[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 61 (Monday, May 12, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4295-S4311]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1997
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 46, S. 717.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 717) to amend the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act, to reauthorize and make improvements to that
act, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate
consideration of the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jim
Downing, a fellow with the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, and
Mark Hall, a fellow with the leader's office, be accorded privilege of
the floor during Senate consideration of the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, S. 717.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today is a special occasion for me and I
am proud to be with my distinguished colleagues to consider S. 717, the
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997.
I was there in the beginning, in 1975, Congress faced with a
patchwork of court decisions, first took the historic step in assuring
educational opportunities for some of the most vulnerable in our
society, children with disabilities.
In 1975, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, or Public Law
94-142, was enacted to assist States in meeting the goal of providing a
free appropriate public education and offering an equal educational
opportunity to all children.
Public Law 94-142 has done much to meet the educational needs of
children with disabilities.
Over the life of this historic legislation we have seen many advances
toward the attainment of these goals--advances in educational
technique, advances in technology, advances in opportunity, and
advances in our expectations. Children with disabilities are now being
educated alongside their peers in unprecedented numbers. Children with
disabilities are now achieving beyond our wildest dreams.
Before Public Law 94-142, society placed little value on the lives of
children with disabilities. Millions of children with disabilities were
denied access to education, and we invested few resources in anything
more than simple caretaking. We have now learned that investment in the
education of children with disabilities from birth throughout their
school years has rewards and benefits, not only for children with
disabilities and their families, but for our whole society.
We have proven that investment in educational opportunity for all of
our kids enriches society. We have proven that promoting educational
opportunity for our children with disabilities directly impacts their
opportunity to live independent lives as contributing members to
society. Most importantly, we have learned to value all of America's
children.
Public Law 94-142 was written in different times to address basic
concerns. Concerns that have evolved into expectations. With this
evolution in expectations has come an evolution in other concerns that
its drafters could never have anticipated. Concerns that must be
addressed if we are to continue in the advancement and development of
educational programs that have done so much for America's children, our
children.
This year, Mr. President, I have worked hand in hand with majority
leader Trent Lott and Chairman Goodling in the development of this
agreement. We have also worked hand in hand with Senators Kennedy and
Harkin here in the Senate. A bicameral, bipartisan agreement has been
reached.
The process in itself is historic, one in which Democrats,
Republicans, the
[[Page S4296]]
House and Senate, worked together alongside the administration in
crafting this consensus bill.
We held weekly townhall-type meetings that enabled varying
stakeholders to provide their input. These stakeholders included
parents of the children with disabilities, school administrators,
special educators, general educators, and children with disabilities
themselves.
The principal members of the working group were Senator Coats,
Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy, and their staffs; Members of the House
of Representatives, Mr. Riggs, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Scott, and their
staffs; the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education, Judith
Heumann, and the Director of Special Education, Tom Hehir. I would like
to thank each and every one of them for their efforts. It was an
incredible effort.
We owe much to Senator Frist, who laid the groundwork last year upon
which we were able to build this consensus agreement, and for his
unwavering support in our efforts this year. We were further aided in
our efforts this year by Senator Gregg and Senator Ashcroft and their
staffs.
I would like to thank the following organizations for their
participation, guidance and support during our efforts this year. Their
support for the final passage of S. 717 is crucial to the overall
success of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments
of 1997. I wish to commend them for this support.
The National Parent Network on Disabilities, the Learning
Disabilities Association, the ARC, the National Easter Seal Society,
the American Association of School Administrators, the National
Education Association, the Autism Society of America, the National
Association of the Deaf, the National Down's Syndrome Society, the
Epilepsy Foundation of America, the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Association of University
Affiliated Programs, the American Foundation for the Blind, the
American Physical Therapy Association, the American Speech-Language-
Hearing Association, the Association for Education and Rehabilitation
of the Blind and Visually Impaired, the National Association of
Developmental Disabilities Councils, the National Association of State
Directors of Special Education, the National Coalition of Deaf-
Blindness, the National Mental Health Association, the National
Therapeutic Recreation Society, the United Cerebral Palsy Associations,
the Council of Great City Schools, Children and Adults with Attention
Deficit Disorders [CHADD], the Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive
Technology Society of North America, the National Association School
Psychologist, the Higher Education Consortium for Special Education,
the Council for Exceptional Children, the National Association of
Elementary School Principals, Federal Advocacy for California Education
[FACE], and the American Federation of Teachers.
I would like to take my colleagues through the steps we took to
strengthen and improve IDEA. These steps were not taken lightly. They
built upon the procedural protections expressed and the flexibility
inherent in current law. I anticipate that when parents and educators
have a full and accurate understanding of what we have done, they will
embrace this law and these amendments as tools for making the future
what it could be, what it should be, for the over 5 million children
with disabilities.
First, we invested in the principle of prevention. No child should
have to fail in order to be helped. No child should need a label of
disability in order to be helped. We reauthorized the early
intervention program for infants and toddlers with disabilities. This
very successful program, originally authorized in 1986, gives parents
direct support and infants and toddlers appropriate services from the
moment a disability is known. Over the years, and recently by Rob
Reiner, Americans have been told of the consequences of investing and
not investing in the earliest years of a child's life. By assisting
families with infants and toddlers through IDEA's early intervention
program in the last 11 years, we have brought quality of life
opportunities to these children and their families that they would not
have had. We have mitigated or reduced the effects of disabilities, so
that later in life, the children are more successful and less in need
of special education and related services. In S. 717 we retain this
vital program, and add provisions to encourage States to identify and
assist, to the extent they are not doing so now, infants and toddlers
who are at risk of developing developmental delays. Such children are
those whose special needs are not easily detected in the earliest
years, but who clearly do not develop at the same rate or degree as
their same age peers in terms of physical, cognitive, emotional, and
social development. We also add a provision encouraging States to
provide early intervention services to infants and toddlers in natural
environments where such children are typically found--the home and with
other children of the same age.
We invested in prevention in other ways as well. S. 717 gives States
and local school districts the option of referring to children,
eligible for services, as developmentally delayed if they are between
the ages of 3 through 9. I believe this simple step will move us a way
from investing resources in confirming a specific disability and
stamping a specific disability label on a child, and move us toward
concentrating our resources on what we can do to help a child succeed
in school.
For the first time, we authorize school-based improvement plans to
encourage educators and parents at the school building level to work
together to set goals to help children, with and without known
disabilities succeed. For the first time, we authorize State
improvement plans to be developed in collaboration with State and local
educators, parents, and others interested in improving educational
opportunities and results for children with disabilities. The emphasis
in such plans is to ensure better trained and equipped personnel,
especially regular education personnel. If teachers are prepared to
detect and address a child's problem when it first appears, and make
appropriate adjustments in the child's instructional program, the child
is less likely to experience failure, and less likely to need special
education and related services.
The focus we bring to prevention in S. 717, means increased
flexibility and cost savings for school districts. But more
importantly, this focus creates new opportunities for partnerships
between parents and educators, and more opportunities for children, all
children, to experience a greater degree of success while in school and
later in life as well.
Second, the bill reflects the principle that procedures and paperwork
should be driven by common sense, a need to know, and accountability
for results that matter. Should parents participate in establishing
their child's eligibility for special education and related services?
Should parents influence what goes into their child's IEP? Should
parents influence the selection of the educational placement of their
child? Should a child's regular education teacher influence what goes
into a child's IEP? S. 717 dictates that the answer be yes, but so does
common sense.
Should educators and parents share information, including evaluation
information, with each other in a timely manner? Should parents know
what the rights and protections that IDEA guarantees their child as
early as possible, in language that they can understand? S. 717
dictates that the answer be yes, but so does common sense.
Should educators have an opportunity to offer a free appropriate
public education to a child with a disability, before the child's
parents place the child in a private school and send the school
district the bill? Should educators have a timely, clear, and specific
indication that parents intend to request a due process hearing, before
they actually do it? S. 717 dictates that the answer be yes, but so
does common sense.
Should educators have the opportunity to explain the benefits of
mediation to parents before proceeding to due process? Should educators
be responsible for reporting on a child's progress to the child's
parents? Along with other children, to the community? To the State? S.
717 dictates that the answer be yes, but so does common sense.
[[Page S4297]]
The third principle that influenced this legislation was that
educators and parents need, in fact desperately deserve, the
codification of all Federal policy governing how and when a child with
a disability could be disciplined by removal from his or her current
educational placement. Right now, parts of that policy are in IDEA,
parts are in informal policy guidance prepared by the U.S. Department
of Education, and still other parts are found in case law. The effects
of this have been both unfair and unfortunate. Many educators, unaware
of or unsure of their range of discretion when a child with a
disability breaks a school rule, do little or nothing. Many parents,
unaware or unsure of the protections IDEA affords their child, allow
their child to go without educational services. We could not let the
current situation stand. S. 717 attempts to correct it, through a
balanced approach, an approach which recognizes both the need to
maintain safe schools and the need to preserve the civil rights of
children with disabilities.
When a child with a disability violates school rules or codes of
conduct through possession of weapons, drugs, or demonstration of
behavior that is substantially likely to result in injury to the child
or others in the school, the bill provides clear and simple guidance
about educators' areas of discretion, the parents' role, and procedural
protections for the child.
If we adopt this legislation, dangerous children can be removed from
their current educational placements. Specific standards must be met to
sustain any removal. If a behavior that is subject to school discipline
is not a manifestation of a child's disability, the child may be
disciplined as children without disabilities. If parents do not agree
with the removal of their child from his or her current educational
placement, they can request an expedited due process hearing. If
educators believe that a removal of a child from his or her educational
placement must be extended, they can ask for an extension in a
expedited due process hearing.
If S. 717 is enacted, under no circumstances would educational
services to a child with a disability cease. If a child with a
disability violates a school rule, and the child's behavior is not a
manifestation of the child's disability, the local educational agency,
in which the child attends school, must continue educational services
to the child. If the policy of the local educational agency, in which
the child attends school, prevents it from doing so, the State must
assume the responsibility to continue the child's education. This
obligation under section 612(a)(1) should not be construed to prevent
schools from suspending children with disabilities for up to 10 days,
consistent with the provisions in section 615(k)(1)(A)(i).
The fourth principle which influenced our efforts was that local
school districts need options for fiscal relief. Over the life of IDEA
they have borne the lion's share of the costs. While retaining a single
line of authority, we direct governors to devise ways for
noneducational agencies, which could or should bear costs of certain
special educational and related services to children with disabilities,
to assume responsibility for these costs. We clarify State and local
maintenance of effort requirements. States must maintain the State
level of dollars spent on special education and related services. Local
school districts must maintain local dollars spent on special education
and related services. In addition, once IDEA funding reaches $4.1
billion, local school districts may treat as local dollars 20 percent
of IDEA dollars that represent an increase from their previous year
IDEA allotment.
The amendments we are considering today, in so many ways, are not
only based on common sense, but common practice, on best practice. We
do not and would not impose on educators or parents the specific means
by which they should respond to these amendments. Their responses will
be shaped by local resources and relationships. Such responses,
whatever form they actually take in communities across this Nation,
will have positive consequences. And that leads me to my fifth, and
last point.
Most children with disabilities are being educated and are succeeding
because of IDEA. Less than 1 percent of these children and their
families are experiencing disagreements with educators about whether a
child has a disability, how a child should be educated, or where a
child should be educated, because of the child's disability. However,
increasingly, actual disagreements and the likelihood of disagreements
are shaping how parents and educators view each other and each other's
motivations and actions. This trend is not healthy for the children
involved, nor their families, nor their teachers, nor their principals.
We must create an atmosphere in which the event of designing a child's
education is premised on constructive dialog, common goals, and the
child, not premised on the avoidance of a lawsuit.
In S. 717 we require States to offer voluntary mediation to parents.
We attach specific consequences for educators and parents, who fail to
share or disclose information that, if provided, may lessen
disagreements and legal disputes. We retain provisions added in 1986 to
IDEA, that put limits on the conditions under which prevailing parents
may receive reimbursement of attorneys' fees. We add other provisions
that reflect current policy and legislative history with regard to the
use and reimbursement of parents for attorneys' time spent in IEP
meetings or mediation.
I would like to thank the staff members also: Pat Morrissey and Jim
Downing, from my staff, Townsend Lange and Bobby Silverstein, Danica
Petroshius, Sally Lovejoy, Todd Jones, Bob Bacon, Alex Nock, Theresa
Thompson, and most importantly, Dave Hoppe, for without his hard work
we could not have achieved our goal.
Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, and ask unanimous consent that
my full statement be included in the Record as if read.
Mr. President, I thank my colleagues.
I yield to my colleague from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Privilege Of The Floor
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Tom
Irvin, a detailee from the Department of Education to the Labor
Committee staff, be accorded privileges during debate and amendments on
this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 717, the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997.
On February 20, 1997, a bipartisan, bicameral working group was
established to develop a bill reauthorizing the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]. The working group included a
representative from the Department of Education, Judy Heumann,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
and congressional staff representing Senators Jeffords, Kennedy, Coats,
Harkin, Frist, and Dodd; and Representatives Goodling, Martinez, Riggs,
Miller, Castle, and Scott. The facilitator of the group was David
Hoppe, the majority leader's chief of staff.
The mission of the working group was to review, strengthen, and
improve IDEA to better educate children with disabilities, and enable
them to receive a quality education. With this mission in mind, the
group agreed to start with current law and build on the actions,
experiences, information, and research gathered over the life of the
law, particularly over the past 3 years. The group further agreed that
it must distinguish between problems of implementation and problems
with the law, and respond appropriately, according to the issue raised.
After 10 weeks of marathon negotiations, an agreement was reached on
all outstanding issues. S. 717 is the outcome of this effort.
Mr. President, IDEA is a powerful civil rights law with a long and
successful history. More than 20 years ago, Congress passed Public Law
94-142, a law that gave new promises, and new guarantees, to disabled
children and their parents under part B of the Education of the
Handicapped Act, now known as IDEA.
Prior to the enactment of Public Law 94-142, 1 million children with
disabilities were excluded entirely from the public school system, and
more than half of all disabled children in the United States did not
receive appropriate educational services that would
[[Page S4298]]
enable them to enjoy full equality of opportunity.
On that day in 1975, when Public Law 94-142 was enacted, we lit a
beacon of hope for millions of children with disabilities and their
families, we exclaimed that the days of exclusion, segregation, and
denial of educational opportunity were over in this country.
We recognized that the right of disabled children to a free
appropriate public education is a constitutional right established in
the early 1970's by two landmark Federal district court cases--
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children versus Commonwealth in
1971 and Mills versus Board of Education of the District of Columbia in
1972.
Thus, IDEA was enacted for two reasons: First, to establish a
consistent policy of what constitutes compliance with the equal
protection clause so that there would be no need to continue pursuing
separate court challenges around the country. Second, to help States
meet their constitutional obligations.
IDEA is landmark legislation that has literally changed the lives of
millions of children with disabilities and their families.
IDEA has been a very successful law that has made significant
progress in addressing the problems that existed in 1975. Today, every
State in the Nation has laws in effect assuring the provision of a free
appropriate public education for all children with disabilities. Over
5,000,000 children with disabilities are now receiving special
education and related services.
The number of young adults enrolled in postsecondary education has
tripled, and the unemployment rate for individuals with disabilities in
their twenties is almost half that of their older counterparts.
And, because of a promise made in 1986, all States now provide early
intervention services to infants and toddlers with disabilities and
their families.
For many parents who have disabled children, IDEA is a lifeline of
hope. As one parent recently told me:
Thank God for IDEA. IDEA gives us the strength to face the
challenges of bringing up a child with a disability. It has
kept our family together. Because of IDEA our child is
achieving academic success. He is also treated by his
nondisabled peers as ``one of the guys.'' I am now confident
that he will graduate high school prepared to hold down a job
and lead an independent life.''
IDEA helps preserve and strengthen the family unit. Because of IDEA,
disabled children will grow up with their siblings and parents, and
worship and play with neighbors and friends.
IDEA teaches personal responsibility by tailoring education to meet
each child's unique needs.
IDEA empowers disabled children to grow up to lead productive lives
in the mainstream of society.
Because of IDEA, we hear less anger and frustration from parents than
in the past. We now hear a greater sense of optimism, as I heard from a
parent in Iowa writing about her 7-year-old daughter with autism. She
said, ``I have no doubt that my daughter will live nearly independently
as an adult, will work, and will be a very positive contributor to
society. That is very much her dream, and it is my dream for her. IDEA
has made this dream capable of becoming a reality.''
Mr. President, these are not isolated statements from a few parents
in Iowa. They are reflective of the general feeling about the law
across the country.
But despite the tremendous progress that has been made since 1975, we
know that our work is not over, and significant challenges still
remain. The unfortunate truth is that, for far too many disabled
children, the promise of IDEA is not yet a reality.
For example, too many students with disabilities are still failing
courses and dropping out of school. Almost twice as many disabled
students drop out of school, as compared to nondisabled students. And
when disabled students drop out, they are less likely to ever return to
school and are more likely to be unemployed or have problems with the
law.
Enrollment of disabled students in postsecondary education is still
too low. And too many of these students are leaving school ill-prepared
for employment and independent living.
Of further concern is the continued inappropriate placement of
children from minority backgrounds and children with limited English
proficiency in special education classrooms with low expectation for
these children. In addition, school officials and others complain that
current law is unclear and focuses too much on paperwork and process
rather than on improving results for children.
And it is distressing to observe that the law is not being
consistently implemented across the Nation, or even within individual
States. Why is it that in one school district, the number of
suspensions and drop outs is very high, whereas in a neighboring
district within the same State, these problems do not exist?
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated situation.
In February, just after the working group began its effort to improve
IDEA, I received a copy of a letter to David Hoppe from the Disability
Rights Education and Defense Fund relating to implementation problems
with IDEA in the city of Los Angeles. The letter states, ``We implore
you to read the enclosed report prepared by well qualified, unbiased,
independent consultants hired by the Los Angeles Unified School
District in California and parents of children with disabilities in
their efforts to resolve a lawsuit in Los Angeles for violations of
IDEA.'' The letter adds:
The findings of the consultants/experts are astounding.
Twenty years after the passage of IDEA, the consultants were
``compelled to conclude that the District suffers from a
pervasive, substantial, and systematic inability to deliver
special education and related services in compliance with
special education laws.''. . . The harm suffered by children
with disabilities, their parents and their communities is
incalculable, tragic and unacceptable.
As a result of IDEA, most children are now in school. But it is clear
that we must ensure that IDEA is fully and consistently implemented.
And we need to place greater emphasis on improving educational results
for these children. Careful strengthening and refocusing of the law is
necessary in order to build upon 20 years of success while ensuring
resolution of existing problems.
In addressing these challenges, the bipartisan, bicameral working
group established a set of principles to guide its efforts, including
adopting the following three goals:
The first goal was to review, strengthen, and improve IDEA to better
educate children with disabilities and enable them to receive a quality
education by:
First, ensuring access to the general education curriculum and
reforms;
Second, strengthening the role of parents;
Third, focusing on teaching and learning while reducing unnecessary
paperwork requirements;
Fourth, giving increased attention to racial, ethnic, and linguistic
diversity to prevent inappropriate identification and mislabeling;
Fifth, ensuring that schools are safe and conducive to learning;
Sixth, encouraging parents and educators to work out their
differences by using nonadversarial means; and
Seventh, assisting educational agencies in addressing the costs of
improving special education and related services to children with
disabilities.
The second goal was to encourage exemplary practices that lead to
improved teaching and learning experiences, and which in turn result in
productive independent adult lives.
The third goal was to assist States in the implementation of early
intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and
their families and support the smooth and effective transition of these
young children to preschool.
The bill that we are considering today, S. 717--the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997--has been developed with
these three goals in mind.
A basic framework used by the working group was developed by the
Clinton administration during the 104th Congress. Without this
framework provided by the administration, we would not have been able
to achieve such a successful outcome. I was proud to have introduced,
along with Senator Kennedy, the administration's proposed amendments to
improve IDEA (S. 1075). In submitting the bill to Congress, Secretary
Riley said:
The IDEA has helped millions of disabled Americans to
finish school, get a job, and make their civic contribution
like other working americans. These amendments build on two
decades of research and experience to
[[Page S4299]]
meet the needs of the classrooms of today. They aim to ensure
that students with disabilities are offered challenging
materials in classrooms with well-prepared teachers. We want
the focus of the IDEA today to be on better teaching and
learning--and not on unnecessary paperwork.
Much of the work of the administration in proposing improvements to
IDEA has been because of the vision and leadership Judy Heumann, the
Assistant Secretary of the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services. Ms. Heumann testified at the January 29, 1997,
hearing on IDEA conducted by the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources. In her testimony, she explained how important this
legislation is to children with disabilities and their families:
Through IDEA programs, millions of children with
disabilities have received the education they need to become
fully participating, fully contributing members of our
society. The IDEA is not just a law on paper. To most
families with disabled children, it is the bedrock foundation
upon which the future of their children depend . . . Disabled
students and their families do not want to be shut away from
the rest of society or given a watered-down curriculum; they
want an opportunity to study and to work so that they can
contribute to society. The IDEA has changed the role of
government from one of caretaker of dependent individuals to
one that opens the door to education and empowers people with
disabilities to fully participate in their community.
This IDEA reauthorization bill that we are considering today has
enjoyed strong bipartisan support. Last Wednesday, May 7, 1997, the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources unanimously approved the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 as an
original bill. And the House Committee on Education and the Workforce
voted out an identical bill. On the next day, S. 717 was formally
introduced by Senator Jeffords and Senator Harkin, along with Senators
Lott, Kennedy, Coats, Dodd, Gregg, Mikulski, Frist, DeWine, Enzi,
Hutchinson, Murray, Collins, Warner, McConnell and Reed.
Mr. President, I am pleased to learn that this bill has the
endorsement of 25 national disability groups. And the major
organizations representing general education have also endorsed the
bill. I ask unanimous consent that a list of these groups be printed in
the Record.
I am particularly pleased that I recently received a letter from
Justin Dart, a friend and leader in the disability community, endorsing
the bill:
Colleagues, the agreement is the result of valiant efforts
of disability advocates across the country. It maintains the
fundamental right to a free appropriate public education for
all children with disabilities. Without agreement, many of
the fundamental protections for children and families
afforded under the IDEA would have been dramatically weakened
or even eliminated. Please join me in voicing your support
for this legislation--and the principles of equality,
inclusion, and education for all, on which we all agree. Let
us unite, each of us communicating our common goal according
to his or her own conscience. Together, we shall overcome.
I am also pleased that the bill retains all of the basic rights and
protections available under current law, while providing needed
improvements. Based on 20 years of experience and research in the
education of children with disabilities, we have learned many new
things that are important if we are to ensure an equal educational
opportunity for all children with disabilities.
Consistent with the basic principles adopted by the working group in
February, I would like to briefly describe some of the major changes to
current law that are proposed in S. 717:
IMPROVING RESULTS FOR DISABLED CHILDREN
Mr. President, the single most important principle addressed in S.
717 is improving results for disabled children--by ensuring their
access to the general curriculum and general educational reforms. All
of the other principles support this overarching goal.
The bill includes a number of provisions to address this goal. For
example, it enhances the participation of disabled children in the
general curriculum through improvements to the IEP--by relating a
child's education to what nondisabled children are receiving; providing
for the participation of regular education teachers in developing,
reviewing, and revising the IEP; and requiring that the IEP team
consider the specific needs of each child, as appropriate, such as the
need for behavior interventions, and assistive technology.
The bill also requires that schools report to parents on the progress
of their disabled child as often as such reports are provided to
nondisabled children; and it also provides for transition planning for
disabled students beginning at age 14. In addition, the bill makes
procedures for evaluating disabled children more instructionally
relevant. It also provides for the inclusion of disabled children in
State and district assessments, and requires the development of State
performance goals for children with disabilities, and regular reports
to the public on progress toward meeting the goals.
STRENGTHENING THE ROLE OF PARENTS
In order to achieve better outcomes for disabled children, it is
critical to strengthen the role of parents. S. 717 includes specific
provisions related to this goal. For example, it provides that public
agencies must ensure that parents are included in any group that makes
placement decisions about their child. And it requires that, at a
minimum, parents be offered mediation as a voluntary option whenever a
hearing is requested to resolve a dispute between the parents and the
agency about any matters specified in the bill.
The bill also requires that parents receive regular reports on their
child's progress, by such means as report cards, as often as reports
are provided to parents of nondsabled children; and it supports parent
training and information centers in every State to assist parents to
better understand the nature of their child's disability and
educational needs, and to enable them to participate effectively in
developing their child's IEP. In addition, because some parents feel
threatened by attending IEP meetings with school staff, the bill
retains the longstanding policy of allowing parents to bring other
individuals to the meeting who they deem necessary to be effective
partners.
REDUCING UNNECESSARY PAPERWORK AND OTHER BURDENS
S. 717 includes several provisions that reduce unnecessary paperwork,
and directs resources to teaching and learning. For example, the bill
permits initial evaluations and reevaluations to be based on existing
evaluation data and reports, and does not require that eligibility be
reestablished when the triennial evaluation is conducted if the team
agrees that the child continues to have a disability. The bill
eliminates unnecessary paperwork requirements that discourage the use
of IDEA funds for teachers who work in regular classrooms, while
ensuring the needs of students with disabilities are met.
In addition, the bill permits States and local educational agencies
and lead agencies for the Infants and Toddlers Program to establish
eligibility only once. Thereafter, only amendments to the State or
local application necessitated by compliance problems or changes in the
law would be required.
PREVENTING INAPPROPRIATE IDENTIFICATION AND MISLABELING OF MINORITIES
There is general agreement today at all levels of government that
State and local educational agencies must be responsive to the
increasing racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity that prevails in
the Nation's public schools today. This is especially true in cases
involving overrepresentation of minorities. S. 717 addresses this goal
by codifying the nondiscriminatory testing procedures from the current
part B regulations; and by requiring States to collect and examine data
to determine if significant disproportionality based on race is
occurring with respect to particular disability categories or types of
educational settings, and if it is occurring, to take appropriate
corrective action. The bill also requires States to determine if there
is a disproportionate number of long-term suspension and expulsions of
disabled children, and if so, to ensure that the agency's policies are
consistent with the act.
ENSURING THAT SCHOOLS ARE SAFE AND CONDUCIVE TO LEARNING
Mr. President, one of the most emotional issues in the process of
reauthorizing IDEA related to discipline policies and procedures of
disabled children. There is a critical need to ensure that our schools
are safe and conducive to learning for all children. S. 717 includes
several specific provisions related to this goal, while retaining the
fundamental protections of IDEA:
For example, the bill retains the stay put provision, and includes
two limited
[[Page S4300]]
exceptions. First, the bill allows school personnel to move a child
with disabilities to an interim alternative educational setting for the
same amount of time that a child without a disability would be subject
to discipline but for not more than 45 days, if that student has
brought a weapon to school or a school function, or knowingly possesses
or uses illegal drugs or sells or solicits the sale of a controlled
substance while at school or a school function. Second, local
authorities can secure authority to remove a child from his or her
current educational setting for up to 45 days from a hearing officer,
if they can demonstrate by substantial evidence--that is, beyond a
preponderance of the evidence--that maintaining the child in the
current placement is substantially likely to result in injury to the
child or others. Further, the bill makes clear that services may not
cease for any IDEA-eligible child.
The interim alternative educational setting must enable the child to
participate in the general curriculum and continue to receive those
services and modifications, including those described in the child's
current IEP, so that the child will meet he goals set out in that IEP.
In addition, the child must receive services and modifications in the
interim alternative educational setting designed to address the child's
behavior that was subject to disciplinary action so that the behavior
does not recur.
FOSTERING PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN PARENTS AND SCHOOLS
If the parents of disabled children and school staff can work
together in a constructive manner, this will help significantly to meet
the goal of improving results for these children. S. 717 includes
several provisions aimed at accomplishing this and specifically in
encouraging parents and educators to work out their difference through
nonadversarial means.
For example, the bill promotes the involvement of parents in their
child's education by including them in placement decisions and
providing them with regular reports on their child's progress.
It also ensures that a voluntary mediation process is available to
all parents and school districts. Mediation is a low-cost, effective
means for resolving many of the disputes between parents and school
districts. In cases where parents do not choose to participate in
mediation, the bill authorizes school districts to require parents to
meet with representatives from the Parent Training Centers or other
dispute resolution people to explain the benefits of and encourage the
use of mediation before going to due process.
ASSISTING EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES WITH THE COST OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND
RELATED SERVICES
The Federal contribution to the education of children with
disabilities, notwithstanding the authorization level of 40 percent,
has been relatively constant but low, approximately 7 to 8 percent of
the cost. In order to provide additional help for LEA's in their
efforts to provide for the education of these children, the bill
includes several provisions related to providing financial assistance:
Authorization levels: The bill includes significant increases in the
authorization levels for the preschool program--$500 million, compared
to a current appropriation of $360--and for the early intervention
program under part H--$400 million compared to a current appropriation
of $315.
Noneducational agencies paying their fair share: The bill requires
noneducational State agencies to pay or reimburse local educational
agencies for the cost of services such agencies would normally cover.
Although data regarding potential savings to LEA's on a national
basis are not available, in States that have voluntarily provided
interagency supports, cost savings to LEA's have been significant. For
instance, the Chicago public schools receives $40 million in support
for medically related services for students with disabilities, which
has enabled the district to contain costs for related services and
increased the access of poor children with disabilities to
comprehensive health care services.
State maintenance of effort: The bill adds a State maintenance of
effort provision, to ensure that increases in Federal appropriations
are not offset by State decreases.
Estimated savings for triennial evaluations. The bill reduces the
need to conduct unnecessary assessments in relationship to the
triennial evaluation. Although no national data are available, the
Education Department estimates that the projected savings to LEA's
under this provision, based on data prepared by the State of Michigan,
would be nearly $765 million.
Children enrolled by their parents in private schools. The bill
includes several critical provisions relating to the extent to which
IDEA applies to children who are enrolled in private schools by their
parents. These provisions and clarifications are very important because
of the number of conflicting court rulings that have been issued within
the last few years.
For example, the bill clarifies that public agencies are required to
spend a proportionate amount of IDEA funds on special education and
related services for disabled children enrolled in private and
parochial, for example, 10 percent if 10 out of 100 disabled children
attend parochial schools, and that services may be provided on the
premises of the private or parochial school, to the extent consistent
with State law.
In addition, the bill reiterates current policy that a public agency
is not required to pay for special education and related services at a
private school if that agency made a free appropriate public education
available to the child.
State set-aside. Currently, a State may retain 25 percent of the
State allocation, 5 percent for administrative purposes, and the
remainder for monitoring, technical assistance, personnel development,
and other direct and support services. Some States retain the full 25
percent set-aside while others pass through a large amount to local
school districts.
The bill continues to authorize that States may retain a portion of
their State allotments with certain changes effective for fiscal year
1998. First the 5 percent for administrative purposes is capped at the
1997 level, with future annual increases limited to the lesser of the
rate of inflation or the rate of Federal appropriation increases. The
remaining 20 percent of the State's share of its part B allotment is
capped in the same manner. Any excess above inflation in any year goes
into a new 1-year fund that must be distributed that year through
grants to LEA's for local systemic improvement activities or for
specific direct services. In the next year, the amounts expended for
such activities must be distributed to LEA's based on the part B
formula.
Local maintenance of effort. The bill codifies the local maintenance
of effort provision from the current regulations, except makes it
applicable only to local funds, and includes additional exemptions for
when a local school district need not maintain effort, for example, a
teacher at the high end of the pay scale retires and is replaced by a
recent graduate.
In addition, the bill also provides some relief to LEA's by allowing
LEA's to replace local funds with a portion of new Federal dollars.
Once the appropriation for the program reaches $4.1 billion LEA's would
be allowed to replace local funds with up to 20 percent of the increase
in their Federal funds over the prior year. However, SEA's could
prevent LEA's from doing this in cases in which the SEA determined it
was necessary to ensure compliance with the IDEA.
ENCOURAGING EXEMPLARY PRACTICES THROUGH THE DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS
The bill consolidates 14 authorities under current law down to 6. The
changes promotes the improvement of educational results for disabled
children and early intervention services for disabled infants and
toddlers by supporting system change activities carried out by State
educational agencies in partnership with LEA's and others, through a
State improvement plan, coordinated research and personnel preparation,
and coordinated technical assistance, dissemination, and support and
technology development and media services. The bill retains the
separate program supporting parent training and information centers.
Mr. President, I have a brother who is deaf; and so, I am
particularly pleased to learn that the loan program for the deaf is
preserved by S. 717.
[[Page S4301]]
ASSISTING STATES WITH THE INFANT AND TODDLER PROGRAM
The bill includes improvements in the early intervention program for
infants and toddlers with disabilities, including clarifying that these
children should receive services in natural environments where
appropriate, for example, in their home; and providing improved
requirements designed to ensure a smooth and effective transition from
the early intervention program under part C, part H under current law.
The bill also significantly increases the authorization level for this
program from $315 to $400 million.
STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
Mr. President, I have set out the major improvements that have been
added by this bill. However, another critical addition to IDEA that is
added by this bill relates to strengthening the enforcement
responsibilities of the Department of Education and each of the State
educational agencies in ensuring full and consistent implementation of
IDEA. As I mentioned earlier in my statement, 22 years after the basic
provisions of IDEA were passed the law is not being implemented
consistently across the Nation, or even within individual States. S.
717 adds additional enforcement teeth to the bill:
The bill provides the Secretary of Education with greater authority
to enforce the law, for example, authority to withhold all or some
funds, including funding for administrative salaries when violations
are found and refer the matter to the Department of Justice for
appropriate enforcement action, including the failure to comply with
the terms of any agreement to achieve compliance within the timelines
specified in the agreement. Authority to withhold in whole or in part
is also provided to SEA's. In addition, the bill requires that the
public be notified when enforcement action is contemplated. Further,
the local school district must make available to parents of disabled
children and the general public all documents relating to the
eligibility of the agency.
I am pleased that these enforcement provisions are in the bill.
In closing, Mr. President, I would like to quote Ms. Melanie Seivert
of Sibley, IA, who is the parent of Susan, a child with Downs Syndrome.
She states:
Our ultimate goal for Susan is to be educated academically,
vocationally, [and] in life-skills and community living so as
an adult she can get a job and live her life with a minimum
of management from outside help. Through the things IDEA
provides . . . we will be able to reach our goals.
Does it not make sense to give all children the best
education possible? Our children need IDEA for a future.
Mr. President, IDEA is the shining light of educational opportunity.
And we, in the Congress, must make sure that the light continues to
burn bright.
We still have promises to keep.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 717 the IDEA
Amendments of 1997.
Amendment No. 240
(Purpose: To modify the provisions relating to the limitation on the
provision of a free appropriate public education to children with
disabilities)
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have a managers' amendment at the desk
which has been cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords] proposes an
amendment numbered 240.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Beginning on page 65, strike line 25 and all that follows
through page 66, line 4 and insert the following: ``part be
provided to children with disabilities who, in the
educational placement prior to their incarceration in an
adult correctional facility--
``(I) were not actually identified as being a child with a
disability under section 602(3); or
``(II) did not have an individualized education program
under this part.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, this amendment clarifies that the
obligation to make a free appropriate education to children with
disabilities does not apply with respect to children age 19 through 21
to the extent that State law does not require special education-related
services under part B of IDEA.
We provided for children with disabilities who, in the educational
placement prior to incarceration in an adult correctional facility
first, were not actually identified as a child with a disability under
section 6023 or did not have an individualized educational program.
This is a technical amendment to clarify for which children a State
does or does not have an obligation to provide special education-
related services relative to incarcerated individuals. The same
technical amendment is to be incorporated as a technical amendment when
it is to be considered by the full House when it considers its
companion bill tomorrow.
This is agreed to by both Houses, as well as by both sides in this. I
ask the amendment be considered agreed to.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we wholeheartedly support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 240) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 241
(Purpose: To modify the provision relating to the authorization of
appropriations for special education and related services to authorize
specific amounts of appropriations)
Mr. GREGG. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an
amendment numbered 241.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 64, strike lines 19 and 20, and insert the
following: ``there are authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary not less than $4,107,522,000 for fiscal year 1998,
not less than $5,607,522,000 for fiscal year 1999, not less
than $7,107,522,000 for fiscal year 2000, not less than
$8,607,522,000 for fiscal year 2001, not less than
$10,107,522,000 for fiscal year 2002, not less than
$11,607,522,000 for fiscal year 2003, not less than
$13,107,522,000 for fiscal year 2004, and such sums as may be
necessary for each succeeding fiscal year.''.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first, let me begin by speaking a little
bit about the underlying bill and congratulating the chairman of the
committee, Senator Jeffords, and the Presiding Officer for their
extraordinary work in developing this bill. The Senator from Tennessee,
the Senator from Vermont, and the Senator from Iowa, of course, have
been involved in this issue for years and years and have worked very
hard together, as have a number of Members of the Senate and House.
It has been acknowledged that Senator Lott, through his excellent
representation and his chief of staff, David Hoppe, has done an
extraordinary amount of lifting to make sure that this process has come
to closure. It was not an easy one. Meetings went on for dramatic
lengths of time. There were complications, controversial issues which
people had vested interests in which were very deep and intensely felt.
The fact that a final product was reached, and an agreement has been
brought before the Senate, reflects the genuine effort of a lot of very
good people. It is a product which will benefit many children in this
country as it goes forward and represents a new day for special
education. It is really not a reauthorization of the special education
bill but basically a new bill, a new approach, in many ways. It should
be looked on as such.
I got involved in special education a long time ago, in fact, before
I was even able to vote. I was working at a center called the Crotched
Mountain Rehabilitation Center, which began as a center to care for
children who have polio, and when that disease was, fortunately,
beaten, it moved on to care for children who had problems with hearing,
deaf children, specifically, and then when that issue was resolved in
many ways relative to needing special schools and those children could
find their way into the mainstream, it moved on to dealing with
children with very complex physical disabilities, sometimes emotional
disabilities. It is and continues to be the premier facility, or one of
the premier facilities, in the country for caring and educating--
[[Page S4302]]
that is the basic goal of the Crotched Mountain Rehabilitation Center--
children with disabilities, and does it in a variety of ways.
When 94-142 came along, we saw it as a great step forward because it
meant the school systems would begin to have to be involved in
educating children who we felt should have remained in school systems,
but because school systems were not able to do it, ended up at Crotched
Mountain. It gave us the opportunity to move kids back into education
in the much more comfortable environment of their home and community,
who should have been in their home and their community being educated.
We continue to work with those who really needed some special
attention.
So the issue of special education is something I have had a lot of
personal involvement with. I think that 94-142 is a bill with really
strong decisions made by this legislature over the years in the area of
education. But as part of that concept, there was an element of sharing
of the effort. Originally, when it was passed, 40 percent of the cost
of special education was going to be borne by the Federal Government,
the balance being borne by the local communities and the State. This
was a reasonable cost-sharing concept.
Unfortunately, over the years, although the bill itself continues to
work and kids are getting educated, the cost sharing has not occurred.
The Federal Government's participation in helping to bear the burden of
educating children who have special needs has dropped to about 7
percent, or did drop to about 7 percent a year and a half ago. That
meant that the local communities and the States have had to step in and
pick up the Federal share of the cost.
What has this done? Unfortunately, it has perverted the process. The
practical effect of this is not only that the Federal Government has
not come up with the dollars that have been owed the local communities,
the practical effect has been in two ways extraordinarily detrimental.
First, it has meant that the special-needs child and their parents have
found themselves in a constant confrontation--almost, in many
instances, an actual confrontation, but certainly a tension with the
parents of children who are not special-needs children and with the
school boards, because the demand to educate and the cost to educate
the special-needs child is in many instances so high.
I know of a number of instances in New Hampshire where special-needs-
children costs have been upward to $100,000. It is certainly not
unusual for it to be in the $10,000 to $20,000 range. That has meant
that resources which parents of children who are not special-needs
children felt was available to them, in many instances, because of the
need to pick up the Federal cost, have had to go to benefit the
special-needs child, because we are dealing, in many instances, with a
pie that could not be expanded, and therefore the slicing of the pie
ended up with the special-needs child obtaining, appropriately, a
significant support level. But because the Federal Government was not
coming in and paying its fair share, the support level for other
children in the school systems dropped off or was less--maybe not
dropped off, but was less than what was, many people thought, needed.
So this tension occurred and it does occur and it still exists out
there. I know in my own school systems in New Hampshire it still
exists, and it is difficult on the parents. It is hard enough on the
parents to have a special-needs child. It is more difficult when you
put them in the position of being faced with this controversy over how
the funds are being allocated in the school system. So that was one of
the detriments of this failure of the Federal Government to live up to
what it said it would do.
The second detriment of the Federal Government's failure to living up
to what it said it would do, it perverted the tax base of many
communities. I know in my State and throughout New England, and it may
be true in other parts of the country, real estate taxes pay a
tremendous percentage of the costs of education. What happens when the
Federal Government fails to come forward with its full share of the
special-education need, then that means that cost falls back on the
property tax owner, the homeowner in the community, who is already
under significant stress with the tax burden. This, again, creates
tension, an inappropriate tension, between the homeowners and the
communities, and property taxpayers in the communities who maybe do not
have schoolchildren, and particularly special needs children, and the
school system itself, which sees needs that it feels it has to pay for,
but it does not feel it can go back to the property tax owner or to the
State tax treasury for. In many States, that may be the effect. You
have an intense confrontation in many areas, and the intensity of it is
undermining the confidence in the school systems and the quality of the
school systems and, unfortunately, the character of the school systems
as a positive environment which the community has supported in many
areas.
So, that, again, is almost a direct function of the Federal
Government's failure to pay its fair share. Why do I say that? Because
in New Hampshire, in the average school district in New Hampshire, 20
percent of the costs of the school districts go to special education--
20 percent--and New Hampshire may be low compared to other States. I
think in Massachusetts it is somewhere around 30 percent. However, what
you can see when the Federal Government fails to come forward and pay
its fair share of that cost, of that 20 percent, is that has a
disproportionate impact on the community, on the students, and on the
tax base.
So what we have here is the Federal Government having created an
obligation--and an inappropriate obligation--on the communities and
States, having said it would fund that obligation at the level of 40
percent, but only funding it at the level of 7 percent, 2 years. We are
getting that amount up a little bit because of efforts made by the
leader, Senator Lott, but not up enough.
So we have probably the single largest unfunded mandate of the
Federal system outside of the environmental area in this area of
special education. One of the primary commitments of the Republican
Congress was that we would stop unfunded mandates. So as an effort to
do that, we passed as a Congress--and I think it was passed almost
unanimously, so we had bipartisan support--a bill that was authored by
Senator Kempthorne from Idaho, was passed during the last session, and
that bill said there would be no more unfunded mandates, or if there
were unfunded mandates, it would take a supermajority to pass, in most
instances, or at least we have to have full disclosure.
Well, I think that should apply to reauthorizations, and especially
reauthorizations which are essentially a creation of a new approach, in
many ways, to the law.
On the balance of what we have already done as a Congress, clearly,
we have an obligation to live up to the 40 percent, but more
importantly, we have an obligation to live up to it because it is
needed, it is appropriate, and it is the right thing to do.
I have offered this amendment, which I brought forward today, which
essentially will get us to the 40 percent. While it does not get us
there immediately, it gets us there, I believe, by the year 2004. It is
a scaling up, and I believe with some of the incentives for a little
more efficiency which this bill puts in place, especially in reducing,
hopefully, some of the attorney's fees and consultant fees, that we
will be able to reduce some costs in special education and, at the same
time, be increasing the Federal share. I believe that, as a result of
those two functions, we will get to the 40 percent level, which is the
goal we should attempt to obtain here.
Let me tell you a little bit of the history of the funding of this
issue. Last year, we considered this to be so important that as we
completed the omnibus appropriations bill, Senator Lott, to his
credit--and he never got much credit for it, which I thought was
ironic--insisted that as part of the settlement with the White House,
we would put an additional $780 million into special education. That
brought the special education total to about $3 billion. That was a
major step forward. That meant significant, new, or additional dollars
in special education. But it only meant that we essentially went from 6
or 7 percent up to about 8, 8.5 percent of the funding levels of the
special ed cost for the country. So we are
[[Page S4303]]
still well below the 40 percent we should be at. But at least we put
our dollars where our talk was and we showed that we were willing to
make that decision as a Republican Congress. We were willing to put
dollars on the table in support of special education. We didn't get any
credit for it. In fact, during the election, in many instances, we were
rather vilified by our position on education by some of our opposition.
But the fact is that we have been there with dollars and commitment.
Now, as this Congress began, I thought the President would want to
join us in this effort. I regret to say that he has not. He has put
forward a lot of funding initiatives in education. He has talked about
them everywhere. Obviously, he has made education a priority. But for
some reason, in doing that, he has overlooked, ignored, what is the
primary Federal education obligation today in the elementary and
secondary school system, which is special education funding. As he has
created all these new programs for educational funding, he has failed
to, in any significant way, go back and fulfill our obligation of the
40 percent. In fact, his budget proposed only an additional $141
million. That is a lot of money, but in the context of what we are
talking about relative to the cost of special education, it is really a
very, very, very insignificant commitment, especially when you consider
the fact that he is talking multiple billions--somebody said it was $30
billion--of new funding for education and discretionary accounts over
the term of the next budget cycle. That may be high, but we know it is
a very big number. It hasn't been settled, but it is a huge number.
So it didn't surprise me, really, that he failed to put this on his
list of issues that should be addressed, because this is an obligation
the Federal Government presently had. So it is my belief that before we
start--most of these educational issues are new initiatives--before we
start creating a new obligation for the Federal Government in education
that we are going to do this, this and that for the public, we ought to
fulfill the obligation we made back in 1976, which was that we would
fund 40 percent of the special ed need, an obligation which not only
should we fulfill because we said we would by law, but because it is
the right thing to do and because it works. Special needs kids who go
through the system learn and they participate in the mainstreaming of
education, and they have an opportunity to have a better lifestyle.
So if you want to help education, this is a great way to do it. Not
only would it help a special needs child, but, equally important, if we
fully fund the 40 percent of special education accounts, we will, in
fact, be helping education at the elementary and secondary school level
dramatically because we will be infusing a significant amount of funds
into a system that is under strain right now, according to the
President, and I believe it is, also.
Those funds will give the local school systems new flexibility in
order to address other needs of the school system because, under this
bill, one of the positive aspects of this bill is after we get to a
certain funding level, which we haven't quite reached yet, local
communities will have a chance to take a percentage of the special
needs dollars and apply them for other educational activity, which is
the way it should be, because, right now what is happening is that the
local dollars are being used to fund the Federal share. When the
Federal Government starts to fund its share, the local dollars should
be freed up to fund other educational initiatives, those which are
important in the community. That is the concept of this bill, in part.
So this attempt to fully fund the special needs program is critical,
not only to help the special needs child but also to free up the funds
and give the local school system some flexibility as to how they
address the coming years of cost and expense and education of our
children.
So this amendment that I am offering today, which has broad
bipartisan support, is a statement of our belief as an authorizing
committee that we shall pay the obligations of the special ed bill as
it was originally intended. We don't get there immediately. We propose
about a $1 billion increase this year, followed by a billion and a half
or so each year thereafter until we get to approximately the 40 percent
level. We need this authorization, obviously, in order to give
the appropriating committees the directions that will allow them to
make the proper allocation for the new education dollars that are going
to be flowing. If the appropriating committee does not see from the
authorizing committee that we consider this to be a priority, then the
appropriating committee may want to put the money somewhere else. But,
obviously, this is a priority for us.
This has been a key piece of legislation. The chairman has worked on
this and has been committed to this for years. The Senator from Iowa
has an equal commitment, as do the members of the committee. Of course,
the majority leader, through actions last year and through the
involvement of his chief of staff this year, has shown his tremendous
commitment.
I should mention one other item relative to commitment from the
Republican side. The Republican Congress and the Senate listed the top
10 issues that we intend to pass in this session. The No. 1 bill that
we put forward, S. 1, was a bill that called for funding for special
education exactly in line with this amendment. So this amendment is
essentially an assertion of what is the Republican senatorial
conference's position relative to funding special education and has
been rated the No. 1 priority of this Republican Congress by its
designation as Senate bill 1.
So let me conclude there. But first let me make a couple of points. I
want to, again, note what the chairman noted, which is that the Senator
occupying the chair now, the Senator from Tennessee, was the energizer
of this effort. He put thousands of hours, I suspect, or hundreds
anyway, into this effort last year and did an extraordinary job of
getting us almost to the finish line--close enough so that it was able
to be crossed this year. Second, I thank the chairman for his excellent
effort in this area. He has been a committed individual in the area of
education and all of the aspects of education, as we know, for many
years. This is another in the long list of successes he has had.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New Hampshire
for his amendment, although I will have to oppose it for reasons
unrelated to its value. The situation is this, and I want to bring to
the attention of my colleagues the situation we face with respect to
any amendments. As I earlier expressed and took some time to disclose
the tremendous difficulty we have had in getting a consensus--and the
Presiding Officer knows how difficult it was because he worked long and
hard to obtain a consensus last year, and we thought we had a
consensus. At the last moment, it dissolved, it disappeared. Why?
Because some people went out and really distorted the great work that
had been done--this is such an emotional issue with educators and
parents of the disabled--and the whole thing unraveled.
This year, we started where Senator Frist's efforts stopped and built
on that, and not only that, but in the leadership's office with the
data, we went the furthest mile possible to make sure everybody
understood exactly what was in the bill. It was argued and debated. It
was from one part of the country to another. Finally, it was agreed
that we would all hold hands and work until the last hour of the time
possible to make sure that we had every amendment that could be agreed
upon done. We finished that effort earlier. However, the situation is
this. The House has passed the bill. We will pass that bill on the
suspension calendar with the little amendment we had this morning. Once
that is done, then it will come over to us and we intend to pass ours.
If they are identical, there is no chance of this falling apart.
However, if there is an amendment that is of significance, even though
I agree with the intent of the Senator from New Hampshire, the thing
will fall apart. There is a chance that it won't, but having gone
through that
[[Page S4304]]
experience last year, I don't want to go through it again.
Let me explain, also, why the Gregg amendment is not necessary. First
of all, there are no set authorization levels in the bill, nor have
there been in previous legislation. It says such sums as are
appropriated and defined. So there is no limit. There is no limit down;
there is no limit up. So everything that the Senator from New Hampshire
wants to accomplish can be accomplished without his amendment.
I want to reassure everyone that if the Appropriations Committee
decides that it will follow, as it did last year, to add the additional
billion dollars, that will be done. On the other hand, if we don't, if
we can't agree, we could really have an impasse here. I want to commend
the Senator from New Hampshire because I was present in the leadership
office when we were discussing these matters at the end of last year
when we were trying to reach agreement on the total amount of money
that would be spent. He was the one that brought to the attention of
Senator Lott the great need--and I backed him up on that--that if we
wanted to help the local school districts in this country and really
improve the ability to improve education, what we had to do was live up
to our commitment to the 40 percent. I was on the conference committee
that made that commitment we should provide 40 percent.
I also want to explain, though a little differently than the Senator
from New Hampshire, that, in my mind, this is not a Federal mandate.
There were 26 State cases where it was determined there was a
constitutional right for an appropriate education. That right included
mainstreaming. As a result of that difficulty created throughout the
country, the Congress decided that what had to happen was for the
Congress to step in and establish those principles that would comply
with the constitutional mandate of an appropriate education containing
mainstreaming. So that is why, in 1975, we spent many days putting
together the legislation which has finally resulted in being here
today.
The mandate is on the States to provide an appropriate education. We
devised 94-142 in this law in order to ensure that there were a sense
of generally agreed upon principles as well as specific approaches on
how to put a bill together that would ensure that the States comply
with a constitutional mandate, and everyone would agree upon that.
So I understand the call for mandate. But I wanted to give that
history because I think that is important.
Also, under the leadership of Senator Gregg some time ago--back about
3 years ago--he came forward with an amendment that we agreed to work
on, one that we could pass. I think all of my colleagues should
remember this.
Hopefully, we will remind you today and tomorrow that Senator Gregg
and I passed an amendment that said as soon as reasonably possible we
will fully fund IDEA. In my mind, that time is here. It is reasonably
possible. The money is there. We just have to do it.
So we don't need another amendment because we voted 93 to 0 in this
body to say as soon as reasonably possible we will fully fund it. So we
don't need the Gregg amendment. But we need to bring it out of the
Appropriations Committee in order to bring that to a reality. As has
been pointed out, that is part of the majority view on what should
happen this year with respect to the budget.
We should get ourselves on a path to fully fund this over a
reasonable length of time. We can't do it all in 1 year. We know that.
But if we go forward and use the guidelines set out in the Gregg
amendment we could get there.
But we don't need this amendment to do that, it has already been
done. This amendment raises this issue once again. I praise the Senator
from New Hampshire for doing that. It makes it apparent to all of us
what needs to be done. It lays the groundwork.
So at the appropriate time I will ask hopefully that this amendment
be withdrawn, or some other way taken to make sure that we do not add
the amendment to the bill.
So I want to again thank the Senator from New Hampshire who has been
tireless in his efforts to make sure that we do adequately and
appropriately fund 94-142.
I would also like to point out what the bill does in that regard
because I think it is important to know.
As the Senator from New Hampshire pointed out, the greatest burden
has been placed not where it should be on the States but on the local
communities. What we want to do--I agree with him on that--is try to
make sure that any additional funds that are placed in the
appropriations process must be passed through to the town. That is
extremely important. That is in this bill. This bill say to the States
that, if we give them more money, they can't just reduce their share.
We say they have to maintain their share. Not only that, they have to
flow that money through to the local governments where the greatest
pressure problems are.
So this bill I think accomplishes our goals already without this
amendment, everything that the Senator from New Hampshire wants to
accomplish. It has the flowthrough to make sure, as he wants to see and
I want to see, that the local governments have adequate funding, and
that the States can't hog it or reduce their own share.
So I, unfortunately, must oppose the amendment. But, again, I praise
the Senator from New Hampshire for bringing it before us.
Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to join with our committee Chair,
Senator Jeffords, in reluctantly perhaps opposing the amendment offered
by the Senator from New Hampshire. As I said in my opening remarks,
Senator Gregg has been a leader on the issue ensuring that we had
adequate funding to help the States and local school districts meet
their constitutional obligations.
However, again, as Chairman Jeffords said, this bill was a compromise
worked out after long negotiations, and certainly there is nothing in
the bill that would restrict us in any way from reaching the levels
that Senator Gregg wants to reach in the future. So that the door is
open.
Hopefully we will find those resources that would enable us to help
the States meet their obligations. So I join with the chairman in
opposing the amendment.
Mr. President, there was something else that was said. Again, my
colleague, Senator Jeffords, responded adequately to it. But I would
like to just add my remarks to buttress what Senator Jeffords said
regarding the statement made by my friend, Senator Gregg, about this
being some kind of unfunded mandate and falling under the unfunded
mandate law of the Congress. Quite frankly, Mr. President, many people
still have this concept that IDEA is an unfunded mandate. It is simply
not correct. Again I want to set the record straight. Part B of IDEA is
not an unfunded mandate.
The notion that Congress imposed a mandate on the States and school
districts to educate children with disabilities and then refused to pay
for it is simply not the case.
The truth is that the right of children with disabilities for free
appropriate public education is a constitutional right. It is not
something that we mandated here in Congress. It was established in the
early 1970's, as I said earlier, by two landmark court cases--
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children versus Commonwealth, in
1971, and Mills versus Board of Education of the District of Columbia,
in 1972.
Again, these established the right. Basically, in my own view, what
they said is, ``Look, if a State guarantees to its children a free
public education, it can then not discriminate against other children
because of disabilities.''
Again, the Constitution certainly wouldn't allow a State to say we
are going to provide free public education to all children but only if
they are caucasian. Obviously, the Supreme Court would strike that down
in a minute; or, we are going to provide a free public education to all
males but not females. They will strike that down in a minute, too. You
can think of all kinds of scenarios.
[[Page S4305]]
What has been happening in the past is we were providing a free
public education to kids but not to kids with disabilities. And the
courts said, ``Wait a minute. That falls under the same equal
protection clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution.'' So the
courts struck it down. They said if the States provide that public
education it can then not discriminate on the basis of disability.
So it is not a mandate of Congress. It is a constitutional mandate.
What Congress said was OK in 1974. Senator Jeffords was the leader at
that time on the bill. But the Congress said it is OK. We understand
that local school districts have a responsibility to provide a free and
appropriate public education to disabled children. The Federal
Government should help States meet their constitutional responsibility.
And we set up the basic provisions of part B to make sure that the
States meet the court judgments.
As the Senate report stated, passage of the act, ``It is the intent
of the Committee to establish and protect the right to education for
all handicapped children and to provide assistance to the States in
carrying out their responsibilities under State law and the
Constitution of the United States to provide equal protection under the
law.''
So again there is not an unfunded mandate of the Federal Government.
Of course, again when the law was passed it was stated that the goal
was for the Federal Government to eventually fund 40 percent of the
cost. We are still down around 7 percent. So we have a long way to go
to get to 40 percent.
But again, that was never a requirement in law. It was a goal we set
up. Again, I agree with Senator Gregg. It is a goal that we ought to be
working toward. The Federal Government ought to provide greater
assistance to local school districts to help them meet their
constitutional responsibilities. We have a national goal. We have a
national commitment to this. We ought to help solve that problem on a
national basis.
So, while I agree with Senator Gregg and his comments regarding
trying to get the Federal role up, I do not agree with him that this is
an unfunded mandate at all. The law and the record is clear on that.
Also, IDEA is a program exempted from coverage under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. That was also introduced I believe by
Senator Gregg. That would fall under that act that we passed a couple
of years ago.
The Congressional Budget Office explicitly recognized this fact in
the House and Senate report accompanying the bill.
I will read this. This is from page 45 of the report.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: Section 4 of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act excludes from consideration
under that Act any bill that would ``establish or enforce
statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of
. . . handicap, or disability.'' S. 717 fits within that
exclusion because it would ensure that the rights of children
with disabilities are protected in the public education
system.
So clearly it does not fall under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.
So, again, Mr. President, it is a good goal. There is nothing in this
bill that prohibits us from meeting that goal. Hopefully those on the
Appropriations Committee, of which I am one, will in the coming years
ensure that the Federal Government meets more of the needs out there. I
will not say ``obligation'' but ``meet'' more of the needs of what the
Federal Government ought to be providing the States and local
governments.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). The Senator from Tennessee is
recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise in support of the passage of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997,
commonly known as IDEA.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is a civil rights law
that ensures that children with disabilities have access to a free
appropriate public education. The 22-year-old law has been a tremendous
success.
During the 104th Congress I had the opportunity--in fact, the
privilege--to serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on Disability
Policy. In that capacity, I worked on a bipartisan basis, especially
with my friend Senator Harkin, in establishing a commonsense approach
to the reauthorization of this vital critical law. Unfortunately, as
you heard earlier on the floor, time ran out before we could fully
achieve the broad widespread consensus that we set out for, and, thus,
IDEA is before the Senate today.
Throughout the last Congress we elected to keep the high ground and
use our efforts to work together on a bipartisan basis to establish the
consensus that we have achieved today. Yet, I am pleased to say it has
become the foundation of the bill that is on the floor. I am glad to
see that all of those efforts on behalf of so many people over the last
Congress are reaching fruition.
I especially want to thank Senator Harkin for the leadership that he
showed and has shown on this issue through this Congress, through the
past Congress, and throughout his tenure in the U.S. Congress.
I also want to thank his staff, Bobby Silerstien and Tom Irvin. I
recognize and thank my former staff director of the Subcommittee on
Disability Policy, Dr. Patricia Morrissey, and the staff of this
subcommittee, which at that time included David Egnor, Sue Swenson, and
Dr. Robert Stodden, for their tireless efforts really day and night
during the 104th Congress.
I also want to thank David Larson, who worked diligently on the
Subcommittee on Disability Policy in the last Congress and has remained
on my staff to advise me on disability policy issues.
We have heard, and will continue to hear over the course of today and
tomorrow, about the efforts that have gone on in this Congress--really
historic efforts--to achieve a bipartisan consensus working with the
House and the Senate to put together and to fashion a bill that is on
the floor today. I know from experience over the last Congress how
difficult and how hard it is to achieve this commonsense consensus
approach. And, thus, I think we will hear both today and tomorrow that
there will be amendments that come to the floor that we very much
support in substance, in spirit, but which may be just enough to set
off the very delicate balance that we have in the bill that has been
brought forward.
I want to salute all of the members and the staffs who have spent the
days and nights reaching this agreement: David Hoppe has been mentioned
repeatedly for his wisdom, for his judgment, and for his commonsense
approach, and, on top of all that, his courage and patience in this
effort. I also want to thank my colleagues, Senators Lott, Jeffords,
Coats, Kennedy, and Harkin once again for their efforts in this
process, and, of course, Senator Jeffords who worked on the original
passage over 22 years ago. And it is really fitting that the chairman
of the Labor and Human Resources Committee be present and providing the
key leadership in amending it 22 years later.
These amendments reflect the reality, the recognition that our
Nation's schools are moving past that initial challenge of providing
access to educate children with disabilities to a new step in that
process to educate children with disabilities so that they can become
productive and independent citizens. The IDEA amendments of 1997 will
help the Nation's schools succeed in that effort.
Twenty-two years ago, before IDEA, a newborn with a disability had
little hope of receiving help during the critical early years of
development; children with disabilities who went to school were
segregated in buildings away from their siblings and peers, and many
young people with disabilities were destined to spend their lives in
institutions. Young people with less-obvious disabilities, like
learning disabilities and attention deficit disorder, were denied
access to public education because they were considered too disruptive
or unruly. These children tended to grow up on the streets and at home
with no consistent access to an appropriate education.
Today, infants and toddlers with disabilities receive early
intervention services; many children with disabilities attend school
together with children without disabilities, and many young people with
disabilities learn study skills, life skills, and work skills that will
allow them to be more independent and productive adults.
[[Page S4306]]
Children without disabilities are learning first-hand that disability
is a natural part of the human experience, and they are benefiting from
individualized education techniques and strategies developed by the
Nation's special educators.
Children with disabilities are now much more likely to be valued
members of school communities, and the Nation can look forward to a day
when the children with disabilities currently in school will be
productive members of our community. As a nation, we have come to see
our citizens with disabilities as contributing members of society, not
as victims to be pitied. As a nation, we have begun to see that those
of us who happen to have disabilities also have gifts to share, and are
active participants in American society who must have opportunities to
learn.
While there is no doubt that the Nation is accomplishing its goals to
provide a free, appropriate public education to children with
disabilities, many, many challenges remain. We have made an effort to
deal with them in the amendments, the IDEA Amendments of 1997 that we
now have before us.
IDEA was originally enacted by that 94th Congress as a set of
consistent rules to help States provide equal access to a free,
appropriate public education to children with disabilities. But, over
the years, that initial need to provide those consistent guidelines to
States has sometimes become misinterpreted as a license to write
burdensome compliance requirements. In addition, it has become clear
that new guidelines on procedural safeguards are needed.
The IDEA Amendments of 1997 address these issues. These amendments
give educators the flexibility and the tools they need to achieve
results and ease the paperwork burden that has kept teachers from
spending the maximum amount of time teaching. By shifting the emphasis
of IDEA from simply providing access to schools to helping schools help
children with disabilities achieve true educational results, we are
able to reduce many of the burdensome administrative requirements
currently imposed on States and local school districts. The amendments
do that.
The IDEA Amendments of 1997 streamline planning and implementation
requirements for local school districts as well as States. In
assessment and classification, these amendments would allow schools to
shift emphasis from generating data, data dictated by bureaucratic
needs, to gathering relevant information that is really needed to teach
a child. These amendments also give schools and school boards more
control over how they use special purpose funds to provide training and
research and information dissemination. We want to encourage every
school in America to create programs that best serve the needs of all
of their students, with and without disabilities.
The IDEA Amendments of 1997 clarify that the general education
curriculum and standards, the standards associated with that
curriculum, should be used to teach children with disabilities and to
assess their educational process. Educators at the local and State
levels will use indicators of student progress that allow them to focus
on quality of educational programming and track the progress of
children with disabilities in meaningful ways along with the progress
of other children.
In an effort to reduce confrontation and costly litigation, the IDEA
Amendments of 1997 require States to offer a system of voluntary
schools mediation to parents who have a dispute over children's
education.
The amendments also address the serious issue of disciplining
children with disabilities who break school rules that apply to all
children. By providing fair and balanced guidelines to help schools
discipline students with disabilities, the IDEA amendments will ensure
that all children in our public schools are given the opportunity to
learn in a safe environment.
By preserving the right of children with disabilities to a free,
appropriate public education and by providing school districts with new
degrees of procedural, fiscal, and administrative flexibility, and by
promoting the consideration of children with disabilities in actions to
reform schools and make them accountable for student progress, IDEA
will remain a viable, useful law that will provide guidance well into
the next century.
In closing, we must remember that, no matter how careful we are in
this Chamber to adopt good Federal policy, no matter how diligent each
doctor and teacher and parent is across out Nation, the world is and
always will be unpredictable. Children with disabilities will always be
born. Children will develop disabilities through injury or disease.
Their disabilities will almost always take their families completely by
surprise. We may be certain that our own families and our own friends
will be touched by disability, through we will not know when or how.
The great power of IDEA, reinforced and preserved by these
amendments, is that it brings people with disabilities into the heart
of our communities and our schools, where we learn that disability does
not divide us, but binds us to each other.
When we take the time to know children with disabilities and their
needs, we learn a great deal. From families who have children with
disabilities, we learn that even though everyday life may pose great
challenges, nothing interferes with the love a parent feels for a
child. From the excellent teachers who work with children with
disabilities, we learn that even though teaching such a child may
stretch one's abilities, it can be the most rewarding experience in a
teacher's career, often renewing their faith in their own skills and in
the system that supports them. From the children who attend school
together, we learn that children with disabilities can be valued
friends whose hopes and dreams are respected and nurtured on an equal
basis with those of their peers.
As I mentioned earlier, and as we have heard in the Chamber, the bill
as it stands is built on a very delicate consensus achieved over the
course of more than 2 years of hard work, culminating in what I feel
will be a historic effort in the next several days in Congress. We all
know how difficult consensus agreements are and how difficult they are
to maintain over time. There is always a group that is going to be a
bit unhappy, a bit dissatisfied with what they had to give up to reach
this consensus, while at the same time those groups tend to forget a
little bit what they received in exchange, and they begin to feel maybe
they can push a little bit harder and get a little bit more. They
forget that the other side also is not entirely satisfied.
To my colleagues who have not yet decided which way to vote on this
bill or as amendments come to the floor, I ask all of you simply to
look at what really does hang in the balance: the first real changes in
IDEA in more than 22 years; substantial new relief for schools; new
tools for teachers; and a new focus on achieving results for children
with disabilities. I hope all of my colleagues will step beyond the
last-minute clamor for changes or adding additional amendments and even
to really look beyond what may be the unhappiness of a few people that
I am sure will arise over the next day or so. Instead, we need to look
to those goals and to the needs of the Nation. And I ask my colleagues
to join me in supporting this very important package of amendments and
bring this important law into the next century.
Mr. President, before stepping down, let me simply comment briefly on
the amendment which was just introduced by my colleague, Senator Gregg.
I think he and the subsequent Senators who came to the floor to speak
have outlined the history behind funding for IDEA, and therefore I will
not recount that. The funding today is currently at about $4 billion
for fiscal year 1997, which, as has been pointed out, is an increase of
about $700 million from the previous year. And again, I extend my
thanks and my appreciation to my colleagues, including Senator Lott and
Senator Gregg, who were so instrumental in seeing that that $780
million was added.
As has been pointed out, when IDEA was originally enacted,
essentially a promise--I guess we can debate whether or not it is
called a mandate or not, but a promise was made that the Federal
Government would pay 40 percent of the cost of IDEA, and at that time
40 percent, I believe, was the estimate it would cost to provide
services for a child with disabilities as opposed to a regular
education student, and again, as we have heard, currently instead of
[[Page S4307]]
paying 40 percent of the cost of IDEA, we, the Federal Government, the
U.S. Congress, is paying about 8 percent--not 40 percent, 8 percent.
Thus, we have fallen far short on our promises to the States.
Senator Gregg worked through last year, the last Congress, and he
continues today working very hard on this important issue. It is an
issue that I think all of us can gather around, this increased funding,
funding which was promised to assure a free, appropriate public
education for individuals with disabilities. Senator Gregg, along with
20 other of our colleagues, including myself, sent a letter to
President Clinton this past February requesting that the President work
with us to increase funding for IDEA. I would love for some of the $35
billion that the President wishes to spend and has put forward as part
of the current budget proposal be directed to this obligation--I would
call it an obligation or a promise--that we made to our States in terms
of funding IDEA. We have fallen far short.
Senator Gregg is absolutely correct on the issue, and I look forward
to working with him again on whatever vehicle possible to increasing
funding for IDEA. I was, in fact, disappointed that this amendment--
after all of our consensus working group effort, bringing people
together in a bipartisan and a bicameral way, I would love to have seen
this amendment as part of the final agreement, yet it was not part of
that final agreement, and therefore I will support those who have
spoken over the last few minutes who will end up opposing this
amendment on this vehicle. I hope Senator Gregg will consider
withdrawing the amendment, again recognizing that all of us support the
substance and the intent of the amendment, but just that we are very,
very concerned, after working together, establishing the bipartisan
and, in effect, bicameral bill, this may upset that balance just enough
where we would lose the entire bill.
Again, I thank Senator Gregg for persistently and tenaciously
addressing this underfunding by the Federal Government in promises it
has previously made.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
(Mr. FRIST assumed the Chair.)
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I want to share with my colleagues
some concerns and views on this very important piece of legislation, S.
717, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of
1997. I express my appreciation to the distinguished chairman of the
committee for the good work he and the ranking member and the entire
committee have done on this bill.
We all know that since the enactment of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act in 1975, tremendous improvements have been
made in the lives of millions of children with disabilities, providing
them with a full array of outstanding educational services to meet
their individual needs.
Mr. President, going back about a year before that, in the State of
Missouri, when I was Governor, we passed our Special Education Act in
1974, one of the first major pieces of legislation adopted during my
first term as Governor. House bill 474 was an effort at the State level
to assure that children with disabilities received educational
opportunities and received educational services that were designed to
meet their abilities and to compensate for any difficulties or
deficiencies they might have.
I think it is clear that we have come a long way. Clearly, there was
much that needed to be done, and many of those children, with grave
needs, were not being taken care of, they were not being served, and
certainly they have a right to be served.
I think as we move through this bill, preserving the rights of
special-needs children to a free appropriate public education so that
they can become productive and responsible citizens is an absolutely
essential goal that we must keep in mind.
I have had the opportunity to hear from many, many groups in Missouri
who are concerned about how this bill is being carried out, how IDEA is
being implemented. Without dissent, there is unanimous agreement that
the goals are worthy, the objectives are right, the need is there, more
needs to be done. Unfortunately, because of the way the law has been
carried out, the way it has been interpreted, there are disruptions to
classrooms, there is needless danger to other students and to teachers
in the classroom, and there is also a shortage of funds to carry out
the worthwhile objectives of this act.
As I traveled throughout Missouri over the last couple of weekends
when I was home, I talked with school superintendents, principals,
school board members, special education directors, parents and others
who are concerned, and the two top concerns that were mentioned just
about every place I went was safety and discipline for all students in
the public school system.
The number of instances where there have been serious disruption and
violent acts on students was hair raising. There was a lot of interest
and focus in the St. Louis area on a tragic murder that occurred in one
of the schools. A young woman was brutally beaten to death. It turns
out that the young man who commited the crime was a young man with
disabilities. He had transferred into that school district from another
school district where he had been cited many times for bad behavior.
The receiving school district did not know anything about his past
activities because they did not know about his behavioral problems. So
the first thing they requested was that they get information on a
student's past activities, if there has been discipline, what the
discipline had been and why the discipline was administered.
Second, they told me some hair-raising stories about children with
disabilities who committed violent acts. In one classroom, in a
commercial art class, a young man picked up a knife and stabbed a
fellow student several times and told the school administrators that
since he qualified under a certain specific section of the act, they
couldn't do anything to him, that they could only take him out of the
classroom for 10 days, and then he would be back in there.
They told me about another student, one of two students, who had been
apprehended for selling drugs. The one student who did not have a
disability was expelled for 175 days. The other student, a year later,
was still in the classroom. His parents had retained an attorney, which
the school district was paying for, and they carried on the process. A
year later, that student who sold the drugs was still in the classroom.
Earlier, I introduced legislation, the School Security Improvement
Act of 1997, which is designed to do a couple of things: No. 1 is to
create a safe learning environment for all children. We have to
continue to provide support and assistance for disabled students, but
where there is a clear-cut example of behavior that is incompatible
with a decent learning environment, the schools have to be able to take
some action. One principal told us, ``You cannot learn in chaos. A
child cannot learn in chaos. A teacher cannot teach in chaos.''
When they have students with disabilities whose violent acts have
been judged to be a manifestation of their disability and they have to
come back into the classroom after 10 days, other students live in
fear, teachers are apprehensive about the impact on their class and,
according to the teachers, the administrators, the parents, the job of
education comes to a halt.
The measure that I introduced, the School Security Improvement Act of
1997, will eliminate the double standard that currently exists between
special education and general education children. All children,
disabled or not, should receive the same discipline for the same
behavior. I believe this is appropriate wherein the behavior of the
child is not related to the disability. Children must learn that there
are consequences for violating the rules. Good education means
discipline and standards of conduct. If there is a violent act that is
a manifestation of the disability, if it is a dangerous act, if it is a
violent act, then that child ought to be put in a learning situation
where there
[[Page S4308]]
will not be a danger to fellow students of committing a similar act.
In addition, this measure would require schools to include in the
record of a child with a disability a statement of any disciplinary
action taken against the student, and that should be available for a
student transferring within a State or from State to State, so that the
receiving school will know if there are problems with the student who
has come to them.
The record issue, as I indicated previously, has been brought to the
forefront because of the tragic murder of a young woman in north St.
Louis County.
This measure that I have proposed will enable the school
administrators to remove dangerous children with disabilities who pose
a threat to the safety of others from the classroom and make temporary
alternative placements to ensure that the safety of all students is
secure until a more appropriate placement is determined.
In addition, the current IDEA provision requiring local school
districts to reimburse attorneys fees incurred by parents who elect to
initiate litigation has had what, unfortunately, is a predictable
result of encouraging litigation and of driving up special education
costs. It appears that the dispute-resolution procedures have become
extremely adversarial and costly. Studies have found that the amount of
special education litigation has dramatically increased in recent
years. Too often, the litigation can be used as a fishing expedition to
threaten districts with protracted litigation.
The practice serves to reduce district funds available to meet the
needs of students with disabilities, and we clearly need reforms of the
dispute-resolution process to ensure that scarce educational funds are
used for educational services for the children for whom they were
intended. But because of the explosion of litigation in this area,
educational services for students are put at risk.
Under the measure I introduced, local school districts would be
permitted to provide alternative education placements to children who
threaten the safety of others. For some children, it is absolutely
appropriate to remove them swiftly and permanently from the regular
classroom setting. And under the law that I proposed, school officials
would be permitted, on their own authority, to discipline dangerous and
unruly students.
Again, the measure I introduced would give the school districts the
authority and flexibility to ensure that the students and the personnel
are provided educational and working environments that are safe and
orderly.
Finally, I point out that when the Federal Government enacted IDEA,
it promised to fund 40 percent of the national average per-pupil
expenditure. Today, the Federal Government funds only 7 percent. That
is why I am very pleased today to join with my colleague from New
Hampshire, Senator Gregg, to provide in this legislation explicit
direction to Congress to fund fully IDEA.
I congratulate the committee and its leadership for having made so
many necessary reforms in the reauthorization of the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act. I hope we can take the next very important
step and assure the funding. Congress only recently has come up with 7
percent of the funding rather than 40 percent.
Last week, a major network news story featured a story on a school in
my home State in Maryville, MO. The Maryville R-II School District did
not have the revenue to repair its deteriorating classrooms. After six
unsuccessful attempts to pass local bond issues, the district was able
to pass a bond issue to renovate the schools.
The Maryville school district spends approximately $434,800 on
special education, of which $68,200 is Federal funds, all of which is
spent on mandates. If the district were not bound by the paperwork
requirements and other costly mandates of the law, they would have more
money to improve their facilities and their classrooms.
The skyrocketing costs of our special-needs children being served by
IDEA places local school districts in a bind with little assistance
from the Federal Government.
An Economic Policy Institute study on school funding found that new
money for education went disproportionately to fund deficits in special
education funding caused by increasing requirements for services
coupled with the Federal failure to meet its promised commitment.
We have been in this body in an effort sometimes called devolution,
sometimes called enhanced federalism, more often, in my view, called
the commonsense approach of letting the level of Government which
delivers the service make the decisions.
Over the last few years, it says we ought to be allowing the school
district if it is an educational decision, or the water district if it
is a water-related problem, or the justice system if it is a justice
problem make the decisions of how it works.
We need to be providing more resources and less good ideas to local
governments. That is particularly important in this field with the
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. I can tell you that the
goals and the objectives are understood, they are strongly felt by the
people who serve in the school system and who support the school
system, but they have too many requirements that prevent them from
getting the job done. That is why I think we need to provide some
flexibility for local school districts. We need to reestablish and
restore to local school districts, to school administrators, and others
the ability to use common sense in maintaining discipline and order and
safety in the classroom.
We also in this body need to step up to the plate and make sure that
we come through with the funding that is needed to carry out these
mandates.
When I talked with the school principals, administrators, and
teachers, I said, ``After what you have told me, we need to give you
some freedom to do these things.'' They said, ``Well, how about a
little money to help us with the burdens you put on us?'' I said,
``That makes sense.'' They said, ``Look, to handle these children with
disabilities who are violent, we need to have the resources to provide
them the alternative education which is appropriate for them and which
will not subject their fellow students to risks.'' It is going to be
more expensive, and there is not the money there yet.
I am hoping that if we can increase the funding that is needed for
these services, we are going to see not only order and discipline and
conduct restored in the normal classrooms but a much higher quality of
educational services delivered to the children with disabilities.
Again, I commend and thank the committee for making the many reforms
it has done in this bill. And I say that the School Improvement
Security Act of 1997, which I described briefly, most of which is very
significantly incorporated in this measure--I have been advised that
the following organizations strongly support the provisions of it: The
Missouri School Boards Association, the Missouri Association of
Elementary School Principals, the Missouri Association of Secondary
Principals, the Missouri State Teachers Association, the Missouri
Federation of Teachers & School Related Personnel, the Fort Zumwalt
School District.
I think, I say to the chairman, that we could get a list a half-mile
long of organizations in my State that are behind you in the efforts to
reform and reauthorize this measure. I know they are going to be behind
Senator Gregg's and my efforts to get more funding.
So I congratulate you on the measure. We look forward to working with
you. We want to see if there is a way that we can provide the funding
that is so badly needed for this very important service and for the
well-being of the entire educational system in our country.
I thank the Chair and thank the distinguished managers of the bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank wholeheartedly the Senator from Missouri for
his comments. I also want to thank him for his introduction of the
legislation last year which we found immensely helpful in being able to
amend the present law and used to make sure that we did a better job in
handling the very difficult situations which the Senator from Missouri
referred to. He has been a tireless worker in many areas. This is one
of those where he has demonstrated his keen ability to be of assistance
in very difficult areas. I thank the Senator very much for his
statement.
[[Page S4309]]
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. I do want to thank my colleague from Missouri for his
long efforts to make sure that the law works and works well, not only
on behalf of disabled students, but on behalf of all students.
Certainly there is always room for discussion, debate, and trying to
get a meeting of the minds and get people together on this. That is
what I think we have done in this bill.
As my friend from Missouri pointed out at the closure of his remarks,
this does have a broad base of support, from the National School Boards
Association, Parent-Teacher Association, school officers, disability
rights groups. It has a broad base of support, cutting across all these
lines, which I think indicates we have, indeed, through the leadership
of Senator Jeffords, met our obligation to ensure that our
constitutional requirements are fulfilled and at the same time to
ensure that our schools are safe and conducive to learning for all
students.
I might just say to my friend from Missouri, about the case of which
he spoke, about the tragic case of the young woman who was murdered, we
had looked into that case in great detail. The American Law Division of
the Congressional Research Service looked into the facts of the case
whether IDEA had any relevance at all to the case.
I will, just for the record, read the last paragraph of their
analysis of the tragic death of Christine Smetzer. It said:
Although IDEA's provisions did not appear to be directly
implicated by the factual pattern involved in Christine
Smetzer's death, questions were raised concerning other laws,
namely those involving the confidentiality of juvenile
records. The youth charged in the case apparently had a
juvenile police record which was unavailable to the school
officials. This situation apparently led to the amendment
of state statutes regarding juvenile crime. The new
statute provides in part that the juvenile court can give
school administrators information about past histories of
delinquents upon request, and schools may suspend a
student who has been charged or convicted of a felony in
adult court.
Just for my friend's knowledge, in our bill we address that. We said
here--I want to read for the Record, and I am told Senator Ashcroft was
responsible on our committee for putting this on the committee level.
It says:
Disciplinary Information.
This is right on the point with this case I think.
The State may require that a local educational agency
include in the records of a child with a disability a
statement of any current or previous disciplinary action that
has been taken against the child and transmit such statement
to the same extent that such disciplinary information is
included in, and transmitted with, the student records of
nondisabled children. The statement may include a description
of any behavior engaged in by the child that required
disciplinary action, a description of the disciplinary action
taken, and any other information that is relevant to the
safety of the child and other individuals involved with the
child. If the State adopts such a policy, and the child
transfers from one school to another, the transmission of any
of the child's records must include [must include] both the
child's current individualized education program and any such
statement of current or previous disciplinary action that has
been taken against the child.
So I hope that reaches this tragic case. I hope that would settle it.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. BOND. I thank my colleague from Iowa.
As I hope I indicated in this case, the Christine Smetzer tragedy was
not a case where a student was kept in the classroom as a result of
IDEA. I think I attempted to point out that the past disciplinary
records of the student had not been transferred.
Mr. HARKIN. That is right.
Mr. BOND. The school district and the parents and everybody
associated with it are still in great shock. They feel that they may
have had a much better opportunity to prevent that had they been
advised. That is why I thank the distinguished Senator from Iowa and
the chairman of the committee, particularly my colleague, Senator
Ashcroft, for getting that records provision in there.
The teachers who have been on the front line, some stated to me, and,
frankly, with fear in their eyes, ``If a child is coming in who has a
record of violent behavior, at least let us know, at least let us
know.'' To me, that is just--I mean, that is an unanswerable, that is
an unanswerable position. There is no reason why we should not let them
know.
The State of Missouri has made significant changes in the policy for
transfers within the State. Our State has the tremendous distinction of
bordering on eight other States, including Senator Harkin's State of
Iowa. About everything in the Midwest, we border on them. When a
student comes in from another State, or when a student from our State
goes to another State, it is only fair that the teachers and the
administrators know if there is a problem. Frankly, it probably is a
help for the students who have no problem because they are not treated
with suspicion. If a student is without problems, it is a help to know
that as well.
But I do commend the committee and the occupant of the chair, who has
taken an active role in this, particularly my colleague from Missouri,
Senator Ashcroft, on crafting a bill that deals with these provisions.
I hope that you will be able to take and accommodate the provisions
for funding that Senator Gregg and I support.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank my colleague from Missouri. I know he has been on
this issue for some time.
I remember last year when we were working on the bill, it came to
light, after we finished working on the bill at the committee level but
before we went to the floor. I was informed by my staff that this
amendment was part of the managers' amendment. We just did not get the
bill up last year. I know the occupant of the chair was the leader of
our subcommittee, and we had the bill ready to go last year. He worked
his heart out to get the darned thing through, but for whatever reason
it did not happen.
I thank the Senator from Missouri for his long-time interest in this
area and for working with us. I know sometimes the bills seem to get
through exceedingly slow, but we finally got it accomplished, and
hopefully it will be through in a couple of days.
I also wanted to respond--and this is something I always like to
point out when we talk about the high cost of educating kids with
disabilities--I know it seems like it is a high cost, but then you have
to look at the other side of the ledger. What is happening to these
kids later on, what is society spending or saving later on during the
lifetime of these young people as they go through school?
I have some data here showing in 1974, the year before enactment of
the 94-142, there were 70,655 children and youth with disabilities
living in State institutions. By 1994, 20 years later, as a result of
IDEA, the number had fallen to 4,001, less than 6 percent of what it
was 20 years earlier. In 1994, the average State institution cost was
$82,256 per person in an institution, with 66,654 fewer children
institutionalized than in 1974. Because the States were footing the
bill, the savings to the States is $5.46 billion per year that the
States do not have to come up with for institutionalized care. The
savings do not include the savings in welfare, social services and
other costs for people with disabilities who are now able to live
independently and be employed and pay taxes as a result of the special
education they have received.
A young friend of mine, Danny Piper, from Iowa, who I have followed
for years, came and testified once before our Disabilities Policy
Subcommittee. He is 26 years old, with an IQ of 39. When he was born,
his parents were told to institutionalize him. They did not do it. They
put him through school with IDEA, and he went through regular high
school. He acted in a school play. He was a manager of the football
team.
To make a long story short, since graduating he has become a
taxpayer. He has recently moved into his own apartment. He takes his
own bus to work and is paying his own way.
We figured out once with his folks what the total cost to taxpayers
for his special education over this 18-year period was. He received
early intervention, special education. The best they could come up with
was a total additional cost of $63,000 for him for special education.
The cost to taxpayers if he had been institutionalized would have been
$5 million over his lifetime.
[[Page S4310]]
Again, I know people think, gosh, it costs a lot of money, but we
have to think where we were before and how much we were spending before
for institutionalization, for a lot of people that did not need to be
in institutions. Certainly Danny is one. He is out working and buying
color TV's and things like that.
I wanted to make that point because I know it is an expense and we
have to think of the other side of the ledger.
Since I talked about Danny Piper, I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the Record an article recently from the Des Moines Register
about Danny entitled ``Shooting for Independence.'' This is the whole
story about Danny Piper and what he is doing, including competing in
the Special Olympics. It talks about the medals he has received for
basketball, track, bowling, and golf, competing in the Special
Olympics. It is a story about one young man and what he has been able
to accomplish because he got that kind of education.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Des Moines Register, Mar. 22, 1997]
Shooting for Independence
Be it a medal or a friend, Dan Piper pushes limits to win
(By Jeff Eckhoff)
The bedroom walls of Dan Piper's Ankeny apartment are
covered with his trophies:
Photos of Piper with Sen. Tom Harkin at a rally promoting
the Americans with Disabilities Act. A photo of a grinning
Piper sporting slicked-back hair and a leather jacket for his
high school production of ``Grease.'' Framed newspaper
articles and letters.
And the medals. Four of them. Gold and silver dangling from
shiny blue ribbon. For basketball and track and bowling and
golf. There are more in the closet, along with ribbons from
scores of other events in scores of different Special
Olympics competitions spread over the 26 years of Dan Piper's
life.
But it's the medals that seem most important to Piper.
Because he wants another one.
The state Special Olympics basketball competition is
scheduled to start at 1:30 p.m. today in the University of
Iowa Field House in Iowa City. And Piper, who hit 49 out of
50 free throws at a regional event last month, is expected to
do well.
For his part, Piper is certainly expecting to do well.
``He's very competitive,'' explains a laughing Sylvia
Piper, Dan's mother. ``He's not a good sport at all . . . .
Dear God, if he doesn't get a blue ribbon, we're all going to
be tortured unbelievably.''
Not that ribbons are all that's on Dan Piper's mind these
days. Leaning over a table in the back room of Ankeny's Osco
Drug last week, he talked about his job, about his friends
there and about the relative merits of Rocky Balboa movies.
But mostly he talked of his friend, Melissa Berry--and of a
dance that was scheduled to take place at an Iowa City hotel
Friday night.
``My Mom's going to dance with my Dad,'' Piper explained.
``Me, I've got to dance with my woman.''
He was born Oct. 2, 1970, the son of a communications
engineer and a woman whose sole prior knowledge of mental
disabilities had been a field trip to a state hospital when
she was in junior high school.
The doctors didn't call it Down's syndrome then. They were
far less politically correct. And they were unswerving in
their belief that Gary and Sylvia Piper should
institutionalize their new retarded son.
Instead, the Pipers took Dan home--and set about making
sure he had every possible chance to succeed.
They fought to keep 8-year-old Dan in a ``normal''
classroom when they discovered he performed better there than
at the ``special'' schools. Eight years later, they and other
parents threatened legal action in order to get the Ankeny
school district to start its first special-education classes.
``Dan is the teacher and we've been the students,'' Sylvia
said. ``That holds until this day. I have learned never to
say `Never' to him.''
In 1993, the school district, the Heartland Area Education
Agency and a group of Ankeny families that included the
Pipers helped form Creative Community Options, an agency
designed to help the mentally disabled live with as much
independence as possible.
The agency now serves 21 individuals living in Ankeny and
Des Moines, said its director, Marci Davis. Thanks to special
training from the agency, thirteen of those people hold
regular jobs in the Ankeny area.
Eleven of the 21 receive visits from agency workers who
help them with things such as making dinner and going
shopping. Six of those 11, including Piper, live in their own
apartments.
The goal of all of this, Davis said, is to prove that
people with mental disabilities can live in society, do real
work and pay real taxes--they don't have to be shunted into
special occupations or homes.
``There's this balance (we seek from employers) between
charity and providing a real job,'' Davis said. ``What we're
looking for is a real job with the understanding that this
person may take a little longer to do it.''
Piper gets to Osco Drug at 8:30 every morning, gets his
list from his boss and sets to work on the day's chores. For
three hours a day, he cleans the store, stocks shelves, and
handles all the returned cans and bottles.
In between, he makes a lot of friends. That, say store
officials, is probably his only fault.
``He does his three or four things very well,'' said Osco
general manager Tom Rotherham. ``He doesn't always come back
for more things to do, but that's OK. Sometimes, we'll find
him in the aisles talking to people. . . . The customers seem
to like him.''
Piper is easy to talk to but difficult to follow. The words
sometimes get caught in feedback loops, cycling endlessly
around a thought that never quite makes it out of his mouth.
But his enthusiasm is contagious.
On a recent tour of the Osco back room, he pointed with
pride at the restrooms he cleans. Out front, he pointed out
the frozen pizza, the Coke and the bottled water ``that you
have to pay for.''
He lingered longer over the video rack. Piper is legendary
among friends for his adoration of Darth Vader, the Jackson
Five and all movies involving a certain Philadelphia boxer
who, no matter what obstacles are set in front of him,
refuses to give up.
``That guy was in Rocky IV,'' Piper said pointing to a
Dolph Lungren flick. ``He's a great fighter.''
He has always liked sports. Just as he has always liked
Melissa Berry, another Creative Community Options client. The
two were inseparable in high school, friends say. It was
Melissa whom Dan first thought of when it came time to make
plans for this weekend's trip.
They don't see enough of each other Piper thinks. The
reasons why have to do both with parental concerns and the
practical considerations of two people who are not quite
independent.
Ed Berry, Melissa's father, said she ``is the same as any
other child. I'm not certain when anyone can say it's time to
open the magic door up and say, `She's ready (to be on her
own).' But I'm not sure you can say that with any child.''
After several weeks of Piper's persistence, he, Melissa and
several other agency clients were scheduled to leave for Iowa
City in their own van Friday afternoon.
His parents decided to make the trek to Iowa City this
morning--that way he could enjoy Friday's dance without them
there.
``Dan thinks there's something strange about dancing with
your parents,'' explained Tina Fessler, a Creative Community
Options worker who helps Piper with lunch, shopping and
getting around town each weekday. ``He has a real hard time
with that.''
Mr. HARKIN. Lastly, Mr. President, we just had a report from the
Census Bureau which did a study that showed the employment population
ratio for persons with severe disabilities increased from 23.3 percent
in 1991, when ADA went into effect, to 26.1 in 1994, meaning there are
800,000 more severely disabled working in 1994 than in 1991, which is a
27-percent increase.
So, again, I think what this Congress did with Public Law 94-142 in
1975, with the addition of part H in 1986, and then capped with the
Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990, have not only made us a more
decent and caring society, a more inclusive society, but in the long
run it will save us money because we are putting the money in at the
front end, getting these kids early intervention programs, good
education, integrating them with people they will live with all their
lives.
I remember some years ago when my daughter was in public school,
coming home and talking about how they had a couple of kids with
disabilities in the classrooms, just like it was normal. They are there
every day. These are people we live with all our lives. Rather than
segregating them out, we bring them in and include them.
Even though it may cost some upfront, the savings, if you look in
hard economic terms, the savings are tremendous later on. Of course,
that is not counting the quality of life, the independence, the ability
of people to have a better life for themselves even though they may
have disabilities.
All in all, it is a great bill, and the reauthorization and the
amendments we have added, I believe, meet a lot of the concerns people
have, legitimate concerns. I hope and trust this will provide for a
more cooperative framework for parents, teachers, school
administrators, and local law enforcement officials to work together in
a very cooperative spirit to ensure that all kids with disabilities
have that right to a free and appropriate public education.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
[[Page S4311]]
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________