Rule for consideration of H.R. 1350, Improving Education Result for Children with Disabilities Act of 2003 (IDEA)

U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern
House Floor Statement
April 30, 2003

Mr. Speaker - I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker - Partisan battles are nothing new on the floor of this House. But there are many matters where broad bipartisan agreement and good will have traditionally been the rule.

Education for disabled and special needs children has been one of those issues notable for its profound bipartisan consensus.

Therefore, it is a sad day for this House as we consider the rule for H.R. 1350, the IDEA reauthorization.

This is not a bipartisan rule and this bill certainly does not reflect a broad bipartisan consensus.

If anything, H.R. 1350 represents consensus-breaking, undermining many of the hard-won and carefully-constructed checks-and-balances of existing law.

Education for disabled and special needs children is a sensitive issue for all Americans. Some of our colleagues will be personally and directly affected by what we do here today.

I'm disappointed that we are considering this bill today because I believe we can do better, and we should have done more to build a broad consensus around this bill, both among Members of this House and the constituencies most affected by this law.

During consideration of this bill in the Rules Committee last night, I told every Member who testified before the Committee that I supported their right to offer their amendments on the floor today.

Unfortunately, the Majority did not join me in that support.

I am disappointed that the Majority has denied the opportunity for many Members to offer their amendment, but I am most disappointed that the majority has stifled debate on mandatory funding by denying the Woolsey/Van Hollen/McCollum amendment and the Bass/Simmons amendment - both of which would have required mandatory funding for IDEA.

There's a pattern in this body of saying one thing and doing another. The Majority talks a good game about educating America's children, but balks at providing the necessary funding when the time came to back up their rhetoric with deeds.

Today, we will hear about increases for special education in the Budget Resolution, but when it came time to fully fund these programs, the Majority denies debate on the only two amendments that would genuinely make that a reality.

This bill reneges on our 28-year commitment to fully fund the federal share of special education Part B Grants to States - what is commonly referred to as fully funding IDEA.

It denies mandatory funding that would ensure the federal government finally lives up to its legal commitment to provide states with 40 percent of these costs. Time and again, Congress has passed meaningless "sense of Congress" resolutions supporting full funding for IDEA. But when it came to the point to require that these funds be provided, this bill, once again, turned its back on that promise.

In fact, this bill actually sets caps - authorizing ceilings - on the amount of funding the Congress may provide in any given year.

Even those groups representing teachers, principals and school administrators that do support many of the changes in H.R. 1350 categorically state that the bill must be amended to require mandatory funding increases.

Yet the majority on the Rules Committee denied both Republican and Democratic amendments on this issue. So there will be no debate in the U.S. House of Representatives on the most critical issue facing special education today: Will the Congress finally put some money where its mouth has been for the past several years?

H.R. 1350 also undermines due process and discipline protections for children with disabilities, placing new restrictions on the ability of parents to seek legal representation when a violation of the law has occurred.

It might even bring us back to the time when children with disabilities could be removed from the classroom - or worse, refused a public education simply because they had disabilities.

I have heard from so many parents of children with disabilities - and from school counselors and other professionals - about how this bill will adversely affect the lives and education of these children.

Here is what one mother in my district wrote about H.R. 1350:

"Leah is my 7-year-old daughter. She has Down Syndrome. Leah is fully included in her class, learning to read and had many friends. Not only has she benefited from being in this class, I truly believe that the children in Leah's school have benefited from knowing Leah and becoming her friend. I want Leah to continue in this inclusive environment because I feel that this is the best way for her to develop independence and appropriate social skills for the future. But H.R. 1350 does not provide full funding for IDEA.

"HR 1350 would take away many protections for parents' rights that are in IDEA, called procedural safeguards. It is important for schools to give parents their rights, so parents can use them to make sure their children get a good education. H.R. 1350 would prevent this.

"When you sign an important contract, you get notice of your rights. HR 1350 would let schools give a short description of rights to parents, rather than fully explain these rights to parents like they have to now. Why are the schools so afraid for parents to know their rights?

Another woman from my district -- the mother of a12-year-old boy with autism -- is also extremely disturbed by the changes contained in HR 1350. She writes:

"Under HR 1350, procedural rights would be greatly reduced. As a parent dealing with large teams of school district staff, these rights are critical to me in ensuring that my child's unique and individual needs are considered.

"Both school staff and I work very hard with my child to meet society's expectations. However, it is the nature of his disability that sometimes he cannot obey student "codes of conduct." To subject my child to a segregated placement - at the sole discretion of school staff - any time a rule is violated would be terrifying.

"Although some of the proposed changes in HR 1350 may appear sensible on the surface, as a person who has dealt with special education, I can easily see what their real-world impact would be - and it would be disastrous."

I am sure my colleagues have received scores of similar letters from the parents and grandparents of children who need special education - as well as letters from school counselors, psychologists, and therapists who work with and support these families.

They are asking us - pleading with us - to reject HR 1350.

Surely we can find a way to give school administrators the flexibility they say they need, without undermining the rights of the children and families they are charged to serve.

Surely we can find a way to fulfill our promises and provide mandatory funding.

We should send this bill back to Committee and return with a genuine consensus on the IDEA reauthorization, as has been the tradition of this body for nearly three decades.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is opposed by nearly every major constituency directly involved in the lives of children requiring special education - parents, families, school counselors, psychologists and developmental specialists, disabilities advocates, organizations involved in the professional development of teachers.

At this point I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a list of organizations opposed to this bill.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and to oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.