Michael Castle

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer Amendment No. 1.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say that we, on this side, are in support of this amendment. I met, I think it was just yesterday actually, or the day before, but with family groups in Delaware, my home State, where we are concerned about autism; and this actually is one of the very areas they discussed. We realize these children are very gifted, and we realize this can be very difficult. I happen to believe this is an amendment that has merit and adds to the bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. CASTLE. Although I do not oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I ask to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this 1\1/2\ minutes to address this issue of funding because I think there has been perhaps a misunderstanding here. Some of it, frankly, is a little bit political; but I think we need to sort of clear the air if we can. This bill, as we all know, I think, now at this point, was first passed in 1975. From 1975 until 1995, which was a time, frankly, that the Congress was controlled by the Democrats for the most part here, the funding for the Federal share of this never got above 7 percent. Starting in 1996 and thereafter up until now in the year 2003 and then 2004, that funding as the percentage share of the Federal Government, even with the cost-of-living increases and everything else, has gone to 18 percent. The funding in the budget bill for this next year, 2004, which is the yellow line on this chart, is actually at 21 percent, on our way to 40 percent. In this legislation is a guide path by authorization to take that funding to the full 40 percent in 7 years. Even under the mandatory funding bills that those advocates are talking about in terms of handling the funding would not get there for 6 years. It would take an additional $10.2 billion, and everybody realizes that that cannot be done. This Congress has committed to it. This Republican Party under this President has absolutely committed to doing this, and is making extraordinary gains. In fact, that increase is 282.3 percent in that period of time, from 1996 to 2003. We wish our stocks had increased that much in value. The average yearly funding for IDEA between 1996 and 2003 has grown at 18.6 percent per year. Those are astounding increases for any kind of Federal program, all of which usually increase, at best, at a rate of cost of living. So, the truth of the matter is, the bottom line is that we have met our responsibilities, and I would encourage everyone to support the legislation.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor). (Mr. GILLMOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time, and I have a tremendous amount of empathy for his personal situation and have spent a great deal of time discussing that and his interest in this bill, as well as the gentleman from Massachusetts, who exhibited, I felt, at the hearing before the Committee on Rules, an understanding of the legislation as well. I think it is very important that we begin this debate by understanding several background areas. One is that this is legislation which was created in 1975 with the help of a number of people who are still here today. One of those Members is the ranking member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and others who put language into this legislation, which I think has held up extraordinarily well over the past 30 or so years. I believe that the services that we provide to our children who have disabilities are tremendous, light years ahead of where we were just 30 years ago. I believe that Republicans and Democrats alike have worked together every 5 or 6 years in the reauthorization process, and I know it was very difficult 5 or 6 years ago when I went through it in order to put together legislation which will be helpful in improving what we are doing in helping children with disabilities. But I believe that the legislation before us is another step in that direction. Now, obviously, if this passes today, with some of the amendments which are before us, it will go into a conference with the Senate and may come out somewhat differently. But I would suggest that before the process is done, this may become both bipartisan and perhaps even some improvements in it from where it is at this point today, although I think it is a significant and good piece of legislation today. I do rise in support of H. Res. 206, which provides for the consideration of H.R. 1350, which is the Improving Results for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003. I offer my thanks to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for his latitude in making sure that this legislation was worked out. We are very appreciative of that. I also want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and members of the Committee on Rules, particularly the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), for drafting what I find to be a fair and balanced rule. I think we need to know the background of that too. For almost 2 years, we have been working to create a balanced piece of legislation to ensure that students with disabilities receive a quality education. In doing so, we have been committed to working with Democrats and parents and educators, and I think that rule today reflects that commitment. This has been an ongoing process, Mr. Speaker, which is exhibited in this rule. There are a number of amendments that are the result of dialogue we have had with the minority. There are a number of other amendments that did not have to be introduced because we adopted them as part of the legislation. We have a manager's amendment with some technical aspects, which I am sponsoring. But over the past 18 months, our committee, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, has held seven different hearings on issues directly relating to the reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities on Education Act. And though that is probably not unparalleled, it is a little unusual to have that extensive number of hearings on any legislation in the House of Representatives. On June 6, 2002, I helped launch a Web-based project called Great IDEAs, designed to solicit input from stakeholders in special education across the Nation. Since that time we have had more than 3,000 responses from teachers, school administrators, parents of children with special needs, and others familiar with the unique needs of children with disabilities and incorporated many of these suggestions into H.R. 1350. So the point on that is there has been a great deal of effort put into the preparation of this legislation and the preparation of the rule which we have before us today. Turning to the bill, I believe that this bill employs commonsense reforms to reduce the excessive amount of paperwork requirements, and that is the common complaint that we hear from everybody. It improves IDEA to provide greater parent involvement, seeks to reduce litigation, authorizes dramatic funding increases, and improves early intervention strategies. The excessive amount of paperwork requirement simply, frankly, overwhelms teachers and robs them of valuable time to educate their students. Teachers must have the ability to spend more time in the classroom rather than spending endless hours filling out unnecessary forms. Additionally, these provisions will allow school districts to retain and recruit highly qualified special education teachers. Throughout the bill we have made improvements to IDEA to provide greater flexibility to parents and greater input in developing the Individualized Education Program, which is known by the acronym IEP, for their child. The bill gives parents discretion over who attends IEP team meetings, how they are conducted, or whether to have one at all. We have improved the parent training and information centers and the community-parent resource centers to serve as valuable tools for parents trying to work with schools to get a quality education for their child. This bill seeks to reduce litigation and restore trust between parents and school districts by encouraging the use of alternative means or what we know as dispute resolution. All too often miscommunication damages this relationship and results in proliferation of litigation. Not only is this course of action costly, but it breeds an attitude of distrust. H.R. 1350 authorizes dramatic increases in funding for special education, creates a clear path to attain full funding of the Federal Government's 40 percent goal within 7 years. Let me go through that carefully. We are going to hear that a lot in the course of the next 4 or 5 hours on the floor. Essentially, after IDEA was created, in the original language it said that the Federal Government will fund up to 40 percent of the cost of the education of these children beyond the normal cost of education. The Federal Government for whatever reasons did not live up to that. Up until about 7 years ago, the Federal Government was funding 5 or 6 percent of that cost. In the last 7 years, and I am proud that Republicans have been involved with this, although Democrats have been supportive as well, but over the last 7 years, we have increased that dramatically so that instead of funding 5 percent, we are now funding 18 percent. In this year's budget resolution, that funding number will take us up to 21 percent. The President of the United States has indicated his complete willingness to fund this in rapid increases to get us to that 40 percent in a 7-year glide path. This Congress, in the form of the Committee on Appropriations, has indicated doing it the same way. This is all under the discretionary spending which we have with constant review; and believe me, we need constant review of IDEA which is happening as a result of the fact that it is under discretionary spending. I do not believe when we go to mandatory spending we get those reviews. I believe that particular commitment to getting there in 7 years is going to work. The mandatory spending side of it, the amendments that we are seeing, although they are not in this particular legislation, have a 6-year path to get us to that 40 percent funding. The real differences are rather minimal in terms of when we would get there, and the commitment to do it. Some Members say we need to do it in a mandatory way or it is not going to happen. I do not agree with that. I have watched it happen year after year in most of the years that I have been in the Congress of the United States, and it is happening extremely well. I am proud of our record of dramatically increasing this funding for IDEA over the past 7 years and remain committed to building on that impressive record as far as the future is concerned. I am convinced that we are doing the right thing. We will hear a lot about it in a political sense today, but the bottom line is the commitment is there and that is happening. The bill also improves early intervention strategies. Currently too many children with reading problems are being identified as learning disabled and placed in special education classes they do not necessarily belong in. We have given local school districts the flexibility to use up to 15 percent of their funds for prereferral services for students before they are identified as needing special education. I think that is a very important provision because of some of the overidentification that goes on, particularly in the African American community. We also attempt to address that question of a disproportionate number of minority students wrongly placed in special education. We encourage school districts to provide positive behavioral interventions and support intensive educational interventions to prevent this overidentification and misidentification. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot in this legislation. It is very difficult, frankly, to take a significant piece of legislation and be able to comprehend it unless one has lived it for a long time. I will tell Members there are many people who have come to my office and left pictures of their children behind, which I have on my desk in both Wilmington and here in Washington, D.C. There are many Members of Congress who are involved very personally with children with disabilities and are very concerned with what is in this legislation. Many steps have been taken in order to improve the legislation. We have tried to keep an open mind about amendments and suggestions and will do so through conference in order to help those children who truly need help in our schools. We are proud of our record and the legislation. I believe the Committee on Rules has done an outstanding job of sorting through amendments and preparing for today, and I would encourage everybody to support this rule.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns), a member of the committee.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. I rise in strong support of this legislation. Sometimes when we hear debates, we do not get the full significance of what we are doing. We are dealing with a piece of legislation which the chairman and others on the Democrat side have worked very hard on to make educational opportunities better for children with disabilities in this country. We have been involved for 2 years doing this. We have had 7 hearings, we started a Web site, we had something like 3,000 suggestions on that Web site. We have had many discussions with many people in trying to work out a lot of differences, and there are a lot of problems in dealing with this issue. I have talked to many, many individual Members, but at the heart of it, this legislation is aimed at trying to help children with disabilities get a better education and help other children being educated in our schools. I thank the parents and children in Delaware, many of whom I have spent time with, and my judgment is this is good legislation, excellent legislation which is going to move us forward. For too many years children who had disabilities were denied access to education. In 1975 Congress, this House and the Senate, provided that educational opportunity. According to the Department of Education, about 6.6 million students currently participate in these programs across the Nation. Of those, almost 50 percent of the children with disabilities spend 80 percent or more of their day in a regular education classroom. Mr. Chairman, 30 years ago that would not have happened. Probably zero of those children would have spent time in a regular classroom. That is happening today. Each 5 years, we come along in Congress and try to improve that. There is room for improvement. These are children who are at the greatest risk of being left behind. We have to give children with disabilities access to an education that maximizes their unique abilities and provides them with tools for later successful, productive lives. We must work together to do this in every way we can. This bill aims to improve current law by focusing on improved education results, reducing the paperwork burden for special education teachers, and addressing the problem of overidentification of minority students as disabled. In addition, the bill seeks to reduce litigation and reform special education financing and funding. One of the great benefits of No Child Left Behind, H.R. 1, is that we have raised expectations and will hold school districts accountable for the annual progress of all of their students, including students with disabilities. Although we have made great progress in including students with disabilities in regular classrooms, we now must make equally great process in ensuring that they receive a quality education in a regular classroom. We need to align IDEA and No Child Left Behind. This bill will help reduce the paperwork burden so school districts are able to retain and recruit highly qualified special education teachers. The excessive amount of paperwork currently inherent in special education continues to overwhelm and burden teachers. We hear that from all of them, robbing them of time with their students. Based on that, we have tried to amend the individual education plan without reconvening the entire IEP team at all times. We also establish a rule of construction stating that nothing beyond what is explicitly included in the Act is required in a child's IEP, and requires the secretary to develop model forms for the IEP, something a lot of people asked for. Secondly, we permit the use of alternative means of meeting participation, such as teleconferencing and videoconferencing. All of these measures will give teachers the ability to spend more time in classrooms. Furthermore, we are committed to implementing reforms that would reduce the number of students that are misidentified or overrepresented in special ed programs. Minorities are often significantly overrepresented in these programs. In fact, African Americans are nearly 3 times, more likely twice, to be labeled as mentally retarded and almost twice as likely to be labeled emotionally disturbed. Thousands of children are misidentified every year, while many are not identified early enough. We address these issues in this legislation. By providing these services to children at an earlier age, we can prevent people from being identified as having learning disabilities and help them in their education process. We also seek to reduce litigation, restore trust between parents and school districts, and many other steps have been taken in this legislation that we think are tremendously helpful in improving the opportunities for children with disabilities. I urge Members to support the legislation.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time just to say that we are in support of the amendment. We actually think it is a very good amendment on this side. We congratulate the gentlewoman, and we hope that everybody will support it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 173, recognizing the important achievements and contributions of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The National Wildlife Refuge System has been a national treasure for one hundred years thanks to the efforts of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Since its creation in 1903, the National Wildlife Refuge System has successfully protected numerous plant and animal species in each of the fifty states. In my great State of Delaware, the Bombay Hook and Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuges have protected and encouraged growth of migratory bird populations so that future generations can benefit from their existence just as we and our ancestors have marveled at their presence. The Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge has provided a safe habitat for eagles, deer, and migratory waterfowl and shorebirds since its creation in 1937. During that period, the refuge has maintained an eagle population and has seen 28 eaglets fledged. The refuge currently has one active bald eagle nest. I am thankful that, through the efforts of taxpayers, volunteers, and refuge employees, future generations of Delawareans will not miss the splendor of a soaring bald eagle, a national icon. Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge has also successfully protected the tidal salt marsh so that waterfowl populations including the snow geese continue to migrate to the Delaware shore. Recently, ten years of horseshoe crab surveying have led to the implementation of tighter restrictions on the harvesting of the species. All of these achievements have benefited nature lovers and birders across the nation and enriched the education of generations of children. The Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge, since its establishment in 1963, also has provided protection for numerous migratory bird and other populations. The refuge has expanded recently from a satellite of the Bombary Hook National Wildlife Refuge to become an independent refuge with an active bald eagle nest and one of the largest freshwater marshes on the East Coast. I have been proud to work with Delawareans to improve Prime Hook through the voluntary purchase of new properties in and adjacent to the refuge. These land purchases will provide a valuable buffer between the refuge and fast growing development in the county. It gives me great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to recognize these achievements and to ensure that these refuges receive the continued support of Congress. In reaffirming our commitment to the conservation of our nation's rich natural heritage, we allow our future generations to witness the same natural wonders we have the privilege of seeing today.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, It is with great pleasure that I rise today as a member of the Congressional Fire Service Caucus to honor and pay tribute to a leader in the firefighting community--Bill Chandler, who age 92, holds the record for being the longest serving member of the Carlisle Fire Company in Milford, Delaware. Bill Chandler is an outstanding, dedicated and caring Delawarean with an abundance of accomplishments in this field. On behalf of myself and the citizens of the First State, I would like to honor this outstanding individual and extend to him our congratulations on almost 70 years in the fire department. Today, I recognize Bill Chandler for his long and distinguished career with the Carlisle Fire Company. Since beginning his career at age 24 in 1934, Bill Chandler has provided service in a manner that has brought distinction not only to himself but to the entire Fire Company. Family, friends and fellow firefighters should take a moment to truly appreciate the world of difference Bill Chandler has made in the firefighting community. He has served for many years as fire recorder, vice president, third assistant chief, second assistant chief, first assistant chief and eventually chief of the Carlisle Fire Company. Bill Chandler has also served on the by-laws, budget, president advisory, archives, bingo, bowling, fireman of the year, crab feast and sportsman's expo committees. He is currently serving as a delegate for the Delaware Volunteer Fireman's Association. Bill Chandler has spent all of his life helping the community of Milford and all of Delaware. To this end, he has received many honors; the 55 years of service award signed by then President George Bush and Senator Bill Roth, Fireman Community Service Award and Company Firefighter of the Year Award. Mr. Chandler was responsible for many improvements in the firefighting community. He implemented the very first rubber boots and hard hats at the Carlisle Fire Company in 1941. However, Bill Chandler has also made valuable contributions to the business community as a partner in Sockrider and Chandler Jewelry Store. Mr. Speaker, with his children Bill, Edna and Gloria and his seven grandchildren at his side, the Chandler family proudly and unselfishly contributes every day to the quality of life at home in their community and our entire State. Mr. William Chandler's contributions cannot be commended enough. As he continues his commitment to the Carlisle Fire Company, we can be sure that his contributions to the community will not end. His commitment to fighting fires and saving lives has earned him a permanent place in Delaware's fire service history.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise in memory of and to pay tribute to a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a teacher and a community activist--Shirley M. Tarrant, who passed away this month after half a century of outstanding service to the State of Delaware. The number of accomplishments, recognitions and most importantly admirations that Shirley has had in her life is remarkable. Today, I recognize Shirley for her proud and distinguished public and personal life. Ms. Tarrant was the daughter of Frank and Edith Riley. She was a graduate of Wilmington High School and of the University of Delaware. Shirley's career as an elementary school teacher was tremendously important to so many children in the State of Delaware but she distinguished herself as a community activist early on. Shirley was the leader in establishing the Newark Girls Club, she was president of the Suburban County Hospital Task Force, she was a chairperson of the Delaware Health Facilities Authority and a member of the Board of Christiana Care Health Systems. As the President of the Suburban County Hospital Task Force, Shirley was ultimately responsible for the construction of the Christiana Hospital, which is the largest, most advanced facility in Delaware. With her husband Alfred and her daughter Marci at her side, Shirley proudly and unselfishly contributed everyday to life in her home and her community. Shirley's contributions cannot be commended enough. Though she has passed on, we can all be sure that her contributions will remain with us. Her commitment to her goals, her family and her State have earned her a permanent place in the thoughts and hearts of so many people.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns with H.R. 6, ``The Energy Policy Act of 2003,'' in particular, provisions to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for drilling. I support a strong, comprehensive national energy policy that promotes conservation, alternative fuels, and technologies, in conjunction with maintaining sound environmental practices. One thing that every Member of this Congress agrees on is that our nation needs an energy plan that has a strong balance between energy production and energy efficiency. I was pleased to hear President Bush once again lead the energy section of his State of the Union address with support for energy efficiency, especially his initiative to accelerate research into hydrogen fuel cells. This kind of long-term commitment will help our country shift to more environmentally friendly energy sources. We must maintain proper levels of funding for renewable energy research, so renewable energy can become a greater proportion of our nation's energy supply in the long run. Although The Energy Policy Act of 2003 contained several conservation measures, including close to $7 billion for tax credits for the use of alternative fuels and conservation, the proposal also contained an additional $12 billion in production-related tax incentives to coal, oil, and gas industries. Even so, experts predict the shortage of natural gas supplies will continue suggesting that tax policy alone is not sufficient to address the crisis in natural gas. Therefore, these tax measures combined with the proposal to open ANWR for drilling led me to oppose H.R. 6 I believe we have a responsibility to preserve and protect our environment. As you know, whether or not to drill for oil in ANWR has long been a controversial subject. I believe there are other ways to ensure the United States has a national energy policy other than disturbing a pristine wildlife refuge. Proponents of drilling for oil in ANWR have not made an adequate case to me, and therefore, I support an amendment to strike the language in H.R. 6 proposing to open ANWR to drilling. The U.S. Geological Survey reports that there are only 3.2 billion barrels (6 months' supply) of economically recoverable oil in ANWR. In contrast to ANWR's 6 month oil supply, natural gas from Alaska's North Slope would provide a 10 month supply. There is consensus from all sides that this natural gas should be piped to the lower 48 states, but there is disagreement on the location of the pipeline. I support efforts to make a final determination so this pipeline can be built quickly, but safely. Other sources of energy on the North Slope include a 13 month supply in the North Slope Reserves and a 3 year supply at West Sac. I know that energy efficiency alone will not be able to meet our country's current energy needs, we must begin to make a stronger commitment to alternative fuels and conservation as ways to improve our environment and boost this Nation's struggling economy. As this debate now moves forward, Congress must seize this opportunity to put these important efforts at the forefront of a comprehensive national energy policy. I am committed to finding solutions to the energy crisis that strike a proper balance between conservation and production. I am hopeful that The Energy Policy Act of 2003 will represent a balanced, more fiscally responsible proposal when I have the chance to vote on the House-Senate Conference Report on this bill later in the 108th Congress.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2003.'' This legislation removes a barrier which has prevented some organizations from donating surplus fire fighting equipment to needy fire departments. Under current law, the threat of civil liability has caused some organizations to destroy fire equipment, rather than donating it to volunteer, rural and other financially-strapped departments. We know that every day, across the United States, firefighters respond to calls for help. We are grateful that these brave men and women work to save our lives and protect our homes and businesses. We presume that these firefighters work in departments which have the latest and best firefighting and protective equipment. What we must recognize is that there are an estimated 30,000 firefighters who risk their lives daily due to a lack of basic Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). In both rural and urban fire departments, limited budgets make it difficult to purchase more than fuel and minimum maintenance. There is not enough money to buy new equipment. At the same time, certain industries are constantly improving and updating the fire protection equipment to take advantage of new, state-of-the-art innovation. Sometimes, the surplus equipment may be almost new or has never been used to put out a single fire. Sadly, the threat of civil liability causes many organizations to destroy, rather than donate, millions of dollars of quality fire equipment. Not only do volunteer fire departments provide an indispensable service, some estimates indicate that the nearly 800,000 volunteer firefighters nationwide save state and local governments $36.8 billion a year. While volunteering to fight fires, these same, selfless individuals are asked to raise funds to pay for new equipment. Bake sales, pot luck dinners, and raffles consume valuable time that could be better spent training to respond to emergencies. All this, while surplus equipment is being destroyed. In states that have removed liability barriers, such as Texas, fire companies have received millions of dollars in quality fire fighting equipment. The generosity and good will of private entities donating surplus fire equipment to volunteer fire companies are well received by the firefighters and the communities. The donated fire equipment will undergo a safety inspection by the fire company to make sure firefighters and the public are safe. We can help solve this problem. Congress can respond to the needs of fire companies by removing civil liability barriers. This bill accomplishes this by raising the current liability standard from negligence to gross negligence. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and look forward to working with the Judiciary Committee to bring this bill to the House Floor.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the conference report on the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Resolution. I am saddened that I must oppose the conference report, because I believe passage of a budget resolution is very important. A budget resolution is essential to allow the House and Senate set the overall limits for spending and taxes that guide all other legislation for the rest of the year. This final conference report is an improvement over the House budget resolution, but still falls short of a balanced plan for fiscal responsibility at a time when we are facing the tremendous challenges of international terrorism, war and reconstruction in Iraq, domestic needs here at home and the return of large federal budget deficits which could hinder future economic growth. This conference report is an improvement over the House budget resolution because it provides for limited but fair funding for key programs like education, Medicaid, Medicare, and veterans, while meeting the essential needs of national defense and homeland security. I am pleased that the budget negotiators listened to those of us who said that the reductions in the original House budget resolution were not sustainable and restored funding for key areas like education, health care and veterans. I appreciate Chairman Nussle's responsiveness to these concerns. The spending limits for domestic discretionary programs will be tight, but probably manageable at a time when spending must be restrained. However, this resolution does not apply the same restraint to tax cuts. It calls for a total of $1.2 trillion in tax cuts over the next ten years, and more important, it sets up an expedited process to assure passage of up to $550 billion in tax cuts. It is simply not sound policy to go forward with tax cuts of this size at a time when we are facing the growing and, as yet, unknown total costs of completing the war against Iraq, fighting terrorism, protecting the homeland, while meeting essential needs like health care for our seniors and education for our young people. The Federal Government's role in addressing these issues is especially important at this time because state governments, including my state of Delaware, are experiencing severe budget problems forcing them to reduce funding for virtually every program at the state level. The fact of the matter is that deficits do matter. Due in part to the economic slowdown and the costs of the war on terrorism, we are now facing federal deficits over the next ten years that could approach $4.2 trillion. Adding debt at these levels can hurt the economy. In addition, they will come at a time when we will begin to face tremendous demands to fund the retirement of the Baby Boom generation and the growing health care needs of an aging population. If the tax cuts called for in this budget resolution are ultimately approved, we are really rolling the dice on whether they will strengthen the economy significantly or add to the growing deficit challenges we face. I must also oppose this resolution based on the poor process that has brought us to this point. We are voting on this budget in the middle of the night because a compromise on a more realistic tax cut level could not be reached and the decision was made to try to force this through. Instead of attempting to find consensus on a more limited level of tax cuts of $350 billion, which would provide more rapid tax relief for families and small businesses, this resolution not only expresses support for a total package of $1.2 trillion in tax cuts, it attempts to get around the fact that the Senate is on record for limiting the tax cut to $350 billion. This resolution creates an unprecedented loophole in the budget process to protect up to $550 billion in tax cuts through an expedited Senate vote. Despite the fact that budget resolutions are supposed to establish one set of rules for considering tax legislation. This resolution makes it possible for a second, higher tax cut bill to get a protected vote in the Senate. This is not a time when Congress should be attempting to force through the largest tax cut possible regardless of its economic effectiveness when we face the costs of war, serious challenges at home and the return of long-term budget deficits. My constituents tell me that it does not make sense to rush forward with tax cuts of this size before we have won the war with Iraq, understand its true cost, and evaluate the recovery of the economy and what is needed to help working Americans. A better solution would have been to seek agreement on a more affordable tax relief package that would help the economy now; allow us to pay for our national security needs abroad and at home; and provide limited, but fair funding for key needs like education and health care, all within a realistic long-term plan to balance the federal budget. Unfortunately, because of the decision to push for maximum tax cuts over the reservations of Members of both parties, this resolution does not meet the overall test of fiscal responsibility and common sense. This budget plan is seriously flawed and I must oppose it. When it comes time to pass the actual tax and spending legislation to implement this budget plan, I hope more reason and fairness are applied and we take action that helps the American people now without mortgaging their future.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the House Leadership for introducing this important resolution. Today, we recognize, support, and commend our brave service men and women for their dedication, for their sacrifice, and for their supreme love of country. We thank and honor those who serve on behalf of liberty and freedom. Our Nation has committed our military to defend the world from grave danger and to assure the security for all nations by disarming Saddam Hussein. For more than 4\1/2\ months, this brutal dictator has ignored the clear resolve of the United Nations and the world that Iraq immediately disarm. In the face of Iraq's continued defiance of the international community, the United States and our allies have been forced to act. It had been my ardent hope that, through forceful diplomacy and clear resolve, we would have avoided this war. However, in the face of Saddam Hussein's history of deception, the U.S. and its broad range of international partners have decided now is the time to act to disarm Iraq. In the coming days and weeks, it will be critically important for our Nation to support and pray for the safety of our troops in this time of uncertainty. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11th, I participated in countless classified briefings and hearings before the House Intelligence Committee. We know that Iraq has continued to build weapons of mass destruction, has energized its missile program, and is investing in biological weapons. Saddam Hussein is determined to obtain weapons-grade material to develop nuclear weapons. His biological weapons program is more advanced than before the Gulf War. All of these actions have been done in flagrant violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions. The Iraqi people have not brought this situation upon themselves, but rather the blame is on the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Apart from the current military action, our focus must be on working with the world community to rebuild Iraq following the military actions. As we move forward in Iraq and in other crisis spots around the world, I am hopeful that the United States will continue to strengthen its unity with the international community. Today, we stand firmly behind our Armed Forces. We thank the brave men and women who risk their lives to keep our Nation free and safe. We offer our respect, our supreme gratitude, and the promise that we shall not forget your bravery and your sacrifice. We are proud of you. May God bless you and keep you safe.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act, which reauthorizes special education programs in our nation's schools. This legislation improves the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to ensure that children with special needs receive the high-quality education they deserve. I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for his assistance in bringing this bill to this point. For too many years, children with disabilities were 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 across the nation. Of those, almost 50 percent of students with disabilities spend 80 percent or more of their day in the regular education classroom. In addition, graduation rates for students with disabilities with a standard diploma are at an all-time high, while drop-out rates continue to fall. Despite IDEA's many success stories, there is room for improvement in serving children with disabilities. These children are still among those at the greatest risk of being left behind. Now more than ever, we must make sure that children with disabilities are given access to an education that maximizes their unique abilities and provides them with tools for later successful, productive lives. We must continue to be vigilant in our efforts towards improving the quality of education of all children, including children with disabilities. We must shift from the current focus on compliance with bureaucratic rules to ensuring that children with disabilities are making progress and achieving to high expectations so that no child is left behind. 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, and addressing the problem of over identification of minority students as disabled. In addition, this bill seeks to reduce litigation, and reform special education finance and funding. One of the great benefits of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is that we have raised expectations and will hold school districts accountable for the annual progress of all 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 must carefully align the IDEA with NCLB to ensure that students with disabilities are included in the accountability systems of States and school districts. This bill will help reduce the paperwork burden so that school districts are able to retain and recruit highly qualified special education teachers. The excessive amount of paperwork currently inherent in special education continues to overwhelm and burden teachers, robbing them of time to educate their students. Teachers must have the ability to spend more time in the classroom rather than spending endless hours filling out forms that do not lead to a better education for students. Furthermore, we are committed to implementing reforms that would reduce the number of students that are misidentified or over represented in special education programs. Minorities are often significantly over represented 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. This bill seeks to reduce litigation and restore trust between parents and school districts. All too often miscommunication damages this relationship and results in a proliferation of litigation. We are committed to implementing reforms that provide ample opportunities for positive interaction before a problem becomes serious. We are also committed to ensure that parents are actively involved in their child's education experience. This bill will give parents greater access to be involved in making decisions about their child's education. Finally, we are very proud of our record in securing the largest funding increases for IDEA over the past 7 years. Since 1995, Congress has nearly tripled federal spending for special education. This bill continues to lead the way in increasing funds for IDEA by creating a path to attain full funding of the federal government's 40 percent goal within 7 years. We remain committed to build upon reforms already implemented and must keep these challenges in mind as we reauthorize IDEA. I look forward to working with the member of the Committee, other Members of Congress, and stakeholders as we work to craft legislation that will build upon and improve previous reforms and continue to ensure that children with disabilities receive a quality education. I urge my colleagues to join me and the other original co-sponsors in support of the Improving Education Results for Children with Disabilities Act.

Mr. CASTLE

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time. I am pleased to rise to oppose this legislation for a variety of reasons. First of all, Congress should not discriminate against bankruptcy cases. Virtually all of our laws allow cases to be filed either where the company is headquartered, where their assets are, or where it is incorporated. Why would we want to single out bankruptcy cases for discriminatory treatment? A second point, one made by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), is our current law is already fair. The law already allows debtors to change the location of where bankruptcy cases are heard by filing a motion to transfer venue. Therefore, this amendment is not necessary to give debtors a fair forum to argue their case. A third point is that 63 percent of bankruptcy judges disagree with the amendment. When surveyed by the Judicial Conference, 63 percent of those surveyed, the bankruptcy judges, oppose changing the rules on where corporations can file bankruptcy. We need to listen to the experts who have to hear these cases every day. And then there is another fact, Mr. Chairman, and that is that in 1973 Congress voted to restrict options for where bankruptcies could be filed. It was such a failure that Congress repealed the change in 1978. Why would we want to repeal that mistake? In addition to all of those absolutely valid legal reasons before us today with respect to the bankruptcy laws, there is another reason that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has already explained and that is that this whole bankruptcy bill, and we have learned in these debates here today that it has been a long time, has been very carefully negotiated with a compromise. Various new bankruptcy judges have been added where they are needed in order for the courts to be able to keep up their pace in a variety of States across the United States of America. For all of these absolutely valid reasons in terms of the integrity of the Federal laws of the United States with respect to all of our courts, all of our laws and particularly bankruptcy laws, I would urge everyone in this Chamber to oppose the Sherman amendment when it comes up for a vote.