to better 
deal with their problem as well.
  We have seen that where we have trained our first responders, even in 
domestic violence, whatever it may be, to deal on the spot with the 
situation as they see fit, that we have all benefited. I cannot think 
of any better way to use these funds but in this way, and I am 
delighted that my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Loretta Sanchez), is here to speak further about this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say that we, on this side, are in support of this amendment. I 
met, I think it was just yesterday actually, or the day before, but 
with family groups in Delaware, my home State, where we are concerned 
about autism; and this actually is one of the very areas they 
discussed.
  We realize these children are very gifted, and we realize this can be 
very difficult. I happen to believe this is an amendment that has merit 
and adds to the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
remarks and appreciate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta 
Sanchez) introducing this amendment.
  Autism is one of the most misunderstood maladies that children have 
and adults have in this country, and it is a growing problem. We have 
one out of every 200 children in America now becoming autistic. It used 
to be one in 10,000. It has been multiplied by 50 the number who are 
affected.
  Many of these children do have problems occasionally, where they flap 
their arms, they will bang their heads against the wall, they will even 
speak incoherently. It takes somebody who understands to be able to 
deal with them. It is very difficult on parents, but it is more 
difficult even for people who are trying to educate these children.
  So I think this is a great amendment, and I appreciate the 
gentleman's comments, and I appreciate the amendment of the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) in introducing this amendment.
  The parents of these autistic children for the past 5 or 6 months 
here in the Congress have been fighting a very difficult battle with 
pharmaceutical companies, because they think, and I believe, that many 
of these children were damaged by mercury in some of the vaccines that 
we had. So they have had a tough fight, and I am glad to see that we 
are showing a little concern about their problems by having this 
amendment on the floor; and I assume it will be adopted without any 
opposition.
  So I thank the gentlewoman, and I thank the committee for accepting 
it.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume just to simply say that I appreciate the opportunity to 
have addressed this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from

[[Page 10060]]

California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) and ask unanimous consent that she be 
allowed to control that time in order to speak further about the need 
for this important amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) has 2 minutes remaining.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, autism is currently the third most common developmental 
disability. It is more common than Downs syndrome. A majority of the 
public, including those who work in schools, do not really know, when 
they see it, what is happening. They are unaware of how autism affects 
people, and they are not trained well in how to work effectively with 
individuals who have autism.
  Autism interferes with the normal development of the brain in areas 
of reasoning and social interaction, and so people with autism can, in 
particular in more extreme cases, exhibit unusual responses that most 
of us may not understand: aggressiveness, for example; committing self-
injury to themselves. It is a behavior that is of special concern 
because in responding to situations, it is difficult. Especially if you 
are in the classroom or in a school situation, or even in the learning 
environment, how you respond to the child is important.
  It is absolutely necessary to provide funding to train our special ed 
teachers regarding autism disorders, and it is also important to 
provide that training to school safety personnel and to other first 
responders who deal with the school setting.
  What we have had in the past are people, law enforcement sometimes, 
who do not really understand what type of a child this may be. 
Therefore, they may handle them in a different way, in an incorrect 
way, where they might be more injurious towards the student. That is 
why the Sanchez amendment would include language in this bill that 
would authorize the use of funds to develop and to improve programs to 
train school safety personnel and first responders who work with our 
school facilities to recognize autism spectrum disorders.
  The goal of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to train school safety 
personnel and other first responders.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time just 
to say that we are in support of the amendment. We actually think it is 
a very good amendment on this side. We congratulate the gentlewoman, 
and we hope that everybody will support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Davis).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 13 printed in House Report 108-79.


                   Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Wu

  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Wu:
       In section 654(c) of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (as proposed to be amended by section 401 of 
     the bill), strike paragraph (2) and insert the following:
       ``(2) Priority.--The Secretary may give priority to 
     applications--
       ``(A) on the basis of need; and
       ``(B) that provide for the establishment of professional 
     development programs regarding methods of early and 
     appropriate identification of children with disabilities.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
simply say that it is my intention to submit a written statement with 
respect to this amendment, and I will make that request on behalf of 
the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) as well.
  Today, students with learning disabilities represent half of all 
students served under IDEA.
  During the 1990s, the number of students in this category 
substantially increased by 34%. The President's Commission on 
Excellence in Special Education asserts that 80% of these students are 
identified as learning disabled because they have not learned how to 
read. The report further asserts that up to 40% of learning disabled 
students are in special education because they were never taught how to 
read.
  These children do not need special education, they need an education.
  The problem is that children are being missidentified and over-
identified as learning disabled. Moreover, a recent National Research 
Council report indicates that minority students are over-represented in 
some special education categories, most notably mental retardation and 
emotional disturbance.
  The role of teacher referral is critical. Unfortunately, many general 
education teachers are unprepared to identify students who may actually 
be at risk for a learning disability.
  The underlying bill does provide professional development and 
research funding to reduce the over-identification of children and 
disabilities, including minority children. Specifically, this bill 
provides for a competitive grant program. Funding could be used for 
teacher training in many areas, including how to properly identify 
students with disabilities.
  We must ensure that all states provide identification training. That 
is why my amendment gives priority to applications that provide for the 
establishment of professional development programs regarding methods of 
early and appropriate identification of children with disabilities.
  The President's Commission demonstrated that over-identification is a 
problem that is rampant in our schools. My amendment would provide the 
necessary training to ensure that teachers, administrators and 
personnel are better equipped to determine if a child is learning 
disabled.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I might inquire as to whether the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey), our ranking subcommittee chair, or the 
chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), 
would care to take a moment to state their position on this amendment. 
It is my intention to make no further statements at this point in time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WU. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to work with 
my friend from Oregon. We have worked on this amendment during 
committee, and we have worked on it since. The committee and I are in 
full support of the gentleman's amendment and appreciate the 
opportunity to work with him to help fine-tune this and would recommend 
to our colleagues that we adopt the amendment.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman very 
much.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WU. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I support the 
gentleman's amendment and congratulate him on introducing it.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank 
Congressman Wu for his amendment that provides greater opportunities to 
States in reducing over-identification of children with disabilities.
  Each school district faces unique challenges in educating its youth. 
This amendment allows school districts and teachers to improve their 
ability to appropriately identify special education students. It also 
provides more support for early intervention so school districts can 
provide intensive reading and behavioral programs to help reduce the 
number of children identified as having a learning disability.
  Steps like this amendment combined with my bill entitled Teacher 
Recruitment and Retention Act, which will provide $17,500 in loan 
forgiveness for Special Education teachers, will demonstrate our 
resolve to students with disabilities and those who teach them.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I support his amendment and I 
support full funding of IDEA.
  While I am pleased that this Congress is tackling the issue of 
special education today, I am disappointed that this bill does not 
substantively address several important issues including fully funding 
IDEA and the misidentification of children with disabilities.

[[Page 10061]]

  Misidentification is a serious problem in our schools. Many general 
education teachers are not trained to identify learning disabilities 
and students are placed in special education when all they need is a 
little extra assistance. Not only is this detrimental to the student, 
but it diverts precious funding away from students with serious 
disabilities.
  Full funding of IDEA has been one of my top priorities during my time 
in Congress. When Congress first addressed this issue in 1975, we made 
a commitment to provide children with disabilities access to a quality 
public education. But not once in the past 28 years has Congress lived 
up to its obligation to fund the services it requires states and school 
districts to provide, despite a commitment that it would do so.
  My home state of Oregon, like so many states around the country, is 
suffering tremendous budget shortfalls. When the federal government 
doesn't pay its share, the remaining costs don't just disappear. The 
state and school districts are forced to pick up the additional costs, 
putting additional strain on our education funding. Living up to our 
promise and fully funding IDEA would help all States and all students.
  It is high time we renew our commitment to all of our nation's 
children and pay our share of the cost of IDEA.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Wu amendment and support full 
funding of IDEA.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey) very much for her support, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 14 printed in House Report 108-79.


         Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Pursuant to the rule, Mr. Chairman, I 
offer amendment No. 14.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
       Add at the end of the bill the following new title:

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. STUDY AND REPORT ON STATE COSTS UNDER THE 
                   INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Education shall conduct a 
     study on the amount of cost to States to comply with the 
     requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit 
     to Congress a report that contains the results of the study 
     conducted under subsection (a).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 206, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer what is probably one of the 
simpler amendments that we will see today and, hopefully, for that 
reason, a noncontroversial amendment to H.R. 1350, the Improving 
Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act of 2003.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. Chairman, before I speak on that amendment, let me offer my 
gratitude for all the work that the chairman and the ranking member of 
the committee have expended on this effort and the sponsorship of this 
legislation. Their efforts and work has basically seen to it that we 
are addressing the educational needs of all children, including those 
children with disabilities, to make sure that they receive a quality 
education. I commend them for their efforts.
  My amendment will require that the Secretary of Education, within a 
2-year period of time from enactment of this Act, to submit back to 
Congress a study and that study is to take a look at the cost to the 
States to comply with this Act. I believe this is necessary because any 
time that the Federal Government decides that it is going to involve 
itself with the States and ask the States and the local school boards 
to affect their education locally, it is imperative that the Federal 
Government looks to the cost side of the equation and looks to how much 
cost is being imposed on the local school districts and the States 
respectively.
  I believe after this study, Congress will be in a better position to 
say how can we go forward and make sure that the goal of this bill is 
complemented and enacted as both sides of the aisle wish it to be done. 
I suggest that Members on both sides of the aisle look favorably on 
this amendment.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Garrett) offers a very good amendment to the bill. We are, over the 
next 7 years, doubling the amount of money we will be spending on 
special ed. I think it is right to take a look at what are the total 
costs associated with this program, and I think the gentleman makes a 
good addition to the bill, and urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I include two letters for the Record on H.R. 1350.

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                   Washington, DC, April 29, 2003.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Boehner: In recognition of the desire to 
     expedite floor consideration of H.R. 1350, the Improving 
     Education Results in Children with Disabilities Act of 2003, 
     the Committee on the Judiciary hereby waives consideration of 
     the bill. Section 205(i) makes changes to the attorneys' fees 
     provisions for IDEA cases, and these provisions fall within 
     the Committee on the Judiciary's Rule X jurisdiction. 
     However, given the need to expedite this legislation, I will 
     not seek a sequential referral based on their inclusion.
       The Committee on the Judiciary takes this action with the 
     understanding that the Committee's jurisdiction over these 
     provisions is in no way diminished or altered. I would 
     appreciate your including this letter in the Congressional 
     Record during consideration of H.R. 1350 on the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                      F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of 
           Representatives,
                                   Washington, DC, April 29, 2003.
     Hon. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: This letter is to confirm our 
     agreement regarding H.R. 1350, ``Improving Education Results 
     for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003,'' which was 
     considered by the Committee on Education and the Workforce on 
     April 9 and 10, 2003. I thank you for working with me, 
     specifically regarding the amendments the Committee included 
     in H.R. 1350, changing the attorney fees of current law in 
     Section 615 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act, as included in Section 205(i) of the Committee reported 
     bill, which is also within the jurisdiction of the Committee 
     on the Judiciary.
       While this provision is within the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary, I appreciate your willingness to 
     work with me in moving H.R. 1350 forward without the need for 
     a sequential referral to your Committee. I agree that this 
     procedural route should not be construed to prejudice the 
     jurisdictional interest and prerogatives of the Committee on 
     the Judiciary on this provision or any other similar 
     legislation and will not be considered as precedent for 
     consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to your 
     Committee in the future.
       I thank you for working with me regarding this matter. I 
     will include a copy of your letter and this response in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 1350 on the 
     House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John A. Boehner,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page 10062]]


  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests 
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There being no further amendments in order, 
the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Burton of Indiana) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman pro 
tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 1350) to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 206, he 
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 251, 
nays 171, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 154]

                               YEAS--251

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Majette
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--171

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bartlett (MD)
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Becerra
     Combest
     Dreier
     Evans
     Gephardt
     Honda
     Kingston
     McCarthy (MO)
     Owens
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1625

  Messrs. LEWIS of Georgia, MILLER of North Carolina, and ROSS changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________