[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 24290-24307]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

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

                              H. Res. 858

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  This rule waives all points of order against the conference report 
for H.R. 1350 and against its consideration, and provides that the 
conference report shall be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, shortly after my second son, Alex, was born in 1994, my 
father gave me some healthy words of advice when he said that Alex 
Sessions would be the greatest thing that would ever happen to our 
family. He knew and understood that in fact Alex was a very special 
baby. He was born with Downs Syndrome. The past 10 years have 
reaffirmed my father's words to me, and Alex has become one of the 
greatest parts of our family's life.
  Ten years later, Alex is a very happy third grader at Lakewood 
Elementary in Dallas, Texas; and Alex has the support of numerous 
teachers, students, and parents who provide him with remarkable 
educational lessons and invaluable friendships. For each of the last 2 
years, Alex has been rewarded with the school's highest citizenship 
honor, to be a Lakewood Super Stallion.
  In the last 3 weeks, Alex has successfully written for the first time 
his first and last name. While these are great personal achievements 
for Alex and our entire family, stories like these are being told all 
across the country because of the extra efforts of those dedicated 
educators who are working diligently with these wonderful children 
under landmark Federal legislation known as IDEA, or Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act.
  Several decades ago, Congress passed this legislation to guarantee 
children with disabilities full access to a fulfilling and appropriate 
public education. And while I have talked today about the many 
successes and achievements of this important program, there are also 
areas within the law that could and can use improvement and adjustment. 
I am proud to support the bipartisan legislation that is before us 
today to reauthorize and improve this most important education program 
to ensure that the true promise and intent of this act is carried out 
to the

[[Page 24291]]

fullest extent of our abilities as Congressmen.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1350 creates an educational atmosphere focusing on 
the future of our most vulnerable children. It builds on the existing 
strengths of IDEA, while modernizing and improving the program to 
guarantee that children with disabilities have the most appropriate 
tools to fully utilize their gifts. The changes that we are making in 
IDEA will give children measurable goals to ensure they reach their 
postsecondary living and employment goals.
  H.R. 1350 directly addresses perhaps the greatest problem facing 
IDEA, the effective monitoring and enforcement of the act. Effective 
July 1, 2005, it will give the Secretary of Education clear authority 
to enforce standards to monitor and enforce whether or not schools are 
in compliance with IDEA, authority that has been lacking since the 
inception of this education initiative. States will be empowered to 
create an acceptable set of standards; and if they are not met, the 
Secretary of Education will now have the tools necessary to take 
appropriate and reasonable action to work with State and local 
educators to remedy the situation.
  This conference report provides Congress with a 6-year glidepath to 
fully fund IDEA by 2011. Under President Bush's leadership, funding for 
all education programs, in particular IDEA, have been a high priority. 
In his first term, President Bush increased IDEA funding to States by 
$4.8 billion, or what we would know as a 76 percent increase. This 
Republican-controlled Congress, which I am proud to be a part of, has 
increased the Federal share of IDEA funding to 19 percent in 10 years, 
whereas our predecessors in the Democrat-controlled Congresses only 
allowed the Federal share of IDEA costs to reach 7 percent.
  H.R. 1350 also restores trust and constructive dialogue to the 
relationship between parents and school personnel promoting an earlier 
resolution to problems before they end up in court. This legislation 
creates the opportunity for a resolution session within 30 days of a 
complaint being filed to quickly resolve the problem. The constant 
threat of litigation creates an atmosphere of distrust between parents 
and schools, an environment that harms everyone involved.
  Today's legislation also solves another problem that has plagued IDEA 
for too long. Today, many children with reading problems are 
misidentified as learning disabled and wrongly placed in special 
education classes, a costly mistake which siphons away valuable funding 
from students who truly need IDEA services. To address this issue, H.R. 
1350 requires districts with significant over-identifying of students 
to operate early intervention programs to reduce over-identification, 
eliminating the outdated IQ discrepancy, a model that relies on a wait-
to-fail approach, and introduces a response to intervention model that 
identifies specific learning disabilities before the students are at a 
failing grade level.
  I am proud of this new IDEA legislation. Because of the important 
resources that H.R. 1350 provides to our schools, it may one day help 
my son Alex to further meet his goals of learning to read.
  I am pleased to note that the House version of this legislation 
successfully passed through the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce, and then through the House in April of 2003. Today's 
conference report enjoys the overwhelming bipartisan support of its 
conferees, and I am confident that this report will enjoy wide 
bipartisan margins in both Houses before it is signed by President 
Bush.
  I would ask that all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
demonstrate their commitment to the special education needs of our 
country's disabled children by supporting this conference report. I 
would like to thank the House sponsor of this legislation, the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and the chairman of the Committee 
on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), 
for their dedicated hard work in producing the conference report.
  I would also like to take a minute to commend the conferees from both 
bodies that have labored to produce this fine product, including the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), Senator Edward Kennedy, 
and Senator Judd Gregg.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule 
and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0945

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I would like to express my appreciation to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member, for returning to 
this House a bipartisan-supported conference report on the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act.
  Last year, when the House first considered H.R. 1350 which 
reauthorized the IDEA, I felt compelled to oppose that bill. It 
undermined, in my opinion, the basic rights of children in need of 
special education to quality education. It undermined the rights of 
these students' families, and it failed our States and local school 
districts to effectively provide special education services for these 
students. Worse yet, the Republican leadership refused to allow any 
amendment addressing the need to provide full funding for the Federal 
share of special education to even be debated in this body. It was the 
House at its very worst.
  Today is a very different day. We have before us a bipartisan-
supported bill. We have a bill that maintains the basic civil rights of 
children with disabilities. We have a conference report that addresses 
long-standing problems with IDEA monitoring and enforcement by the U.S. 
Department of Education.
  We have a bill that has added protections for children with special 
needs who have fallen between the cracks for too long; in particular, 
the 1.3 million children who experience homelessness each year and the 
500,000 children in foster care. These children, who are moved around 
and change schools frequently, disproportionately suffer from learning 
and physical disabilities than children from stable homes, but they 
have greater difficulty accessing special education services. This bill 
now ensures that their individual education plans can travel with them 
so they are not denied services or regress further when moving from 
school to school.
  From the bottom of my heart, I thank the conferees for remembering 
these children and addressing this problem in this bill.
  This bill also helps schools resolve conflicts over providing special 
education services and reduce litigation. It should result in reducing 
the over-identification and misidentification of nondisabled children, 
especially among minorities and other disadvantaged communities. It 
reduces paperwork requirements, improves transition services, and 
strengthens methods for measuring student progress, all of which should 
improve the academic achievement of special education students.
  This bill, however, is not perfect. For example, I believe we still 
have a long way to go toward ensuring a seamless system for infants, 
toddlers, and preschoolers with disabilities, let alone successfully 
preparing and transitioning these children into K-12 special education 
programs.
  And, most importantly, this bill still does not guarantee mandatory 
funding for the Federal share of IDEA State grants. This year alone, 
special education funding is $2.5 billion short of what Republicans 
promised in their budget and only half of what has been authorized 
under the IDEA. This leaves already cash-strapped schools without the 
support needed to ensure that all students, no matter their 
disabilities, receive the same education opportunities.
  Mr. Speaker, I remain deeply concerned that Congress will continue to 
break its promise to our States, our

[[Page 24292]]

local schools and our special needs children and families to provide 
the 40 percent Federal share of funding for federally mandated special 
education programs and services. For 30 years we have failed to keep 
our word to fully fund this law, and I see nothing in this bill to 
reassure me that Congress will meet even the more modest funding 
targets set in this bill. We seem perfectly able to ignore, back away 
from, or reduce our commitment.
  I believe it is well past time for Congress to step up to the plate 
and fulfill its promise to fully fund the Federal share of special 
education programs. Until we do so, local and State education budgets 
will have to continue to rob from other education programs in order to 
pay for mandatory special education services, breeding unnecessary 
resentment towards the children and families who require these programs 
and placing increased stress on scarce education dollars.
  I promise my colleagues, I promise the children and families and 
schools in the Third Congressional District of Massachusetts that I 
will continue to fight for full mandatory funding of the Federal share 
of IDEA. I hope President Bush will finally make this funding a 
priority in his budget next year.
  Mr. Speaker, even with these concerns, I believe this conference 
report is an important step forward for our special education programs 
and services, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to 
support the conference report on H.R. 1350.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, last night, late in the Committee on Rules, the ranking 
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller), came before our committee and 
talked with great confidence and exuberance about the hard work that 
had been produced by not only the conferees but also that proud 
committee. Today, I am very pleased to have that chairman, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who has worked diligently for the 
past few years not only with me as a parent with a child who falls 
under IDEA but also with all Members who bring thoughts and ideas about 
encouraging our teachers and our parents and our children to achieve 
greater things. I would like to publicly say that not only the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) but also what the 
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) has done has been of great 
service to our country, and I would like to thank him for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule. The 
conference report on the reauthorization of IDEA represents the 
culmination of 3 years of effort to strengthen and renew special 
education. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), who 
I have worked closely with over these last 3 years on all of his 
efforts to help us strengthen and renew this program. I know it is an 
issue he feels very strongly about, and I want to thank him for his 
leadership.
  I also thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who is the 
subcommittee chairman on the Subcommittee on Education Reform, the 
author of this bill. He worked this bill through the committee and 
through the House and through this conference, and without his strong 
leadership we would not be here today.
  I think the bill that we will have before us soon is a tremendous 
achievement of compromise, vision, determination, and bipartisanship.
  I want to thank my partner in this process over the last 4 years, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member on 
our committee. While we have had disagreements on many occasions, in 
the end I think what the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) 
and I both believe is we have a responsibility to legislate on 
education and workforce matters and at the end of the day we were able 
to come together and produce this bipartisan conference report.
  In crafting this bill, we listened to parents, teachers, students, 
and advocates. We listened to the President's Commission on Excellence 
in Special Education, and the principles around the creation of this 
bill are very similar to the principles that the Commission on 
Excellence in Special Education came forward with as well.
  We listened to schools, the people on the front lines of educating 
children with special needs. We began this process with the principles 
of No Child Left Behind firmly embedded in our minds. In No Child Left 
Behind, we put a system in place to ensure that students with 
disabilities, along with all students, are getting access to the 
education that they deserve. In this bill, we are making sure that the 
rules help special education teachers and parents get the most out of 
that system, instead of making it harder for them.
  This bill is an across-the-board win for parents, teachers and 
students with disabilities. I urge my colleagues to support the rule 
today.
  I will have more to say when we get into the bill itself about the 
changes made in this bill that truly will help students with special 
needs, their parents, and the teachers and school administrators who 
often in the past have been at serious conflict. We attempt to reduce 
that conflict in this bill to make it easier for these students to get 
an education and make it easier for school administrators and special 
ed teachers to be able to provide these services to the most special of 
our children.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
Education Reform.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I did not support this bill, H.R. 1350, 
when it first came out of our subcommittee and then our full committee 
and then passed the House. But, since then, there has been a lot of 
bipartisan effort, and now I believe we can achieve what we were aiming 
for.
  We can have and will continue to set aside our political differences 
so that we work together in our children's best interests. For that I 
thank our conference chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); 
our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); 
the chairman of my subcommittee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle); and the conferees from both the House and the Senate.
  I believe that this process, if we follow it, can and must be the 
standard for the new Congress. Imagine a Congress that puts children 
before politics. That would be something in and of itself. Today, we 
are setting an example. We have raised the bar. We have set a standard 
that together, both sides of the aisle, both the House and the Senate 
have said, oh, my, let us put children first.
  Let us support the rule, support the bill and support the countless 
students and parents and teachers and school administrators who 
advocate for children with disabilities who have come to us to make 
certain that we understand how IDEA works for them and where it does 
not work. In this bill today we are making a difference in the lives of 
people who are affected day in and day out by what we will be voting 
for.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today we are having a discussion about some of America's greatest 
gifts, and that is our children with disabilities. An observation I 
would make is the kind words on both sides have come as a result of a 
lot of hard work, a lot of hard work not only within this body but also 
with the Senate. It also came as a result of a lot of hard work where 
members of that committee and subcommittee had to go out all across 
America and listen to parents and listen to educators and to listen to 
people. Certainly the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) was 
a huge part of this success.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, however, I would like to suggest that the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle)

[[Page 24293]]

was a great leader in this process. He made sure of the strength of his 
argument so this law would make a difference. So I, like the gentleman 
from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), stand here to say that the gentleman from 
Delaware (Chairman Castle) has done a great job on behalf of so many 
students.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) for not just managing this rule today but for his own 
personal interest in this legislation. He and I have had several 
discussions about this. His input was extremely helpful. For that, I am 
certainly personally appreciative. The gentleman's interest is typical 
of a number of Members who spoke to me and others about their concerns 
about this particular legislation.
  The gentleman is correct. This legislation, as much as anything we 
deal with in the Committee on Education and the Workforce, really 
embraces a wide scope of all of America in terms of the interest which 
is there. Virtually all school districts, many parents, and many 
interest groups deal with the issues of children with disabilities. I 
am delighted that we were able to work this legislation out in 
conference with the Senate.

                              {time}  1000

  Obviously I do rise in support of H. Res. 858; and as the sponsor of 
the underlying bill, H.R. 1350, I also support all aspects of the bill 
which is before us.
  I think it is important maybe to understand how all this came about, 
because it was not easy. It took a long time to do it. In preparation 
for this, our committee had seven different hearings. We launched a 
Web-based project a couple of years ago called Great IDEAs which was 
designed to solicit input from stakeholders in special education across 
the Nation. We received literally thousands of responses from teachers, 
school administrators, parents of children with special needs, and 
others familiar with the unique needs of children with disabilities. 
Many of those are incorporated in H.R. 1350.
  The process in terms of the bill itself began 19 months ago in the 
House of Representatives; and that bill, which was called the Improving 
Education Results For Children With Disabilities Act, aimed to improve 
current law by focusing on improved education results, reducing the 
paperwork burden for special education teachers, and addressing the 
problem of overidentification of minority students as disabled. In 
addition, the bill sought to reduce litigation and reform special 
education finance and funding. I am pleased to say the conference 
report includes all these important reforms.
  It is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to sit here and say all that in 
a couple of sentences when in reality each of those different policies 
took many, many hours and even days and months of negotiation in order 
to work out all the differences that existed amongst the groups and 
blend it together into something that is supported by everybody today.
  Obviously, we have worked with the Senate. I say ``we.'' I give 
tremendous credit to the staff on both sides of the aisle here and in 
the Senate staff as well for their great work in the past 6 weeks in 
very, very serious negotiations to get all of this worked out. And so 
the resulting conference report which we have before us today will make 
tremendous strides in helping to achieve a quality education and 
services for children with special needs.
  For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge swift approval of the rule and 
hopefully, following that, swift approval of the underlying bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) who is a member of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for 
yielding me this time. I want to commend the leadership of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, from Chairman Boehner and 
Ranking Member George Miller to Subcommittee Chairman Castle and 
Ranking Member Woolsey, all the members of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce, the work that was done in the conference committee 
for trying to produce this bipartisan bill. That is why today I am 
proud to stand in support of the rule and also in support of the 
reauthorization of IDEA.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an incredibly important program that was created 
in the mid-1970s. It was created under the premise that every child in 
America should have access to a quality education, including children 
with special needs. Since that time, the schools throughout the Nation 
have brought these kids in, have embraced them, have dealt with issues 
in regards to the authorization language, in regards to funding issues; 
but fundamentally it is a program that works and is working for our 
children with special needs.
  This legislation, I think, goes to clean up a lot of the problems 
that were inherent in IDEA. The gentleman from Delaware just referenced 
some of the paperwork burden that our special education teachers have 
been straddled with for so many years. There has been the issue of 
disciplinary problems in the classroom that I think we have reached a 
good compromise on now. It was the goal in this reauthorization bill to 
improve the quality of the teachers in the classroom dealing with these 
children with special needs, the second most important determinant on 
how well our kids are going to perform just behind parental 
involvement. It does strive to increase student performance and 
educational achievement. Overall, this is a very good bipartisan bill, 
and I would recommend my colleagues today to support this 
reauthorization bill.
  But there are also some things in the future that we have to stay 
focused on and continue to work on and that is the impact of No Child 
Left Behind and the new standards and the testings and the impact it is 
going to have on these children with special needs and the fact that 
under No Child Left Behind, every child is supposed to be 100 percent 
in conformance of the rules that were written by the Department of 
Education by 2014. We just know now that there are some children that 
are not going to be able to obtain that high standard. Unless we are 
willing to start telling the schools that by 2014 every one of them is 
going to be failing, I think we need to be a little bit more realistic 
in our approach to these children and what is going to be required, but 
without leaving any child behind.
  But I think another big problem that we are going to have to continue 
to slug out here starting with this omnibus coming up but also in 
future years is the funding of IDEA. The Congress has never lived up to 
the full cost share promise that was made, the 40 percent cost share 
for IDEA funding. This means the financial burden has been left at the 
local level. It is affecting property taxes back in the State of 
Wisconsin, which are going up way too much; and it is starting to pit 
students against students in the classroom over the allocation of the 
limited resources that we are allotting for IDEA and also now for No 
Child Left Behind.
  I am disheartened to hear some of the figures coming out of the 
omnibus discussions where the President was requesting a $1 billion 
plus-up for IDEA. It looks like we are only going to get about $600 
million. That is far short because this last fiscal year we were only 
funding it at 19 percent of the 40 percent full cost share. We can do 
better. For $10 billion, we could fully fund IDEA and get up to that 40 
percent cost share and alleviate the financial burden that is 
straddling so many of our school districts throughout the Nation. It is 
just a question of priority, a priority of what we are going to place 
first as an investment in our budget, whether it is going to be the 
children and the future of our Nation or whether it is going to be 
other priorities that we are going to see in this omnibus.
  Let us face it, Mr. Speaker. By the end of this year, we will have 
allocated close to $200 billion for what is taking place right now in 
Iraq. We are hearing rumors now that the administration is

[[Page 24294]]

going to come back early next year requesting another 70 to $75 billion 
in Iraq. With just a fraction of that amount, we could fully fund IDEA, 
fully fund No Child Left Behind, give the schools, give the teachers, 
give the parents the resources they need to make sure that every child 
has the opportunity that they need to succeed in this country and in 
this world. That is what is at stake.
  While we have got a good bill to support today, I think there is more 
work that we have to stay focused on and try to work in a bipartisan 
fashion to address the implications of No Child Left Behind with IDEA 
students and the element of full funding for this program. Hopefully, 
we will have the same type of bipartisan spirit as we move forward in 
the future.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
  Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. Initially, I would like 
to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for over 2 
years of work on the important legislation that the rule makes in 
order.
  I am pleased that this conference agreement includes a new provision 
that is similar to bipartisan legislation I sponsored with the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) to help provide 
specialized textbooks to students with visual disabilities. The law we 
are reauthorizing today, the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act, requires that all disabled students be provided with educational 
opportunities. For students with visual disabilities, this includes 
access to specialized instructional materials, such as braille, large 
print and audio textbooks. Translating a textbook into these successful 
formats, however, is a cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive 
process for States and school districts. As a result, visually impaired 
students oftentimes receive their textbooks long after school has 
started and can be needlessly left behind their sighted peers.
  The legislation before us today will help solve this problem. It 
creates a centralized clearinghouse that States and local school 
districts can use to obtain electronic copies of textbooks to be 
translated into the appropriate format for visually impaired students. 
That is a simple solution that will make a big difference in the 
quality of education provided to visually impaired students. I commend 
my colleagues for the work they have done to include this provision in 
this legislation and urge support of the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, as speaker after speaker on our side has already said, 
this is a much improved conference report from the bill that we 
originally saw before this House a few months ago. It is supported. It 
deserves bipartisan support. I hope my colleagues will support the 
rule. I hope they will support the final passage of this conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, this may very well be the last rule that I manage for 
our side in the 108th Congress. So I wanted to take this opportunity to 
pay tribute to the ranking Democrat on the committee, my friend Martin 
Frost. He is one of the smartest Members to serve in this body. He 
became an expert in the rules of the House, and he fought the good 
fight every single day for people and for causes that oftentime get 
overlooked in this body. I think our Nation is better because of his 
service, and I think we will miss him.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) offered a resolution in the 
Rules Committee last night, and we got to pay our tributes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) then; but I wanted to take this 
opportunity just to express publicly my appreciation for his service 
not only to this Congress but to the people of this country.
  I also want to say that we are going to miss our colleagues Sue 
Myrick and Tom Reynolds who are leaving the Rules Committee to take on 
other committee assignments. Both of them have been good and strong 
members of the committee, and I have enjoyed working with them.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the 
majority and the minority Rules staff. These men and women work 
incredibly hard, probably harder than most people could possibly 
appreciate. In particular, let me thank Mr. Frost's staff who have 
served this House to the best of their abilities. They have done a 
wonderful job under difficult circumstances, and they deserve to be 
thanked for their service. As a former staffer myself, I have a special 
appreciation for the work that members of the staff do.
  Specifically, I want to recognize Kristi Walseth, who is the staff 
director; Askia Suruma; Sophie Hayford, who also served with my old 
boss and former Rules Committee chairman, Joe Moakley; John Williams; 
Shannon Meissner; Jane Hamilton; and Jeff Rosenthal for their work and 
their dedication in this House and to the causes that they believe in 
during the 108th Congress.
  I also want to thank the associate staff on our side: Fred Turner who 
has served with great distinction for Alcee Hastings; Rosaline Cohen 
who has worked very hard for Louise Slaughter; and Keith Stern who has 
served me incredibly well and worked incredibly hard on behalf of this 
Congress for all their work as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I, too, would join with the gentleman from Massachusetts in 
enunciating our support of not only the staff members of the Rules 
Committee and for the hard work that they put in day in and day out and 
night in and night out but also would join in support of what the 
gentleman from Massachusetts said when he talked about our colleague 
Martin Frost. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has served for 26 
years as a distinguished Member of not only the House of 
Representatives but also in his service to the people of the 24th 
Congressional District of Texas. During that period of time the 
gentleman from Texas has distinguished himself as a person who would 
articulate not only the position of the Democrat Party but also a 
position that was very successful in support of veterans all across 
this country and in many other issues that he so deeply believed in, 
including a major piece of legislation which was known as the Amber 
Alert system for children who had been taken from their parents.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for printing in the Congressional Record a 
resolution that was passed by the Rules Committee last night, November 
18, 2004:

     Resolution of the House Committee on Rules, November 18, 2004

       Whereas, Martin Frost has served the United States House of 
     Representatives and the citizens of the United States with 
     excellence since first elected to this body in 1978;
       Whereas, Martin Frost began developing his extensive 
     political and legislative expertise as a reporter for 
     Congressional Quarterly, and then as a practicing attorney in 
     the Dallas area, while honorably serving the country as a 
     member of the United States Army Reserves;
       Whereas, Martin Frost has represented the constituents of 
     the 24th district of Texas, serving the citizens of the 
     Dallas and Fort Worth areas for 26 years in the House of 
     Representatives with outstanding diligence and passion. He 
     has taken on issues of importance to the diverse population 
     of his district, such as the active- and reserve-duty 
     military, and Medicare, and has been an integral figure in 
     the creation of the nationwide AMBER Alert system for missing 
     children;
       Whereas, Martin Frost has utilized his status as the 
     highest ranking Southern Democrat in the House, and as a 
     senior member of the Texas delegation, to address concerns 
     vital to his region, such as transportation issues, veterans 
     affairs and youth violence;
       Whereas, Martin Frost has exemplified himself as a model of 
     leadership of the Democratic Party in the House, serving in 
     the capacity of chairman of the Democratic Congressional 
     Campaign Committee, as well as chairman of the House 
     Democratic Caucus during his career in Washington, proving 
     himself to be an astute policy and political strategist;
       Whereas, the Committee on Rules has benefitted greatly by 
     the service of Martin Frost since his appointment to the 
     committee as a freshman in 1978, most recently through his 
     leadership as Ranking Minority Member of

[[Page 24295]]

     the Committee, acting as a sounding board for the Democratic 
     delegation in advocating legislative priorities and providing 
     his extensive knowledge of the House rules and practices 
     garnered from his 26 year service to the Committee to ensure 
     success in fulfilling its jurisdictional duties;
       Whereas, the tenure of Martin Frost in this United States 
     Congress has been characterized by honesty, integrity, and a 
     general willingness to work together with colleagues, on a 
     variety of important issues: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Committee on Rules, That its Members 
     express their deep appreciation for the service Martin Frost 
     has selflessly given to the country, our citizens, the House 
     Rules Committee, and the United States House of 
     Representatives, and wish him the best of luck and godspeed 
     on all future endeavors.

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

                              {time}  1015

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 1350.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the H.R. 1350 
conference report. Three years ago we began a process to strengthen and 
improve special education for the 6\1/2\ million American students 
participating under the Individuals with Disability Education Act. 
Today we have a final reform bill that will help us achieve that goal. 
The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Education Reform of my committee was the author of this 
bill that we passed in the House in April of 2003. I think he deserves 
great credit for his leadership throughout this process. He wrote a 
good bill and worked to ensure that these important reforms will be 
enacted in a bipartisan manner. The final bill we produced is closely 
aligned with the findings of President Bush's Commission on Excellence 
in Special Education, and with the bill that we passed in the House 
again in April of 2003.
  We set out with one fundamental goal in mind, and that was to improve 
the educational results for students with disabilities. And I believe 
that we have accomplished that goal with the bill that we have before 
us today.
  We included important provisions to give parents more choices and 
greater control when it comes to their child's education. We increased 
the focus on academic results and more closely aligned special 
education with the No Child Left Behind Act. The No Child Left Behind 
Act was the most sweeping Federal education reform in decades for 
students with disabilities. For the first time we ensured that States 
would include children with disabilities in their accountability 
systems. We made it clear that all children, and I mean all children, 
including those with disabilities, deserve a high-quality education.
  The bill before us today will build on No Child Left Behind. We are 
making sure the rules under IDEA helps special education teachers, 
parents, and students get the most out of that system instead of making 
it harder for them. To support teachers and schools, we included steps 
to reduce the crushing paperwork burden that is keeping teachers out of 
the classroom and in many cases driving teachers out of the profession 
altogether. We also restore common sense to school discipline to keep 
schools safe for all students and hold students accountable for their 
actions. Students will have the same punishment for the same infraction 
unless the disciplinary problem is the direct result of a child's 
disability.
  We also give States and schools the clarity they have been seeking on 
what it means to be a highly qualified special education teacher. In No 
Child Left Behind we said that every child shall learn from a highly 
qualified teacher and children in special ed are no exception. We added 
flexibility, though, for States and teachers to meet the highly 
qualified definition when it comes to special ed teachers, but we did 
not do anything to slow down the progress States are making in reaching 
that goal. We are going to cut down on costly and unnecessary 
litigation in special education, and we are going to hold attorneys 
liable for frivolous lawsuits. That is important because we need to 
restore a sense of trust between parents and schools. We want to 
encourage cooperation to do what is best for students and to get there 
we need to cut down on damaging lawsuits.
  Our bill also puts the Federal Government on a 6-year glide path to 
reaching our original goal of funding up to 40 percent of the excess 
cost of educating students with special needs. And as we get closer to 
that goal, we are also going to give local communities more control 
over how they spend their own local dollars. And we are keeping special 
education funded through the discretionary appropriations process.
  I just want to take a moment to thank a number of people. As I 
mentioned before, I want to thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle) for his hard work. But we would not be here without the help of 
several other

[[Page 24296]]

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

[[Page 24297]]

very good for those children with special needs.
  And I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), our 
chairman, for all of his time, his effort, his political skill within 
his caucus and I think within my caucus, too, to get us to this point. 
And to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who, as we all know, 
is absolutely committed to getting good legislation on the books, to 
write good law, and to do it on behalf of our Nation's school children 
to see that they get a good opportunity at the education that should be 
offered to them.
  I want to thank Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Judd Gregg for their 
cooperation in deciding even before the election that we would take a 
shot at getting this passed before this session closed down, and we 
were able to do it. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey) on our side, who managed this legislation for 
the minority, who took it from the early days when it was clearly very 
confrontational, to smoothing out some of the rough spots and finally 
helping us arrive at the compromised positions that maintain the 
integrity of IDEA, to also improve IDEA and make sure that our 
commitment to these young children and their educational opportunities 
are clear as a matter of Federal law.
  I want to thank the staff on our side, Alex Nock and Alice Cain, Ruth 
Friedman and Lloyd Hoowich, for all of their help. This was long hours 
by the staff. And on the Republican side, David Cleary, Sally Lovejoy, 
Melanie Looney, Krisann Pearce for all of their help in working with 
people on the Democratic side. And on the Senate Republican side, 
Denzel McGuire, Bill Lucia; Senate Democrats Connie Garner, Roberto 
Rodriguez, and Michael Yudin for their help.
  This would not have been done had these people not been able to come 
together and work their way through bills that were different in many 
ways. But the fact of the matter was it did happen, and I think the 
children with special needs who need this law are going to be well 
served, as are their parents, as are their schools, and as are their 
teachers.
  I have a special connection to this law because I was in Congress and 
served as one of the original authors of this law when it was first 
passed in 1974. And in 1974 when we surveyed the Nation's schools and 
the State systems of school, we found that children were, on an 
ordinary basis, on a regular basis, excluded from the classrooms of 
this Nation. They were put into basements. They were put into 
segregated schools. They were put into separate classrooms. They were 
not allowed to come into classrooms if they were in a wheelchair, if 
they needed assistance for their physical disabilities; and a dramatic 
percentage of minority students, were labeled as retarded, were labeled 
as having an inability to take advantage of an education in numbers 
that defied any statistical understanding that any population would be 
labeled in that fashion.
  Hundreds of thousands of children mislabeled and therefore not 
allowed to go to the schools of this Nation. And at that time we passed 
the Education for all Handicapped Children, as it was called in those 
days. And from that time forward, this law has become one of the basic 
civil rights laws of this Nation for those children with special needs, 
for their families, and for those schools, recognizing the commitment 
that this Congress made to these children and their families, that they 
would get a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive 
environment to make sure that, where possible, these children would be 
in the mainstream classrooms of our Nation's schools. They would be 
able to participate with their peers on a regular basis. They would be 
able to enjoy the benefits of that educational opportunity, that no 
longer by simple reason of their special needs would they be 
segregated, no longer by reason of their special needs would they be 
discriminated against.
  This has not been a smooth road to make sure that these children 
would have educational opportunity and have access to that free and 
appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. It has been 
a struggle. It has been a struggle for our school districts. It has 
been a struggle for our taxpayers. It has been a struggle for the 
families of these children.
  But each and every time we have made progress, and we do so again 
with this legislation. We make sure that they will, in fact, have 
qualified teachers. But we make sure that we do not drive the teachers 
from the teaching field by the law that we have passed here. We have 
provided that kind of flexibility so we can have the best of both 
worlds.

                              {time}  1030

  We can have qualified teachers, and we can make it workable for those 
teachers and for the school districts. We make sure that those children 
who might act out in class, who might be a discipline problem can be 
separated from the general population if they are a danger, but we also 
make sure that we do not discontinue their educational opportunities in 
that separate setting, however restrictive it might be. And there is a 
process for doing that, both to protect that child, to protect their 
educational opportunity, and to protect the general school population, 
a very important change.
  We make sure that, while trying to enforce this law, that we make 
every effort to make sure that the child has access to a workable, 
individualized education plan. But we also want to make sure that, in 
the enforcement of those efforts, we do not engage in frivolous 
lawsuits, we do not engage in trying to extort the school district into 
positions. So we make sure that you can have access to those programs, 
but you do not get to take advantage of the taxpayers and the efforts 
that are being made.
  From 1974 onward, I have had hundreds and hundreds of parents who 
have come to me and said, or written to me from all over the country, 
that, but for this law, my child would not have gotten an education; 
but for this law, my child would not have been able to be in the public 
schools. Some of those were long letters of the detailed effort by 
parents, taking months and thousands of dollars, to challenge the right 
of their child to be in an educational setting, along with the rest of 
the schoolchildren in this Nation.
  But it is this law that made it possible, and it is law that we 
extend with this reauthorization. It is this law that we extend the 
civil rights protections of our Constitution to the Nation's 
schoolchildren, to those children with special needs, and it is this 
law that gives their parents a voice and a say in the direction of 
their education. It is this law that makes sure that the educational 
establishments of this country respond to those needs. And it is this 
law that tries to provide the means to work that out by offering 
alternative dispute resolution, by offering mediation, by offering a 
means by which parents and teachers and school personnel can sit down 
together and, at the end of that day, that child will have a chance at 
that educational opportunity, and the district will be in a position to 
provide it.
  But there is something that is still lacking in this law, and that is 
the funding of this legislation. This is the funding of this 
legislation. Back in 1974, we said we would pick up 40 percent of the 
excess cost of the education of these children, and we have not done 
it. We have not done it as Democrats. We have not done it as 
Republicans. In the last few years, we have made a rather substantial 
march on that effort, but we still never get there under the budget.
  Yet we have Members of Congress voting for full funding and mandatory 
funding of special education. We have Members signing letters to the 
President asking for full funding of special education. We have votes 
in the Senate, a majority, bipartisan votes demanding full funding for 
special education. But somehow we can never get there. And even in this 
legislation, I am glad to see that we have laid out a roadmap for over 
the next 7 years, I believe it is, we will arrive at full funding.
  But I am worried that later tonight, as we pass an omnibus 
appropriations

[[Page 24298]]

bill, we will not even meet the target in this legislation before the 
ink is dry or even before the President has signed it.
  The President said he has not fully funded No Child Left Behind 
because he did not read the bill. I want the President to read this 
bill, because the compact with these parents and with this Congress is 
that we are going to reach full funding in 7 years. And if we do not, 
if we do not, the full educational opportunity for these students and 
for the other students is not going to be realized because the funding 
is not following this legislation. It is very important that that 
happen and that we start to keep our commitments on special education, 
that we start to keep our commitments on No Child Left Behind.
  It is not enough, and we cannot continue the practice. We did it when 
we were in control. It is not enough to put figures into authorizations 
and tell people that is the law, that is what we have done, and then 
look behind and say we never intended to do that. We should say what we 
mean, and we should mean what we say. If we cannot do it in 7 years, 
then tell the public when we are going to do it. But this is the 
statement of the Congress that we will reach full funding in those 7 
years, and I think that is most important.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an editorial from this 
morning's Washington Post.

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

                            Making Progress

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

  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on the committee--the 
gentleman from Delaware, the gentlewoman from California, and the 
gentleman from Ohio--for all of their hard work on this legislation and 
their genuine efforts to make this a bipartisan bill.
  IDEA is a program that is very important to me personally. I was one 
of the original authors of the legislation in 1975 that made an 
historic commitment to the special needs children of the country--and 
their parents--to assure them the opportunity for a public education 
that would allow them to take full advantage of their gifts and have a 
full opportunity to participate in American society.
  In opposed the IDEA bill passed by the House last year because I 
believed it undermined that bond between Congress and the special needs 
community. For me and for millions of American families, IDEA is more 
than an education law; it is a pact that never again will we abandon 
special needs children and cut them off from the educational services 
they need and deserve.
  While I voted against the House version of the bill, I am pleased 
that the conference committee reversed many of the House positions 
opposed by longtime supporters of IDEA.
  As a result, I support the conference report before us today because 
it maintains the basic civil rights of children with disabilities and 
their families. I am hopeful that our changes will improve their 
quality and access to a free and appropriate education.
  One of the most important decisions we had to make in conference was 
whether or not children could be, in effect, punished because of their 
disability. I am very pleased that we took the necessary steps to 
ensure that children cannot be unfairly punished.
  We had the good sense to include one of the most important provisions 
in current law: The manifestation determination requirement that school 
districts consider whether a child's behavior was the result of their 
disability when considering disciplinary action.
  It is only fair to consider whether the child could control their 
behavior and whether they could understand the consequences of their 
behavior. These questions are clearly relevant and I am pleased that 
they will continue to be treated as relevant.
  Our agreement also ensures that children who are subject to 
discipline cannot be put in alternative placements for unlimited 
periods of time and that, if suspended, they will continue to receive 
educational services. These measures will help these children continue 
on the path toward graduation rather than dropping out--and provide for 
the safety of other children and school personnel.
  Let me also mention two improvements to current law that I believe 
are particularly beneficial. First, I am pleased that the conference 
report addresses long-standing problems with IDEA monitoring and 
enforcement. The Department of Education is required to monitor key 
IDEA issues.
  These issues include making sure States educate children in the least 
restrictive environment and take steps to prevent minority students, 
from being disproportionately identified, as is too often the case. 
Once identified, these children are more likely to be placed in lower 
quality, substantially segregated environments and are more likely to 
be suspended or expelled.
  When a State is out of compliance for two years, our agreement 
requires the Secretary to take an enforcement action.
  These changes give the Department of Education the means to both 
identify problems and the authority and tools necessary to help solve 
them through a range of options, including advice, technical 
assistance, and support.
  Second, I support the improved outreach and services for children 
who--through no fault of their own--move and change schools frequently. 
It is only right that we take steps that protect the 500,000 children 
in foster care and the 1.3 million children who experience homelessness 
each year.
  Children who are homeless suffer from disabilities nearly four times 
more than children who are from stable homes, but they have great 
difficulty accessing special education services. Even when they have 
Individualized Education Plans, their IEPs often have not moved with 
them and the process must start over.
  After months without adequate services, a child may regress so far 
that she or he can lost a whole school year. Our agreement improves 
coordination between schools and ensures that the child's IEP must 
transfer with them and be used until the new school district and parent 
can develop a new IEP.
  Despite these important improvements, a fundamental problem continues 
to jeopardize all of our best efforts. Congress continues to ignore our 
30-year old pledge to fully fund this law.
  When we originally passed it in 1975, we made a simple promise: The 
Federal government would provide states with 40 percent of the total 
costs of special education--not 100 percent--just 40 percent. But we 
have never fulfilled our promise. As of today, we are providing nearly 
20 percent of special education costs--less than half of what we 
promised three decades ago.

[[Page 24299]]

  Our conference report tries to help. I'm pleased that it recommits 
Congress to providing States with the full 40 percent by laying our 
authorization levels each year that would allow us to meet the goal by 
the year 2011.
  Obviously, this is not as soon as I would like or our children need, 
but at least it is a blueprint for getting us there. But the blueprint 
involves substantial increases each year, including this year--and I am 
dismayed that this year's increase may already be in jeopardy.
  We must mean what we say and say what we mean--it's time to put our 
money where our mouth is and appropriate these funds once and for all.
  I urge all of my colleagues, especially those on the appropriations 
committee, to make this a top priority. What could possibly be a better 
investment in our country than helping our children develop and grow to 
their full potential?
  We have just gone through the experience of No Child Left Behind 
where the President and Congress promised to fund the new law at levels 
that were necessary to ensure schools would be able to meet the new 
goals. And before the ink was dry on that law the president broke his 
promise on funding. Now we are $27 billion in the red on our commitment 
to No Child Left Behind and America's public schools.
  As Members vote to approve this conference report, and I hope they 
do, we must be prepared to stand by the commitment this bill makes to 
properly fund special education.
  The bottom line for me is to ensure that all children--including all 
children with disabilities--have access to public education that 
propels them toward participation in American society to the fullest 
extent possible. I believe that this conference agreement moves us in 
that direction, and I am pleased to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Education Reform and the author of the bill that we have before us 
who has done a great job.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that I think without the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner's) patience and will to continue to deal with what 
was a tough issue and tough politics perhaps in the beginning, we 
probably would not be here today. I would just like to thank him for 
that. I think he has just done an incredible job.
  I stood at a press conference after we did the conference a couple 
days ago, and I looked at the cast of people who were there, including 
the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) who just spoke, and 
Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Boehner), and I realized that it was an unlikely group to come together 
in terms of being very liberal, very strong, and very conservative and 
very strong. But I also realized that every single one of those 
individuals had the interests of children at heart, which is hopefully 
what we have done in this legislation and hopefully what we have 
captured in this legislation.
  I would just like to thank everybody that had anything to do with 
that: Members of Congress, a lot of whom were personally involved with 
this; all of the staff people who worked on this on both sides and in 
both Chambers who did a wonderful job, particularly in my case Sarah 
Rittling on my staff did an extraordinary job. The gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey) was opposed to this initially, and we were 
able to resolve those differences. She and I have had some good fortune 
this year, the nutrition bill and this, and some other things, and I 
think we are both proud of our achievements, even though we have our 
differences from time to time. I cannot thank everybody enough.
  Obviously, I rise in support of this legislation. We have been 
waiting a long time to get to this point, and today marks an important 
day for the millions of children with disabilities. As a sponsor of 
H.R. 1350, I have been deeply involved over the past 3 years in working 
to find a balanced approach to ensure children with disabilities 
receive the services they deserve to help them reach their potential 
and succeed in school. All of us have listened to thousands of parents 
and educators about what we can do to make the system better for the 
children. The resulting bill represents delicately crafted, bipartisan 
language that will ensure children with special needs receive the high-
quality education they deserve.
  For too many years, children with disabilities were simply denied 
access to public education. However, with the passage of the Education 
of All Handicapped Children Act in 1975, the doors of educational 
opportunity were opened. Today, more than ever, students with 
disabilities have an opportunity to accomplish their goals.
  According to the Department of Education, about 6.6 million students 
currently participate in these programs in schools across the Nation. 
Of those, almost 50 percent of students with disabilities spend 80 
percent or more of their day in regular education classrooms.
  Tremendous strides have been made, and today we will be giving 
students, parents, and educators the tools to do even more, as I always 
believe we can do better. Now, more than ever, in the spirit of No 
Child Left Behind, we must make sure that children with disabilities 
are given access to an education that maximizes their unique abilities 
and gives them the tools to be successful, productive members of our 
communities.
  The Improving Education Results for Children With Disabilities Act 
aims to improve current law by focusing on improved education results, 
reducing the paperwork burden for special education teachers, reducing 
litigation, and restoring trust between parents and school districts, 
and focusing on monitoring and enforcement of the law. I know my 
colleagues in the Senate share many of these goals, and our final 
conference agreement surely reflects our shared desire to strengthen 
special education through these common sense approaches.
  Today I would like to pay particular attention to reforms in H.R. 
1350 that will focus on academic progress and efforts to reduce over-
identification. One of the great benefits of the No Child Left Behind 
Act is that we have raised expectations that will hold school districts 
accountable for the annual progress of all of their students, including 
students with disabilities.
  Although we have made great progress in including students with 
disabilities in the regular classroom, we now must make equally great 
progress in ensuring that they receive a quality education in the 
regular classroom. We have therefore carefully aligned IDEA with No 
Child Left Behind to ensure students with disabilities are included in 
the accountability system of States and school districts.
  Furthermore, H.R. 1350 includes reforms that would reduce the number 
of students that are misidentified or overrepresented in special 
education programs. Minorities are often significantly overrepresented 
in special education programs. In fact, African Americans are nearly 
three times more likely to be labeled as mentally retarded and almost 
twice as likely to be labeled emotionally disturbed. Current methods of 
identifying children with disabilities lack validity or reliability. As 
a result, thousands of children are inappropriately identified every 
year, while many others are not identified early enough or at all. We 
have, therefore, reformed the manner in which children are identified.
  As recommended by the President's Commission on Excellence in Special 
Education, H.R. 1350 provides local school districts flexibility to use 
funds for early intervention services for students before they are 
identified as needing special education. Currently, too many children 
with reading problems are identified as learning disabled and placed in 
special education classes.
  Today is an exciting day for the special needs of our children, and I 
would urge all of us to support H.R. 1350.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the time 
of the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.

[[Page 24300]]


  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 1350, 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. I 
did not support this bill when it first passed out of the committee, 
and I did not support it when it passed out of the House. But now I 
believe it is an example of what we can achieve when we set aside our 
political differences and work together in our children's best 
interests.
  For that, I thank my conference chairman, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner); our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Miller); the chairman of my subcommittee, the gentleman from Delaware 
(Mr. Castle); and the conferees from both Houses. I echo the thanks of 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) to every one of our staff 
who have worked so hard. There is not one of us who does not know and 
believe that, without them, we would not be here today.
  But I would also like to thank another group, and that is my 
Subcommittee on Education Reform dealing with special education. 
Because my Democratic members of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny Davis), 
the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Grijalva), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), and 
the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette), they were my backbone. They 
came to every single hearing. They participated. They were at every 
markup. They had their additions and their changes, and they were 
always keeping me and the subcommittee and the committee in general 
aware that children are our number one interest, not politics.
  I believe that the process we followed here in the House and then 
with the conference can become and must become the standard for the 
next Congress. Imagine: A Congress that puts children before politics.
  I also want to thank the countless students, parents, teachers, 
school administrators, and others who advocate for children with 
disabilities, because that is the group that makes sure that we 
understood how IDEA works for them, the people who are affected day in 
and day out by what we are doing today.
  In this bill, we have protected the right of a child with a 
disability not to be punished for conduct she cannot control because of 
her disability. That does not mean that we are going to give kids with 
disabilities a free pass to misbehave. What it means is that we are 
going to make sure they get the support they need so that they can be 
fully engaged in learning.
  We have also protected the rights of parents to play an active and 
effective role in their children's education. Now, some people might 
think that those particular provisions pit kids with disabilities and 
their parents against schools and teachers. I do not. I know that 
schools and teachers are committed to educating all children and that 
they believe this bill will help them do just that. I believe it will 
do just that, also.
  For example, we have provided flexibility to ensure that children 
with disabilities will be taught by highly-qualified teachers. We have 
provided new opportunities for parents and schools to work out their 
concerns without having to file complaints. We have provided greater 
flexibility for parents and schools to change a child's individualized 
education program without every member of the child's IDP team having 
to meet and to meet by telephone or other alternative means, if the 
parent and the school agree.

                              {time}  1045

  And I am especially pleased that there is another way this bill will 
help schools and that is because we have included bipartisan language 
that I developed along with my colleague, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McKeon). The language makes it clear that Federal funds for IDEA 
go to schools to use for special education, not for States to use to 
get out of paying for their required funding or not for States to use 
to solve their general budget problems. That is something that my home 
State of California has been doing, and according to the American 
Association of School Administrators, this practice cost California and 
their schools $120 million in the year 2003 alone. I am going to keep 
working to see that Congress's intent to stop it is enforced.
  I am also going to keep working to see that Congress keeps its 
promise to fully fund our commitments to IDEA. I am disappointed again 
that this bill does not require full funding of IDEA now. I know it 
does over 7 years. I want it now, even though virtually every single 
member of Congress routinely says that they support full funding. But I 
am pleased to support this report because I think it is good for 
parents, teachers, schools, but most importantly because it will help 
students with disabilities and special needs reach their potential.
  I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to improve 
educational opportunities for all of our children and to ensure that 
the funding required to achieve these goals will be eventually and 
immediately put into place.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Keller), one of our conferees working this bill out 
between the House and Senate and someone who has worked on this since 
he came to Congress.
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation because special education 
funding, teacher quality, and school safety will all go up while 
unnecessary paperwork requirements and frivolous lawsuits will go down. 
This is a good bill, and it deserves our support.
  Mr. Speaker, as the only Member of Congress from Florida who serves 
on the Committee on Education and the Workforce and as one of only five 
House Republicans to serve on the IDEA Conference Committee, I wanted 
to learn firsthand about the key issues impacting our special education 
students. So I helped teach an elementary school education class in 
Orlando, Florida. I also met with high school special education 
teachers. And I invited the leading special education expert from my 
hometown, Orange County Public School System, Harriet Brown, to come 
and testify before Congress.
  From this experience I learned three important things. First, I 
learned that special education teachers are forced to spend up to 2 
hours a day completing paperwork instead of teaching.
  Second, I learned that much of this paperwork is defensive in nature 
because of the fear and threat of frivolous lawsuits.
  Third, I learned that there was a student who jeopardized the safety 
of a middle school in Orlando by bringing a gun to school, yet he could 
not be expelled for 1 year, which is the normal penalty, because he was 
an ``exceptional education'' student even though his disability had 
nothing to do with bringing the firearm to school.
  I am pleased to say that all three of these problems have been fixed 
in this legislation. First, the paperwork reduction legislation I 
authored is specifically included in this bill. As a result, the 
Secretary of Education will now develop model forms which will 
streamline and reduce the paperwork volume, and 15 States will be free 
of various paperwork requirements under a new pilot program.
  Second, to reduce lawsuits, attorneys' fees will now be awarded to 
the prevailing party, and if a lawsuit is determined to be frivolous, 
the lawyer that filed that suit will personally be responsible for 
paying the other side's costs. There will be a 2-year statute of 
limitations.
  Third, a student who brings a gun to school can now be expelled for 
up to 1 year under the Gun Free Schools Act if his behavior was not 
directly caused by the disability.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, our investment in special education is now at 
the highest level in the history of the United

[[Page 24301]]

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

[[Page 24302]]

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

                              {time}  1100

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

[[Page 24303]]

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

[[Page 24304]]

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

                              {time}  1115

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

[[Page 24305]]

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

[[Page 24306]]

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

[[Page 24307]]

bill is no exception. Specifically, this falls short on making good on 
the promise of the Federal Government to fund 40 percent of the costs 
of educating disabled children. I will continue to make this effort a 
high priority in the next Congress.
  Last year, I voted against the House version of H.R. 1350 because of 
its failure to improve current law regarding the education of disabled 
children. I again commend the conferees on this legislation for 
producing a final product worthy of support.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 397, 
nays 3, not voting 32, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 537]

                               YEAS--397

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

                                NAYS--3

     Flake
     Garrett (NJ)
     Paul

                             NOT VOTING--32

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


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1149

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

                          ____________________