[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 57 (Tuesday, May 6, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4004-S4005]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 702. A bill to amend the Individuals With Disabilities Education 
Act to clarify that a State is not required to provide special 
education and related services to a person with a disability who is 
convicted of a felony and incarcerated in a secure correctional 
facility with adult offenders; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


          special education for violent criminals legislation

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to ensure 
that children across the country will not lose special education funds 
provided by the Individual With Disabilities Education Act or IDEA. My 
legislation will fix a loophole in IDEA that threatens to cut off 
special education funding to children in California and as many as 24 
other States.
  IDEA guarantees all children a ``free and appropriate public 
education.'' Unfortunately, the Department of Education has interpreted 
this requirement with a bizarre twist. It has insisted that ``all 
children'' includes those felons who, because of the particularly 
violent nature of their crimes, are serving time in adult State 
prisons. The Department of Education has even insisted California 
provide special education classes to two murderers on death row. If 
California refuses to comply, it stands to loss all Federal funding for 
special education--over $330 million, which helps educate close to 
600,000 children.
  I believe California is correct to protest these guidelines.
  To hold special education children hostage to juvenile murderers and 
rapists in the State's adult prison system is unconscionable. The $5 to 
$20 million it would cost to provide specialized classes for these 
violent felons would clearly be better spent on law-abiding citizens.
  My colleagues should be aware that California is not alone in this 
predicament. Twenty-four other states have been cited for noncompliance 
with IDEA's prison mandate, and they may lose Federal special education 
aid if they fail to change their policies.
  My bill would amend IDEA to clarify that those juveniles sent to 
adult prisons because of the violent nature of their crimes would not 
be subject to the IDEA special education requirement. Young adults 
housed in juvenile detention facilities will not be affected in any 
way.
  This bill will not prohibit or hinder in any way a State's ability to 
provide special education to adult prisoners. It will only remove the 
Federal mandate requiring States to provide special education to 
juveniles remanded to adult prisons. Deciding which rehabilitation 
programs to provide to State prisoners properly rests with lawmakers in 
each State. States such as California should not have to fear the loss 
of critical Federal aid because they prefer to allocate scarce 
resources to educate noncriminals.
  Mr. President, this is a commonsense proposal, and I hope the Senate 
will act on it expeditiously.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in 
the Record. I ask unanimous consent that a newspaper article on this 
subject also be printed.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 702

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION ON THE PROVISION OF SPECIAL 
                   EDUCATION AND RELATED SERVICES TO CHILDREN WITH 
                   DISABILITIES WHO ARE CONVICTED OF FELONIES.

       Section 612(1) of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1412(1)) is amended by adding at end 
     the following: ``The State is not required under the policy 
     to assure a free appropriate public education to a person 
     with a disability who is convicted of a felony and as a 
     result of such a conviction, is incarcerated in a secure 
     correctional facility.''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 602(a) of the Individuals with 
     Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401(a)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(28) The term ``secure correctional facility'' means any 
     public or private residential facility that--
       ``(A) includes construction fixtures designed to physically 
     restrict the movements and activities of individuals held in 
     lawful custody in such facility; and
       ``(B) is used for the placement, after adjudication and 
     disposition, of an individual convicted of a criminal 
     offense.''.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Los Angles Times, Apr. 18, 1997]

        State Should Give Prisoners Special Education, U.S. Says

                        (By Richard Lee Colvin)

       The federal government wants California to provide special 
     education services to some imprisoned felons, including those 
     serving life terms or on death row. And, to pressure the 
     state to do so, the U.S. Department of Education is 
     threatening to withhold $332 million that now goes to pay for 
     the same services for public schoolchildren.
       The issue arises from an Education Department 
     interpretation of the 1975 law that requires schools to 
     ensure that students with physical, emotional and learning 
     disabilities receive a ``free, appropriate public education'' 
     in return for federal aid.
       The law does not specifically require that prisoners 
     receive such services. Indeed, many other states do not 
     provide them. Neither does the federal prison system.
       Yet, because California extends services such as tutoring 
     and vocational and speech therapy to juveniles until they 
     turn 22, the federal government says prisoners up to that age 
     cannot be discriminated against--even if they are behind bars 
     for crimes including murder and rape or awaiting execution.
       Privately, federal education officials acknowledge that 
     withholding money from programs for schoolchildren to 
     pressure the state would be highly unpopular and that they 
     would be reluctant to go through with it.
       Nonetheless, federal officials have continued to press the 
     state to comply.
       The Wilson administration has resisted the order, saying 
     that screening inmates and creating an individualized plan 
     for serving each of them would pose daunting logistic, 
     financial, security and legal problems. State officials have 
     been lobbying Congress to change the law.
       In testimony before a congressional committee looking into 
     the issue, Gregory W. Harding, the Department of Corrections 
     chief deputy director, questioned the ``appropriateness and 
     wisdom of expending precious resources'' on individuals who 
     have ``committed felonious and, in many instances, heinous 
     crimes.''
       Harding also warned that inmates or their parents ``would 
     merely use this process to make unreasonable demands or to 
     bring frivolous lawsuits against staff.''
       The state prisons house roughly 10,000 inmates between the 
     ages of 16 and 21. No one

[[Page S4005]]

     knows for sure how many of those prisoners might have 
     disabilities qualifying them for special education. Estimates 
     have ranged between 10% and 25%. Cost estimates also range 
     widely, from $5 million to $20 million annually.
       Those numbers pale next to the $3.4 billion spent annually 
     in California to provide special education for 590,000 
     students.
       But the possibility of shifting any money to prisoners 
     rankles educators because the federal government requires the 
     states to provide special education to disabled children, 
     but has never come close to providing its full share of 
     the programs' cost. The law originally said the federal 
     government could cover up to 40% of the cost of special 
     education, but Washington has never put up more than 12% 
     of the money and has now dropped its share to roughly 8%--
     draining money from local school district budgets.
       ``Our position is that we don't want to see any public 
     education dollar--state or federal--be siphoned off to 
     provide special education service .  .  . to youth in 
     prison,'' said Lou Barela, a special education administrator 
     in Solano County who has testified on the issue on behalf of 
     a statewide administrators group.
       Barela said it would be more expensive to provide services 
     in prisons than in schools because of security risks. She 
     said the state already has a huge shortage of trained special 
     education teachers, and it will be even more difficult to 
     find ones willing to work in prisons.
       It is not uncommon for federal officials to threaten to 
     withhold special education funding in order to get a state or 
     a local school district to comply with a ruling. In 1994, the 
     Los Angeles Unified School District was threatened with the 
     loss of its special education funding if it did not revamp 
     its procedures for assessing students' needs in a timely 
     fashion. In the end, no money was withheld.
       Federal education officials have scheduled a public hearing 
     for next month in Sacramento to discuss when the state will 
     begin to provide the services. That hearing will also 
     consider a compliance agreement under which the state would 
     have as long as three years to change its program.
       The issue of providing special education services to 
     inmates is one of many that have complicated action to extend 
     the life of the landmark 1975 law, now known as the 
     Individuals With Disabilities Act.
       Last fall, after working on the reauthorization bill for 
     two years, Congress adjourned without taking action. Among 
     the other issues stalling the bill were questions about how 
     federal money for the program is distributed and how students 
     served by the program can be disciplined.
       Representatives of both parties in the Senate and House and 
     from the Clinton administration are in the middle of 
     negotiations on the reauthorization bill and are expected to 
     come up with a compromise in the next few weeks. In an effort 
     to keep those negotiations on track, the parties, including 
     those from the Department of Education, have agreed not to 
     talk about whether they are making progress.
       Repubican Rep. Frank Riggs of Windsor heads one of the 
     subcommittees dealing with the reauthorization and has vowed 
     in the past to change the law to exempt California from the 
     order to serve prisoners.
       ``It is utterly unfair to take precious special education 
     dollars away from students in the public schools to give 
     those dollars to muggers, murderers and rapists,'' said Beau 
     Phillips, Riggs' spokesman.
       ``For the U.S. Department of Education to threaten the 
     special ed grant for the entire state of California because 
     the state won't provide special education to 19- and 22-year-
     old killers is insane.''
                                 ______