[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.

                          ____________________