Madam President, I thank Senator Judd Gregg for his leadership on this issue. When I came to the Senate some years ago, there was no greater champion for IDEA funding by the Federal Government or improving IDEA than Senator Gregg. He has maintained that and he continues to be an expert, as my colleagues can tell when they hear him speak about it. We have made tremendous progress since I came to the Senate in funding special education. We have seen the numbers, how much they have increased since 1996, and we will continue to make progress. We have gone from 7 percent of the funding for this education program for our schools around the country to almost 20 percent. We are going to keep on increasing that. The legislation we have before us today, however, unanimously came out of our HELP Committee, of which I am a member. It was a product of a lot of hard work and hours and hours of discussion. There are a number of provisions in the bill that I would like to see improved and strengthened. Maybe some on the other side think it could be improved more, but we hammered out this agreement because we need to move this bill forward. We need to increase funding, once again significantly, for IDEA. We need to give more control and make a better commitment to the practical application of the law. The special education bill was enacted in 1975 with the goal of encouraging schools to mainstream students with disabilities, keep them in the normal classroom where possible and give special treatment where necessary. States that follow Federal rules receive federal financial assistance, and in 2002, 6.5 million students were served through IDEA. Schools have responded to this challenge positively, and they are expending very large sums of money to meet the goals of this law. In fact, I remember distinctly several years ago the school board superintendent of a county in Vermont testifying that 40 percent of his county's budget for that school system went to the IDEA program. In recent years, the President and Congress have increased the federal investment in this program. If the President's proposed budget is enacted, IDEA funding will have increased 376 percent since 1996, 8 years ago. I have been repeatedly told, however, when I travel in my State, and I made this a special project of mine, that this funding is not the only problem. Repeatedly I have been told there are things bigger and more important than funding. One teacher who had been working in special education for many years, who is very bright and has a master's degree, told me: Jeff, we are not looking out for our children. We have lost sight of what is good for the students. What we are doing is filling out paperwork and keeping our sight on the lawyers. It is threatening the integrity of the system, and we are not focusing on how to help each individual child achieve their highest and best skills. The paperwork procedures are burdensome to a significant degree. I have asked them about it. Too often teachers and principals are faced with a literal maze of regulations and laws that must be met before a disruptive child can be removed from a classroom. Too often school districts are forced to spend thousands of dollars on attorneys and litigation costs that could be avoided if the parties simply sat down and discussed the issues rather than forcing the disputes to court. These problems not only distract our dedicated educators from the core mission of teaching our children, they cause stress and confrontation that can be avoided if common sense were applied. I have received letters from hundreds of teachers in my State, from parents and educators, who are concerned about the current management of this system. The frustration, the anger, and the compassion in these letters are powerful.
I have also visited schools across the State of Alabama and heard firsthand from educators about the problems the current law creates for students, parents, and teachers. I go into schools and I ask them to tell me what the problems are, what frustrates them the most. Almost universally special education, IDEA, comes up as one of the top examples of a program they believe is micromanaged from Washington, does not allow teachers who love children to be able to have the freedom to help those children in the best way possible. They have told me that problems with the current law are going to drive them out of the profession. They are going to leave the profession over these frustrations. They have dedicated their lives to improving the welfare of disabled children.
A veteran special education teacher wrote me this: I consider myself on the front lines of the ongoing battles that take place on a daily basis in our Nation's schools. I strongly believe that the current IDEA law fuels these struggles. The law, though well intended, has become one of the single greatest obstacles that educators face in our fight to provide all of our children with a quality education delivered in a safe environment. I have dedicated my life to helping children with special needs. However, at times my frustration has been so high that I have literally gotten in my car to leave-- Leave the profession, she means-- but my moral responsibilities to the children I have in my class have kept me there. The law must be reformed now. As my grandmother said, ``right is right and wrong is wrong'' and to enable the current system to continue is just wrong.
Another 32-year special education veteran wrote: If IDEA is not revised to be less restrictive and burdensome, we might as well as kiss public education good-bye. If changes are not made, we will have one of the largest teaching shortages on record. In the past I have had 5 to 10 college students coming to me in the spring to apply for positions. This year I have none. Most are fearful of entering the special education field because of the threat of litigation brought about by IDEA. They are afraid of being sued. The regulations are complex and there are a group of lawyers and specialists in this who descend on the system on a regular basis. So it is time for a change and Congress should be leading the charge for positive change, to make it better. I have a number of other letters from teachers and students who fear for their safety every day. They feel handcuffed by the current rules and feel overwhelmed with the requirements of the current law. I believe it will be a tragedy if we lose proven, dedicated teachers because of the shortcomings of a Federal law that is not adequately fulfilling its purposes. I saw a poll recently, I think in the State of Washington, of special education teachers. An astounding number said they did not expect to be in the profession in 5 years. This is the reason that is occurring. President Bush has recognized the importance of the IDEA law, and the need to bring real reform to the system. In order to get an accurate picture, the President appointed a commission to review the law and provide recommendations. The commission held 13 hearings and meetings throughout the Nation and listened to the concerns and comments of parents and teachers, principals, and so forth. Over 100 expert witnesses and more than 175 parents, teachers, students with disabilities, and others addressed the commission. Hundreds have provided letters and written statements.
The commission distilled this information into a set of principles that were used during the reauthorization process. First, decrease the emphasis on compliance with procedure and increase the emphasis on results. That means decrease paperwork and that kind of thing, and ask whether children are benefitting to the maximum extent by the special efforts we are expending. Second, simplify the law's burdensome due process requirements, which create inordinate amounts of paperwork, limit the ability of schools to properly discipline children with disabilities for inappropriate behavior, and intensify adversity between parents and schools. This is a big problem. Put two children in a classroom, one a disabled child, that child has substantially greater expectation of not receiving the same discipline as another child for the same offense. Sometimes the disability is totally unconnected to the discipline problem that shows up in a classroom. A child who sells drugs, for instance. That behavior is very unlikely to be a part or product of the disability and that child should be disciplined as other children where that makes sense, and under the appropriate rules of the school. Third, reduce misidentification of students, which has fueled growing IDEA costs. Too many students are being placed in IDEA programs who do not need to be there, and that is not good for the children and it is not good for the school system. Finally, increase the role of parents in determining the most appropriate setting for their child's education. This legislation does much to achieve those principles. It reflects a balanced approach that, as I said, was voted out of our committee unanimously. On the question of discipline, that is something I have talked a lot about and our committee has worked on it. We didn't make big changes in the bill that came out of committee. We made some changes. We made some improvements in the law that I think certainly will put us on a more rational basis and will help reduce excessive litigation. One of the things, for example, is this: Before a lawsuit is filed and a school board has to go to court, they have to be notified specifically of what it is the school is alleged to have done improperly with regard to their child, and the school board has a chance to correct it. What we are finding is lawsuits have been filed all over the country, schools have been taken to court at great expense, and by the time they finish the litigation not only do they have to pay their own attorneys, not only are their own principals and teachers called out of classrooms to testify and prepare for trial, but they have to pay the costs of the plaintiffs' attorney if one thing they did was wrong. They may make eight allegations, but if they are wrong in any way and are found liable, then they have to pay the child's attorney. We need to figure out how we can avoid some of this litigation. It is money out of the pocket of the school system. It is money not being spent to educate children but to litigate in court, and sometimes these cases cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses for school systems. Nearly 8 in 10 teachers say there are persistent troublemakers in the school who need to be removed and we have created a system that is so complex and so litigious it is not working and it is driving up costs in an unwise way. I will offer some more comments for the RECORD, but I will conclude by saying this: Special education is a big program in America today. This Congress, this Senate is increasing funding steadily for this program. We need to continue to do that and need to continue to reach toward that commitment Congress made before I came here to pay 40 percent of that cost. I think we should do that and we should be on the road to that.
However, as Senator Gregg knows--who is the senior member of the Budget Committee also and knows how things work here in reality--this is a weird deal, to mix and match discretionary and mandatory spending. In fact, we are criticized substantially in this body for going toward mandatory spending for too many programs. In fact, most objective observers in Congress believe that has diminished the ability of Congress to set priorities and accomplish good things for our children. We do not need to put this in mandatory spending. We need to continue the steady goals and progress we have made to reach the highest level of funding, reach the full funding we are committed to do. I believe we can do that. I believe this bill is a tremendous step in the right direction toward that goal. I will continue to work for it.
I yield the floor.
