Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 61 (Monday, May 12, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 61 (Monday, May 12, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4311-S4319]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1997

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment No. 241,
which has been offered to S. 717.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Washington
desires to speak shortly.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to explain where
we are. We have one amendment pending, the Gregg amendment, which has
been offered and which we all would love to do. Again, I want to
explain to my colleagues why we are in a position where it is
difficult, if not impossible, for us to accept any amendments,
notwithstanding how much we would like to do so.
The House will be passing in the morning the same bill, identical. We
hope to pass here the same bill. The reason for that is one that is
hard to explain because I don't like to have this kind of a situation.
But as I explained this morning to my colleagues, last year, we came
very close to passing the bill which was almost identical to what we
have, but we have made some changes to reconcile some of the problems
that were raised. At the time, we tried to do that, the word got out
and erroneous statements were made about it. This is such a volatile
area, where you are dealing with young people with disabilities and
educational settings and the concept of mainstreaming and all these
things. It is a very emotional subject. The whole thing fell apart.
What we have done this year with the leadership in the Senate pulling
together, with David Hoppe and the groups from all over the country, we
finally reached, the other night, the final, final agreement. Everybody
is holding hands. Notwithstanding that, there are people today
spreading incorrect information around the country that certain things
have happened and people are getting concerned. We are trying to make
sure we don't have any opportunity for this bill to fall apart. It is
so important, so emotional, and so difficult, so we are trying to do
that. At times, I will have to speak against things that I agree with.
We have the Gregg amendment pending right now. It is a concept I think
everybody in the Senate agrees with. In fact, they voted 93 to 0 to do
what he wants to do some time ago on the Goals 2000 bill. To do that
again would create a problem. I have already announced my support for
us to reach the goal of 40 percent to fund the total cost of problems
with disabilities in this bill.
We started off when we passed it back in 1975 with funding at 12
percent. It went down as low as about 5 percent. We are now back up to
about 8 percent, around the efforts of Senator Gregg, primarily, last
year. I hope we will get that kind of a commitment. I agree with
everything Senator Gregg is doing, but I have to oppose it because it
would create a problem we don't want to create. With that piece of
knowledge, as soon as the Senator from Washington is ready, he can
speak; he has an amendment. I wanted to lay out what I will do when he
is finished.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GORTON. 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. GORTON. Mr. President, I stand before you and my colleagues here
in the Senate today in a situation for which I can remember no parallel
during the course of my career. It is a position with which I have
struggled considerably, not just as we worked toward the scheduling of
this bill, but for the course of more than the last 2 years.

I have an amendment to this bill, which I will introduce later on
this afternoon, which I suspect, given the nature of this debate, has
very little chance of acceptance. I will oppose this bill as one that I
consider imposes not only an unfunded but an unwarranted mandate
literally on every school district, every school director, every school
administrator, every teacher in the public school systems of the United
States.
At the same time, Mr. President, I want to pay heartfelt tribute to
the distinguished Senator from Vermont, who is managing the bill, to
the distinguished junior Senator from Tennessee, who has perhaps spent
more time on it during his 2-plus years in the U.S. Senate than he has
on any other issue and, probably, than any other Senator has in that
time. From their perspective--and it is a valid perspective--this bill
represents a substantial step in the right direction from the current
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.
It represents a careful balancing on their part of the many, the
strong, the articulate lobbies on each side of the disability issues
that surround this bill. In fact, it represents an exquisite compromise
dealing effectively with at least some of the interests of every group
involved in public education, except for the students and the quality
of education that they are provided in our public schools.
Education may be the single issue with the highest degree of
prominence that will be discussed during the course of this Congress.
The President has made both some real progress and far more rhetorical
progress in bringing the quality of education provided for our students
today, as they move into their lives in the 21st century, than he has
on any other issue. This bill, however, has not played a significant
part in that rhetoric. And almost nothing in the drafting or the debate
over this bill has concerned itself with the overall quality of
education that will be provided to the great mass of our young people
as they move into an increasingly competitive world and increasingly
competitive environment.
No, Mr. President, this bill is aimed, as is its predecessor, at a
relatively small, though growing--and I will speak to the nature of
that growth a little later--element in our population who are subject
to a number of disabilities. Like so many of our other statutes in many
other fields, its focus is so narrow that it avoids entirely, or
interferes with, the overall quality of education provided to all of
our young people, together with the rights of those who are closest to
those young people--their parents, their teachers, their school
administrators, their elected school board members--to make judgments
about how best to provide the best possible education for the largest
number of students. We hear soaring rhetoric about the need for higher
educational standards as we move into the 21st century. But, Mr.
President, I regret to say that this bill will not help us in any way
in providing those higher standards. In fact, it will increasingly
interfere with and frustrate their attainment. And yet, I must return
to the very real tribute and credit that ought to be paid to those on
the committee of jurisdiction who have drafted this, not on a blank
slate, but on the slate that has been inscribed with the current IDEA.
Some of the remarks that I will make during the course of this
debate, coming from individual parents or

[[Page S4312]]

school districts, will of course relate to the enforcement of the law
as it exists at the present time. But I believe, very much to my
regret, that they will apply with equal force and merit to the bill
that is before us, should it become law.
The fundamental flaw with this bill, and with the present law, Mr.
President, is that it imposes on every school district in the United
States a double standard with respect to school discipline, with
respect to order in the classroom, with respect to priorities in
connection with the financial, the fiscal investment in our children's
education. It is overwhelmingly an unfunded mandate of exactly the type
the last Congress, at least so far as the future was concerned, tried
to avoid. It is, however, an unfunded mandate in another sense. There
is hardly a Member of this body, Republican or Democrat, who does not
give eloquent lip service to the proposition of local control and local
influence over our schools, particularly in their day-to-day
operations, and even when we feel that certain national levels of
achievement ought to be set--perhaps not imposed, but at least set
against which to measure attainment.

Yet, I pick up this bill, S. 717, and I note that it is 327 pages
long, every page of which imposes a detailed mandate on the system of
schools in New York City, NY, on the system of schools in the smallest
and most rural district in the State of Kansas, or in the State of
Washington--rules which cannot possibly be set in a universal fashion
applicable to every student in every situation in every school district
in a world which truly values education and truly believes that so much
of education results from the dynamics of an individual teacher and an
individual student.
I had intended literally to read some of these requirements to you
here, and I must confess that unless I wished to engage in a
filibuster, I do not have time to do so. But in this bill, beginning on
page 141, there are detailed procedural safeguards on behalf of any
individual who claims a disability and who claims that that disability
has not been dealt with precisely according to the rules in the other
300-plus pages of the statute. Those procedural requirements begin on
page 141 and end on--well, I have not gotten to the end yet. I am at
page 156 and working through this set of requirements--20, 30 or more
pages simply of procedural requirements applicable to each disabled
student, applicable to each school district, applicable to each
individual determination. The only thing missing in those procedural
requirements is the slightest expression of concern for any of the
great majority of students who are not disabled, of the problems of
individual teachers and individual classrooms or of the overall quality
of education that will be provided by school districts subjected to the
mandates included in this statute.
The amendment that is before the body now proposed by the Senator
from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] would raise from about 7 percent the
current level of support from the Federal Government to defray the
mandates imposed by this bill to somewhere closer to 40 percent that
the original Individuals With Disabilities Education Act purported to
mandate or at least to authorize.
The Senator from Vermont has said that he has great sympathy with the
Gregg amendment but that he must oppose it, and it will undoubtedly be
defeated. We can afford to make the requirements but we cannot afford
to pay for them. Why? Perhaps the Senator from Vermont will correct me
on this. Because if we were to do so, if we were to pay entirely for
the requirements we lay out in this statute, we would not have any
money left over for any other educational purpose from K through 12.
None of the wonderful promises of the President or of a multitude of
Members of this body.
In fact, Mr. President, I will be blunt. If the Congress were forced
to pay all of the costs that it imposes by this bill or by its
predecessor on individual school districts, there is not the remotest
chance that the statute would ever have been passed in the first place
or be passed here today. It would simply be too expensive. We can,
however, please certain interest groups by making these requirements
and by requiring someone else to pay for them.
I suspect that you, Mr. President, and the Senator from Vermont and I
all remember that magnificent motion picture about World War II,
``Bridge on the River Kwai.'' I think that is what this bill is. The
sponsors or their predecessors who wrote the first bill have built a
magnificent bridge that is a tremendous engineering feat, the net
result of which is to lower the quality of education in the United
States. We are looking at the bridge and not at the results of building
that bridge.
I spoke a little earlier about double standards. Overwhelmingly, the
double standards in this bill have to do with rules of discipline.
Perhaps the most fundamental authority in a local school district or of
a State educational authority is setting rules of discipline designed
for two purposes: one, to ensure to the maximum possible extent the
physical safety of schools and teachers in schools and in an
educational situation, and, second, to see to it that the atmosphere in
those schools is one that is as conducive to learning as it can
possibly be. And for the entire history of the Republic until the
passing of the predecessor to this bill that authority, subject only to
the Constitution, was delegated entirely to individual school
districts.
This bill, as its predecessor, sets up a dramatic double standard.
For a nondisabled student, there is no change. For a disabled student,
there is a tremendous change. Disciplinary procedures are greatly
limited, are subjected to all of the procedural requirements that--I
was going to say outlined--the details of which I described earlier, in
such fashion that the slowest student cannot possibly escape as a part
of his or her learning process if there is one rule for you and a very,
very different rule for me, one that you can't get away with that I can
get away with--not a very good set of lessons for impressionable young
people on their way to becoming productive citizens.

Now, what does this double standard do? Well, the proponents of the
bill say, accurately, it prevents discrimination against students with
disabilities, a wholesome and a valuable goal--a goal, I may say,
incidentally, I think most school districts believe in and would
reasonably enforce without any interference by the Federal Government,
a goal on which most States have statutes themselves, here preempted by
what we do.
But there are other consequences of this double standard. The first
is an overwhelming incentive for parents and for lawyers and for
certain students to act in such a fashion that they can receive the
designation that they are disabled because once you find yourself so
designated, most disciplinary rules fly out the window or are greatly
limited. You are likely to be entitled to a personal education plan,
the cost of which is absolutely unlimited in present law or this bill.
You are likely, in a controversy with your school district, to be
entitled to a lawyer who will end up being paid for by the school
district, that is to say, by the taxpayers, by the other students. And
as I have said, whatever the average per student expenditure is in a
school district is out the window. The administrative procedure,
including a Federal district court, complete with lawyers and
attorney's fees, can order any educational setting, any educational
expenditure that it deems warranted, looking only at the disabled
student, not viewing in any respect whatsoever the impact of those
costs on the ability of the school district to provide an education for
others.
(Ms. COLLINS assumed the chair.)
Mr. GORTON. Is it any wonder that every year, in school district
after school district, more and more students find themselves
denominated disabled? The incentives to do so are extremely
significant. It is reported by the Advisory Council on
Intergovernmental Relations that this current bill, of all Federal
regulatory statutes, ranks fourth in the amount of litigation that it
creates. That is a pretty good record. Of all of the regulatory
statutes in the United States, this ranks fourth in the amount of
litigation it creates.
I note another element in that connection. We recently had a decision
by the Supreme Court of the United States on a particular form of
environmental litigation in which the successful challengers to a
particular statute

[[Page S4313]]

received their attorney's fees. In this bill, however, attorney's fees
are a one-way street. If the representative of the individual student
claiming discrimination under the statute prevails, that student or
that student's family is awarded his or her attorney's fees. If the
school district prevails, no attorney's fees can be awarded against the
losing party. What does this do? Of course, it encourages litigation.
The litigation is free. It also overwhelmingly encourages settlements
which many school districts may regard as very, very unwise, simply
because the potential downside is so great--again adding immensely to
costs imposed on school districts.
We tend to say ``school districts,'' but obviously in every case,
every dollar paid out in attorney's fees, every disproportionate dollar
paid out as a result of litigation or determinations pursuant to the
statute, comes out of the finite pool of money that provides education
for other students. A marvelous example of the way this works in the
real world has taken place right here in the District of Columbia.
Recently, the Washington Post highlighted the law firm that makes easy
money by bringing administrative complaints and lawsuits over the
shortcomings of the District of Columbia's schools' special education
system. One of the lawyers quoted in the argument said, ``Winning those
cases is like taking candy from a baby.''
I am not here to defend the quality of education in the District of
Columbia. I think it is a magnificent paradox that it may spend more
money per student than any other school district in the United States,
or very close to that, and has pretty close to the worst results, but
at least a modest portion of that has to be covered because of the
fishing expeditions encouraged by this law that makes winning these
cases ``like taking candy from a baby.'' In my own State of Washington,
with which I am more familiar than others, lawyers' costs range from
$60,000 a year, $90,000 a year, $300,000 a year, all coming out of the
pool of money that would otherwise be used for educating particular
children.
However, I spoke a little earlier about the impact of this
legislation on other, nondisabled schoolchildren. On that subject we
received a letter from a concerned mother in California. She was
working as a parent volunteer in her 5-year-old son's kindergarten
classroom. In doing so she observed a student disrupting the classroom
with loud outburst, running, kicking, screaming, hitting the teacher
and aides. The child was in the class because of what is called, in
this law, a full inclusion order. The net result was that my
correspondent's 5-year-old child suffered from headaches every day the
disruptive child was present in the classroom, was one of the victims
of the child's outbursts, was punched by the child. The parent of the
disabled child rejected the use of any normal method to control her
child. The mother, who wrote me, writes that finally she had no choice
but to remove her child from the school. She wrote,

Fearing for my son's physical and emotional well-being, I
finally removed my child from the kindergarten system. This
occurred after the Federal court ordered the school district
to readmit the special education student in spite of all the
documented behavior aberrations.

The statute did not protect that volunteer's child in school. It did
not provide for her education. It did not guarantee her constitutional
right to an adequate public education, because that child, together
with the vast majority of other schoolchildren in all of the school
systems in the United States, are nonpersons for the purpose of this
statute. They do not count. Their safety does not count. The ability to
learn in an orderly atmosphere for them does not count because the
Congress of the United States has told them that it does not. All that
can be considered in these cases is the situation surrounding plaintiff
child, the child with a disability.
One of my own favorite superintendents, who only recently retired,
L.E. Scarr, superintendent of the Lake Washington school district, a
large suburban district east of Seattle, put it a little differently
when he wrote this to me.

A process which is supposed to result in an education
program agreed to by parents and school personnel at times
becomes a battleground on which procedures become more
important than educational results.

Teacher after teacher, school district after school district say that
this process depreciates, worsens the educational standards that they
are able to impose. Dedicated schoolteachers give up their careers
because of their frustration at being able to operate in what they
consider to be an appropriate educational manner. We simply have not
created a situation here in which there can be any balance. Even if it
is appropriate for the Congress of the United States to pass
legislation on this subject, even if it is appropriate to pass a 327-
page bill setting out all of these requirements, is it not appropriate
to give to each school district some method by which to determine the
best educational outcome for the majority of its students? Isn't there
some way to say there is some limitation on the amount of limited
school district assets that have to be spent on any individual? Isn't
there some limitation on the amount of litigation and the amount of
attorney's fees that can be imposed on our educational system? Isn't it
appropriate that some consideration be given to the safety and
educational environment in which the vast majority of our young people
are educated? But we do not see that here in this bill.

I must return one more time to the proposition that, yes, it is an
improvement over the present situation. My friend from Vermont, in a
less public conversation, said I was not giving him enough credit when
I said it was minimal or modest. It was substantial. I may be willing
to stand corrected on that and say that there are an additional number
of factors relating to immediate physical safety which will authorize
at least some discipline against a dangerous but disabled student. And
that is a step forward. That is why I, along with many of my
colleagues, are, to a certain degree, on the horns of a dilemma when we
deal with this bill.
It would be easy to vote ``no'' if there were ``no'' Federal
legislation on the subject at all. It is much more difficult when you
must admit that, for all the criticisms you can make about the regime
which this 327 pages creates, it is still something that is viewed with
relief by the National Association of School Boards and the principals'
and most of the teachers' organizations. But, it seems to me, that
shows not how good this bill is, but how bad the current legislation
is: the degree of desperation on the part of our school authorities,
who have been willing to sign up for this proposal. I sympathize with
them. I think, were I in their position, I would probably have done
exactly the same thing, because the consequences of not agreeing were
the continuation of the status quo.
But, here we are, 100 of us in this peaceful but highly artificial
set of surroundings, pretending that we are wiser than all of the
school board members in the United States of America, pretending that
we know more about their business than they do, making frequent
speeches about the genius of local school systems and of local school
boards but acting in a way that is totally inconsistent with that lip
service.
One of the features I have had in my service in the U.S. Senate in
the last 8 years is to create advisory committees in every one of the
39 counties in the State of Washington. I meet with each one of them at
least once a year, several of them more than once a year. I have made a
conscious attempt in every one of these advisory committees to have at
least one member, and sometimes more, who is a teacher, a school
administrator, a school board member, in many cases recently a student,
so I can hear, each time I meet with one of these groups, about their
concerns with respect to the Federal involvement in public education.
Madam President, I can say--and I am probably understating it--that
in the course of the last 2 years, at least three-quarters of the
comments that I have received from these people from education has been
with respect to this law and the frustrations and the disruptions
attendant upon its implementation.
And so, I must say with some regret that I will feel constrained to
vote against this bill for the reasons that I have stated. In preparing
for this debate, I agreed with the sponsors that

[[Page S4314]]

we can probably focus on one, not more than two, particular amendments
to set out the differences that we have, and the proponents asked me to
come to the floor this afternoon, both to engage in a discussion that
is almost complete and to offer an amendment.
I must say, through the Chair, to the chairman, while my first and
perhaps my only amendment is relatively simple, I don't have it in form
to offer at this moment, because I didn't like the form in which it
arrived in my office from legislative drafting service.
Unlike the 327-page bill, however, it will take up less than 1 page.
It will simply state that notwithstanding any other provision in this
statute, each local school authority shall have the right to set rules
respective of the safety and educational atmosphere for students in
that school system. I hope that I will have the final form of the
amendment before this afternoon is up, but we do have another amendment
pending at the present time, the funding amendment of the Senator from
New Hampshire.
So at this point, I simply want to say that the amendment that I will
present and probably will not need to explain to the length I have
explained my general position over the course of the last half-hour,
the amendment that I will present goes to one element of the heart of
this legislation, and that is, who makes decisions with respect to the
safety of students in a given school system, who makes decisions with
respect to the educational environment in which those students are
educated? It does not go to the problem of attorney's fees or elaborate
hearings or costs or the like, matters that I think are important but,
perhaps, not quite so central to this legislation.
I will explain it. We will vote on it. I believe that while in our
heart of hearts perhaps a majority of the Members of this body agree
with me in theory, I am not going to hold my breath until the
amendment, or that matter the amendment of the Senator from New
Hampshire, is adopted. But it is healthy, I think vital, that we debate
these fundamental concepts when we are talking about the education of
our most priceless resource: our young people.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Washington
for a very detailed and very well-done discussion of the bill that we
are considering, IDEA. However, I have to differ and would like to
explain some of the areas where I think there may be confusion, if it
is not explained.
First of all, I reiterate the situation that we have with respect to
the requirements of States to provide an education to children with
disabilities. This matter was brought up in the late sixties, early
seventies in some 26 courts. Two decisions finally were utilized to
define what was required.
First of all, there is no constitutional requirement to provide an
education by a State. However, if a State does provide a free education
to students, it cannot discriminate, and, therefore, it must provide an
appropriate--and that is the keyword the courts used--an appropriate
education for a child with disabilities.
Because this was nationwide in its decision, and since the States all
provided a free education, it became necessary to define, in a sense,
what was appropriate, and the courts labored to do that. In the
consensus decree developed by the parties involved, those kinds of
requirements and specificities were defined in that court decree.
As a result of that, the Congress decided that since this affected
all the States, that it be wise if they assisted the States in being
able to meet the mandates of the court regarding the requirements of
the States to provide an appropriate education. We did that, taking the
words from the courts' decisions which defined appropriate education
must also, when appropriate, have a mainstreaming component and, thus,
we have set out in the early version, 94-142, what was to be done to
reach the courts' mandates, not the Congress' mandates but the courts'
mandates of constitutional law.
The Senator from Washington brings up a problem of which we should
all be aware, and that is there are limited funds available for our
school systems to utilize, and any time that the courts mandate that
certain things must be done, that necessarily is going to utilize those
additional resources to handle those that are being discriminated
against in order to give them an appropriate education.
That was done. Whether it affects the other young people by having
resources not appropriately assigned to the various groups, that is a
question which is of interest and of importance for us to take a look
at. I personally feel strongly that right now in our country, we have
to look at all of the young people and determine that question
ourselves.
I would say that the results of those that are noncollege bound and
those that are not under the law with disabilities may have an argument
that they are not getting a qualified education, because when we
graduate 51 percent of those young people--frankly, all of the young
people in that forgotten half group who are graduating from high school
functionally illiterate don't have the standards necessary to meet the
needs, as the Senator from Washington pointed out, of our society for
the next century and may have an argument. That is another case. We are
here looking at how to protect children with disabilities in
conformance with the courts' mandates regarding States which offer free
education.
Also, he grossly overstated the cost of this in the public school
systems. If you take a look at what the costs are, I think the total
cost for all of special education is over $30 billion--$38 billion.
That is nowhere near what we spend totally on education in this
country; certainly nowhere near what perhaps one would think we spend.
I do not know what the total is we spend, but it is far in excess of
that.
He also got into the question of uniformity, that there is a double
standard. He thinks the States should decide, that they don't need the
Federal Government to give them any uniformity. I think that would have
been totally disruptive to the system. I think the courts were
appropriate to bring the consensus decision they did, and I think the
Federal Government appropriately stepped in with this law to say let's
have uniformity, let's establish what the standards are that must be
met to take care of those children with disabilities.
A great deal of time was spent on lawyer's fees. I am not going to
spend much time on that. I could read the requirements. First of all,
there is no requirement for any attorney's fees. There is nothing in
the law that says you have to pay. It says the courts may order--they
may order--attorney's fees under certain circumstances. If you look at
those circumstances, you will see they are all very reasonable ones. It
is all may, may, may. There is no requirement that any attorney's fees
be paid. I don't want to spend much time on that one.
I just have to comment on District of Columbia because I love this
city, but they do have terrible problems all the way down, it is not
just in special education. They have terrible problems up and down. We
are trying to correct those. Actions have been taken. But as far as the
amount of litigation, there were only 100 cases brought in 1993. We
don't have the figures since then. That is hardly any. You have 110,000
schools. There has been a court case in a tenth of 1 percent of the
schools. It is not a huge problem in that respect.
I am personally appreciative of the effort of the Senator from
Washington at explaining his position. I think it helps elevate the
understanding of the people as to what is in this law. But I disagree
with most of the comments made. We do represent--I know from going
around--the feelings and opinions of a number of people, and it is
appropriate, therefore, for us to discuss, as best we can, these
concerns and to alleviate these concerns. I think we have done an
excellent job with respect to trying to take care of the problems.
The final thing I will mention is with respect to discipline and a
child that may be dangerous in a school room. I think as has been
pointed out, there is a very substantial change to protect the children
in a disrupted classroom. A child may be removed now and may be removed
continuously, following appropriate procedures, until such time as that
child really settles down and is no longer dangerous.
So it is not the kind of a situation we had before this bill which
left, in many cases, the school system pretty helpless when dealing
with a disruptive

[[Page S4315]]

child. I believe we have done an excellent job of taking care of that
and, hopefully, my colleagues will read those provisions and agree with
me that we have made a great step forward in undoing what has happened
in so many of the classrooms in some areas where a child is dangerous
and disrupted the school setting. Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Madam President. I congratulate the majority
leader, Senator Lott, for helping bring this matter to a place where it
can be debated and where this reform in the IDEA law can, in fact, be
implemented.
I want to thank a number of individuals who worked on this: Senator
Jeffords, Senator Harkin, a wide variety of others; my colleague from
the State of Missouri, Senator Bond has been active in working to make
sure we had the right components.
I am grateful that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Amendments of 1997, S. 717, is before us, and that we will have a
chance to vote on it. I believe its passage would result in a
substantial improvement in the ability to deal with disruptive
individuals. The committee chairman was speaking about that just a few
moments ago. Last year, I objected to the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, commonly known as IDEA, passing into law because I
believed there were problems regarding discipline and discipline
records of students that needed to be remedied. We worked those out at
the close of the session last year in some rather arduous
negotiations. This year I continued to work with the IDEA working group
to get improvements in this regard that will make it possible for us to
have safer school districts, safer school rooms, and safer environments
in which students can learn and teachers can teach.

Schools need to provide a safe learning environment. Fear is not an
emotion that is consistent with a learning environment. We need,
regardless of whether a student was disabled or not, to be able to have
appropriate disciplinary measures that would enable us to have learning
environments which would be effective.
One of the problems that really had troubled me about our previous
situation and will trouble me until it is corrected by this reform or
some other, is the problem that discipline records frequently did not
transfer with students from one school to the next. When a student
arrives at a new campus without the discipline record, the following
results can be disastrous.
There is a case in Missouri where those results were fatal.
My own interest in this particular area of the law was occasioned by
an outrageous incident which I think shocked the conscience of
virtually everyone who was aware of it. Two years ago, in my home State
of Missouri, a 15-year-old young woman was at her high school. She had
gone to the girl's restroom when a student with a learning disability
and behavior disorder followed her into the restroom, and that was the
beginning of a series of events which eventually led to her losing her
life, after other unspeakable things were done.
This incident occurred on the disabled student's second day at the
school where the incident occurred. He had been transferred from
another school in accordance with IDEA procedures, but when this
incident occurred the officials at the school where the assault took
place say they were not aware of the prior disciplinary history.
The chronology of events leading up to this horrific incident are
very troubling.
In September 1994, the disabled student was enrolled as a ninth grade
student at one high school.
In October 1994, the disabled student exhibited uncooperative
behavior in class. He was the prime suspect of vandalism in the
classroom. He was suspected of urinating on objects in the classroom.
Later that same month, the 15-year-old student was suspended pending
a psychological evaluation by the district psychologist after being
found in the girl's restroom. This is obviously not behavior which was
unrelated to what eventually happened.
You go through a wide variety of other chronological events which
finally find the student being transferred to another school, the
school at which the death of the young woman occurred, at his hands and
in another restroom. But the school officials did not have the
information of the previous disciplinary incidents as a part of the
transfer.
I felt it essential--I felt it would be totally inappropriate for us
to allow a so-called reform to go into effect and allow students to
precede their disciplinary records. The incident in Missouri
demonstrates dramatically that if you precede your record by as much as
2 days it may be long enough for another student to lose his or her
life.
When the officials at the second school said that they did not know
about the disabled student's disciplinary past, they were pointing to a
tremendous, gaping hole in the framework for safety that we ought to
provide in IDEA legislation.
Together with Senator Bond's and Senator Harkin's help, we have been
able to address this concern. I want to thank them both and the
committee chairman. I am grateful. To me, it seems that this is not the
kind of thing that ought to divide us; this is the kind of thing that
ought to unite us.
Whenever any of the child's records are transmitted to another
school, the student's discipline record and the individual education
program must be included in the transmission, so that school officials
and teachers will know. They will know the past disciplinary records of
a disabled student on his first day in the school. They will know in
time to take corrective action. They will know in time to do what they
can.

This will not make all of our schools perfectly safe, but it will
elevate our capacity to do what we can do and ought to do by giving us
timely information.
Moreover, when the school or school district reports a crime to law
enforcement or juvenile justice authorities, copies of the student's
disciplinary records must be transmitted for consideration to that
authority.
In those circumstances where the public agency initiates disciplinary
procedures against a student, the agency must ensure that the
disciplinary records of the child with a disability are transmitted for
consideration by the person or persons making the final determination.
We have had a disconnect between our schools and our justice system.
Frankly, it is time, when serious, dangerous behavior that literally
threatens the life and safety of other individuals, we do not have an
artificial barrier that keeps the education agencies from talking to
the criminal justice agencies or the juvenile justice agencies. This
law now provides that school officials may report incidents to proper
authorities.
Not long ago, in Tennessee, a student with a disability kicked a
water pipe in the school lavatory until it burst, resulting in $1,000
worth of water damage.
When the school officials filed the petition against the child, a
hearing officer ordered the school district to dismiss its juvenile
court petition, a decision which was upheld by the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals. The court faulted the school for not holding a
multidisciplinary meeting before initiating a juvenile court petition.
I think it is clear that if students commit crimes that are worthy of
prosecution, the school should be able to file or cause to be filed a
case against the students. The practical effect of the court's ruling
is that schools as a matter of law cannot unilaterally refer disabled
students to juvenile court for committing acts of violence unless the
student consents to such referrals. So prior to filing the case, you
would have to get the consent of the parents of the disabled child or a
court order. Otherwise, it would not happen. It is important that we
say to students: Your disabilities will not be a license for you to
violate the law or threaten the health and safety and security of
others.
This bill moves toward abolishing a double standard for individuals
who claim disabilities as a shield for potentially life threatening
behavior.
Regular education students are subject to a range of disciplinary
actions. Disabled students, on the other hand, even those who are
violent or seriously disruptive, can stay put at their current
educational environment, even if the actions are criminal. This is a
double standard, and has been, and it is

[[Page S4316]]

wrong. While we want to protect disabled students from discrimination,
we also have a duty to protect other children from harm.
Senate bill 717 now gives greater flexibility to school officials to
remove dangerous students from the current school. If the child carries
a weapon to school or to a school function or if the child knowingly
possesses or uses illegal drugs, the bill allows school officials to
move the child to an alternative interim setting for the same amount of
time that a regular education student would be subject to discipline,
but not for more than 45 days.
Moving away from this double standard which had existed is a step in
the right direction on the part of this bill.
A trend developed recently under the bill, the law which we now
have--which needs the reform which this bill would provide --that
students would not be known as ``disabled'' or even claim disability
until after they had committed some serious wrong; and after they had
committed some serious wrong, to avoid penalties, they would shout:
Well, I'm disabled in one way or another, either that I don't read well
or that I have a kind of nervousness or even some kind of other
subjective claim of disability.

This measure, for which I am grateful, basically provides remedies
that are fundamental to improving the environment for learning in the
school.
It requires that the student's disciplinary records accompany the
student's individualized education program when the student transfers
to another school, so no student goes to a new school without the
officials at the school learning about their prior discipline history,
a major achievement.
Second, it holds children with violent or other bad behavior to the
same disciplinary standards of other students when the behavior is
unrelated to their disabilities. You cannot claim you are a slow reader
and, as a result of being a slow reader, you have the right to assault
another student. That simply will not cut it anymore.
Third, it will allow school officials to report crimes committed by
disabled students to police and juvenile authorities before meeting
with the Individualized Education Program team, a special team that
agrees on an education program for disabled students.
It seems to me, especially since that committee is composed of
individuals like family members of the student and others who would not
allow the crime to be reported, that we need to give schools clear
authority to make the communication with law enforcement officials when
even disabled students have committed what is clearly a criminal
activity.
I opposed the bill last year because it did not have these
safeguards.
I want to commend the committee chairman, Senator Jeffords. I want to
commend Bill Frist, the Senator from Tennessee, who has worked so hard
on this. I want to thank my colleague Senator Bond, and Senator Harkin
from our neighboring State of Iowa, for their work in this respect.
I believe the bill is a substantial improvement, and when it is
enacted, the young people of the United States will be safer. We have
not sacrificed the rights of students with disabilities to be educated,
but we have enhanced the capacity of students generally to get the kind
of education they deserve.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I want to thank the Senator from Missouri for a very
articulate explanation of the most difficult area that we faced, and
that is how to handle disruptive children in the school. That has been
a very, very troubling problem for schools to handle. It has been one
which has led to considerable concern about the effectiveness of
special education.
The Senator's help in producing this amendment and in these things, I
think, has done more to get this bill quickly in shape where I think it
will have close to unanimous passage. I deeply appreciate all the help
the Senator has given.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you.
Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I have just a brief supplement to the
remarks that I made earlier.
I referred in general terms to the cost of the mandates under this
bill and under the current IDEA legislation. I have checked it, and, at
the present time, the current funding level is just over $3 billion.
The amendment proposed by the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr.
Gregg], would, over roughly a 7-year period, reach the authorized level
of having us here in Congress pay for 40 percent of the cost of IDEA
and would reach, I am told, something like $13 billion or $13.5
billion. It seems to me that is a little short. My own figures are, if
we were to fund it at 40 percent for next year, for 1998, the cost to
the Congress, to the Federal Government, would be just over $14
billion. Now, that is 40 percent.

My grade school arithmetic tells me that if the cost were $14 billion
at 40 percent, the cost of 100 percent funding would be $35 billion. So
we have created and will continue to impose a $35 billion cost on the
school districts of the United States for the implementation of the
requirements that are set out in the statute.
Madam President, I went into the Cloakroom and checked how much we
put into title I, which is, I believe, the single most expensive of all
of our Federal aid to education in specific bills for all the
disadvantaged children.
The basic grants for the current year for title I are a little over
$6 billion. When you add all of the special categories under title I,
you get almost to $8 billion.
I am told, without having checked every single one of these, that the
second most expensive are the drug-free schools programs, which is
roughly $4 billion.
Now, if I am correct in these, Madam President, I simply go back to
the proposition that here we are creating a set of mandates far more
expensive than all, I think, of the programs of direct aid for
education from kindergarten through the 12th grade.
I guess I have to ask the manager of the bill, the chairman of the
committee, if, in fact, we had to come up with $35 million right now
for 1998 to pay all of the costs of this bill, and if, in fact, we had
to work within the balanced budget agreement that has been entered into
between the President and the leadership in the Congress, and if, in
fact, paying for this bill caused us to either repeal or substantially
wipe out a huge range of other programs of education assistance, would
we be imposing this mandate?
Now, I ask that question rhetorically. I know the answer. Of course
we would not be. It is real easy to do it, Madam President, when
somebody else has to pay the bill. But the Senator from Vermont is
going to oppose even Senator Gregg's amendment, which allows us 7 years
to get to 40 percent.
Now, it is wonderful for us to say our educational theory is this or
our educational theory is that. We think this is the way schools ought
to be managed or we think that is the way schools ought to be managed.
There are two objections to it. First, we do not know as much about the
subject as educators do; and, second, I think we have a requirement to
put our money where our mouth is. We are not putting our money where
our mouth is in this bill. We never have, as long as this predecessor
has been the law.
How do we get to the point at which we tell everybody else in the
United States how to run their businesses, but do not pay for it?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Just to get back to the Gregg amendment very quickly,
there is no limit as to what we can appropriate by any authorization
level that we could set. We could go for 40 percent tomorrow. There is
no requirement.
Even Senator Gorton voted back in 1994 when the vote was 93 to 0--I
have not checked the seven absences, but I do not think the Senator was
absent--that as soon as reasonably possible, we ought to fund IDEA.
There is no necessity for the Gregg amendment. We can do that now. It
does set out for my colleagues a very reasoned way to do it, which is
in S. 1, a commitment that the Republicans here--that we do it. I think
that is important to keep in mind.
What the Senator from Washington has talked about, well, that would
skew things. But look where the money would go. That money would go to
the

[[Page S4317]]

local school districts. That is where it goes. In the bill, right now,
as this is written, if we went up to full funding, that money would all
flow to local school districts that have any children at all with
disabilities. That is where it would go. The States have to keep their
levels. So we would help the local school districts so they could use
the money and spend it on people you are concerned about that do not
have adequate resources.
This is an excellent way of pushing money to your local school
districts. You ought to be yelling and shouting for it. It is exactly
what you have always said, that we have to help the local school
districts have more flexibility. This gives great flexibility.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GORTON. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. JEFFORDS. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. GORTON. I spoke to the Senator recently, Madam President. I have
one more modest redraft on my amendment and then we will be able to
submit it during the course of the afternoon, I hope in the course of
the next hour. I gather there is an attempt to see to it that there is
some overall reasonable limitation of debate on the amendments and on
the bill to which this Senator is certainly in accord.
So, we will have that here so Members can read it so the Senator can
critique it, as he will, in a relatively short period of time.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator from Washington.
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.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I have the privilege today to be here on
the floor to support S. 717, the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act.
First of all, I find it important to congratulate Senator Jeffords,
Senator Coats, and Senator Lott, who have worked hard to reach a
compromise that I believe this legislation supports. It is an important
compromise because this is necessary and important legislation.
As my colleagues have stated so well here today on the floor, IDEA is
our Nation's core special education statute for children with
disabilities. In 1975, when the original IDEA passed, Congress accepted
responsibility in this area. Now it is our turn to live up to this
commitment.
I happen to have a son-in-law who is a fifth grade schoolteacher. He
speaks to me about the difficulties in the classroom when there are not
enough resources to be able to handle children who find themselves with
these difficulties and the average child who is there in the classroom
to learn. He finds himself dividing his time up among these, and
sometimes in an inappropriate way, and not offering to all of the
children the kind of time that their teacher and their instructor ought
to give.
In the bill before the Senate today we have a balanced approach which
takes into account the needs and rights of the local school boards,
teachers, parents and, most important, the students. Among its chief
provisions is the flexibility it affords local school officials in
making alternative interim placement of children with disabilities who
bring weapons or drugs to school. This was an area of heated debate,
and I am pleased to see the final bill includes an arrangement we can
all work with.
Likewise, I am pleased with the progress the committee has made on
other controversial issues such as the recovery of attorney's fees and
succession of services. While no parties involved will receive all that
they hoped for, this balanced approach is fair, and, I think, it is
sound public policy.
There is, however, some work left to be done. Though perhaps not
today, this Congress will, in the very near future, have to take up the
issue of full funding for IDEA. There is a role for the Federal
Government to play in education, and while those of us who believe in
the right of the State and, most important, the right of the local
school district to have the primary responsibility, the area of funding
of targeted needs and special needs has been something the Federal
Government has done well over the last good number of years, and IDEA,
in my opinion, is one of those.
When the law was originally passed in 1975, Congress promised to
provide appropriations equal to 40 percent of the national average per
pupil expenditure for education. Since S. 717 makes progress toward
that important goal, I remained committed to seeing us reach the full
funding level. I am confident, however, that this issue will be
addressed during our consideration of the budget. Accordingly, I do not
see the need for amending S. 717 at this time.
Again, Madam President, I state my thanks for the work that has been
done by all of those involved in the lengthy but successful process of
bringing S. 717 to the floor.
Madam President, 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.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, what is the order of business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Gregg amendment,
No. 241.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I would like to speak on the bill itself
rather than the amendment. I believe that is appropriate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it is.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the
reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, or
IDEA, as it is commonly referred to. This legislation has had a long
and difficult journey. The coalitions supporting this bill do not all
agree on all of its points. In fact, there are a few things in this
legislation that I would have preferred to have seen strengthened.
However, as the great Kentucky statesman Henry Clay once said,
``compromise is mutual sacrifice.''
It is my understanding that modifications to this legislation will
doom the bill to failure. While I have a few reservations, I am certain
that this reauthorization is better than not reauthorizing the current
statute. Therefore, this Senator will not vote for any amendment that
will prevent this legislation from being signed into law. Let me repeat
that. This Senator will not vote for any amendment that will prevent
this legislation from being signed into law, and I hope others will
follow that lead. We simply cannot fail to reauthorize this important
statute. Our disabled children and our educators have waited long
enough.
A few years back, I read a journalist's observation that ``We are
defined by who we have lost.'' It wasn't until this time last year, Mr.
President, when I got word of the death of a young woman from Berea,
KY, that I really understood the journalist's words. Twenty-three years
ago, when I was Governor of Kentucky, Susy Riffe was just a child with
Down's syndrome. But she became a symbol of great potential and great
promise as she sat on my lap and helped me sign a bill guaranteeing
public education for disabled children in Kentucky.
Susy went on to lead a full and productive life, completing her
education and giving back a great deal to the community as a volunteer,
an employee, and a dear friend. Her life came to define the potential
that exists for all Americans when the greater community provides them
with the tools they need to succeed. They say that 250 people came to
Susy Riffe's memorial service. But that number represents only a small
fraction of the children and families she touched and the world of
possibilities she helped define.
Just 1 year after I signed that law onto the books in Kentucky, the
Individuals With Disabilities Act was passed into law here in
Washington, helping millions of children across this great land of
ours. We must always remember that the mission of this law is that the
right to a free and appropriate public education is the right of all
American children. While IDEA provides critical education assistance
from the Federal Government to the State and local education agencies,
it

[[Page S4318]]

is the guarantee of disabled children's rights to an education that
makes this statute great.
I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues, the floor
managers, members of the Labor Committee, the majority leader, and
their staffs for their efforts in bringing this reauthorization to the
Senate floor today. It is a herculean task that has not gone unnoticed
by this Senator.
Finally, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my name be added
as a cosponsor to this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleagues in
both the House and Senate, from both sides of the aisle, for their
diligent work on S. 717, the IDEA Improvement Act of 1997: Their
commitment to ensuring that children with disabilities have continued
access to the opportunities and resources essential to becoming
independent and contributing members of society.
Since Congress first enacted legislation to ensure that students with
disabilities were no longer denied educational services, few changes
have been made. Today, the world is a very different place, and
Congress needs to address the issues currently facing both students and
educators. These include changes to ensure States have flexibility in
using Federal funds; the ability for schools to effectively discipline
disruptive children; and provisions to encourage alternative dispute
resolution procedures to ensure timely and cost-effective responses to
the needs and concerns of parents and administrators. S. 717
accomplishes these important goals.
Discipline of special education students has been a matter of
contention for several years. Currently, except in cases involving
firearms, schools are hindered from removing a disabled child from
their current educational setting unless the parents of the child agree
with the removal decision. Under S. 717, schools can discipline a
disabled child just as they would on a nondisabled child if the
behavior is determined not to be a manifestation of the child's
disability. A hearing officer would then be able to remove the child
from his or her current educational placement. This is an important
change because, currently, a court injunction is required to remove a
dangerous child.
S. 717 also prohibits States from ceasing to provide services to a
child whose behavior warrants expulsion from school. In cases such as
this, States would be required to educate the child in an alternative
setting, which is a continuation of the guarantee of a free,
appropriate, public education.
This bill ensures parents have continued access to due process by
requiring States to offer voluntary mediation services to parents and
schools. Currently, 39 States offer mediation to parents in an effort
to resolve disputes concerning their children. Florida is one of these
States, and its mediation program has been an overwhelming success
since it was instituted in 1992. A majority of all mediation cases in
Florida are reconciled, reducing the need for more costly litigation.
Mr. President, this bill will aid in the education of the 319,012
disabled students in Florida. I am pleased that Members of Congress and
the administration have been able to come together to reach a consensus
on this bill. It will shift current policy from a focus on bureaucracy
and paperwork to educating our students. I want to commend Chairmen
Jeffords and Goodling, Senator Lott, as well as Senators Frist and
Coats for the leadership they have shown on this important issue. I
also want to commend State of Florida officials who have already
enacted many of the changes contained in this bill.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was proud to serve on the committee
that passed the original Individuals With Disabilities Education Act in
1975, and I am proud to support the current reauthorization.
I commend Chairman Jeffords, Senator Coats, Senator Frist, and
Senator Harkin for their leadership in negotiating this needed
legislation to reauthorize IDEA. I commend the House Members who worked
closely with us--Representative Goodling, Representative Riggs,
Representative Castle, Representative Graham, Representative Martinez,
Representative Scott, Representative Miller, and Representative Clay. I
also especially commend our distinguished Senate majority leader,
Senator Lott, for his effective leadership in bringing all sides
together and making this needed compromise possible.
For 22 years, IDEA has held out hope to young persons with
disabilities that they too can learn, and that their learning will
enable them to become independent and productive citizens, and live
fulfilling lives. For millions of children with disabilities, IDEA has
meant the difference between dependence and independence, between lost
potential and productive careers.
In 1975, 4 million handicapped children did not receive the help they
needed to be successful in school. Few disabled preschoolers received
services, and 1 million children with disabilities were excluded from
public school. Now, IDEA serves 5.4 million children with disabilities
from birth through age 21. Every State in the Nation offers public
education and early intervention services to children with
disabilities.
Fewer than 6,000 children with disabilities are living in
institutional settings away from their families today, compared to
95,000 children in 1969. This transformation represents a major
accomplishment in keeping families together, and it also reflects a
significant reduction in the cost to the Government and taxpayers of
paying for institutional care, which averages $50,000 a year for each
child.
Students with disabilities are making great progress. The number of
students with disabilities completing high school with a diploma or
certificate increased from 55 percent in 1984 to 64 percent in 1992.
Some 44 percent of all people with disabilities have some college
education today, compared to only 29 percent in 1986. This dramatic
increase demonstrates the success of the equal access provisions of
IDEA; 47 percent of people without disabilities have some college
education, so the gap has almost closed.
For young people with disabilities, as for so many others, education
leads to economic success; 57 percent of people with disabilities are
competitively employed within 5 years of leaving school today, compared
to an employment rate of only 33 percent for older people with
disabilities who have not benefited from IDEA. With this
reauthorization, we are taking needed additional steps to see that
disabled children can grow up with the skills they need to get a job
and live independently.

This bill will direct the attention of teachers and schools away from
paperwork and toward the academic progress of students with
disabilities. The bill changes the Federal formula from one based on
child counts to one based on census and poverty data. This revised
formula in no way changes the commitment and obligation of education
agencies to identify and serve children with disabilities. Changes in
the Federal formula and in other areas of the bill are intended to help
schools and school districts improve the quality of services the
children receive.
The bill strengthens the individualized education plan, by tying a
child's education to the general curriculum and ensuring accountability
for results. It also urges schools to see that students are not being
referred to special education when their needs can be better met in
regular classes.
We also address another serious problem--the disproportional
representation of minority students in special education. This bill
makes States responsible for monitoring the impact of policies on
identification and placement of minority students. Through the
development of coordinated service systems in schools, prereferral
intervention programs, including behavior management and academic skill
development, will be more available to academically challenged students
and help reduce the number of minority students wrongly referred to
special education. It also gives parents better information about these
issues so they can be more effective in helping their children.
In addition, the bill continues and strengthens early intervention
and preschool programs for disabled infants

[[Page S4319]]

and toddlers. By establishing better relationships with other public
and private programs, early childhood programs under IDEA can be a
resource for young children with disabilities as well as for children
at risk of disability. It will make it easier for schools and districts
to collect funds from other agencies, without allowing schools to
abdicate their responsibility for making sure that disabled students
get the services they need.
It also requires States to offer mediation, but makes it voluntary
for both parties to determine whether they want to participate. In
addition, the bill authorizes school districts to require parents to
meet with representatives from parent training centers or other
alternative dispute resolution experts to explain the benefits of
mediation.
Schools have asked for additional leeway to discipline students with
disabilities to help guarantee a safe learning environment for all
students. This bill gives schools more discretion in disciplining
students with disabilities, while still protecting those students. The
bill provides the authority for school personnel to remove children
with disabilities from their current placement into an interim
alternative educational setting for up to 45 days in two specific
cases: First, if the child carries a weapon or knowingly possesses,
uses, or sells illegal drugs of controlled substances; or second, if
the school obtains such authority from a hearing officer after
demonstrating that maintaining a child in the current placement is
substantially likely to result in injury to the child or others.

Although the bill provides more flexibility for schools to discipline
students, discipline should never be used as an excuse to exclude or
segregate children with disabilities because of the failure to design
behavioral management plans, or the failure to provide support services
and staff training. It is critical that schools use the new discretion
with utmost care. Research tells us that suspension and expulsion are
ineffective in changing the behavior of students in special education.
When students with disabilities are suspended or expelled and their
education is disrupted, they are likely to fall farther behind, become
more frustrated, and drop out of school altogether.
Children who leave school become a burden on society. Dropouts are
three times more likely to be unemployed than high school graduates.
Nearly half of the heads of households on welfare and half of the
prison population did not finish high school.
We have also made changes to see that the provisions of IDEA are more
vigorously enforced by giving the U.S. Secretary of Education and State
education agencies greater power to enforce the law, including greater
discretion to withhold funds when violations are found and explicit
statutory authority to refer cases of noncompliance to the Department
of Justice for enforcement action. We expect the Department of Justice
to act on such referrals in a timely and appropriate manner. This
referral authority is particularly critical for instances when a State
fails to implement corrective action within the time specified in the
State monitoring plan. We expect the Secretary to use enforcement
authorities when applicable to ensure that failure to comply with the
law will not go without remedy.
In addition, the Department of Education is expected to report
annually on the status of State monitoring and compliance. We also
expect the Department of Education to include parents more actively in
the State and local monitoring process.
We must never go back to the days when large numbers of school-age
children with disabilities were excluded from public school, when few
if any pre-school children with disabilities received services, and
when most children in school did not get the help they deserve. The
goal of public education is to give all children the opportunity to
pursue their dreams. We must be committed to every child--even the ones
who aren't easy to teach.

I commend all the students, parents, teachers, and administrators who
have left an indelible mark on this legislation. Their commitment to
this law and their willingness to put aside the divisions of the past
and find constructive compromises will improve the education of
students with disabilities, and enable schools to implement the law as
effectively as possible.
I also commend and thank all the staff members of the working group
for their skillful assistance in making this process successful: Pat
Morrissey and Jim Downing of Senator Jeffords' staff; Townsend Lange of
Senator Coats staff; Bobby Silverstein and Tom Irvin of Senator
Harkin's staff; David Hoppe and Mark Hall of Senator Lott's staff; and
Kate Powers, Connie Garner, and Danica Petroshius of my own staff. I
also commend the hard work of the House staff on the working group,
including Sally Lovejoy and Todd Jones of the House committee majority
staff; Alex Nock of the House committee minority staff, Theresa
Thompson of Representative Scott's staff, and Charlie Barone of
Representative Miller's staff.
This bill deserves the support of every Member of Congress. It means
a new day of hope and opportunity for children with disabilities.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________