Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2003

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2003

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in 1975, Congress made the historic decision to require all public schools to accept and educate children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment. That law still serves as the basis for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

As part of the original law, Congress acknowledged that the Federal Government would need to contribute 40 percent of the extra costs of educating students with disabilities. Sadly, we do not seem to have a very good track record. Today-30 years after that critically important legislation was enacted-the Federal Government pays less than 20 percent of the additional cost.

I commend my colleagues, Senators HAGEL and HARKIN, for offering the amendment to move the Federal share to 40 percent over 6 years. This amendment is an appropriate and overdue response to our schools who are living up to their end of the bargain, and I was pleased to support it. Unfortunately, the amendment failed by a slim margin.

National organizations-ranging from teachers' groups to the disability rights movement to education advocacy groups-have urged this body to support the Hagel-Harkin amendment. There is broad and deep recognition that mandatory full funding is the right thing to do and that this is the right time to do it. Our schools need this funding.

I got a letter this week from the Superintendent of the Orion Community Unit Schools asking me to support IDEA. He says, "Please understand that reauthorization is imperative for the financial stability of the public schools in Illinois." The Orion school district is in the top 5 percent of Illinois schools academically. It has cut its budget each of the last 2 years by 3.4 percent. And yet Orion has been placed on the financial early warning list.

Two years ago, this Congress enacted the No Child Left Behind Act. The purpose of that law is to close the achievement gap. For too many of our children, especially those who have disabilities, we had become complacent about lowered expectations. I voted for that law because I believe every child, including those with disabilities, can succeed.

But lower teacher ratios, qualified teachers, specialists, tutoring, early intervention-all of these proven means to improved academic achievement require resources. It is hard for me to understand how we can say that we as a nation expect 100 percent proficiency in basic academic skills, but we can not afford to fully fund No Child Left Behind. We expect all but the most severely cognitively disabled students to meet Adequate Yearly Progress, but we cannot afford to fully fund IDEA. We expect our schools and teachers to work effectively with children who face every adversity, but we can't afford to provide federal education funding at promised levels. Meanwhile we find somehow that we can afford to hand out tax breaks to the wealthiest and most advantaged among us.

Congress meant what it said in 1975 with the enactment of IDEA. Children with disabilities have the right to a free and appropriate education. And we meant what we said in 2001. Every child is expected to learn. Both laws affirm that access to a quality education is a civil right in this country.

I am disappointed that we were not able to pass the Hagel-Harkin amendment. But I strongly support the underlying bill. This reauthorization will do much for students with disabilities, their families, and the schools they learn in. But it is up to the Congress of 2004 to fulfill the promise of the Congress of 1974. It is time for this body to put its money where its mouth is.